£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.

Cam-Croft: Unpermissable Air Con and Carbon Coughing

Sadie Westmonster is of the per ardua astra work ethic and has roared into the Flying Lion homework set by Professor Watson, who never asks a question when he doesn't know the answer. Sadie has moved straight to the top of the class. Where Dave-id Cameron was born to be. Sadie's there on merit.

Sadly Dave has slumped to the dunce's corner passing a soaring Political Penguin. Davey's on the way down (in the polls too) with yet another failure to play fair with donations from or adjacent to the sainted Lord Ashcroft (he resigned from the board of Flying Lion in 2002 but may of course still be there in the shadows, we really don't know now do we?).

Sadie speculates that, as Dave's flight to Darfur was clearly less than £1,000 as he hasn't declared it, these public spirited folk must have got him an Easyjet ticket. Because if they'd used Flying Lion's luxury aircraft (above) the correct cost to recharge would have been £40,000 or so each way, and not much less for running back empty. Which is not less than £1,000 in our book. So he cannot have used it after all. The same must go for all the other flights these Tory jetters have disclosed or else a factor of 30x needs to be applied to everything.

Why not? Just because you have a business jet doesn't mean you must use it when flying scheduled would save money, ozone holeage and carbon emissions.

But let's not even start some kind of dog sleigh gate or refer to the trifling bicycle to work gate or debate whether Glyn Davies AM has a point about helicopter hypocrite gate whatever they say in his comments. Let's just not worry about the carbon coughing for one-toff-in-a-jet-straddling-the-world at this stage.

Flying Lion also seems to be an off-shore company and the jet - offers invited - is registered in Bermuda. Are the company even "permissible donors and lenders"?

Sadie has the full works.

BIGGLESWORTHS OF THE YARD: The Westmonster and Political Penguin tag team are still coming up with more perplexing mysteries about Victor Papa - Bravo Mike Sierra. Could be Charlie Foxtrot is not for Conservative Future after all ...

Dizzy/Guido on Con Air: Extraordinary Renditions

Remember that Flying Lion homework set by Professor Watson, who never asks a question when he doesn't know the answer? Here is a summary.

It is not like me to link to a Tory blogger twice in one day. But Dizzy really should be embarrassed by this post as he joins Guido in rising to playground taunts by Bob Piper and coming out to play.

As Bob Piper says Dizzy is a "fearless investigator of dodgy dealings in public life". So why is this embarrassing? That's because he seems to have got so mixed up on this Flying Lion business.

Dizzy claims the rules in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) state that MPs can accept donations from overseas-based people or organisations if "the purpose of the donation is to pay for the travel costs".

This OF COURSE means that if George Bush summons you to Washington - as he famously didn't do to George Osborne - he can pay for the fares. And if Alisher Creosotemanov wanted Dave in Tashkent to see his Memory Man trick he also can legitimately finance that travel.

What it does not mean - as far as I can see - is that some rich overseas entity or individual can regularly pay for general gadding about. That would be just like giving cash and to do that compliance with rules is required. Flying Lion do not seem to comply with those rules on "permissible donors and lenders".

Dizzy also cites PPERA saying the travel costs registered are to be calculated based on commercial rates.

Strangely enough this DOES NOT mean some minimised marginal cost, or the rate that would be charged first class on a scheduled airliner. It means the market rate for or the actual full cost of the journey. The Conservatives do not seem to have complied with those rules.

In the case of Victor Papa - Bravo Mike Sierra the true cost is estimated to be about 30 to 40 times as great as that of scheduled first class. And that's 30 to 40 times what the Tories (those who have bothered to register the gifts) have declared.

The combination of Flying Lion being overseas registered and not allowed to make donations or loans under PPERA - except perhaps to visit Ashcroft in Bermuda, Bahamas or wherever he is lurking - and the true price being 30 times what has been knowingly under-declared these past three or four years ...

This means the Tories may face not only red faces and a proper sleaze scandal but also a fair old claw back.

Clearly the sorts of figures Guido admitted, of £20,000 so far and £50,000 these last two electoral years start to get more interesting when:

(a) they are grossed up 30 to 40 times to reflect the true commercial value (meaning up to £2.8 million for those 18 months alone);
(b) carelessly omitted flights are added to the roster; and
(c) the donations are exposed as both impermissable and consistently and knowingly under declared.

Tories Taking the Michael 2: Ashcroft "Finally Brought to Book?"

About flipping time too! The unreliable re-locator "Baron Belize" Michael Ashcroft "VC", was reluctantly raised to a Lordship - to oil the wheels of his Vulture Capitalist operation and open the floodgates to a donations spree. That was on the strict promise - from William Vague - that he'd come home and start paying taxes in Blighty.

But he may be finding his Vultures Coming Home to Roost.

The Sunday Mirror report that an official investigation is being launched into Lord Belize's donations - almost £4 Million, and more than £3 Million since 2005.

These monies are laundered, to use the vernacular, via a UK company named Bearwood Corporate Services Limited.

The Tories say that BCS is registered in the UK, which is one test of an eligible donor, and that it is trading, which is another. But they don't address the other issue. Which is that it's forbidden, as I understand it, for a person or entity that is eligible to act as an agent for one that is not.

Which does appear to be what is occurring in the case of Baron Belize and Prince Charming in respect of these cash donations.

There is also of course a substantial side dish to the potential feast of impropriety - even on the surface declared activity - which is the use of a concession on "travel costs" to allow foreign governments, registered entities, individuals to pay travel costs. Whatever it may say in the law and guidelines the purpose and spirit of this is to allow an overseas interest to pay travel costs for research visits and the like.

It is not intended to allow a rich man, or a rich man's company, or a government to donate travel costs on a massive level to an overseas political party, for travel that has nothing whatsoever to do with that person's legitimate interests. Baron Belize's Flying Lying airways has done just that, with the Tories forgetting to register much of it in a timely way, and deliberately and seriously understating the true value of it - presumably against the day when it might be clawed back - when they have got round to declaring it.

Searching here at LOL and in general for Bearwood, and Flying Lion will trawl a good haul of coverage for the Tories' under cover, overseas mega donor. Here is David Cameron squirming over Ashcroft from December 2007 when Baron belize was allegedly in the process of complying with his promise. 15 months ago. And here's some, and here's Dale speaking up for Ashcroft and Aitken, and here's UK Con Air exposed.

FOOTNOTE 20:38: Tim Montgomery's note at Conservative Home on Baron Belize is drawing some interesting comments. Others will have got all the relevant BCS Limited accounts and returns no doubt. Meanwhilst here is my own comment:

What would a company filing "small" accounts be doing giving away 20-30% of its maximum turnover and/or 1/3 to 1/2 of it's BS value if NOT acting as an agent for an offshore principal? NB Turnover, not profit.
Flying Lion is also obviously a shocking abuse of the concession on overseas donors funding travel costs. Intended to be funding travel costs to their own operations not to here, there and everywhere. A ramp.
Posted by: Chris Paul | February 22, 2009 at 20:36

Flying Lion Unlimited: Rough Guide to Jetsetting

It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it. And Unity is doing a cracking job of looking under rocks and uncovering the the steaming whiffiness of nefarious Tory jet setters. On top of all that he's caught yet another Tory failing to declare donations. Lobster Blogster caught one at it earlier today, albeit in a different jet. How many more will there be?

Perhaps every last error and omission will be explained. But we are still left with Tory politicians gadding about in a billionaire's plaything - living the lifestyle of the rich and famous - including for photo opps in Darfur. They are proudly buying into feel good carbon off setting schemes and suggesting that cries of "hypocrisy!" are bad form. "Sniping about the details". But where is their "conspicuous consumption and hidden donations" off setting scheme?

Thanks to a comment from Tim J I have found my way round PPERA. To speed up the familiarisation for others, the hotlinks from the index seem to suggest it's not all online, but you can go to the nearest hotlink then use the page by page navigation at the bottom to progress.

Evan's link to the Electoral Commission interpretation is also working. The example given of an overseas donor who has a factory in an MP's constituency covering the cost of a trip to their HQ is quite different to the Ashcroft model. Which I think falls outside the intended purpose of this concession.

I plan to write to the Electoral Commission for clarification and suggesting revisions. If I manage that I'll report back. Though it's a full two years since my last still unanswered question: viz "Does the EC analyse patterns of election expenses returns to help police "unusual" (crooked?) practices?"

Footing the bill for all sorts of travel unrelated to their own location seems to be taking the piss really. Not what was intended. Tory "chancer" behaviour. Ashcroft/Flying Lion is giving campaign cash for Conservative-aggrandisement, the true costs are hugely disproportionate, and for my money - as they are not sponsoring trips to their own operations - they should not really be considered a permissable donor.

Full Market Value: Claw Back from Con Air Tories?

The Electoral Commission website is hard work, but it does have this summary of what PPERA says on 'notional expenditure', that is where permissible donors provide premises, good and services at less than the full cost:

The PPERA specifies that 'notional expenditure' must also be treated as campaign expenditure (Legislation and Donations). Notional expenditure is incurred when a party receives benefits in kind, i.e. when someone else bears the costs that a party would otherwise have been liable for; for example, a party supporter might pay half the costs towards a party's advertising campaign. The amount paid by the supporter would be treated as notional expenditure and would be counted as campaign expenditure incurred by the party.

The nitty gritty of how such expenditures should be valued appears to be in section 53 of PPERA which I cannot find online just now. But the following is section 5 of schedule 16 of PPERA and has the title I'm looking for at least. Looks like it has the answers too. The emphasis in bold is mine:

Value of donations

5(1)The value of any donation falling within paragraph 2(1)(a) above (other than money) shall be taken to be the market value of the property in question.
(2)Where, however, paragraph 2(1)(a) above applies by virtue of paragraph 2(2) above, the value of the donation shall be taken to be the difference between—
(a)the value of the money, or the market value of the property, in question, and
(b)the total value in monetary terms of the consideration provided by or on behalf of the candidate or his election agent.
(3)The value of any donation falling within paragraph 2(1)(b) above shall be taken to be the value of the money, or (as the case may be) the market value of the property, transferred as mentioned in paragraph 3(1) above; and accordingly any value in monetary terms of any benefit conferred on the person providing the sponsorship in question shall be disregarded.
(4)The value of any donation falling within paragraph 2(1)(d) or (e) above shall be taken to be the amount representing the difference between—
(a)the total value in monetary terms of the consideration that would have had to be provided by or on behalf of the candidate or his election agent in respect of the loan or the provision of the property, services or facilities if—
(i)the loan had been made, or
(ii)the property, services or facilities had been provided,
on commercial terms, and
(b)the total value in monetary terms of the consideration (if any) actually so provided by or on behalf of the candidate or his election agent.
(5)Where a donation such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) above confers an enduring benefit on the donee over a particular period, the value of the donation—
(a)shall be determined at the time when it is made, but
(b)shall be so determined by reference to the total benefit accruing to the donee over that period.
(6)In this paragraph “market value” in relation to any property, means the price which might reasonably be expected to be paid for the property on a sale in the open market.

Clearly, patently, I am no expert in these matters. But it does seem obvious to me that Ashcroft's donations of travel services in his jet are (a) not permissible as the company is offshore and this has not been travel on a trip to meet the donor; and (b) must be recorded in any case at FULL MARKET VALUE.

Again obviously, this is not the same as marginal cost or substitute or alternate cost. Full market value means "the price which might reasonably be expected to be paid for the property on a sale in the open market".

This is the amount that should have been recorded even if the donations had been from a permissible source and this is the amount which should now be clawed back from the Conservatives for each and every non permissible donation of air travel from Flying Lion. Not the pootling amounts actually recorded.

Presumably the same kind of Market Value assessment is required also in the register of members interests? Let's throw the book at the Tories for this, and at Ashcroft and Flying Lion in so far as they knew about this under reporting.

UPDATE: Dizzy is still spewing flames from his tale in a dark death spiral in comments here. Is anyone saying that the donor's actual cost of aviation fuel and wages and airport dues must be declared? These are just the tip of the iceberg running one of these things anyway. I'm certainly not saying that. The actual test as specified above is the open market value for the service actually received.

Let me provide a practical example for hard of thinking Tories everywhere. If someone buys the Conservatives 100 proper luxury commercial poster sites for political material and they are used for dog whistles and disgraceful lies and then it comes to registering the donation you cannot say:

"But we could have done this with flyposting/fliers/word of mouth/freesheet ads/pirate hoardings for one tenth of this cost so we'll register that amount instead".

Guido Fawkes: Grasping At "Foreigner" Name Calling

Guido is in a time warp with an attack on previous Labour donors to try to deflect from Osborne's woes with Oleg. In particular he brings up Lakshmi Mittal the ever-grinning Londoner with some strange slight on him being "a foreigner". Guido is too. With Indian father and Irish mother and, I believe, avoid-ive non-domiciled status for tax to boot.

Not that he'll be donating. As he's a personal bankrupt and a drink-drive criminal. It would be too embarrassing for all concerned.

Over at Martin Bright's post at The New Statesman Guido comments:

guido
22 October 2008 at 17:33

£4,125,000 has been donated by Lakshmi Mittal through his British company to the Labour Party. Although a resident non-domiciled Indian national, it is from his British company, so no rules have been broken. But as an Indian, Mittal is a foreigner and his company made a donation to the Labour Party. Is it a foreign donation? Strictly speaking, no it is not. Was this the model suggested to Mittal? Who knows? As transparency in politics is something you are keen to promote, it would be interesting to see you clarify this.

But Guido's point about Mittal who has lived in London, UK for 14 years I understand, seems particularly disingenuous given the behaviour of the Lord Ashcroft who has donated a similar amount to Mittal via agent companies, presiding over its exact destinations himself, who is spectacularly non-resident, who has taken the Michael over "travel costs" loophole with his Flying Lion arrangements, and who famously only got his Lordship at the 3rd or whatever attempt because he promised to come and pay tax here.

I don't really think there is any high ground for any party on this. Each case on its merits. Mandelson doesn't actually have to do anything here. Immature Tory Boys will seek to damage him. And his Aikido skill will not kick in, but rather uses their hateful and careless momentum to send them flying.

Saints and Sinners: UK Con Air Travel Exposed

Today is All Saints Day. Clearly yesterday being Halloween was a perfect day for communing with the spirits and observing ghostly traces of poltegeists and strange flying objects. Divining for Dave-id's paranormal vibes Unity finds plenty flitting about on the dark side.

Sums buried like bad news declared fully and openly: one third of a million pounds of internal travel are strangely in a different order of magnitude upwards, for short haul, than those for long haul. Some of which have not even broken the £1,000 barrier apparently.

Could this be because the recorded short haul journeys are paid for by UK interest who are permissible donors? Whereas most of the long haul ones are from Flying Lion - NOT a permissible donor or lender - and might well be clawed back when PPERA is properly interpreted. So best to downplay the cost and declare only 3% of the commercial equivalent?

The exception for non-UK donors paying reasonable travel costs for visits to their sites is clearly not intended as Carte Bleu for extravagant jet-setting.

Flying Lion: VC Hero Ashcroft Meddles in Auckland?

VC Hero Lord Ashcroft has been using his own private jet. A Falcon wasn't it? Like the one temporarily grounded in Iran in possibly the biggest non-story of last week. That'll be a Guido blogsclusive. That Kiwi Tory Mr Key looks a bit shifty though doesn't he?

Parliamentary Communications Allowance: PR Paul Due For a Fall?

WORK IN PROGRESS: Aiming to add links and pics and updates later.

Iain Dale suggests that David Cameron should ban his MPs from further use of the Communications Allowance. Although many of them voted against the thing almost 90% (174 of 196) including Cameron himself, have drawn down part of this money, with some of the 22 abstainers using part of the ACA or Office heading for parliamentary communications.

Clearly the current favourite excuse for the arguably ineligible donor and vulture capitalist Michael Ashcroft's millions is the ability of incumbents of all parties to spend parliamentary allowances. So perhaps Gordon Brown should get in on the act and declare a truce on the PCA, so long as Ashcroft hops on board his Flying Lion jet, with which he has been taking the mick over the "travel costs" concession on the ineligible donor rules, buggers off back to Belize with his ill-gotten gains.

Of course most of the Lib Dem MPs voted against this allowance. Knowing full well that they would lose the vote and that they could still fill their boots.

Whether apparently printing "Taxpayer" stuff at a premium on their own presses, thereby subsidising party political print, or giving their mates contracts for web sites ... This being a reference to the disgraceful use of Public Funds by Paul Rowen MP to feather the nest of one of his allies - Malcolm Porn-O Journeaux, whose Rochdale Online Web Solutions (ROWS) is a beneficiary of the Tax Payers' funding, while his Rochdale Online publication freely pimps Paul Rowen MP, covering up his hypocrisy, idiocy and story mangling.

Of course Paul Rowen MP used Rochdale Online to spearhead a pre-emptive attack on supposedly official Labour Party bloggers, suggesting that the many seriously true stories about his mentor and benefactor Sir Cyril Smith MBE were untrue and sleazy and that he would sue if they were repeated in inky media. The stories we've used, so far, have in fact been covered in reputable national, regional and local publications. And while they were about sleazy behaviour ... they were also true!

Paul Rowen's evil henchman and drunkard-about-town Dave Hennigan assured Porn-O that this smear story was true by giving him a load of cock and balls about having written to Ray Collins, Labour Party General Secretary, asking him to condemn Labour of Love and other investigative sites. As far as we know that letter was never written, never mind sent. We were eyeball-to-eyeball and the other chaps blinked.

While this may be no more than a coincidence, there is a clear pattern with semi-mucky art photographer and Porn-Again Christian Porn-O's online organ pretty much ignoring and stymieing adverse Rowen comment and news, while suppressing much Labour good news, more so ever since the PCA contract was won. Even cropping a picture and editing a story to remove Labour's PPC.

Porn-O and Henn are said to be cooking up a disgraceful politically motivated smear campaign against the Labour PPC. There have been signs of it in comments on this blog for more than a year, and also in comments and contributions in Rochdale Online's community forum, where Beer Speckled Henn had also promised and indeed wagered £100 that he would "get rid" of one of his Labour rivals within weeks.

That latter attempt by Henn to smear a leading Labour figure in the town hit the buffers in an obvious defamation calamity. Though being an unreliable liar he didn't make good his bets.

That attempted smear was to use the old tried and trusted "paedo" smear route, based on revival of a totally discredited smear from sometime back in the dark ages. Makes Damian McBride look like a rank amateur actually. All Henn did really was draw attention to the sex and power abuse allegations against Sir Cyril Smith MBE. Allegations which had been made to "go away" in a formal sense when a blubbing Cyril called in some favours.

Approached by proper journalists the police bust Henn's craven lies wide open, with the police incidentally sharing some juicy tittle tattle with certain journalists in the process. Ouch. Two own goals.

Even Porn-O wouldn't run that one. His son and his partner are raving Libdemologist loons. And Henn himself was the whirling dervish DJ who stroked his wheels of steel at Porn-O's comedy wank-rock gigs. But even Porn-O cannot run clearly libelous, actionable stories. Even for his bessie mates. After all his shareholders include a respected local solicitor and also the respectable Oldham Chronicle news organisation.

Porn-O's journalistic principles will I think be tested in coming weeks as some heavy duty Sir Cyril/Paul Rowen expenses and donations questions are raised in high places. Not to mention suggestions of the thickness of thieves. You read it here first. The Telegraph have all Rowen's receipts of course. And he is an "Open Book" warrior. So he won't mind if everyone takes a close look. Strange really that he hasn't uploaded his own records for public scrutiny already.

We suggest that the Telegraph take a look, and sharpish. And also Rowen's office rent, his landlord, and his constituency party's submitted accounts. Sadly and strangely now dried up.

LOL understand from a statement, live on BBC News 24 this morning, that Tony Lloyd MP (Labour, Man Central), who was of course subject of a pathetic attempt at dark arts McBridivism by Rowen's evil lying helper Adam "the Power" Power, is expecting to publish his expenses this coming Monday. Will PR Paul not match this?

FOOTNOTE: The MP's "Putting Rowen First" ROWS site, funded by the taxpayer don't forget, is even up for an award ... ahem, sponsored by and judged by ROWS.

Baron Belize: Buying Power for Conservatives Now "On Autopilot"

Looks like Lord Michael Ashcroft, the grubby Vulture Capitalist and world wide political dabbler - with more pies than fingers - has pretty much admitted that he has completely failed to be a man of his word and start paying personal tax in the UK. As a quid pro quo for his Baronetcy. Very reluctantly given by Blair. Ashcroft is also making a liar of the Rt Hon William Hague who crossed his heart and hoped to die to get old moneybags into the House of Lords. And of David Cameron who claimed in an interview with Andrew Marr that Ashcroft was making the requisite arrangements.

Following The Independent story this week revealing that Ashcroft's election-buying in the UK at least was endangered The Telegraph say Ashcroft has donated £10 Million over recent years and will pack in any formal role for the Tories after the election. He's a feisty so-and-so.

The decision to quit as deputy chairman in charge of campaigning was unexpected. "The work will continue after the election so we maintain political activity in our constituencies over a whole Parliament not just the last few months. It will continue but without me. My work in the party is done. It is virtually all now on autopilot."
He will continue to support the Conservatives financially but again refused to discuss his tax status. "When it becomes mandatory for everyone to discuss their tax affairs in public then I will be happy to do so."

Now he's on the run the Electoral Commission and others should review all his donations, through the agency of Bearwood Securities - as in "Is Ashcroft at it? Do bears etc" - and the devious ones through Flying Lion too. They may be "within the rules" but how do they look now the sleazometer is re-calibrated?

MEANWHILE: The Daily Mirror have built on their Cameron cycling with 4x4 following scoop of 2007 with a revelation that this utter hypocrite used a gas-guzzling helicopter to visit an eco-fuel project. And he refused to wear a white lab coat for hygiene.

UPDATE 20:31: Labour Matters reveal that the so-called meeting, we say stunt, on Ecofuels lasted just 20 minutes; and that Cameron has form for Helicopter flavoured malfeasance.

Nadine Dorries MP, How Very Could You? Q56-66 Introducing Doh! Me Silly Ass

Question 56: Another throat clearer really. How can it be that your controversially appointed Mum-P's Chief of Staff on self-alleged pay of around £50,000, with pay point relying heavily on her relevant Catering College training no doubt, how can it be that Jennifer Lauren Dorries is STILL not listed in the Nadine Vanessa Dorries Mum-P nepotism declaration in the newly released Register of Members' Interests (Part 2) alongside her big sister Pippa Storm Dorries?

Question 57: Would it perhaps be Jennifer Lauren Dorries's job to deal with this minor administrative matter for her Mum-P? Bit of a cock up on the catering front that. Wouldn't you say Nadine?

Question 58: Jennifer Lauren Dorries has managed to incorporate herself a one-member Company, about a week before LOL announced her folly in broadcasting her salary and her Mum-Ps "two job" Chief of Staff ruse to the world, down the Sports and Social. What's that about then?

Question 59: As it goes JLD is using the same correspondence address you the Mum-P yourself used as correspondence address for your latest little company Director venture. Mr Paul David Dorries created himself a new company from an address just round the corner in the Spring. Do you think that one will ever file reports or financials? Turn over a new leaf from most of the others?

Question 60: E.E.S. (UK) Limited was one of those wasn't it? Formed summer 2002, struck off without filing anything at all a week short of two years later. Not long after moving the registered office to Woolstaplers' Hall, Chipping Campden aka Chiseling Expenses? Can you tell the LOL readers what that Company was about?

Question 61: There was another formed on the same day called Skillman Limited. Moved registered office - this time to Singer House, Chiseling Expenses - on the same day. Also an ex- Company, perhaps dissolved at the same time also. The database wasn't playing on that one. No reports or financials were ever filed though. Any idea what that one was for Nadine?

Question 62: Which brings us back to a couple or three joint ventures, shall we say "mom and pop" ventures? Same deal. Couple of years. No accounts filed. No reports filed. Dissolved with no trace of activity. Childcare related. Which, building on your founding and heading that Community School of yours, is your specialist subject. Not to be confused with Company Kids Limited, the one that went to BUPA. Is that right?

Question 63: Of course the Central Casting prospective Mum-P CV we've mentioned before tells us that you were a Director of BUPA. But that's not really right now is it Nadine. You just stayed on the board of Company Kids for a bit didn't you? Quite a short bit at that?




First appeared as part of the Nuts in November series on 27 November 2009.

Question 64: I've also picked up some confusion from yours and Paul's many well-wishers about your being on the Board of one or two other major companies Nadine. Glaxo, Proctor and Gamble, that kind of thing. Were you actually a Director of any of those companies on the QT? Or did your friends and admirers and associates perhaps get the wrong end of the stick?

Question 65: All this perceived main board experience would have perhaps been what led Oliver Letwin MP to snap you up as an advisor. Would that be it? What on earth did you ever advise Oliver Letwin on Nadine?

Leaving aside Company Kids Limited, still trading under yet another set of new ownership, and leaving aside the three 2009 Dorries enterprises, we have four Dorries companies, two of them "mom and pop" things and none of those ever filed accounts or annual reports. Whatever they may have done or not done .. off the radar.

Question 66: The greatest of the mom and pop ventures however is called Domicilias. Phonetically this is something like "Doh! Me Silly Ass". Is that one of those Tory in jokes. Like the inspired Bearwood and Flying Lion? It started life as Jacksons 105 Limited - where did the new name come from Nadine?

Nuts in November: Nadine Qs 56-66 Introducing Doh! Me Silly Ass

Question 56: Another throat clearer really. How can it be that your controversially appointed Mum-P's Chief of Staff on self-alleged pay of around £50,000, with pay point relying heavily on her relevant Catering College training no doubt, how can it be that Jennifer Lauren Dorries is STILL not listed in the Nadine Vanessa Dorries Mum-P nepotism declaration in the newly released Register of Members' Interests (Part 2) alongside her big sister Pippa Storm Dorries?

Question 57: Would it perhaps be Jennifer Lauren Dorries's job to deal with this minor administrative matter for her Mum-P? Bit of a cock up on the catering front that. Wouldn't you say Nadine?

Question 58: Jennifer Lauren Dorries has managed to incorporate herself a one-member Company, about a week before LOL announced her folly in broadcasting her salary and her Mum-Ps "two job" Chief of Staff ruse to the world, down the Sports and Social. What's that about then?

Question 59: As it goes JLD is using the same correspondence address you the Mum-P yourself used as correspondence address for your latest little company Director venture. Mr Paul David Dorries created himself a new company from an address just round the corner in the Spring. Do you think that one will ever file reports or financials? Turn over a new leaf from most of the others?

Question 60: E.E.S. (UK) Limited was one of those wasn't it? Formed summer 2002, struck off without filing anything at all a week short of two years later. Not long after moving the registered office to Woolstaplers' Hall, Chipping Campden aka Chiseling Expenses? Can you tell the LOL readers what that Company was about?

Question 61: There was another formed on the same day called Skillman Limited. Moved registered office - this time to Singer House, Chiseling Expenses - on the same day. Also an ex- Company, perhaps dissolved at the same time also. The database wasn't playing on that one. No reports or financials were ever filed though. Any idea what that one was for Nadine?

Question 62: Which brings us back to a couple or three joint ventures, shall we say "mom and pop" ventures? Same deal. Couple of years. No accounts filed. No reports filed. Dissolved with no trace of activity. Childcare related. Which, building on your founding and heading that Community School of yours, is your specialist subject. Not to be confused with Company Kids Limited, the one that went to BUPA. Is that right?

Question 63: Of course the Central Casting prospective Mum-P CV we've mentioned before tells us that you were a Director of BUPA. But that's not really right now is it Nadine. You just stayed on the board of Company Kids for a bit didn't you? Quite a short bit at that?

Question 64: I've also picked up some confusion from yours and Paul's many well-wishers about your being on the Board of one or two other major companies Nadine. Glaxo, Proctor and Gamble, that kind of thing. Were you actually a Director of any of those companies on the QT? Or did your friends and admirers and associates perhaps get the wrong end of the stick?

Question 65: All this perceived main board experience would have perhaps been what led Oliver Letwin MP to snap you up as an advisor. Would that be it? What on earth did you ever advise Oliver Letwin on Nadine?

Leaving aside Company Kids Limited, still trading under yet another set of new ownership, and leaving aside the three 2009 Dorries enterprises, we have four Dorries companies, two of them "mom and pop" things and none of those ever filed accounts or annual reports. Whatever they may have done or not done .. off the radar.

Question 66: The greatest of the mom and pop ventures however is called Domicilias. Phonetically this is something like "Doh! Me Silly Ass". Is that one of those Tory in jokes. Like the inspired Bearwood and Flying Lion? It started life as Jacksons 105 Limited - where did the new name come from Nadine?

Independent: Vulture Capitalist Ashcroft to be Nobbled by Straw?

The Independent reported today that Lord Ashcroft - who donated lots of money to the Conservatives he should really have been paying in UK taxes after his "gentleman's agreement" to become resident and domiciled in the UK for tax purposes, in exchange for getting a Baronetcy instead of the three-strikes-and-your-out bum's rush he deserved - that Ashcroft is to be banned from such bankrolling.

His apparently personal donations were channeled through an agent company - Bearwood Securities - which appears to do little else than passport through Belize dollars to CCHQ and/or target constituency associations. And he also abused the exemption for "travel" donations through his offshore Flying Lion operation. And what's more it is the Ignoble Lord who invests in Iain Dale's "politically neutral" Total Politics and the like.

HERE YOU GO. This needs to be made retrospective people. If Ashcroft cannot donate going forward this indicates that he's been taking the piss looking backward. Let the Conservatives pay every penny over to the Treasury. And let's have the ermine off his back.

Aaaaaargh!: LOL Agrees with Prague Tory, Again

Dr Rupa Huq has a far ranging post, on the perils of Islamic-ness I suppose, right here. Much of it about an amusing (in a haram kind of way) post-Islamist spoof blog on Islamism translated into the day to day.

Most of the discussion however is about Rupa's introduction. This concerns Shahid Malik being searched at an airport (again) and his being shirty about that. The comments are divided.

And, what's this? Oh dear oh dear oh dear. For the second day in a row I find myself agreeing - in part - with the generally reliably wrong Prague Tory.

Yesterday I agreed with him over at Dale's. That MPs of all parties that voted against Communication Allowances should use them without accusations of hypocrisy. Repeal the law later if you want to. But in the meantime don't hobble yourself or punish your constituents by not using the money. That's what the ever-so-principled Dale suggests.

This time it is much more serious. But Prague Tory may be right on this too. I tend to think so. Shahid Malik seems to be throwing a bit of a "Don't you know who I am?" here. As if the feudal rules of the muffin queue in the mother of parliaments should extend to customs clearance. And as if our own practices in Britain - sponsored by his own government, and defended by Malik in previous roles - are so different from these he's experienced in the USA.

Saying "this sort of treatment isn't deserved by anyone" as Rupa does is one thing. Quite a respectable if somethingly flawed argument. Flawed particularly as I'm struggling to find any untoward treatment? Being searched at all? Bring treated roughly, or impolitely, or insulted, or delayed?

Being against any kind of profiling? Ditto, also has some respectable arguments. But saying "this shouldn't be happening to me, as I'm a minister"? Well that frankly is not a respectable argument.

There quickly follows:
"I'm a diplomat", "I'm a spy for the FBI", "I'm a millionaire", "I know that George Bush me", "American Express" and "I'm a VIP me".

And also:
"I said I'm a British minister you red neck thicko, not a Pakistani minister from a peasant background, or French or some other inferior species ... Don't you know who I am?" That special relationship deja vu. All over again. Remember that one?

Most of us that travel a fair bit have at least occasionally been searched at airports and the like. I know I have been. Though sadly not in the USA where the airport security I have seen has often been worse than woeful.

I did a long haul flight a few days after 11 September 2001 for example. Never have so many been searched so many times by so very many. Our plane was even diverted to an airport with extra security for TWO extra searches before the first major leg of the journey. That being done on an all off, all back on basis. Though even then some of the detail was hilariously, hysterically illogical. One for another day. But four or five bag searches and friskings on one journey.

But the major "indignity" came in Melbourne, Australia where airport security asked everyone whether they'd been in "non Metropolitan areas" i.e. not pavements. Those foolish enough to admit same had ALL our footwear, even the pavement only kind, sprayed in powerful agri chemicals.

Fortunately none of our socks were conspicuously holey that day or there might have been a diplomatic incident: "Justice for people who walk in fields within a fortnight before going to Oz!"

There may be an issue with profiling in the USA in this case. Though to be fair they also harrass and obstruct all kinds of groups ... like known peace activists and those crossing from Canada, especially Canucks, and so on.

But the argument: "I'm a minister", "I'm a diplomat", "I know George Bush/Tony Blair", "I'm rich as Croesus", "I'm on the square" etc well, please Shahid, these just don't wash and they shouldn't. Next you'll be wanting an exclusive billionaire's jet for all your trips, you flying lion you!

Prague Tory is thankfully back on form and utterly wrong about the "writetothem" study, in which Shahid Malik was not seen as an outstanding correspondent. This is known to be pretty much completely discredited as anecdotal, manipulable and seriously flawed by systemic failures.

David Hencke's Scoop: A Good Morning Iain Response

Caught sight of the Guardian's super scoop in the paper reviews last night. But no time or energy to blog about the story sensibly then. But the ever reasonable and not at all obsessed Iain Dale has thrown down a gauntlet for a response from myself of all people.

Sadly it was late and he couldn't manage a link to this blog but a name check is something I suppose.

Dear Iain

Thanks for the namecheck. Your friend Diablo made sure I saw it good and quick with a manic 2:30 am visit and an off topic comment demanding an audience.

Having slept on David Hencke's brilliant scoop my initial thoughts are as follows:

1. If the legal advice they got was legally wrong the job's a good 'un and the C word (corruption) may well be appropriate. Otherwise ...

2. If however the legal advice was right then that would make this sharp practice or avoidance - a bit like the various legal but sharp tax avoidance dodges we hear about - rather than illegality, bribery, evasion etc or what is normally understood by the term corruption. Labour people at large condemn both sorts of opacity.

3. It will be very interesting indeed to see who the accomplices turn out to be. A previous Labour Treasurer - Margaret Prosser - was on The Daily Politics when this story was in its early days. She was fairly harsh about the current crew and the lapsed scrutiny committee, set up to avoid such problems. What she said - and Ben Bradshaw MP on the same programme - reflected the feeling in the party at large and the PLP. My MP Tony Lloyd spoke in the debate on this and as you know he is now Chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party. [Links to follow here and elsewhere].

4. I'd have told Abrahams and his fancy lawyers to go swivel myself - or rather to use Route One like other people, or Route Two via a company or association - as I'm sure you would have done on behalf of David Davis, and say Mark Pack would have done for the Lib Dems - though they missed Mr Michael Brown of course. However ...

5. As one who likes to give credit where credit is due I recognise the consistent achievements of Tory people in finding and exploiting legal loopholes and grey areas. In particular using company and association vehicles to obscure individual contributions. Labour have some history on that too, but as recent adopters of private enterprise ways and means they are very sorry to say amateurs beside Tory people. Therefore ...

6. I wonder whether Mr Abrahams and whoever his accomplices were are the only ones who have drawn up such contracts, covenants, legal instruments with the purpose of exploiting loopholes? And I'm not thinking exclusively of other Labour people here. Though whoever it may be point 1 and 2 still apply here. Was the loophole really there and was the exploitation of it legal or not?

7. The last thing I dreamt of during my much needed beauty sleep was this question:

"Was the covenant and the arrangement perhaps run by the Electoral Commission ahead of implementation and if so was a letter secured blessing that arrangement?"

The same goes for what I would controversially even mischieviously call the "Flying Lion debacle" actually. Did the Conservative Party get this arrangement in general and the meagre valuations of services blessed by the EC ahead of implementation? And of course any other proposals of this nature.

So, was the advice good or not? Was the arrangement blessed by the EC? Are there other contracts etc out there in other parties exploiting this or other loopholes in the 2000 Political Parties Act?

Whatever the answers I would say that the Labour party at large and also Labour MPs and other elected representatives will join in condemnation of extreme sharp practice as appears to be described as well as obviously condemning any illegality.

Conservative insiders will of course be anxiously watching their words as, given the inherent superiority in weaselry of minds honed in boardroom and city boy activities, there's always a chance that there are fairly similar arrangements extant on the Conservative side of the fence.

Dave's Andrew Marr interview and Press Conference remarks about Lord Ashcroft don't actually seem to be clear enough for even gnarled hacks to agree what he is saying and what exactly he means by what he is saying.

Seemed clear enough to me, particularly from AM. Lord Ashcroft is still offshore and still not paying his tax in the UK. Seven years after getting a big P - on appeal - on the back of a well documented promise through William Hague, then leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as was) that he would quickly come onshore and would pay millions in taxes here.

I think it is reasonable for you to ask Labour bloggers to cover such matters. Though it must be said that I am hardly close to the party centre! There are seven Labour bloggers ahead of me in your own list. And you very hurtfully (though accurately perhaps, I am not worthy etc etc) suggested that I was rather over-promoted by the exercise.

By the same token it is good to see Telegraph journalists asking questions about Ashcroft and it would be lovely to see Tory bloggers answering some of the hanging questions on his status.

Best wishes

Chris Paul

Baron Ashcroft: "Unfit" Offshore Status Home to Roost

Grrrr, bloody Blogger's just dumped a comment of mine over at Mr Dale's gloatfest. Very discerning you say Iain? Not at all, sir. I was supporting Iain's thesis in this case ... as he ripped into Lib Dems over the Michael Brown donation of £2.4 million ... to a point. Still never mind that now, Blogger has spoken and it was a sign from on high so let's leave the poor LDs alone for a moment.

At Iain's an anonymous Tory commenter/sock puppet has written: "His (Ashcroft's) only Achilles' heel is his status here"

That's hilarious. I've corrected the spelling and punctuation. But I've left the tautology. The thing about Achilles' heels is that one is enough, innit? And actually Lord Offshore has a pair of them or three and he's shown us them and they're not clean those heels of his. Perhaps he's not been watching where he's been standing?

1. Clearly Ashcroft has spent millions and millions buying a Baronetcy helping the nation's political life only to get ennobled UNDER UTTERLY FALSE PRETENCES.
Being repeatedly thought an unfit person to be a law maker here if he lived in tax aboidance land he promised to move to the UK for tax purposes. According to vague Hague he would pay many millions in personal tax here. But that does not seem to have happened, now does it? Is he even registered to vote from a UK address?

2. Clearly his agent company Bearwood Securities is it? (What's with the zoo Lord Michael? Not out of the bear woods yet mate, but do watch where you step. See first comment) is not showing much signs of doing anything else than funding Tories and I'm not really sure how that can meet the rules as a permissible donor.
If that's good enough then Michael Brown writing a cheque for the Libs here should also be enough.
But it wasn't. And clearly shouldn't be.

3. Clearly Flying Lion are taking the Michael also by misusing the "travel" loophole in PPERA.
When Dave quite unreasonably questions's Gord's integrity he needs to start with more of a self examination.
Tories have not been altogether truthful it seems in venturing the cost of their jet setting to the proper authorities.
This surely indicates a fear that the donations will be clawed back and that by pretending they cost 2/6 they will save 100s of 000s of pounds? Or else it's an attempt at massaging down the 12 month rolling campaign costs figure?

Law Maker, Promise Breaker: Questions for Ashcroft

Guido Fawkes is "on fire", wild fire at that, a month after his usual appointment with immolation, carelessness atop carelessness. Here he is throwing stones from just beside the Tory glass house (as he says he is NOT a member):

Labour is trying to spread the blame, with "we're all at it" spin lines. They keep referring to Lord Ashcroft, who makes all his donations to the Tories above board and has actually given less money than Labour's Lord Sainsbury.

Sadly for Mr GuF Labour are pushing at an open door if they are saying "we're all at it". The parties clearly are "all at at it" though it must be said that, so far at least, the Tories have mostly come up with tricky moves - such as taking the M.I.C., Bears in the Wood, Banquets at the HoP - on which scarcely a glove has been laid on them.

But Lord Michael Ashcroft, rather than appearing "above board", is surely but surely riding his Dassault jet for a big fall? Talking over and over again - as Guido does above - about "his" donations or "my" donations when he is not giving directly and when every relevant aspect of his status and some aspects of status of his intermediaries are unclear.

Is Lord Ashcroft registered to vote in the UK? At a UK address where Lord Ashcroft genuinely lives? Is Lord Ashcroft resident for tax purposes? And is Lord Ashcroft domiciled here? Or is Lord Ashcroft offshore as a Conservative Abroad? If the latter is he now close to having had the 15 years that I understand are allowed?

Here we go again:

Michael White's Guardian Blog yesterday deals with the hard sell and soft soap spinning from CCHQ and explains just how easy it can be to give with low or no publicity. Within the rules. If determinedly in the scummy stagnant depths of the pool of transparency. Dark depths where the Tories seem to love to bathe.

Clubs and societies, banquets and parties, auctions and raffles. Labour seem to be missing exploiting some of these routes. For all sorts of good reasons.

Tribally for the comrades the £500 a plate dinner is a tough swallow. Beer and sandwiches may have given way to balti and shiraz with isolated shoals of fish and chips, but the big formal bash is anathema.

Auctions and raffles we do have, but for the most part prices are sadly sane.

There have been one or two examples of societies but as Labour are agin' it on principle this is not that prevalent.

Back to Michael White's blog, initially quoting from Andrew Marr's Sunday interview with the slippery when wet Dave-id Cameron:

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.

Cameron is actually saying that Lord Ashcroft HAS NOT yet met the commitments made by plain Michael Ashcroft, by William Hague and by the Conservative Party SEVEN YEARS AGO. Let Michael have a little go at Cameron's answer:

That's currently true. Lord Ashcroft himself told me he is currently giving about £400,000 a year - far less than in the late 90s when he virtually saved the Tory party from bankruptcy. He is doing so through the central party machine, not via Bearwood donations to local Tory associations in winnable seats, as the commission's record shows he used to do.

This seems to be a ticking time bomb with an unknown countdown zero. With mercury switches making it tamper proof. It could go off at any time.

David333 asks the question obvious to anyone who has sought out Ashcroft's name in the Electoral Commission Register:

Dear Michael
Please could you tell me,if Lord Ashcroft told you he is donating approx £400,000 a year direct to the central office, then why is there no record in the Electoral Commission Register in his name for these sums, as an individual donor?
The last named donations for him were in fact made in 2001/02.
I am obviously missing something otherwise why does the Electoral Commission not seem interested.

To these eyes it seems fairly obvious that Dave-id Cameron is admitting in weaselly words and strangled vowels that Lord Ashcroft is still taking the Michael. No, he DOES NOT live in the UK. No, he is NOT resident here or domiciled here for tax purposes. Yes, he appears to have made a liar of himself, of Hague, and of the Conservative Party.

Lord Michael Ashcroft seems quite simply "sharing the proceeds" of tax avoidance with his pet project. Considering that the Newsnight fishing expedition to Labour last week went down so well with the Tory Boy Bloggers here's ten questions:

1. Where is the trace of gifts in Lord Ashcroft's own name? "My donations"

2. Where is the trace of loans in Lord Ashcroft's own name?

3. If not in Lord Ashcroft's name and not through Bearwood Securities what individual or entity is Lord Ashcroft's agent?

4. Where is Lord Ashcroft registered to vote?

5. Does Lord Ashcroft's registration to vote check out fully as we would all hope?

6. Where does Lord Ashcroft actually have his main home?

7. Where is Lord Ashcroft domiciled for tax purposes?

8. Where is Lord Ashcroft resident for tax purposes?

9. When will he make an honest man of William Hague over promises in 2000 AD including moving back and paying millions of personal tax without which he would never have been ennobled?

10. What is the crack with Bermuda's Flying Lion, valuations of services received, and a sensible rationale for exemption under the "travel" rule and guidance?