Abrahams and Ashcroft: Time For Openness and Honesty

Barrister and conservative Evan Price has given a different view of the Abrahams and Ashcroft matters than mine, which was responding to Iain Dale's gauntlet of the wee small hours.

Evan and I don't entirely agree. But both attempt to make arguments to support our case which is not always the case in this political blogging game. For the most part the disagreement is not on the facts, or the letter of the law, but on the spirit or purpose.

Two facts though:

1. Whereas Evan suggested that Labour had gone to Abrahams with the scheme, my reading of the Guardian article is that Abrahams and his lawyer came to the Party with a scheme. The opposite. At the time in checking it out legally the LP decided it was OK. That would put this device in the same category as the MIC really. Against the spirit of the reforms, or the stated purpose even, and ugly to behold. But legal. In both cases a loophole being exploited to obscure the identity of donors.

2. Whereas Evan appeared to say that Ashcroft had complied with his promises that is not my understanding. My reading of David Cameron's response to Andrew Marr is opposite to that in fact. Cam said that the promises were being complied with - there is a process going on - and admitted they had not been met. The process might include "still thinking about it and not ruling it out" I suppose. Here is part of the Marr-Cameron exchange:

ANDREW MARR: What about Lord Ashcroft? Because it was promised by the former party leader, William Hague, and indeed by Lord Ashcroft, way back, that he would be registered in this country, and a lot of people feel that he's not properly registered in that way. Are you absolutely happy and satisfied that he is in a position to be making the kind of funding commitment to your party that he is?

DAVID CAMERON: I am satisfied that the undertakings he gave are being met and I have had reassurances on that. But I would like to put it in context.

Side-stepping the question of being "satisfied that he (Ashcroft) is in a position to be making the kind of funding commitment to your party that he is?" Completely side-stepping it. Which I did not notice before.

ANDREW MARR: Being met, but haven't been met.

DAVID CAMERON: No, in terms of the reassurances that he is resident in the UK and pays taxes in the UK. But the point, the point I would like to make, if you look at the last year actually Mittal and David Sainsbury have given more money to the Labour Party than Lord Ashcroft has given to the Conservative Party.

The "No" means "No they haven't been met" and not "No, you're wrong Andrew they have been met" which is what some people thought he said.

It was interesting too that when a Labour supporting Muslim association donated money in the same way as the Midlands Industrial Council there was a hoo ha and specifically an attempt - particularly in the Times and on one blog - to smear one man, actually an IT entrepreneur, as an associate with gun dealers. That story never went anywhere now did it?

I think Cameron seems to be content to play games with participles and declensions instead of dealing with the underlying problem - that Ashcroft remains offshore in tax exile. Belize is where his heart is. Things have come to a pretty pass when even the Telegraph is telling him to come out with his hands where they can see them.

In the tax avoidance game I'm told the modus operandus when accountants and advisers find a previously undocumented loophole or potential loophole is that they write it up and inform the Inspectors that they'll be using it or reserve the right to. It will get closed in a year or two. But in the meantime there are less surprises. Perhaps there is a lesson in that?