CamSham FlimFlamMan: When "NO" Means "YES, You're Absolutely Right"

Click the image above to launch full item VT in BBC Media Player
David Cameron's claim to have only discovered that Baron Ashcroft of Belize was still a non-dom and had not taken permanent residence, opting instead for the new "long term" fudge introduced in 2008 i.e. eight years after his commitment, followed hot on the heels of William Hague's assertion that he had only become aware of this in the past few months.

In fact, given what follows, it is probably just as well to check exactly what words this pair used. Both of them are politicians after all. And rather effective speakers of the weaselish.


Five days ago we tweeted that a certain old Andrew Marr interview with Dave Cameron should be dusted down. And yesterday as Cameron's extraordinary claim of baffling ignorance emerged we tweeted again and again, including links to our earlier blogposts - from 4 Dec 2007 and again 6 Dec 2007 and also 18 July 2009. Also the BBC Andrew Marr Programme transcript.


These links were picked up on Twitter by James Cowley who blogged this as "reassurances" and onwards to Political Scrapbook who did likewise. In fact, though, LOL believe that both of these Labour supporting bloggers are missing the significance of what Cameron and Marr did and did not say on that fateful day.

This appears to be a classic case of "NO" meaning "YES, indeedy". As we said at the time. Dave Cameron asserted that he'd had reassurances that Michael Ashcroft - now seven years and eight months after doing his contingent deal - was still girding up his loins and getting to it.

"The undertakings .. are being met .. I have had reassurances .." said Cameron. "Being met, but haven't been met", clarified Marr. "No" said Cameron, meaning yes "in terms of the reassurances that he is resident in the UK and pays taxes in the UK". So, to spell this out, again.

Cameron had had reassurances of present tense "being met" which as it goes have still not come to anything, except a grab at the new "long term" status. But Cameron agreed, using the weasel word "No" to Marr's point that he had not had reassurances that they'd been met. Paxman would have asked another question or two I guess. Though it was plain enough to me.

To be fair: "YES, they haven't been met" and "NO, they haven't been met" actually do mean the exact same thing. Whether bantering in both English or High Eton Weaselish.

This part of the exchange in full, as transcribed by the BBC, with their usual caveats about accuracy, was as follows:

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.

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. So, I think people get his importance out of all, you know, relative significance.

You can listen and watch yourself by clicking top image (launches BBC media player), there'll be an inline video here soon I hope, and via the embedded video on this 2 Dec 2007 news page.


Interesting that the story was that whacky Abrahams obfuscation story - eligible donor uses other eligible donors as agents and employs some legal trickery, subsequently discredited, to clear this - and Cameron's attempts to put the Trade Unions, collecting pennies from millions of workers, in the same bag as the likes of Ashcroft and indeed Sainsbury and Mittal.

The Cameron admission that, even almost eight years on, Ashcroft was still stalling and hadn't become a permanent resident, didn't make the cut. Then as now people in the mass media don't speak the fly-by-night weasel too good.

£Ashcroft: Biggles, Bertie, Algy and Ginger Flaunting the Rules?

We've been following the rather ridiculous Baron Muchhousing Ashcroft of Belize for some time.

Here, for example is our archive featuring "Flying Lion" - the good Lord's private jet company - which has been ferrying shadow mimicsters and MPs around willy nilly. Not a UK company. Not paying tax here. With no base here. With no direct company interest in the demented big-C wasting involved in dashing around the globe.

Michael Ashcroft's Flying Lion has exploited an apparent loophole in the donations rules. These bar overseas companies and overseas based individuals from donating either money or in kind goods and services to UK political parties. With one exception. That being Travel.

This concession being designed to allow the Sultan of Brunei say to summon some UK polis at his own expense, to lobby them on his interests, to entertain them and to return them, educated, to the UK. Or let's say Tata to finance some travel to and accommodation in India to explain their prospectus for the UK.

Ashcroft's Flying Lion wasn't doing that. It was instead donating the services of a private jet and crew to ferry Mimicsters and MPs around the globe. To destinations and on missions entirely unconnected with Flying Lion's direct interests. That seems abusive to me. And the fact that this hasn't been outlawed when challenged says more about the Electoral Commission and PPERA (the relevant legislation) than it does about the activity.

The Commission and the Law look weak. And Flying Lion, an overseas company with no direct interest in the travel offered, appears to be providing an analogue of cash money. Donating money to a UK political party. Which is not allowed.

To make matters worse whenever Tory MPs get this cash equivalent donation, under the guise of the Travel concession, they always but always evaluate this gift as if it were a scheduled, even a budget scheduled flight. This is by no means representing the true cost of say a day's running costs.

Let's say 1/250th of a year's running budget for starters. Including depreciation and maintenance and hangaring and registration and wear and tear. And any and all airport fees. And enormously well-paid flight crew and attendants. Not even the actual cost of the aviation fuel for these thirsty jets would be covered. And really, the evaluation should be on a cost-plus basis anyway.

What would it cost to buy this service on the open market? Not meaning business class flying to Hong Kong say. Like £2000? But meaning what would it actually cost to charter a high end private jet for this journey. Which might be £100,000. And why would they continuously understate the value of such things? Well because (a) if retrospectively ruled out and clawed back the amount of cash would be far less; and (b) because if you want to claim Ashcroft donates only 1% of your whole it doesn't help if there's £2 million at true value of private jet setting to be included.

One might run a similar discussion over Taking the Michael's Bearwood Securities Limited. The UK firm that has been the main agent of his key marginals largesse. It would be completely illegal if Bearwood was simply passporting money through from an overseas, "ineligible" donor like Ashcroft say, and had no direct company interest in making such donations. To be an eligible donor a firm like Bearwood Securities would need to be carrying out a bona fide, uncontrived UK business AND not be acting as an agent for any ineligible donor.

People are trying to determine what's what on this. So we'll leave it there.

We've no time to discuss Michael's wife's donations and how those arise. Or what an all-round unpatriotic, ruthless, self-serving and cheeky arse Lord Ashcroft is being in trying to buy elections in the UK. Just has he has tried in Australia and New Zealand and Belize and elsewhere in Central America and the Caribbean.

And we've certainly got no time to try to work out what he's been up to in Belize. Taking the piss mostly. He's not popular. Very likely others will have a go at all this over the next day or two. We'll see. Perhaps we'll join in.

We do, naturally, have a man on the ground in Belize. Ashcroft beer is monopolistically bad. His cola is monopolistically bad. His phone company was monopolistically bad. His utilities and so on and so forth. He's fallen out with the new - more right wing but less in pocket - government. And the people think he's pocketing their money. Aren't people funny?

Connections with the disgraced Sir Allen Stanford, from Turks and Caicos, would of course be down-played and denied. What a gift it would be to the forces of progressive righteousness if there were a Stanford-Ashcroft-Cameron connection. Revealed perhaps in the long campaign? Or even during the sprint. Let's hypothesize. It's fun! What if they were all meeting up at Lords for the cricket while Stanford was working his million pound prize money and borrowed helicopter stunts for example.

Would make George Osborne's dalliances with Aluminium billionaire oligarchs and Rothschild hedgies whose family donated to GOO's office - which he tried to gloss over - it would make such dalliances look de nada. Just as well there is no Stanford-Ashcroft-Cameron connection.