Poll: The Last Leaders Debate – Live tonight at 2030 BST on BBC One

Who will you vote for?

  • Labour

    Votes: 67 11.8%

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 231 40.7%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 227 40.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 42 7.4%
  • Total voters
    567
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
This just popped up on my bookface.. :D


bookfacevote.jpg
 
I was under the impression the main problem with Ashcroft was not purely his non-dom status but that he is vice-chairman of the Tory party, and more damagingly, the decade of weaselling out of giving an honest answer, accompanied by senior members of the Tory party contributing to the obfuscation either through deliberate ignorance, or plain dishonesty, whichever of the two is worse I'm not sure given the position Ashcroft holds in the party.
 
Rich_L said:
I was under the impression the main problem with Ashcroft was not purely his non-dom status but that he is vice-chairman of the Tory party, and more damagingly, the decade of weaselling out of giving an honest answer, accompanied by senior members of the Tory party contributing to the obfuscation either through deliberate ignorance, or plain dishonesty, whichever of the two is worse I'm not sure given the position Ashcroft holds in the party.
Click to expand...

http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/01032010_statement_from_lord_ashcroft.pdf
 
Gaidin109 said:
A Union is a single united body of it's members, that's why it's called a union.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. I just hastily worded my response. Sadly my not-so-ninja edit didn't make it in time. Time stamped before your reply of course! ;-)

Dolph said:
The history of the union movement is full of examples of violence and intimidation towards non-members or members who refuse to to the line (see the term 'scab' as an example)
Click to expand...

We are talking about present day, dear. The trade union movement has been significantly hobbled since then.

I'd like to see all strike action subject to a reasonableness test, and the party (employer or union) deemed to be acting unreasonably be responsible for paying compensation to all the third parties damaged by the action. That's only anti-union if you think unions frequently act unreasonably ;)
Click to expand...

Who is to judge what is reasonable? It's a very subjective thing last time I checked! I think it's enough that they be judged to be acting lawfully.

They should, therefore, be treated as any other individual political donor is treated, and any restrictions that apply to individual donors (be they private, corporate, charity or union) must be applied equally.
Click to expand...

Yes, a suggestion presented in the best interests of equality until you consider the big picture. Which I'm sure you have! :-)
 
Floogie said:
We are talking about present day, dear. The trade union movement has been significantly hobbled since then.
Click to expand...

You didn't see the vitriol from unite towards the strikebreakers at BA then?

Who is to judge what is reasonable? It's a very subjective thing last time I checked! I think it's enough that they be judged to be acting lawfully.
Click to expand...

Courts make judgements based on reasonability all the time, indeed a great many defences and justifications are based on the actions of a 'reasonable person' such as self defence.

lawfully is an irrelevant concept, because it is easily changeable. The law could be changed to make unions themselves unlawful, but that doesn't mean it would be right or just.

All I'm talking about is removing the exemption from tort liability that unions currently enjoy.

Yes, a suggestion presented in the best interests of equality until you consider the big picture. Which I'm sure you have! :-)
Click to expand...

If Labour can't attract the same level of funding, that is their problem. If Unite are only representing their union members, I'm sure those union members can donate directly to the party instead. It would be more efficient too ;)
 
Dolph said:
You didn't see the vitriol from unite towards the strikebreakers at BA then?
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about coercion into joining a union?

Courts make judgements based on reasonability all the time, indeed a great many defences and justifications are based on the actions of a 'reasonable person' such as self defence.

lawfully is an irrelevant concept, because it is easily changeable. The law could be changed to make unions themselves unlawful, but that doesn't mean it would be right or just.
Click to expand...

This is a very mirky concept indeed. Sadly not one I want to explore in some detail as I want to go to sleep now.

If Labour can't attract the same level of funding, that is their problem. If Unite are only representing their union members, I'm sure those union members can donate directly to the party instead. It would be more efficient too ;)
Click to expand...

Nothing is stopping the Conservatives from taking similar sized funds from single bodies if its such an issue. Of course it would be then more apparent to the electorate that they are acting in the interests of big business. More apparent than the current system of receiving smaller sums received by a wider range of companies and wealthy individuals at the moment that is.
 
Rich_L said:
I was under the impression the main problem with Ashcroft was not purely his non-dom status but that he is vice-chairman of the Tory party, and more damagingly, the decade of weaselling out of giving an honest answer, accompanied by senior members of the Tory party contributing to the obfuscation either through deliberate ignorance, or plain dishonesty, whichever of the two is worse I'm not sure given the position Ashcroft holds in the party.
Click to expand...
He didn't weasel out of anything. What Labour (and co) have seized on is some very technical HMRC lingo about 'residency' and 'permanence'.

Throughout the 'decade of weaselling', Ashcroft was fully exposed to HMRC. Downing Street (as high as Tony Blair) we also copied in on all correspondence with HMRC during the negotiations at the start.

I don't understand why the Great Public (TM) are so 'angry' at 'dishonesty'. If HMRC are happy, if No10 were happy, I am happy.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/18/what-hague-knew-ashcroft-tax

This is what I mean by 'weaselling'

Paxman: "Just one final point, in the current climate of suspicion about politics your deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft, a man whose peerage you lobbied for, saying that he would become resident in Britain for tax purposes, can you just tell us,is he resident in Britain for tax purposes now?"

Hague: "I've no reason to think that he's not complied with the requirement that he entered into …"

Paxman: "Have you asked him directly?"

Hague: "I have discussed it with him and I have no reason to think he hasn't complied."
Click to expand...

Marr: "So does he pay taxes in the UK?"

Hague: "Well that, well that, I imagine that was the obligation that was imposed on him."

Marr: "So you think he does?"

Hague: "So I think he's fulfilled what was asked of him."

Marr: "I don't understand."

Hague: "Well, you can't expect me to know every detail of somebody's tax affairs. But I have asked him and he has …"

Marr: "But you must have asked him … yes or no, surely?"

Hague: "I've asked him and he fulfils the obligations that were imposed on him …"
Click to expand...
Why not just say 'yes' or 'no' - given that clearly he was not and either Hague was ignorant of his Party vice-chairman and Treasurers status, or he knew and so chose to be deliberately vague.
 
Last edited:
Ah, weaselling by Hauge. Yes, he did squirm and wasn't straight.

But why should have have 'shopped' Ashcroft's tax status, which is his own personal affair? For reasons obvious, he wanted to keep it private.

Anyway, as Harriet Harman said... "A person's tax status is personal and for them to know" (talking about the honourable Lord Paul, of course).
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Ah, weaselling by Hauge. Yes, he did squirm and wasn't straight.

But why should have have 'shopped' Ashcroft's tax status, which is his own personal affair? For reasons obvious, he wanted to keep it private.

Anyway, as Harriet Harman said... "A person's tax status is personal and for them to know" (talking about the honourable Lord Paul, of course).
Click to expand...

Don't forget that Harriet Harman herself benefitted from her Father avoiding IHT by setting up trusts and such.

There was no big secret about Ashcroft, just some confusion over the agreement made with the Labour Govt, who signed off on the whole thing knowing the situation.
 
scorza said:
A truly moving moment on BBC news when a young girl broke down in tears on stage that her family can't afford even the basics in life on their low, civil servant's wages. The sad thing is it's people like her who will really suffer under a Conservative government, Labour might have many faults but at least they imposed a minimum wage.

Found a link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/03/gordon-brown-citizensuk-leadership-debate
(
Click to expand...

They should get different jobs.
It really is that simple.
 
lucasade1 said:
No one made you watch it, I was simply highlighting to Naffa how not all the tory broadcasts are negative.

Still, go and enjoy your Eddie Izzzzzzzard.
Click to expand...
I should point out, that's not what I was saying. I wasn't saying that all the Tory broadcasts were negative (nor was I saying that none of the Labour ones were negative). I was saying that I believe the Labour party broadcasts to be of a far, far higher standard than their Tory rivals.


Also, looking at that video of Gordon, I can't believe how exhausted he looks...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom