Cash-strapped Labour ‘gives up’ on 60 vulnerable seats

[Midas]

Labour’s cash-strapped party machine is quietly abandoning up to 60 vulnerable seats to divert resources to defend constituencies in its heartlands, according to MPs.

It is the first sign that some senior Labour figures accept that defeat is inevitable and are switching resources to defend seats with larger majorities to prevent a rout next year.

Plans for targeted mailshots in marginal seats have been scaled back dramatically because of a lack of resources. Some MPs say Labour’s HQ is refusing to help seats with majorities of less than 3,000 — about 60 — as it retrenches in the face of the Tory advance.

A member of the National Executive Committee denied that it had set a bar but acknowledged that the party was being forced to make “difficult decisions” about which seats to defend.

The full story available from here : Cash-strapped Labour 'gives up' on 60 vulnerable seats - Times Online

Or could it possibly be that Labour have at long last realised they can't win and are starting their tactical retreat into the political wilderness?

[Major Sinic]

Labour’s cash-strapped party machine is quietly abandoning up to 60 vulnerable seats to divert resources to defend constituencies in its heartlands, according to MPs.

It is the first sign that some senior Labour figures accept that defeat is inevitable and are switching resources to defend seats with larger majorities to prevent a rout next year.

Plans for targeted mailshots in marginal seats have been scaled back dramatically because of a lack of resources. Some MPs say Labour’s HQ is refusing to help seats with majorities of less than 3,000 — about 60 — as it retrenches in the face of the Tory advance.

A member of the National Executive Committee denied that it had set a bar but acknowledged that the party was being forced to make “difficult decisions” about which seats to defend.

The full story available from here : Cash-strapped Labour 'gives up' on 60 vulnerable seats - Times Online

Or could it possibly be that Labour have at long last realised they can't win and are starting their tactical retreat into the political wilderness?

I think that the writing has been on the wall for New Labour ever since the height of the expenses scandal. That coupled with years of economic incompetence will finally see them off. I really don't understand why the same scandal has not damaged the Tories or Lib Dems to the same extent. Perhaps in many peoples eyes a cabinet full of immoral and unprincipled ministers is worse than the same immorality and lack of principle in mere opposition MPs. Even if I had the commitment of Expounder to New Labour, the continued presence of hubris-ridden, crooked harridans like Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears, would persuade me to eat my own vomit before voting for New Labour.

Whether the seeming inevitable demise of New Labour will be synonymous with an overall Tory victory I am yet to be convinced. When it comes to the crunch will those members of the white working class who have switched from New Labour to the BNP, and those Eurosceptic Tories who have rallied under UKIP, stay loyal to their new found and very shaky political homes?

I have a feeling that many will instinctively vote to keep out a party rather than to elect one. If I am right the BNP and UKIP votes could fall away as Tories return to the Tory fold to keep out Labour and traditional Labour voters return to New Labour to prevent a Tory victory. I also suspect that the Lib Dems will collect a lot more disgruntled Labour votes than they will Tory. With so many options, tactical voting will have a major influence on the final outcome. And we still have six months to go!!!!

It does remind one of the final dark and ineffectual days of Major's last Tory administration.

[Midas]

I have a feeling that many will instinctively vote to keep out a party rather than to elect one. If I am right the BNP and UKIP votes could fall away as Tories return to the Tory fold to keep out Labour and traditional Labour voters return to New Labour to prevent a Tory victory. I also suspect that the Lib Dems will collect a lot more disgruntled Labour votes than they will Tory. With so many options, tactical voting will have a major influence on the final outcome. And we still have six months to go!!!!

I more than suspect you're exactly right in that, however a part of me can't help but hope that there's such a wide spread of votes for the minor parties that we have a hung parliament with no overall majority. Perhaps that's going to be the only way, in the short term at least, that the politicians get the message that we're sick of the self-interested and party-politically driven way in which this country is run.

[LA]

I think that the writing has been on the wall for New Labour ever since the height of the expenses scandal. That coupled with years of economic incompetence will finally see them off.

Indeed.

I really don't understand why the same scandal has not damaged the Tories or Lib Dems to the same extent.

Because they are not in Government.
The party in Government will always get hurt more.

Whether the seeming inevitable demise of New Labour will be synonymous with an overall Tory victory I am yet to be convinced. When it comes to the crunch will those members of the white working class who have switched from New Labour to the BNP, and those Eurosceptic Tories who have rallied under UKIP, stay loyal to their new found and very shaky political homes?

I am not sure, but I do think UKIP will prevent a few seats turning Tory.

[Major Sinic]

I more than suspect you're exactly right in that, however a part of me can't help but hope that there's such a wide spread of votes for the minor parties that we have a hung parliament with no overall majority. Perhaps that's going to be the only way, in the short term at least, that the politicians get the message that we're sick of the self-interested and party-politically driven way in which this country is run.

From a wholly unscientific viewpoint I consider a hung parliament at least as likely as a small Tory majority if things remain as they are. Whilst that might certainly serve as a wake up call to those MPs returned to Westminster, it could result in totally ineffectual government (yes! even worse than the present one) and the need for a further general election fairly shortly after, at the very time both the nation and the economy require strong leadership.

A hung parliament can result in wholly unholy alliances!!. New Labour and the Liberal Democrats for instance. Despite considerable policy differences, a promise of Google Page Ranking would buy the Lib Dems scruples. The Tories and UKIP are another possibility although that would never be a marriage made in heaven, perhaps New Labour and the SNP in exchange for a referendum on Scottish independence (although the SNP surely know hat New Labour don't keep promises on referendums). Also we may see more Independents than we have ever seen before. The whole thing could become very fragmented.

On balance I would rather see an overall Tory majority, but small enough to ensure that they stay politically in the centre.

[DC]

While a Tory win is likely, I don't believe it'll be a big win. If Labor moves to properly defend its central seats, and the UKIP and even the BNP put up a good enough fight, we could see a very complex parliament next year, where the Tories will be forced to cut deals to secure legislation.

[JacquesMagique]

I wouldn't be too surprised by a Tory UKIP coalition. They are basically one and the same anyway.

[LA]

I wouldn't be too surprised by a Tory UKIP coalition. They are basically one and the same anyway.

I believe that would be an absolutely brilliant yet absolutely dreadful outcome depending on how you look at it.

In terms of non-European policy, UKIP and the Conservatives could work very comfortably together. There is not but a small inch of difference between the two.

In terms of Europe two things could happen.
1/ UKIP continually remind the Conservatives about Europe, and our need to tackle it. Threat of a collapsing Government would provide incentive for the Conservatives to continue in negotiations

2/ UKIP could go too far with the Europe issue/Conservatives not going far enough, thus bringing an end to the coalition.

If the Europe issue is struck with balance, it could provide a very good coalition Government and a strong one at that.

However, I cannot predict UKIP winning any more than two seats, if they are lucky. Our electorate system just does not allow them.

[Kiwi 1691]

Our electorate system just does not allow them.

Then you should be pushing for proportional representation.

[LA]

Then you should be pushing for proportional representation.

If you look at a number of threads; more recently the "what if you were prime minister" I do support Proportional Representation.

[Barry]

I have today written to my MP to ask him his views about supporting Proportional Representation.
Why not write to your MP?

[Kiwi 1691]

I have today written to my MP to ask him his views about supporting Proportional Representation.
Why not write to your MP?

Or pushing for a citizens initiated referendum.

[pauli007001]

Or pushing for a citizens initiated referendum.

Like the ones in California and Maine that reversed Gay Marrage laws?

[Midas]

I have today written to my MP to ask him his views about supporting Proportional Representation.
Why not write to your MP?

Fine in theory, and I'd likewise encourage people to do so, but in reality, if petitions to Number 10 carrying tens of thousands of signatures are dismissed, what chance is there that it'll achieve anything?

[Barry]

Fine in theory, and I'd likewise encourage people to do so, but in reality, if petitions to Number 10 carrying tens of thousands of signatures are dismissed, what chance is there that it'll achieve anything?

I believe that individual emails are taken more notice of than petitions.

[Midas]

I believe that individual emails are taken more notice of than petitions.

Hmm, I have grave doubts about that. Over the last year or so I must have sent off at least 20 emails to various political parties asking for either general information or for comments about specific matters. Have I received even one single, solitary reply? Have I hell!

[LA]

Hmm, I have grave doubts about that. Over the last year or so I must have sent off at least 20 emails to various political parties asking for either general information or for comments about specific matters. Have I received even one single, solitary reply? Have I hell!

Who do you send them to?

I send frequent emails to the Conservative Party and get a response most of the time. I never get a response of the Labour Party and I rarely get a response of the Lib Dems.

I ALWAYS get a response from UKIP, BNP and the Green Party.
I NEVER get a response from the SNP.

Oh btw I actually got a response from the Treasury
I shall write it up later

[Midas]

Who do you send them to?

I couldn't tell you specifically other than to whatever email addresses (or contact forms) are shown on various websites to supposedly receive information about 'X' or to ask any questions about 'Y'. I'm far from the only person I know who's never had replies to questions either.

[Barry]

I write to my constituency MP and he has always replied.
You can use WriteToThem - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free

As I now have my MP's email address, I now email him direct.

[Kiwi 1691]

Like the ones in California and Maine that reversed Gay Marrage laws?

I was really surprised about that one in California, isn't California meant to be quite liberal for US standards.

[Expounder]

To be honest I doubt that. The GE is far from in the bag and would require the (if I am not mistaken which I may be) the largest swing to the right in British election history

The problem is MN that the Tories have a dubious major donor money bags Ashcroft who no one is prepared to confirm whether he's acting legally in making his massive donations. 4.1/2 million so far all to be spent on marginals

Every demand from Labour to establish if he's paying taxes in the UK have been met with slippery evasive answers form the Tory front bench which indicates that he is acting illegally.

Labour goes into the GE with both hands tied behind its back.

[Tete123]

The problem is MN that the Tories have a dubious major donor money bags Ashcroft who no one is prepared to confirm whether he's acting legally in making his massive donations. 4.1/2 million so far all to be spent on marginals

Every demand from Labour to establish if he's paying taxes in the UK have been met with slippery evasive answers form the Tory front bench which indicates that he is acting illegally.

Labour goes into the GE with both hands tied behind its back.

Always to same whining eh Exp... Face it if Gordon Brown and New Labour had not pissed off the unions thus lowering their funding, their high profile city/celebrity backers through their increasing of the upper tax band and their core support by instead favouring every group other than them, Labour would be able to rely on solid financial backing. Instead it comes down to slandering the name (without evidence) of a Tory backer and creating the impression that the outcome of the next election is more to do with finance than a tired government lacking energy, direction and respect.

[Expounder]

Always to same whining eh Exp... Face it if Gordon Brown and New Labour had not pissed off the unions thus lowering their funding, their high profile city/celebrity backers through their increasing of the upper tax band and their core support by instead favouring every group other than them, Labour would be able to rely on solid financial backing. Instead it comes down to slandering the name (without evidence) of a Tory backer and creating the impression that the outcome of the next election is more to do with finance than a tired government lacking energy, direction and respect.

I don't think you have ever seen me whining Tete, is Ashcroft a legitimate donor? There have been no straight answers from the Tory front bench, is he a taxpayer in the UK? If not all donations paid have to be handed back into his account.

Never mind about whether the unions are contributing to Labour and what issues Labour might have with the unions. Ashcroft is a major contributor to the Tory party with enough funds to alter the democratic fairness of the General Election and the Tory front bench is playing games with the democratic process evading answers about his legitimacy to donate to a party standing for election in Britain. There have been numererous requests to confirm his legitimacy with evasive answers comming from ther Tory front bench.

If he can't confirm his staus his donations to the Tory party should be denied. I wonder why the legal process doesn't arrive at this conclusion? Friends in high places, Establishment at work?

It seems that there is a reluctance by the media to pursue this question where as it takes great pleasure in hounding Gordon Brown. If the Tories are elected the voters will rue the day they ever made this mistake.

Ashcroft with his millions could buy the election by swamping marginals illegally with his largess. His legal position remains in question but why should you and your Tory friends care about the law , Illegality in any election is acceptable providing you say you were not aware of it. That's why evasive shyster answers are coming from the front bench.

Tories fit to run the country? I don't think so.

[Expounder]

Tete makes a very good point. Labour turned its back on the unions and its core vote. I dare say they will pay the price for this; however if they lose the election and the Tories win then it will be the same core labour vote that labour turned their backs on who will once again be screwed over; except this time by a party that does not even pretend to play lip service to their interests!

MN, I refer you to my reply to Tete who conveniently avoids the issue about the legitimacy of Ashcroft's donations to the Tory party by creating a smoke screen concerning Labour's contentious relations with the unions instead of replying to the question about Ashcrofts questionable tax status.

The issue of Ashcroft's donations stands alone, and it is an issue which could skew the democratic process. If the Tories can't or won't confirm his his tax paying status in which they have had months to do so,then all donations by Ashcroft should be returned before the GE.

[Tete123]

MN, I refer you to my reply to Tete who conveniently avoids the issue about the legitimacy of Ashcroft's donations to the Tory party by creating a smoke screen concerning Labour's contentious relations with the unions instead of replying to the question about Ashcrofts questionable tax status.

The issue of Ashcroft's donations stands alone, and it is an issue which could skew the democratic process. If the Tories can't or won't confirm his his tax paying status in which they have had months to do so,then all donations by Ashcroft should be returned before the GE.

Of course the Ashcroft issue does not stand alone - the fact is, this fuss about Ashcrofts donations is very much a method of Labour diverting attention away from their own issues regading party funding or lack thereof as the case may be; as well as the fact that they appear to be manipulating public opinion by directing national funds to key public services in key Labour constituencies.

The Tory front bench have answered the question - they have confirmed that Ashcroft appears to be fullfiliing the terms set out in 1999 - including living and paying tax in Britain. I know Labour have set about to destroy civil liberties etc but I was under the impression we still had a presumption of innocence in Britain until of course guilt was proven, which it hasn't despite much attention from some sections of parliament and the British media - why when the country has many problems do Labour insist on the insignificant minor issues of Tory Party donations - Appears a gvnt that has no direction to me. Until such times that solid evidence is produced you and your Labour buddies are starting to sound like conspiracy theorists, not unlike the BNP - bemoaning the damned establishment of which the PLP are very much a part of.

[Expounder]

Of course the Ashcroft issue does not stand alone - the fact is, this fuss about Ashcrofts donations is very much a method of Labour diverting attention away from their own issues regading party funding or lack thereof as the case may be; as well as the fact that they appear to be manipulating public opinion by directing national funds to key public services in key Labour constituencies.

The Tory front bench have answered the question - they have confirmed that Ashcroft appears to be fullfiliing the terms set out in 1999 - including living and paying tax in Britain. I know Labour have set about to destroy civil liberties etc but I was under the impression we still had a presumption of innocence in Britain until of course guilt was proven, which it hasn't despite much attention from some sections of parliament and the British media - why when the country has many problems do Labour insist on the insignificant minor issues of Tory Party donations - Appears a gvnt that has no direction to me. Until such times that solid evidence is produced you and your Labour buddies are starting to sound like conspiracy theorists, not unlike the BNP - bemoaning the damned establishment of which the PLP are very much a part of.

The Ashcroft issue does stand alone because of the amounts involved of the donations and when his domiciled status is in question. Ashcroft donations of untold millions of pounds to the Tory fund a "minor issue"?

The operative evasive word is "appears" I have not accused Ashcroft of being guilty of illegal donations to the Tory party. But what I have done is demanded a definitive answer from the Tory front bench, and what he "appears" to be doing is not good enough.

The fact that they are giving such an evasive answer, suggests to me that they are covering their tracks against any future inquiry into the matter probably after the GE when they hope to be in power.......................... fait accompli money spent.

[Tete123]

The Ashcroft issue does stand alone because of the amount of donations involved and when his domiciled status is in question. Ashcroft donations of untold millions of pounds to the Tory fund a "minor issue"?

The operative evasive word is "appears" I have not accused Ashcroft of being guilty of illegal donations to the Tory party. But what I have done is demanded a definitive answer from the Tory front bench, and what he "appears" to be doing is not good enough.

The fact that they are giving such an evasive answer, suggests to me that they are covering their tracks against any future inquiry into the matter probably after the GE when they hope to be in power.......................... fait accompli money spent.

I find it hard to believe that the Tories would take to risk of accepting illegal donations at this point in time, such is the climate at Westminster - the fall out if found to be doing so would far outweigh the short term benefits.

Every demand from Labour to establish if he's paying taxes in the UK have been met with slippery evasive answers form the Tory front bench which indicates that he is acting illegally.

This quote seems to suggest an accusation of guilt Exp - would you not agree?

[Expounder]

I find it hard to believe that the Tories would take to risk of accepting illegal donations at this point in time, such is the climate at Westminster - the fall out if found to be doing so would far outweigh the short term benefits.

The short benefit would be a long term gain, five years in office and an enquiry chaired by a person handpicked by the PM that would come to nothing because as it would "appear" Ashcroft might have misled them.

This quote seems to suggest an accusation of guilt Exp - would you not agree?

Ok Tete, I will qualify that by saying, "which could indicate he is acting illegally" The point is tete, instead of investigating his status, they are accepting his word his donations are legal. If the Sh*t hits the fan after the GE all they can be accused of is being too trusting of a donor thats why the word "appears" is the smoke screen that would get them off the hook.

[Major Sinic]

Ok Tete, I will qualify that by saying, "which could indicate he is acting illegally" The point is tete, instead of investigating his status, they are accepting his word his donations are legal. If the Sh*t hits the fan after the GE all they can be accused of is being too trusting of a donor thats why the word "appears" is the smoke screen that would get them off the hook.

Tete is of course quite right. The Conservative Party have no doubt taken all reasonable precautions to ascertain that Ashcroft is not committing the crime of tax evasion. The potential damage to the Party if such precautions had not been taken, and Ashcroft was subsequently proven to be guilty of tax evasion would be immeasurable, and far outweigh the value to the Party.

The obligation and onus is of course on the HMRC and possibly the police to investigate and establish any wrong doing, and not Conservative Central Office. That they have not done so, would of course strongly indicate that there is little likelihood of any wrongdoing. No doubt Expounder you will continue to dish the dirt, evidence or not! After all, Labour are past masters of the dubious art of smear campaigns.

[Expounder]

Tete is of course quite right. The Conservative Party have no doubt taken all reasonable precautions to ascertain that Ashcroft is not committing the crime of tax evasion. The potential damage to the Party if such precautions had not been taken, and Ashcroft was subsequently proven to be guilty of tax evasion would be immeasurable, and far outweigh the value to the Party.

The obligation and onus is of course on the HMRC and possibly the police to investigate and establish any wrong doing, and not Conservative Central Office. That they have not done so, would of course strongly indicate that there is little likelihood of any wrongdoing. No doubt Expounder you will continue to dish the dirt, evidence or not! After all, Labour are past masters of the dubious art of smear campaigns.

Nice one MS............................. I agree all politicians are at it, but believe me, the Tories will beat us hands down on this one, they have so many moles in the establishment outside the party political scene to do the smearing for them.

In any case we're still none the wiser about the proven legitimacy of Ashcroft's donations. The only precautions taken are his assurances and I wouldn't hold my breath on those.

[Tete123]

Nice one MS............................. I agree all politicians are at it, but believe me, the Tories will beat us hands down on this one, they have so many moles in the establishment outside the party political scene to do the smearing for them.

In any case we're still none the wiser about the proven legitimacy of Ashcroft's donations. The only precautions taken are his assurances and I wouldn't hold my breath on those.

Which in a circular fashion brings us back to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

You also questioned the potential damage to our democracy by allowing the financial largess of Ashcroft to dictate Conservative policy direction - Please tell me how this is any different from the Unions control of the Labour Party platform? You also fail to comment on the accusation (albeit with considerable evidence) of Labour channeling funds into Labour constituencies in regards delivery of public services e.g. hospitals etc.

[Expounder]

Which in a circular fashion brings us back to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The point is Tete, the search for the truth about about his domiciled status appears open ended, he is making donations while this still trying to be established. The saga has gone on for ages, and no one on the Tory front bench is prepared to give an unequivocal answer to this question which does raise the reasonable question of his status.

You also questioned the potential damage to our democracy by allowing the financial largess of Ashcroft to dictate Conservative policy direction - Please tell me how this is any different from the Unions control of the Labour Party platform? You also fail to comment on the accusation (albeit with considerable evidence) of Labour channeling funds into Labour constituencies in regards delivery of public services e.g. hospitals etc.

Facts and figures on amounts being channeled into Labour constituencies please "considerable evidence won't do".

Ashcroft is a different proposition to regular business donors, he will be appointed an executive position the the party, has a limitless wealth which he is prepared to use in the pursuit of a Tory victory. Even if he is proven to be a legitimate donor his vast wealth could regularly skew results and can in no way be compared to union donations to the Labour party. These I might add are continually being attacked by the Tories to financially demasculate Labour, in particular by the active camaigning by Tory moles in the unions to get members to opt out of political contributions.

What you and your friends are after is a finacially thoothless LP that will not be able to compete with the barrels of cash being poured into Tory coffers by dozens Tory mogals, who would even without Ashcroft would dwarf the the unions contributions to Labour. I would call this a threat to democracy as a dominace through wealth.

Read the link again:


A question of ownership: Conservative's key support will play David Cameron to their advantage | Business | The Observer

[Tete123]

The point is Tete, the search for the truth about about his domiciled status appears open ended, he is making donations while this still trying to be established. The saga has gone on for ages, and no one on the Tory front bench is prepared to give an unequivocal answer to this question which does raise the reasonable question of his status.

The Conservatives have not attempted to hide his financial contributions and have logged all political donations from Ashcroft with the Electoral Commission who have the regulatory powers to investigate if they deem it necessary. As Major has already pointed out if there is an issue regarding Ashcrofts domicile status then surely HMRC would investigate and prosecute in the event that the law was being broken. Let us not obfuscate this issue into a imaginary situation whereby the establishment - of which the PLP is a part, are conspiring to allow a Conservative victory in the next election.

Facts and figures on amounts being channeled into Labour constituencies please "considerable evidence won't do".

My apologies I should have said considerable examples rather than evidence -

• More than 90 per cent of social security jobs relocated out of London have gone to Labour constituencies

• National Lottery grants to constituencies represented by members of the Cabinet are nearly double those to seats held by members of the Shadow Cabinet.

• More than 70 per cent of community hospitals earmarked for closure are in Tory seats.

• In contrast more than 70 per cent of new hospitals being built are in Labour seats.

• Despite a strict formula, police forces in Labour controlled areas top the funding league, while those in Opposition areas come bottom.

• Post Office cuts and railway station closures are overwhelmingly in Opposition seats. In September Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt caused an uproar when it emerged that she had ordered senior Labour figures to produce "heat maps" of vulnerable Labour seats where hospital closures could cost the party votes.

Revealed: how Labour constituencies got the best healthcare, transport and policing| News | This is London

Ashcroft is a different proposition to regular business donors, he will be appointed an executive position the the party, has a limitless wealth which he is prepared to use in the pursuit of a Tory victory. Even if he is proven to be a legitimate donor his vast wealth could regularly skew results and can in no way be compared to union donations to the Labour party. These I might add are continually being attacked by the Tories to financially demasculate Labour, in particular by the active camaigning by Tory moles in the unions to get members to opt out of political contributions.

Why can Ashcrofts donation be in no way compared to those of the Unions? They regularly threaten or even remove funding to the Labour Party if their platform is not being addressed and as the LPs major donor have considerable sway over policy and direction. All Ashcrofts finances allow is a wider campaign come election time , getting Conservative candidates into areas and communicating with the constituents; the choice still remains theirs and theirs alone and I have more faith in the British public than you and your Labour cohorts seemingly do in that they can process the information and vote accordingly. I am not even going to bother with the conspiratorial nature of your 'Tory Moles' comment other than to say any Union member has the right to representation without making a political donation to only the Labour Party.

What you and your friends are after is a finacially thoothless LP that will not be able to compete with the barrels of cash being poured into Tory coffers by dozens Tory mogals, who would even without Ashcroft would dwarf the the unions contributions to Labour. I would call this a threat to democracy as a dominace through wealth.

My friends? Hardly!

Funny but, I bet you weren't bemoaning city financiers and the celebrity donations that Blair courted during his tenure were you? It is only when those that previously backed you had the good mind to turn their backs on you when you turned your back on them that we see this tactic - "danger to democracy" and calls for investigations etc ... it's the politics of fear that any quasi-totalitarian and unpopular government resorts to when they know they have nothing left.

Read the link again:

A question of ownership: Conservative's key support will play David Cameron to their advantage | Business | The Observer

What is wrong with the interests of business being heard and acted on Exp... without business - the workers of the world will united - on the dole queue!

[Expounder]

in Tory seats.



Why can Ashcrofts donation be in no way compared to those of the Unions? They regularly threaten or even remove funding to the Labour Party if their platform is not being addressed and as the LPs major donor have considerable sway over policy and direction. All Ashcrofts finances allow is a wider campaign come election time , getting Conservative candidates into areas and communicating with the constituents; the choice still remains theirs and theirs alone and I have more faith in the British public than you and your Labour cohorts seemingly do in that they can process the information and vote accordingly. I am not even going to bother with the conspiratorial nature of your 'Tory Moles' comment other than to say any Union member has the right to representation without making a political donation to only the Labour Party.

What is wrong with the interests of business being heard and acted on Exp... without business - the workers of the world will united - on the dole queue!

You know as well as I do what regular expensive saturation of marginal constituencies with party propaganda leaflets can yield, it has the brainwashing effect. The more money you have the more likely you will get the desirable result.

You can rub your hands Tete but the fat lady hasn't finished singing yet

[Tete123]

You know as well as I do what regular expensive saturation of marginal constituencies with party propaganda leaflets can yield, it has the brainwashing effect. The more money you have the more likely you will get the desirable result.

You can rub your hands Tete but the fat lady hasn't finished singing yet

What are the Labour Party about to bend over once more for the Unions in return for some cash... in most cultures Exp thats called prostitution!

[LA]

Yes it is Tete and the Tories are masters of it. I guess the city gives the tory party a much more sore bum than the unions give labour!

And yet the Tories; between July and September received twice as much money from individuals than from business.

[Expounder]

Tete is of course quite right. The Conservative Party have no doubt taken all reasonable precautions to ascertain that Ashcroft is not committing the crime of tax evasion. The potential damage to the Party if such precautions had not been taken, and Ashcroft was subsequently proven to be guilty of tax evasion would be immeasurable, and far outweigh the value to the Party.

The obligation and onus is of course on the HMRC and possibly the police to investigate and establish any wrong doing, and not Conservative Central Office. That they have not done so, would of course strongly indicate that there is little likelihood of any wrongdoing. No doubt Expounder you will continue to dish the dirt, evidence or not! After all, Labour are past masters of the dubious art of smear campaigns.

I expected all of you Tory wags to be on the case. Until it is confirmed the jury is out on the matter. Ashcroft can't be considered to be a run-of-mill party donor. £4mn plus already, and the GE campaign is only just starting. He has billions to spare, some of which should probably be sitting in the British treasury, along with the millions of all the other "patriotic" billionaire off shore tax dodgers who support the Tory party.

He's had good practice at dealing in financial political shenanigans in Belize, why should he change his modus operandi now he's taken up a high profile party post in Britain?

Read some of his background again.


Belize News Post Michael Ashcroft, Said Musa, UHS scam

[Expounder]

The Conservatives have not attempted to hide his financial contributions and have logged all political donations from Ashcroft with the Electoral Commission who have the regulatory powers to investigate if they deem it necessary. As Major has already pointed out if there is an issue regarding Ashcrofts domicile status then surely HMRC would investigate and prosecute in the event that the law was being broken. Let us not obfuscate this issue into a imaginary situation whereby the establishment - of which the PLP is a part, are conspiring to allow a Conservative victory in the next election.

This link is a bit historical, but remains as relevant today as it was when it was written.

Revealed: How Tories helped save Ashcroft millions in tax - News - The Independent

My apologies I should have said considerable examples rather than evidence -

• More than 90 per cent of social security jobs relocated out of London have gone to Labour constituencies

• National Lottery grants to constituencies represented by members of the Cabinet are nearly double those to seats held by members of the Shadow Cabinet.

• More than 70 per cent of community hospitals earmarked for closure are in Tory seats.

• In contrast more than 70 per cent of new hospitals being built are in Labour seats.

• Despite a strict formula, police forces in Labour controlled areas top the funding league, while those in Opposition areas come bottom.

• Post Office cuts and railway station closures are overwhelmingly in Opposition seats. In September Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt caused an uproar when it emerged that she had ordered senior Labour figures to produce "heat maps" of vulnerable Labour seats where hospital closures could cost the party votes.

Revealed: how Labour constituencies got the best healthcare, transport and policing| News | This is London

What ever funding is being given to labour constituencies will never make up for the deliberate sabotaging of Labour inner city areas by Thatcher's poll tax which pushed them to the edge of bankruptcy. The leafy suburbs and rural areas paying buttons, and the inner city authorities chasing shadows struggling to collect taxes from a large section of mobile a population which proved impossible. The rest paying double the amount of the old rate living in deprived inner city conditions..

Why can Ashcroft's donation be in no way compared to those of the Unions? They regularly threaten or even remove funding to the Labour Party if their platform is not being addressed and as the LPs major donor have considerable sway over policy and direction. All Ashcroft's finances allow is a wider campaign come election time , getting Conservative candidates into areas and communicating with the constituents; the choice still remains theirs and theirs alone and I have more faith in the British public than you and your Labour cohorts seemingly do in that they can process the information and vote accordingly. I am not even going to bother with the conspiratorial nature of your 'Tory Moles' comment other than to say any Union member has the right to representation without making a political donation to only the Labour Party.

Would you not think his dubious financial dealings in Belize could prove a prima facie case against him?

My friends? Hardly!

Funny but, I bet you weren't bemoaning city financiers and the celebrity donations that Blair courted during his tenure were you? It is only when those that previously backed you had the good mind to turn their backs on you when you turned your back on them that we see this tactic - "danger to democracy" and calls for investigations etc ... it's the politics of fear that any quasi-totalitarian and unpopular government resorts to when they know they have nothing left.

Well Tete I think many politicians in Belize wouldn't agree with you.

What is wrong with the interests of business being heard and acted on Exp... without business - the workers of the world will united - on the dole queue!

Nothing wrong with this Tete, I was just pointing out are the natural supporters of Tory party, while they bankrolled Blair that was for their own protection, when they bankroll the Tories it's for pay back.

[Expounder]

And yet the Tories; between July and September received twice as much money from individuals than from business.

As MN pointed out the donations came from individuals that own a business so the money donated came from that business.

[LA]

As MN pointed out the donations came from individuals that own a business so the money donated came from that business.

Speculation.

[Major Sinic]

I expected all of you Tory wags to be on the case. Until it is confirmed the jury is out on the matter. Ashcroft can't be considered to be a run-of-mill party donor. £4mn plus already, and the GE campaign is only just starting. He has billions to spare, some of which should probably be sitting in the British treasury, along with the millions of all the other "patriotic" billionaire off shore tax dodgers who support the Tory party.

He's had good practice at dealing in financial political shenanigans in Belize, why should he change his modus operandi now he's taken up a high profile party post in Britain?

Read some of his background again.

Loveable old rascal that you are, you really are flogging a on this one. You have no evidence of criminal activity, and yet bat on with your empty accusations and innuendo.

I know that HMRC and the Government are not two of the most competent public bodies, but if there was even a hint of any tax crime being committed, don't you honestly think that it would be investigated? It is not as though Ashcroft is a New Labour contributor.

Don't you think the time has come for you to move on with your life? Perhaps become fixated on a new and more challenging issue altogether.

[Expounder]

Loveable old rascal that you are, you really are flogging a on this one. You have no evidence of criminal activity, and yet bat on with your empty accusations and innuendo.

I know that HMRC and the Government are not two of the most competent public bodies, but if there was even a hint of any tax crime being committed, don't you honestly think that it would be investigated? It is not as though Ashcroft is a New Labour contributor.

Don't you think the time has come for you to move on with your life? Perhaps become fixated on a new and more challenging issue altogether.

"Lovable old rascal"? I bet you say that through gritted teeth. I appear to be the invisible man on the forum with regards to my justifiable criticism of Cameron and the conservatives. I'm a thorn in the side of your Tory love in group, you would no doubt prefer it if I did disappear.

The Ashcroft issue is still ongoing alive and kicking, Bearwood the company headed by his wife is still under investigation by the electoral commission to establish whether this is a bona fide trading company or a front for feeding funds into the Tory party coffers. It's' also been suggeted that all its donations to the party should be suspended until its trading status is proven.

Cameron's proposed tax relief will benefit higher earning homes where wives can transfer their tax relief to their working husbands and pocket £380.00 while the poorer households where both husband and wife work will benefit by £30.00

This is apart from Cameron's gift to himself, members of the cabinet, and all of his rich Tory friends of an increase in the financial assets of their properties in his proposed inheritance plans.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ives-donations

Tory backer Lord Ashcroft dubbed monster of the Caribbean - mirror.co.uk

Gordon Brown attacks Tory inheritance tax proposals - mirror.co.uk

David Cameron plots marriage tax break to line pockets of the most wealthy - mirror.co.uk

[Expounder]

Speculation.

Manna from heaven...................................