United LEFT

Respect Party launch election manifesto - video. Picture Richard Searle .

To see the video click on picture above or HERE.

National Chair Dr Kay Phillips has outlined her party's pledges as part of its election manifesto.

She said the Respect Party wanted to bring home troops from Afghanistan and opposed "the racism of the BNP".

Labels: Respect

Dave Nellist on the Trade Unionist & Socialist Coalition - on Daily Politics show BBC.

Dave Nellist explains the campaign battle of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, an alliance between the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers' Party and some trade unions, formed at the start of this year.

It is jointly led by Mr Nellist - a former Labour MP from Coventry - now with the Socialist Party, and RMT General Secretary Bob Crow.

Click picture above or link HERE

More: BBC News - Dave Nellist on the Trade Unionist & Socialist Coalition

Link: TUSC Facebook site

Labels: TUSC

People power - the Tory way. Solomon Hughes in the Morning Star.

The Conservative Manifesto promises "people power," the chance to "be your own boss," and to mobilise the "Big Society."

There is a small example of what this means in the Tory approach to libraries. Cameron talked about libraries in a speech he gave about the "post-bureaucratic age." This is apparently "something very exciting," with the "potential for transforming our lives."

Cameron said that the "old, top-down, big-government solutions aren't working" and placed special focus on libraries, saying that, "today, all people can do is rage when a far-off bureaucrat decided to close a well-loved library because it wasn't making enough money."

This is very odd, because public libraries don't make money at all. They are not shops. Video rentals and fines can offset some small proportion of costs, but no-one who believes in public libraries talks about them making money. They are there to make us better read, not to make us cash.

In fact it turns out that the bureaucrats who are closing well-loved public libraries are Tories. In Southampton the council is slashing library budgets and closing a library in Millbrook, one of the city's poorer areas. Local parents and other readers have done what Cameron suggested and marched to the town hall to express their disapproval.

And the Tory council has ignored them, claiming that the library closure is part of a "regeneration" improving the estates.

The Conservative council overlooked the protest and said that locals did not view libraries as "a priority." It said that getting rid of books would make the council "leaner and meaner and more efficient than ever."

What happens next in the "post-bureaucratic age?"

According to Cameron, "whenever a publicly or commercially owned community building or amenity faces closure ... from libraries to parks, post offices or pubs ... local people will get the first option to buy it, protect it, run it, own it and keep it open."

So that's the people power answer - the government will close down services and give us the chance to pay for them with a whip-round.

Labels: Morning Star, Tory Party

"Mother and son"

Beneath the veneer of the Conservatives' people power - Seumas Milne in The Guardian.
What these slick PR operators are really offering is deep cuts, lower taxes for the rich and sweeping Thatcherite privatisation.

David Cameron's Conservatives are nothing if not accomplished PR professionals. And the Big Society theme running through today's manifesto launch is a brilliant presentational sleight of hand, which takes their political cross-dressing to new heights.

To hear Cameron and Hague carrying on this morning about people taking "collective" control of their own lives, the right to recall MPs, set up their own schools, elect police commissioners and create co-ops in the public sector, you could almost imagine the Tories had leap-frogged over Labour into Hugo Chavez land.

By any measure, it's a clever political branding exercise, which recognises the progressive political climate and gives a "people power" veneer to what — once you strip away the rhetoric and mood music — is in reality a classic Thatcherite anti-state programme for sweeping privatisation.

Who, after all, isn't frustrated by the corporate managerialism of public services and wouldn't be attracted by greater democratic involvement in how they're delivered (even if some balk, Oscar Wilde-style, at the committee meetings)? It's a seam Labour could have successfully mined for its own campaign if it had been a bit braver.

But look at the small print and the prospect of popular control turns out to be a mirage. Take "free" schools. It's not just that they'll be a marginal gimmick for better-off parents with sharp elbows to snaffle shrinking resources.

Through joint ventures and corporate chain sponsorship, they are also clearly intended to be part of a much wider privatisation of education — for profit, as Michael Gove made clear over the weekend. That will mean less control of schools and the curriculum for most parents than they have now.

Something similar applies to public sector co-ops – not a proposal the Tories are making for the private sector, of course, where they would have a hugely positive impact. And when it comes to MPs' recall, it turns out to be restricted to cases of "proven wrongdoing", rather than when electors simply demand a new representative.

For the rest, there were no significant new pledges today, no clarity on the cuts Cameron and George Osborne have already made clear will be faster and deeper than Labour's. Instead, the phoney war on national insurance was at full tilt and the commitment to concentrate the biggest tax giveaways (through raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1m) on the richest families in the country unswerving.

As in 1979, the 2010 Conservative manifesto has left out the most far-reaching changes a Tory government is likely to make. From what we know so far, those look to be the deepest spending cuts since the 1930s, lower taxes on the wealthy and the mass privatisation of public services.

Labels: General Election, Seumus Milne

The left lacuna - Mike Marqusee in Red Pepper.

Before even a vote is cast, the left’s failure in the coming election is an established fact. Elections aren’t everything, but they do matter and we should start working now to ensure that there is a meaningful left alternative at the one after next, writes Mike Marqusee

While the outcome of the general election may be in doubt, the insubstantial nature of the political frenzy preceding it is entirely predictable. The ping-pong of buzzwords and soundbites, the hunt for gaffes, the formulaic promises to ‘listen’, the gurgle of briefings and punditry: the dismal spectacle has become familiar.

For all its democratic claims, the election campaign serves mainly to obscure the truths about our unequal, unsustainable society. Its salient feature is the absence of real choice. Everything else flows from that.

On perpetuating the war in Afghanistan and the need for cuts in public spending – arguably the two major issues facing the country – the major parties are as one. And whatever the election’s outcome, the next government, like the last one, will pursue a foreign policy of junior partnership with the US, with its concomitant support for Israel and belligerence towards Iran.

It will intensify attempts to discipline the poor (through welfare ‘reform’) and undermine rights at work. It will extend privatisation. It will do nothing for people in social housing. It will not make a significant investment in green jobs. It will bring no relief to asylum seekers and immigrants and do nothing to stem the Islamophobic tide.

Labour’s principal appeal is the promise that it will cut less savagely than the Tories. That may prove to be the case, but at this juncture no one can say for sure precisely how Labour cuts would differ from Tory cuts. Both parties are committed to reducing the fiscal deficit by the same total over four years. Both parties pledge to protect the NHS, but the NHS is already feeling the squeeze. Cuts are underway and private sector intrusions grow by the week.

The menace of lesser evilism

It’s not that there is no difference between Labour and the Tories. But is there enough of a difference? The lesser evil does have a claim, but lesser evilism is itself a subtle and insidious menace. A lesser evil remains an evil. And in practise lesser evilism moves the centre of gravity ever further to the right. It ends up reinforcing the consensus that denies meaning to the election.

The generation-long transformation of the Labour Party has resulted, as Tony Benn warned it would, in a ‘crisis of representation’. Labour’s ideology and policies are now significantly to the right of most centre-left parties in Europe. More importantly, its structures and social composition have changed radically, as has the nature of its link with Labour voters.

Similar shifts have been seen in social democratic, socialist and communist parties elsewhere, so the problem goes way beyond Blair and his legacy. Labour campaigners can take all the lessons from Obama’s people they like, but they will not and cannot replicate his central appeal – that he offered Americans a major change in governmental direction.

Whatever happens in the coming weeks the left’s failure in this election is already an established fact. Although there will be left candidates and groups on the ballot in many constituencies, there will be no single, widely-recognised, nationwide, left alternative. That is a tragedy from which no one can take comfort.

Electoral politics is not an end in itself; to the true democrat it’s only part of a larger, multi-faceted process. But it remains an indispensable exercise. In the long run, abstaining from the electoral arena is not an option for anyone serious about effecting radical change. Is it imaginable we’ll ever get even close to such change in Britain without the left at some stage demonstrating its strength at the ballot box?

Even in the short run, the left misses out by not being a player. For better or worse, general elections are among the few occasions that large numbers of people consider their political choices. To the extent that a left-wing alternative is not visible and credible, it’s omitted from the ensuing discussion. In addition, we miss out on the discipline of door-to-door canvassing, a healthy reality check for any political campaigner.

Here you’re confronted with popular political consciousness in all its diversity and contradiction. For many years I went out canvassing for the Labour party, and always returned with reasons to hope as well as to despair.

Door-to-door canvassing is increasingly a thing of the past. In the postmodern politics of the era of globalisation, parties are no longer vehicles for participation, electorates are atomised and every part of the process is media-saturated. Increasingly the election becomes about itself. Democracy is hollowed out, and the power of the rich enhanced.

Little case for Labour

There’s a case for voting Labour in constituencies where there is a strong left-wing MP or a tight contest between Labour and Tory. But there’s little case for voting Labour in constituencies where it is either sure to win or sure to lose, or where there is a significant left-wing alternative. Victories for Salma Yaqoob in Birmingham and Caroline Lucas in Brighton would be invaluable breakthroughs. Besides providing two new radical voices in Parliament, such victories would make the left appear a more credible alternative in future elections.

Programmatically, the Green Party is far superior to its mainstream rivals. But its record in office, and its nature as a party, is mixed. In Leeds its councillors sustained a Tory-Lib Dem coalition – and gave no support to last year’s successful bin workers’ strike. On the London Assembly, the Greens’ Jenny Jones has acted as an apologist for the Metropolitan Police. The party failed to take a leading role in the anti-war movement and seems to have little interest in mass campaigning of any kind.

Many Green cadres are hostile to the left and the unions, and wedded to their own form of middle-class managerialism. I’ve seen Green Party leaflets that in their soft soap and political evasiveness are indistinguishable from New Labour’s. For this I don’t need to turn to a minor party.

The left lacuna in British politics is not mirrored elsewhere in western Europe. In Germany, Portugal, France, Spain, Italy and Ireland the left is a real electoral presence. This is thanks partly to proportional representation and partly to the depth of local socialist and communist traditions. But we have failed where they have succeeded largely because of mistakes of our own. As the experience in Scotland showed, the problem is not just the absence of PR.

There’s plenty of blame to go around. With a few important exceptions, trade union leaders prefer the safety of the threadbare Labour link to the risks of a new political initiative. The few serious attempts to build a new electoral vehicle, including the Socialist Alliance in 2000-2003, have been sabotaged by sectarianism. The legacy of distrust is one of the biggest obstacles we now have to overcome.

So is our short-termism: the electoral struggle is an uphill one; it rarely yields quick results. It requires a long-range commitment and a strategy to match. Under any electoral system, in order to progress the left will have to show much greater unity, imagination and determination than it has hitherto.

The post-election landscape, even at this stage, is remarkably clear. There will be struggles against public sector cuts, increasing industrial action, renewed conflict over war and civil liberties. In that context, we will have to engage in a sober assessment of both our weaknesses and strengths, and work to ensure that at the general election after this one, there is a meaningful choice.

‘Contending for the Living’ is Mike Marqusee’s regular column in Red Pepper. For more see www.mikemarqusee.com

Labels: General Election, Mike Marqusee

Far from a classic affair - Morning Star

Labels: Morning Star, New Labour

Around 250 people packed into the launch rally for TUSC in central London last week.

Many candidates spoke about why they were standing and their experiences of campaigning.

They included Onay Kasab, a Unison branch secretary standing in Greenwich & Woolwich in London, Jenny Sutton, a college lecturer standing in Tottenham, and Dave Nellist, a longstanding socialist councillor standing for TUSC in Coventry North East.

“We have a record of fighting for our class,” Onay told the meeting. “I will lobby not for business but for workers, young people, pensioners and parents fighting to save their schools.

“I say to New Labour: you look after the rich, but we will look after the workers.”

Dave Nellist added, “The only real difference between Labour and the Tories is, when Labour proposes cuts, the Tories say they’ll do it quicker.

“We need to reorganise society’s wealth. If there are cuts to be made, let’s stop the payments to the privatisers and renationalise services.

“This coalition will stand full square behind the demand to bring the troops home and end the war in Afghanistan.”

Trade unionists came to the meeting to express their support for candidates who stand up for workers’ rights.

Steve Hedley, London regional organiser for the RMT union, addressed the meeting hours after the union had announced a four-day strike on Network Rail.

“The RMT isn’t affiliated to Labour,” he said. “We were thrown out for sponsoring socialist candidates.

“We do sponsor Labour MPs like John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn, in the Labour Party. But they are the last of the Mohicans!

“The bosses’ cuts threaten safety on London Underground.

“We will fight them tooth and nail.”

The following should be read alongside this article:
» Socialist election campaign is an alternative to Labour

» Pictures from the TUSC campaign trail

© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.

Labels: TUSC

Labels: The Crisis of Capitalism

We are the egg men - Morning Star by Solomon Hughes - (The Tory Party and their real friends).

What kind of Britain do the Tories want? If you take their own self-image seriously, a Tory Britain is one where the free market rules the economy and where rural Britain is preserved.

The Tories should be a party of sharp, competitive urban entrepreneurs with whizzy small businesses bringing exciting innovations to the cities and sturdy farmers maintaining centuries-old holdings and traditions in the country.

But we all lie to ourselves a little when we look in the mirror. If you look in the Tory accounts, you'll find what looks like the opposite of these two values.

One of the latest donations to the Tories listed by the Electoral Commission came from Deans Food Group, which slapped a whopping £50,000 into David Cameron's kitty.

The sum of £50,000 is significant because it is the membership fee for joining the Conservative Party "leaders' club."

This is a bit like joining eHarmony or one of those other dating agencies they advertise on the telly, only with slightly higher charges.

After paying your money you get to go on a series of dates after checks for those "key dimensions of compatibility."

In particular they find that very rich people are compatible with Tory shadow ministers.

You could even get a date with Dave. According to the Conservatives, "members are invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-Prime Ministers questions, lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches."

One of the groups that gets to hobnob with the Tory top nobs is Noble Foods.

And who are Noble Foods?

Well, this is an appropriate story for Easter - they are the egg men.

Noble Foods packs and delivers 60 million eggs a week. If you are eating Goldenlay, Woodland or Big & Fresh brands, your dippy egg and toasty soldiers are, I'm afraid, funding Cameron.

The Tories are tucking into a big money omelette whipped up in kitchens across Britain. Noble Foods boss Peter Dean has done well out of chickens - he has an estimated wealth of £72 million.

However, the egg business is not a very free market. Noble Foods was formed by a 2008 merger of two companies - Deans Food Group and Stonegate - which gave the new company control of at least 46 per cent of the egg market, and possibly more.

The Competition Commission ruled the merger would cause "substantial lessening of competition."

Competition Commission boss Dame Barbara Mills said the new group "would be in a notably strong position, accounting for over half of both sales of shell eggs to retailers and the supply of liquid egg."

At the risk of putting you off your soft-boileds, liquid egg is big business, with the food industry buying eggs delivered in a tanker load rather than in the shell.

So Cameron gets his cash from the would-be monopoly master of liquid eggs, the man who wanted to get the free market out of free range.

Noble Foods did not take the Competition Commission's warning lying down - it went ahead and merged anyway, with a promise to de-merge later.

This is within the rules, but it's a robust response.

Mills had two egg-based worries. First, she said: "We think it is likely that the merged company would be able to increase prices to its customers, knowing that many would be unable to respond by buying from another supplier.

"Ultimately these prices rises could feed through to the consumer."

So now you know who to blame for high-priced eggs.

Mills's second worry was that "the merged company's size could have an adverse effect on egg producers, giving it the ability and incentive to use its buying power to reduce prices."

The Conservatives' big new funder dominates egg farmers, even without the merger.

And how are egg farmers faring?

Alex Renton of The Observer newspaper investigated the egg market in 2008 and found egg farmers were doing pretty badly.

What the newspaper called "shady middlemen" seemed to be making all the money. These middlemen are the packers, and the dominant packer is Noble Foods.

Renton found that Noble just won't talk to the press. The egg farmers were reluctant to speak up as well.

One told him on condition of anonymity, "it is just too dangerous to put your head up. Most of us sell to one packer - you might say all our eggs are in one basket."

He added that "if the packer found out I'm complaining to the media, I could lose all my business overnight."

This all suggests Cameron's new chum is not looking after rural Britain, although I should say that Noble Foods by contrast claimed it paid and charged a fair price for its eggs and was pleased about the increased cash it gave to egg farmers.

Link: The Morning Star

Labels: Tory Party funding

Labels: Tories

Respect Party needs you!

A message from Abjol Miah and George Galloway MP.
Join us this weekend on the campaign trail!

Last weekend's activity was a great success with over forty new and old supporters from across London and the South East helping George and Abjol get the message out across Tower Hamlets. One comment from a new activist shows the welcome you will get and the enthusiasm that is generated:

'Had a very good time with you guys in E1 last Saturday, will see you on the campaign trail again this week'.

Come and get a taste of the positive politics in East London!

We are active again this weekend: meet at 12 noon on Saturday at Jeet Restaurant (the Bethnal Green and Bow campaign base), 49 Hanbury St, 50 yards eastwards off Brick Lane,Tower Hamlets - nearest tube Aldgate East.

Why not join with us?

For more info on the local campaign call 07505742522.

A reminder - If you cannot make this weekend but are keen to help, please email respectlg@talktalk.net This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it to be put on our campaign mailing list.

BIRMINGHAM Respect also need help!

Salma Yaqoob is regularly taking to the streets on weekends and wants you to support her General Election campaign. Join her and the team as they leaflet wards in the Hall Green constituency and talk to local residents.

You can meet Salma and the team at 11.30am every Saturday and Sunday at Birmingham Respect’s new office on 95 Walford Road, Sparkbrook, Birmingham B11 1NP. There is a map here.

From now to the end of the campaign all of Salma’s campaigning activity will commence from 95 Walford Road in Sparkbrook.

Please come along and bring others. For more info or updates, please call: 07812172887.

Manchester Respect campaign can be found HERE

Labels: Respect Party

Back to the pocket borough Morning Star comment.

Labels: Tory Party funding

More tax avoidance by the Conservative Party non-dom Deputy Chairman?

From The Guardian by David Leigh, Rob Evans, Polly Curtis and Nicholas Wat

Lord Ashcroft faces new claims of tax avoidance.
(Ashcroft commissioned polls from YouGov and Populus, believed to have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds.)

Exclusive (The Guardian): Bills for huge opinion polls for Conservatives 'sent to peer's Belize firm'

"Fresh concerns about Lord Ashcroft emerged tonight when he was accused of "systematic tax avoidance" by exploiting his offshore status to avoid paying VAT on opinion polls he commissioned for the Conservatives.

Ashcroft privately ordered what he boasted was the biggest political polling exercise ever conducted in Britain in 2005, in order to aid the Tories as they targeted marginal seats. The cost of the polls, commissioned from YouGov and Populus, is believed to have approached at least £250,000.

But sources familiar with the transactions told the Guardian that the bills were paid by one his companies in Belize, meaning he did not pay VAT.

Tonight, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, said: "This is quite serious. We are now not talking just about Ashcroft's non-dom status, but about systematic tax avoidance in funding Conservative party activities such as polling. How far were the Conservatives aware that Ashcroft did not pay VAT, as would have been incurred by any normal polling activity?"

The new allegations came amid growing concerns in David Cameron's circle over the handling of the affair by William Hague, his shadow foreign secretary.

It emerged earlier today Hague kept Cameron in the dark for at least a month after he learned that Ashcroft had renegotiated the terms of his peerage and acquired non-dom status. Cameron found out the truth about Ashcroft's tax affairs less than a month ago. A party spokesman confirmed that Ashcroft did not even reveal his tax status to Cameron when in December the leader approached him to discuss plans to ban non-doms from parliament, despite the fact that he had already told Hague.

The Tories also became embroiled in a row with the Electoral Commission after its official inquiry into Ashcroft's donations via his company, Bearwood Corporate Services, found it had not breached any donor rules but criticised party officials for refusing to give evidence in person.

Discussing the Guardian's VAT revelations, polling company sources said a single poll of a sample of 2,000 people typically cost £20,000 to £25,000. Ashcroft not only commissioned a series of tracking polls day-by-day in the run-up to the 2005 election, but used enormous samples of up to 10,000. One pollster said: "Such polling projects in the commercial sector frequently cost more than £250,000." This means that VAT in excess of £40,000 could have been avoided.

At the time, Ashcroft was resident in Britain and depicted himself as having paid for the polling personally.

One source said instructions had been sent by Ashcroft to the polling companies to send invoices on the basis they were "export" orders from outside the EU, and thus not to charge VAT. "It was invoiced to Belize and therefore didn't attract VAT," the source said.

Ashcroft subsequently published his detailed results in a book called Smell the Coffee: a Wake-up Call for the Conservative Party, as a result of which Cameron gave him the influential position of deputy party chairman, in December 2005.

He said in the introduction to his book: "A research programme of this scale has been an enormous undertaking. The expert pollsters from Populus and YouGov have been extraordinarily professional and great fun to work with."

His findings, which strongly influenced Cameron's subsequent tactics, were that most people believed the Tories to be "out of touch", "opportunistic", "don't care about ordinary people", "stuck in the past", and "care more about the well-off than the have-nots".

The sums of VAT saved by a manoeuvre that was not illegal, were relatively small to a multimillionaire like Ashcroft.

But he explained his business approach in his own memoirs called "Dirty Politics, Dirty Times" when he describes selling doughnuts to fellow schoolboys at an undisclosed profit: "There were probably people then as now who – if they discovered exactly what I was doing – might have found my practice a little sharp.

"I looked upon it as simply working to find an edge, the sort of advantage I would search for time and again."

Ashcroft's spokesman declined to comment today on the allegations that the wealthy businessman had not paid VAT to the polling companies, and that he had spent at least £250,000 on the projects. Neither YouGov nor Populus was prepared to comment .

Tonight a Conservative spokesman disavowed responsibility for Ashcroft's tactics, saying: "We do not recognise this as Conservative party polling." (Editor: Try saying that to a High Court Judge!!)"

See also: Tories 'did not help over Ashcroft'

Poster by Left Outside
Has the Tory Party used illegal overseas funds to finance its election campaign?

From The Guardian by Rajeev Syal, Ian Cobain, Jamie Doward and Polly Curtis

Electoral Commission set to clear Lord Ashcroft donations to Tory party.

Commission expected to conclude inquiry into Bearwood Corporate Services – the vehicle through which Ashcroft has funnelled money to party – due to lack of evidence.
(In recent years, Lord Ashcroft's donations to the Conservative party have been made by Bearwood Corporate Services.)

Donations to the Conservatives by a company owned by the party's billionaire backer, Lord Ashcroft, are set to be cleared today following a 14-month inquiry.

The investigation, one of the longest ever held by the commission, has concluded because of a lack of evidence, according to sources close to the inquiry.

The Guardian understands the Electoral Commission will announce its long-awaited findings later today following an official 14 month investigation into Bearwood Corporate Services, the vehicle through which Ashcroft, the Conservatives' deputy chairman, has funnelled money to marginal constituencies, Tory headquarters and David Cameron's personal office.

The conclusion of such a long inquiry which fails to state that the donations are permissible will prompt concerns that the investigators could not unravel Ashcroft's complex financial affairs.

The initial complaint, sent by John Mann, Labour MP for Bassetlaw, claimed that Bearwood was in breach of electoral law because it was not trading in Britain when it gave money.

Donations from overseas companies are prohibited by law. The ultimate source of the Ashcroft millions that have helped bankroll the Tories in the past appears to be Belize, the Caribbean tax haven that the billionaire has claimed in the past to be his home.

But the route that the money follows on its 5,200-mile journey from the impoverished country to Conservative HQ – and then out to Britain's marginal constituencies – is highly complex. The Electoral Commission is set to rule there is insufficient evidence to suggest it is unlawful.

In recent years, the tycoon's donations to the party have been made by Bearwood Corporate Services (BCS), a company registered in the UK and with a registered office at the offices of its auditors, BDO Stoy Hayward, in Southampton.

During the year ending March 2006, BCS received £4.79m in cash for shares that were bought by its holding company, Bearwood Corporate Holdings.

Bearwood Holdings had received that money by selling shares in itself to another company, Astraporta UK, for £5.54m.

Astraporta, in turn, appears to have received its funds, around £6m, by selling shares to a company registered in Belize called Stargate Holdings. Where Stagate receives its funds is unclear. It is registered offshore – at a registry controlled by an Ashcroft company. When the Guardian visited the registry's offices in Belize City to inquire about Stargate, a registry official said: "You will never know who owns Stargate."

Astraporta and Bearwood Holdings were put into liquidation last year and were formally dissolved on Monday, just as Ashcroft was making his announcement that he was a so-called non-dom.

The Electoral Commission was planning last night to release the report this morning. However, the sources close to the inquiry said that jitters within the Commission had become so intense they may choose to hold it. With all the political pressure now surrounding the case, the Commission is behaving like a "rabbit in the headlights", the source said.

This morning it was also announced that Ashcroft will be invited to appear before MPs to explain his version of how he came to be awarded his peerage in 2000 on the basis of a promise to become a permanent resident in the UK and how he subsequently renegotiated that deal to avoid paying taxes on his international earnings.

The Public Administration Committee is to conduct an inquiry before the election, starting with a hearing on 18 March at which senior civil servants will also be quizzed on their role in the affair.

................................................

Labels: Tory Party funding

Tony Benn writes on the death of Michael Foot from The Telegraph.co.uk.

Tony Benn, the veteran former Labour MP, shares his memories of Michael Foot, the ex-Labour leader, who has died at the age of 96.

“I got to know Michael Foot best after the 1974 general election – he had been offered by Harold Wilson the job of private secretary and it was just at the end of the miners’ strike.

“I was at industry, and we used to meet every weekend and have a meal together: we called it the husbands and wives’ dinner because our wives would come too. It was an opportunity to go over what was happening. We became very close then.

“That good friendship lasted until the 1979 general election, which Labour lost.

“After that, he stayed within the mainstream, and I took the opportunity to say a few things that I had been thinking about – after that we weren’t as close.

“Michael was very keen to get Labour back into office, whereas I was more eager to put forward a few ideas based on my experiences, but there was no ill-will there.

“Of course, Michael inherited the leadership at the most difficult time for the party.

“Two things happened that made it impossible for him to win the 1983 general election.

“The first is that Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams and others left Labour and set up their own party, the SDP, which did a great deal of damage.

“The other was the Falklands War, which made Margaret Thatcher hugely popular – before then she had been a very unpopular prime minister. Put together, it made it impossible for Michael to carry victory.

“Whenever he spoke in the House of Commons the House would be filled up because he was known to be speaking authoritatively.

“He was a strong advocate of peace and civil liberties. He was also a very able journalist, and a great speaker; wherever he went he inspired people, but it wasn’t enough to overcome those obstacles. The personal attacks didn’t matter – he didn’t succumb to them.

"He was a very formidable writer and a very powerful speaker, electrifying audiences.

"He was a very, very scholarly writer and a passionate advocate in public meetings. I have heard him in huge meetings and he held them in his hands.

"He was a socialist and he believed in working closely with the trade unions as leader of the Labour Party.

"He was a great credit to the Labour movement. I know he did not win the election, but the fact that he became leader and fought the election puts him in the top list of figures in the history of the party.

“Michael was a great believer in party unity. He wasn’t very keen when I challenged Denis Healey for the deputy leadership, but I was entitled to stand just as he was entitled to be critical of that.

“I told him I as going to stand, and he wasn’t pleased, but I felt you had to offer people a choice.

“After that, I would see him occasionally, and he was always very friendly – in politics there are different opinions, and we both understood that.

"I think people will feel a genuine sense of loss when they hear this. Being 96 and having been ill for some time, his death won't come as a shock, but it will cause great distress."

Labels: Michael Foot, Tony Ben

Lord Mandelson has called for an inquiry to establish whether Lord Ashcroft broke the promises he made when he was ennobled in 2000 to become a full UK taxpayer.

The business secretary wrote to Lord Jay, chair of the House of Lords appointments commission, last night urging him to investigate Ashcroft's claims he had fulfilled his promise to become a UK resident after the government confirmed becoming a "long-term" resident instead of a "permanent" resident would suffice.

Mandelson is the most senior member of the government to call for an inquiry into the peer.

The Conservative leadership faced fresh demands last night to reveal what they knew about the tax status of Ashcroft after the billionaire Tory donor admitted he was a non-dom who did not pay tax in Britain on his substantial international earnings.

Ashcroft and the Tories have refused to answer questions about when he fulfilled the less onerous task of declaring himself a long-term resident, which allowed him to continue to be a non-dom paying tax only on his UK earnings and avoiding giving tens of millions to the tax office on his substantial international estate.

The Guardian put seven questions to Tory central office about its deputy chairman, asking what David Cameron and Hague knew about Ashcroft's financial arrangements. The leadership refused to answer any of them.

Ashcroft's admission yesterday broke a 10-year silence and appeared to show he had reneged on a "solemn and binding" promise to the then Tory leader, William Hague, that he would become a permanent UK resident in return for his peerage.

Mandelson said the category "long-term" resident had only existed in tax law since 2008 and therefore the peer could not have fulfilled the promise in 2000, when he took up his seat in the House of Lords.

Mandelson's letter, released this morning, said: "I am writing to ask you – in the public interest – to shine a light on this issue and to investigate whether Lord Ashcroft is currently satisfying the conditions that he was required to meet in order to be appointed to the House of Lords."

He mentions the "solemn and binding" undertaking Ashcroft made in 2000 to William Hague to become a "permanent resident" of the UK that year and Ashcroft's unsubstantiated claim that the government later confirmed this could mean he becomes a "long-term" resident.

"However this cannot be the condition he was required to meet in 2000," Lord Mandelson writes, "because the 'long term resident' rule was only introduced in April 2008 – eight years after he made his promise."

A spokesperson for the appointments commission said this morning it had no powers for retrospective investigations. The commission was established after Ashcroft was ennobled, replacing the political honours scrutiny committee that originally vetted his application, suggesting any inquiry would have to be independent.

The spokesperson said: "The commission received Lord Mandelson's letter yesterday evening and will consider it. The vetting of Lord Ashcroft, however, took place before the commission was established in 2000 and the commission has no documentation on this case and no retrospective powers to investigate. The commission will now only vet individuals who are already resident in the UK for tax purposes and commit to remaining so."

The rules were changed in 2005 to ensure all new peers paid full tax and strengthened in 2008 to force them to commit to permanently paying UK tax on all their earnings.

Jack Straw, the justice secretary, said yesterday: "He was only granted his peerage on the basis he would return to live in the UK, become fully resident, and pay tax in the UK on his wider income. Lord Ashcroft has been forced to admit that he has not complied with this promise and that for the last 10 years the Conservatives have been concealing the truth. Instead of paying tax in the UK on all his earned income, he has been channelling millions into the Conservative party to help them buy this election."

In a statement published shortly before the disclosure of material as a result of freedom of information requests, Ashcroft indicated he would relinquish his non-dom status in line with new Tory policy to remain in the Lords. A spokesman for Ashcroft insisted the peer had fulfilled his promises to become resident in order to take up his peerage. "[He] has never broken a promise and he has never gone back on an undertaking," he said.

Gordon Prentice, the Labour MP whose FoI request prompted the statement, said Ashcroft should be stripped of his peerage, while Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat frontbencher who has campaigned against non-doms in parliament, said he should step down.

The former Labour minister Denis MacShane added: "Some kind of full inquiry is needed to account for the missing years of Ashcroft's tax affairs when he was dictating the course of this election."

Cameron said: "I have always taken the view that someone's tax status is a matter between them and the Revenue and I've answered that question many times, but I'm delighted that Lord Ashcroft has made these statements and has answered these questions, so I think that now we can get on with the election."

He attempted to turn the spotlight on the Labour peers who are self-confessed non-doms, including Lord Paul, who was also recently appointed to the privy council by Gordon Brown.

Labels: Tory Party funding

Why the Tory toffs are being hunted - by George Galloway from the Scottish Daily Record.

Labels: George Galloway

Investigation by The Independent reveals Tory donor's strategy to clinch election win

The Tories have spent £6m over two years in the parliamentary seats that hold the key to general election victory, an investigation by The Independent has found. A drive for votes masterminded, and largely funded, by the Conservative deputy chairman, Lord Ashcroft, has seen party headquarters pump more than £1.1m into the coffers of constituency parties in Britain's most marginal seats.

Tory activists raised another £5m locally to build up huge cash reserves in seats they need to win with a small swing. The Conservatives, whose spring conference opens in Brighton today, need to gain 117 seats to put David Cameron in Downing Street with a majority of one.

An analysis of the accounts of Tory associations in those constituencies by The Independent shows they received a massive influx of cash from Conservative headquarters in 2007 and 2008. More than 50 were handed a total of £1,145,484 over the two years. Local donations, bequests and fundraising accounted for a further £4,983,460, resulting in a joint income of £6,128,944 in those associations.

Candidates from other parties have repeatedly complained they have been massively outspent in campaigning in marginal seats in recent years.

The Independent survey found that in Harlow, where Labour is defending a wafer-thin majority of 230, the Conservatives received £121,800 (of which £29,084 came from party headquarters) over the two years. That is equivalent to £1,050 for every voter the Tories need to change his or her mind. " More ........

So where is all this money coming from?

From Wikipedia: (start of quote from Wikipedia)

"Michael Anthony Ashcroft, Baron Ashcroft, KCMG, (born 4 March 1946 in Chichester), is an international businessman, philanthropist and politician. He holds dual British and Belizean nationality, and is a Belonger of the Turks & Caicos Islands.

Made a life peer in 2000, he is a Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party. In the Sunday Times Rich List 2009 ranking of the wealthiest people in the UK he was placed 37th with an estimated fortune of £1,100 million.^[1]

Ashcroft has close business and other connections with the Commonwealth country of Belize. In his 2005 biography, he admitted that it is a country where his interests have been "exempt from certain taxes for 30 years."^[7] In 2009, the Prime Minister of Belize Dean Barrow told its parliament:^[8]

In 1981, Belize had gained independence from the UK. Seeing the opportunity to build an off-shore operations base and control the countries financial service, in 1984 Ashcroft formed Belize Holdings (BHI), which became the vehicle for a parallel acquisition spree during the 1980s, beyond the scope of Hawley .........

In December 2005, he was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party.^[19]

During the "Cash for Peerages" controversy, on 31 March 2006 Ashcroft was named by the Conservative Party as having loaned it £3.6m.

On 12 October 2007 he was accused by Labour MPs of being allowed to heavily fund the local Conservative organisations in marginal seats of his choosing. The Electoral Commission is investigating and changes to the rules are predicted.

Significant donations made to the Conservative Party by Bearwood Corporate Services, a company controlled by Ashcroft, have also come under scrutiny. The trading status of the company, and thus the validity of donations totalling £3m, is unclear and is the subject of an investigation by the Electoral Commission begun in October 2008. Both Labour MPs and the Prime Minister have called for the process to be concluded in time for the next general election, due by mid-2010. Liberal Democrat Baron Oakeshott stated: "Democracy is in danger if Lord Ashcroft has been pouring millions into Conservative campaigns through an offshore pipeline from a Caribbean tax haven."^[18][20][21]

Belize

Ashcroft allegedly gave the right-wing People's United Party in Belize $1m when it was in opposition.^[2] During its period on power, it introduced laws that are claimed by opponents and media commentators to be financially advantageous to Ashcroft." (end of quote from Wikipedia).

So its no surprise is it that the Tory Party want to reduce Corporation Tax in the first year of any government they form!

Questions that need to be asked:

1. How much has Lord Ashcroft donated to the Tory Party election funds?

2. How much have the Tories already spent in marginal seats?

3. Has UK tax been paid on all the money donated to the Tory Party election funds?

4. Do we really want a government run by people like this?

5. When will the electoral commission complete its investigation (begun in October 2008)?

Sunday Update: £6million on marginals - Mirror.co.uk

Sunday Update from the Guardian:

"The Tories also face fresh pressure over whether their billionaire donor and ­deputy chairman, Lord Ashcroft, breached funding rules. The Liberal Democrats have written to the chairwoman of the Electoral Commission, Jenny Watson, to request that the commission concludes an inquiry into some of his donations before an election is called. The inquiry, which began 18 months ago, is into donations from a company owned by Ashcroft, Bearwood Corporate Services. The key question is whether Bearwood was operating as a fully functioning business at the time the donations were made.

The Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, warns in his letter to Watson that the legality of the general election result could be called into question if £5m in donations to the Tory party via Bearwood – including £80,000 in sponsorship revealed this week – are ruled illegal.

Ashcroft will come under pressure on two fronts this week to reveal details of his tax status. Some 78 Labour and Lib Dem MPs are backing an amendment by Labour's Gordon Prentice to the constitutional reform and governance bill, which reaches report stage next week. It would force any peer, whose elevation to the Lords was conditional, to reveal whether they have met the terms of the agreement. Ashcroft undertook to become UK resident – including paying tax – when he received his peerage in 2000, but refuses to say whether he has fulfilled that promise.

Prentice said: "Ashcroft has repeatedly refused to clarify his tax status. He has stonewalled for a decade while bankrolling the Conservatives, giving two fingers to the electorate. His millions are allowing the Conservatives to buy seats at the next election."

Spokesmen for both the Electoral Commission and Ashcroft refused to comment on the ongoing investigation."

Labels: Lord Ashcroft, Tory Party funding