Wednesday, 3 March 2010


A very quick one here:

- One can't "buy" an election, one can merely finance a campaign. If people vote for the Tories because of Ashcroft's money, it's because he eneabled them to better get their literature out, and people liked it enough to vote for it. I don't think many could argue with that.

- Lord Ashcroft's donations have been out-matched easily by non-domiciled Labour doners, one of whom is also a peer.

- Ashcroft has never taken a penny of expenses. The Labour doner-and-now-Peer takes an average of £300 a day when he's sitting.

- Since when was being a non-dom a bad thing anyway? It's only the tax you earn OUTSIDE of the UK you don't pay tax on, and frankly why should you? It's got nothing to do with the UK.


  1. I thought it was a big deal because there's a consensus between the leading parties on cracking down on non-doms?

  2. Well there is, but until they actually do something it's irrelevant really. And again, Labour are even worse than the Tories (and that's ignoring the fact that their biggest donors are the unions who are - duh duh duuuuhhhh - funded in part by the government themselves, which IMO is a more more worrying democratic issue), but I don't care about Labour's donors either.

  3. As far as I can tell the issue is that Ashcroft lied and said he would be domicile in order to become a peer, and the tories were either too unscrupulous or too incompetent to notice that he was lying for ten years.

    With Labour's peer, they never bothered to seek such an assurance in the first place. So they didn't lie. Well they did, but not about this.