Forum Topic

Angie Bray and a "non dom"

The Guardian is asking readers if they suspect if judging by the missives etc from the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidates, that the local Tory candidate may have had a bit of help from a certain non-dom.I remember receiving one mail out from Angie, but then I called them to ask to take my name off their list.  That was a couple of years ago.  Have people been receiving glossy literature etc?

Alice Jones ● 6045d32 Comments

There was a glossy leaflet from AB included as an insert to the Ealing Gazette a few weeks ago, Print and distribution must have been expensive and I presumed Ashcroft funding as soon as I spotted it! I will check the Guardian website. The Tory candidate for Shepherds Bush recently produced a prof done video which I also suspect had Ashcroft funding.........

Iain Muir ● 6045d

How would you tell where the money to fund a leaflet came from?

Sara Nathan ● 6045d

I'd assume that any donations would go into a central fund and then be distributed by the party (as would be the case for the labour party and their 'non-doms').I'd doubt that any individual candidate, for any party, would receive bespoke funding from major contributors, unless that is they resided in their constituency, and as with any non-dom that's unlikely to be Acton

Jeremy Thorpe-Woods ● 6045d

Why not ask her directly - a simple unequivocal yes or no would clear it up at a stroke.

Richard Grange ● 6045d

Because it would be a witch-hunt. "Are you now or have you ever been...) without any prima facie sign that funding for a glossy leaflet came from a dodgy source.

John Theodore Clark ● 6045d

Not sure how asking someone where they get their funding from is a witch-hunt?Surely an open democracy is also about transparency - and surely knowing who funds political parties of any description is a matter of of legitimate public interest.

Richard Grange ● 6045d

This has nothing to do with public interest and everything to do with political expediency. If we think that it should be illegal to accept donations from non-doms or non-residents then let us make it illegal. Now THAT would be transparent.But the problem for Grolies is that the arguments are questionable. As a non-resident, why should I be banned from making contributions to AB, or to the BNP or to the Socialist Workers' Party for that matter?  Should non-doms be banned from political activity because it may result in legislation being passed that favours their tax status? According to the same logic, anyone receiving benefits should also be prevented from the Lords or the Commons, or from contributing to party funds. Why not extend the argument to taxpayers, who would surely vote Tory so they would pay less? No, this is a witch hunt, and it given the status of Mittal and others, it is a pot calling the kettle black witch hunt.

John Theodore Clark ● 6044d

Oh come off it. No public interest in finding out where Angie Bray or any other candidate is getting their money from?To be sure - Labour have absolutely done its fair share of dirty dealings and like the Lib Dems have taken plenty of money from nom-doms. That's why there probably needs to be legislation.But this time its a Tory mess and to say it doesn't matter because it's supposedly a witch-hunt is just trying to avoid the issue.Here is a man (Lord Ashcroft) who has taken ten years to admit he is non-dom and been far from transparent on the matter, who is pouring money into marginal constituencies - yet does not live in the country whose political future he is trying to influence - and that is not a matter of public interest?I actually want to know who is funding candidates. It might not change how I vote - but particularly on something as murky as Ashcroft - it is a test of how honest political parties are willing to be with voters

Richard Grange ● 6044d

Why should one not take part in the political scene of a country in which one does not live, providing that one has sufficient links with it? I live in Belgium, and am legally resident here, but hope that I have sufficient links with Acton to poke my nose in its affairs.I'm not saying that there is no public interest issue here - there clearly is - but it is clear to me that the Grolies/NuLab campaign is not motivated by public interest, but rather by political expediency, notably by the upcoming election. The Labour Party is in power, and has been in power for ages, and could easily have made it illegal to accept funds from non-Doms, but it hasn't done so.It also seems to me that you cannot deduce from the simple publication of a glossy pamphlet that someone is receiving funds from a particular source, especially since, according to a NuLab Wiki edit "Councillor Barbara Yerolemou, current Mayor of the London Borough of Ealing is reputed to have donated £250,000 Angie Bray's campaign fund. (CITATION NEEDED)"Sorry for my usual long-windedness - my overall point is that this is clumsy political guff that has b*gger all to do with any public interest in transparency in contributions, and everything to do with trying to destablilise particular Tory candidates in marginal constituencies. There appears to be a widespread Grolies/NuLab campaign regarding Ashcroft and marginals, as one can see on Ashrot's Wikipedia page, on which someone has added this in the past hour: .......credited with masterminding the party’s election strategy in marginal constituencies, (loaded text added, without any citation: "which MANY ARGUE is tantamount to buying seats with his money.")

John Theodore Clark ● 6044d

I'd personally love to destabilise Tory candidates in marginal constituencies (and indeed non-marginal,) but there are facts underlying the dark conspiracy which John perceives against this harmless old Belizean billionaire...It is a simple fact that Ashcroft money has gone into the ECA constituency. (It is also a fact that Barbara Yerolemou and her husband have been generous - and wholly legitimate - sponsors of their local party over many years.) The annual income of the ECA Conservatives is around £100k; in 2007 they received £42k in 'donations', £33k in 'fundraising' and £15k direct from Tory Head Office. In reality the boundaries between these categories are a bit blurred, with Ashcroft money (which starts as a national donation via one of his companies) reappearing as a payment from Head Office. Additionally, while some individual donors to the local party are themselves local, others are from elsewhere, and pointed towards certain constituencies by HQ. 2007 was not an election year; for reference, the income of the local Labour party was about £10k from all sources (some of it from me.)The flood of money from a rich man like Ashcroft is irritating when you raise your own funds from quiz nights and raffles, but I accept that it can be a little like modern football - everyone disparages rich owners until their club acquires one. That Ashcroft takes such a casual and cynical attitude to his engagement with the country is rather more than irritating. However, the really shameful thing is the evasive and obfuscatory campaign over Ashcroft's status conducted by the hierarchy of the Tory party over all these years. "Evasive and obfuscatory" are not my words, but those of the Information Commissioner's Office. Watch the famous Hague-Paxman exchange on Newsnight, and try to square it with the truth that has emerged this week [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8080379.stm].The question is not what these people are willing to spend to get power; it's what their secrecy and dissembling tells you about how they would behave if they got it. To return to my football analogy: ask Portsmouth or Manchester United fans how they feel about their sugar daddies now.

Steve Donnelly ● 6043d

Of course opposition politicians will make capital out of this - but that STILL does not mean that this is not a legitimate issue to raise in the run up to an election. Anyway the mystery is solved - Angie Bray is funded by Lord Ashcroft. She admitted it in an article in the Times in 2007 in which she displayed commendable openness. See below:www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2609862.ece

Richard Grange ● 6043d

Richard, thanks for the Times link which shows how Ashcrofts money is directed at our marginal. I also did not know about Mayor Barbara's donations, perhaps not surprising as her partner is on the Time's Rich List. There is a general debate about non dom donations to parties but I think Ashcroft stands out as unacceptable given his rejection/acceptance under the Hague Government and the failure to comply with the deal he appears to have struck at the time. Should cash from Belize influence the outcome of our local election?

Iain Muir ● 6043d

As I have said, I also agree that there is an issue here, but think that:1) Why only Ashcroft, and not also Mittal and others?2) The problem is the sums involved, and not the non-dom status on its own. I note that no-one has suggested that I should not contribute to party funds.3) Why are the Grolies getting their pashminas in a twist now? Pretty obvious, really.4) What is wrong with targeting marginals? It has always been done.5) What is the Hague Government?

John Theodore Clark ● 6043d

The indignation of David Milliband, Gordon Brow (and others) on this issue rings hollow for me on a number of counts:1. Labour have 7 x non dom peers2. Labour repeatedly refer to the need for transparency in funding, yet are quite happy to be hosed down with cash from Unite (and other unions). Why aren't local voters being told that the same union that is trying to bring BA to its knees is also funding local campaigning for Labour?3. Government ministers are deliberately obfuscating the difference being Non dom status for tax, and tax evasion with the deliberate intention of misleading the public into believing that all non doms evade tax. That's not the case. I don't know much about Ashcroft but what's clear is that his wealth has largely been generated out of the UK. As he also spends most of his time out of the UK the non dom status is entirely appropriate - the issue of whether we should allow non dom peers is completely seperate.

Ed Yelland ● 6043d

In my experience most non-doms and non-res are people who have chosen to live abroad. Tax status is a secondary concern.Funding is a big issue overall. And it isn't only about business interests. In the 1970s, the same unions that were unashamedly trying to bring down an elected government were financially supporting the opposition. I don't know what the answer is, but one needs to be found. And it needs to deal with all sides to the problem.Incidentally, I don't think that non-doms should be able to sit in either the Lords or the Commons. To be that deep into political life, an individual should have to be domiciled in the UK.

John Theodore Clark ● 6043d

My apologies for the 'Hague Government' nonsence, I should have said 'Hague as Tory leader and Ashcroft sponsor'

Iain Muir ● 6043d

We all have our own personal nightmares that rise to the fore occasionally.......

John Theodore Clark ● 6043d

There is a piece about the support he has given her on the webpage, with the response from the Labour PPC

Alice Jones ● 6042d

Taxing people who live abroad to pay for hospitals in Ealing. Excellent idea - now why didn't I think of it? While we're at it, I'm sure that Bill Gates would be able to pay for the renovation of the South Acton Estate!

John Theodore Clark ● 6042d

Did I miss something? Did I miss a story about the leader of the Conservative party repeatedly pleading for a peerage on behalf of Bill Gates; I certainly saw the story about Hague doing so on behalf of Ashcroft in 1999 and 2000. Lord A. has chosen, freely, to live in Belize for tax purposes, and thus chosen to avoid income tax he would otherwise have paid in the UK - tax, it appears, that he promised his own leader in 2000 that he WOULD pay, and tax which could certainly have done good work on the South Acton estate (and a lot of other places.) My reading of the story is that in 2000 Ashcroft reneged on the promise he made to William Hague to become domiciled by making a deal with the Parliamentary authorities which did not commit him to any such thing. The best slant one can put on affairs is that he did not tell Hague, and that Hague and his successors were sufficiently fearful that he had indeed reneged not to require proof. What followed was the now famous evasion and obfuscation.It's not about the money for me; it's not even about where he lives; it's a matter of misconduct and bad faith. Some posters have highlighted (public) non-dom contributors to Labour; fair enough, but underlying the public debate is a sense that non-dom money is not 'nice'. I understand - even sympathise with - that position, but that stigma is exactly why the biggest Tory donor and his party misled the country for a decade about his status. It's very proper that those responsible be held accountable, given that they aspire to run said country in a few weeks.

Steve Donnelly ● 6042d

Some strange analogies being broadcast here. It is entirely reasonable that someone who sits in a position of legislative power, in the House of Lords, and who spends millions of pounds to influence the outcome of the next General Election via funds given to Conservative candidates in marginal seats like Ealing/Acton should pay taxes like the rest of us - especially when he promised to do so in 2001. If he has the time and inclination to become a peer of our realm - he lives here!

Terence Barker ● 6042d

But in law, one cannot hold someone accountable, as you put it, for conduct that was not illegal at the time. Lord A may have wanted to keep his non-dom status and reneged on an agreement with the Mekon, but this is not illegal. Nor is it illegal for a non-Dom to sit in the Lords, or to fund any party that he wishes - maybe it should be, but it is not.My point about Bill Gates was a jab at the absurd suggestion made by a local Labour rep (see front page) that Lord A should somehow be taxed (no power to levy taxes on him) in order to pay for hospitals in Ealing.

John Theodore Clark ● 6042d

Not illegal but pretty smelly really. I only object to the lack of honesty and the wiliness. If he was given and accepted a peerage conditional on him doing something, then he should have done it. That's it. That's why there's not much parallel with Unite and the funding of the Labour party - or even with Lord Paul the Labour non-dom peer - or with Bill Gates either.

Sara Nathan ● 6042d

In the great scheme of things, I don't think any of this really matters.  If Ashcroft said he was going to be domiciled then yes, he should have done it.  He didn't.  So?  Would his income have made that much difference to the UK coffers? I don't think so. Is the fact he helps make legislation for the opposition party but doesn't live in the UK that much of a problem?  Maybe to some but not to me, I don't think any politicians working for the UK political system have any idea of what goes on in the world outside Westminster Village, so they might as well live in Belize.  Politicians of all colour are crooked.  Always have been, always will be. I wish they'd just announce the election date and get on with the issues that really matter.

Sarah Harris ● 6042d

Here, here. This Ashrot debate and the stuff on postal votes is simply intended to divert opinion from the real issues.But political funding needs to be cleaned up. And the Lords really should not be used as a place for bought peerages or simpletons who were appointed because they were chairman of such-and-such diversity committee. If it goes that way, better to leave it as it was.

John Theodore Clark ● 6041d

Let us try to agree that all these 'Lord' are given the shove. That would include Archer as well as that appalling Uddin woman and Lord Paul.

Maire Lowe ● 6040d

Here, here.

John Theodore Clark ● 6040d

I have missed something - what's wrong with the "Uddin woman" or is it just that you don't want ANY peers?Given the behaviour of our elected MPs, I do wonder why anyone wants a wholly elected second chamber.

Sara Nathan ● 6040d

For me, expenses, plus the fact that she hardly has the exceptional qualities that one would normally hope for in a memeber of the Lords.Self-serving Wiki entry, with a citaion that goes nowhere: "She has received a national and international reputation as a leader in promoting women's equal rights, including human rights, in the Britain and abroad." I am sure that if I talk to my German friend at the ECHR, he will not have heard of her. She is a tokenist nobody.If you are going to slam Ashrot, you can also slam Uddin.

John Theodore Clark ● 6040d

Wasn't she quite impressive on the "BNP" Question Time? I don't really know much else about her.

Sara Nathan ● 6040d

Yes, but unfortunately so was Mr Griffin. I would certainly not like to see him in the Lords!

John Theodore Clark ● 6040d

What is wrong with Baroness Uddin? Well she lives in a Spitalfields Housing Assocation owned property with her family while claiming Lords' expenses as though she actually lives in a flat near Tunbridge Wells. Under police investigation for corruption, she is refusing to co operate with their investigation. Most unlikely to be the only one.

Maire Lowe ● 6039d