Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ BLOGS - Newsnight: Michael Crick
Β« Previous | Main | Next Β»

What dodging Ashcroft questions does to the Tories

Michael Crick | 19:40 UK time, Wednesday, 16 December 2009

David Cameron's need to sort out the Lord Ashcroft problem is even more urgent than I suggested last week.

Labour taunted the Conservatives with the issue once again at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, and it threatens to dog the Conservatives through an election campaign.

The Tories' proposed new law, disqualifying from the Commons or Lords people who are non-domiciled for tax purposes, will not tackle the issue.

And it is not just a question of Lord Ashcroft's tax status making the Conservatives look like the party of the rich and privileged, or of toffs (though Lord Ashcroft isn't really a toff in the traditional sense anyway).

Or that it undermines George Osborne's statement that "we're all in this together".

It's more a question of leadership and strength.

By constantly dodging questions as to whether Lord Ashcroft pays UK income tax, Mr Cameron and his colleagues are in danger of looking weak and scared of Lord Ashcroft.

By saying it's a "private matter" they look like they don't know, and people start to think they daren't ask him the obvious question.

What I can't really understand is why Mr Cameron won't act. And several Tory front-benchers are just as baffled as me.

The Conservatives no longer depend on Lord Ashcroft financially.

Under William Hague it was Lord Ashcroft's money - donations and loans - which kept the party from bankruptcy. But that's no longer the case.

Nowadays Lord Ashcroft gives and lends the party a lot less cash, and the Conservatives are flush with funds from other sources.

Lord Ashcroft's other big contribution has been as a party strategist. His work in indentifying target seats, and pumping the party's cash into seats where it's likely to produce results, is hugely important.

But he's now taught the party how to run his strategy, and anyway, on a day-to-day basis it's organised by full-time officials such as Stephen Gilbert.

The party's got to the stage where they can do it without him.

So if I were Mr Cameron I'd invite Lord Ashcroft for a talk, thank him generously for all his help, but then insist that he issue an immediate statement setting out in full his tax position year-by-year since he got his peerage in 2000 (though that need not include specific sums).

If he won't do that, then Mr Cameron should sack Lord Ashcroft as deputy chairman.

I can't be sure, of course, but I reckon that Lord Ashcroft probably does pay UK tax on all, or most, of his worldwide earnings these days, but that the real problem may arise from earlier.

Having promised back in 2000 to pay UK tax in order to get his peerage, was there a delay of some years before Lord Ashcroft started doing so?

That of course would be very embarrassing to Mr Hague, the leader to whom Lord Ashcroft made his pledge.

But not half as embarrassing as the issue will continue to be if the issue is not clarified before the election really gets under way.

And one can easily see now how the line of questioning will go when Mr Cameron does his many one-on-one in-depth interviews during the campaign.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    i would have thought patronage of the jnf would be more embarrassing? how do they square that with human rights for all?

  • Comment number 2.

    Are the Conservatives saying that you have to be "domiciled" in the Uk for tax purposes to be in parliament (Commons or Lords) or are they saying you only need to be "resident" in the UK, in which case you avoid any UK tax due on overseas income?

  • Comment number 3.

    You know, Michael, I don't think anyone wants to know the answer to the Ashcroft question.

    You journalists could go and ask Ashcroft but you don't.

    Labour like to use Ashcroft as a stick to beat the Tories; not least because he is helping to fund the Conservative campaigns in the marginal seats which Labour know they have lost anyway so Ashcroft is a good alibi for their own failure.

    As for the Conservatives they have their stock answer to the journalists stock question.

    This issue is going precisely nowhere.

    How about some investigative journalism? If you or your editors think that is a bit risky then go and recruit a few fellows in the City as I am told they like taking risks and are a bit short of the readies this year.

  • Comment number 4.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Μύ

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.