Thursday, March 18, 2010

Lord Ashcroft and William Hague to snub Commons inquiry into peerage.

Why am I not remotely surprised by this?

Lord Ashcroft and William Hague will snub an inquiry into how the billionaire party donor was elevated to the House of Lords after the Conservatives said the event was biased.

David Cameron approved the decision for all Tory parliamentarians to boycott a Commons hearing into what promises were made before the businessman became a peer.

They will boycott it for the same reason that they boycotted giving anyone an honest answer on Ashcroft's tax status for the past ten years; because it is embarrassing to them.

Sir George Young, shadow leader of the House, has written to the Public Administration Committee chairman, the Labour MP Tony Wright, explaining why the main witnesses will be absent.

“In the days immediately preceding the dissolution of this Parliament, this inquiry inevitably risks being seen as partisan. I am writing to let you know that my Parliamentary colleagues who have been invited to attend are not inclined to do so,” Sir George wrote.

Wouldn't it be great if any person suspected of wrongdoing could simply write to the court stating that they were not willing to attend as they suspected the court might be "partisan"?

For the best part of a decade the Tories have refused to answer any questions on Ashcroft's tax status, telling us that they had no reason to believe that he had not complied with the promises Hague gave to Blair.

Now we find that he had not complied and the Tories implement their new policy of transparency by stating, "Nothing to see here folks, keep moving on."

Ashcroft remains in place, despite the fact that he has rendered the word of the Tory leader meaningless.

And Cameron appears to be as indebted to him as Hague was. It's no wonder that, even with a Labour government that is over thirteen years old, this bunch of Tory reprobates are slipping in the polls.

This is everything which we have come to despise about Tory politics. Old money = different rules. They don't pay taxes whilst the rest of us do. It is utterly without principle. At it's core it says it is right that a person can make laws which the rest of us must live by, including laws on taxation, whilst not paying full taxes to the UK.

It's shameful, which is why Cameron is now refusing to allow any examination of it.

Click here for full article.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe Ashcroft will attend when Lords Noon & Paul do?

"This is everything which we have come to despise about Tory politics. Old money = different rules. They don't pay taxes whilst the rest of us do. It is utterly without principle. At it's core it says it is right that a person can make laws which the rest of us must live by, including laws on taxation, whilst not paying full taxes to the UK."

That'd be the Tory non-doms then, not the other side's non-dom, billionaire law-making peers?

Kel said...

No, I have already made my disgust known at ANY peer who sits in the Lords and does not pay full UK taxation.

However, the Labour peers did not have promises made on their behalf by the leader of their party expressly stating that they would become full British citizens and that this would benefit the Treasury by "tens of millions of pounds".

However, this promise was made on Ashcroft's behalf by the then Tory leader, William Hague.

The word of the Tory leader should count for something, Ashcroft has rendered it meaningless and, worse, Cameron seems not to care.

Anonymous said...

Oh, come on - so Ashcroft is to be castigated because he promised to do the decent thing and didn't, and the Lab lot get off because they never promised to do the decent thing?

Incident., on the subject of the leaders' words:

"I'll see out the full term." That was Blair in Lab's last manifesto.

"There will be a referendum on the European Constitution." All of 'em.

"We don't think the non-dom thing requires immediate action... legislation can wait" Brown, about last Feb. Until after the election booty had been gathered in I suppose.

Not much interested actually in the nasty Tory / nasty Lab football chants, much more interested in impartial judgements, somewhat lacking apparently in the 'Libertarian Left'.

Incidentally again, what Libertarian Left? apart from an oxymoron?

Kel said...

Oh, come on - so Ashcroft is to be castigated because he promised to do the decent thing and didn't, and the Lab lot get off because they never promised to do the decent thing?

I don't think any of them should be allowed to sit in the Lords unless they are paying taxation as full British citizens, but yes, Ashcroft deserves especial condemnation because he allowed a specific promise to be made which he had no intention of honouring.

And you have a point regarding Blair and the European Constitution. He did promise a referendum and he didn't deliver. He is, therefore deserving of condemnation, as is Ashcroft.

But your point about him promising to serve a full term is rather weak as he was essentially forced from office by his own party. If Blair had his way he'd probably still be there right now...