Peter Mandelson raises stakes in Lord Ashcroft row | Politics | The Guardian‏

""This is not actually about non-doms or donations. For all the complexity of Ashcroft's financial affairs, the story is a simple one," Mandelson said.

"William Hague [Tory leader in 2000] gave very clear undertakings to then prime minister Tony Blair and to parliament," said Mandelson, referring to the letter from Hague saying Ashcroft was "committed to becoming resident [in the UK] ... to fulfil his responsibilities in the House of Lords" and that this would cost him "tens of millions a year in tax".

But those undertakings "have not been met", the business secretary said."

Yeah, I agree.
Also, I wouldn't mess with Mandy. He may be the Dark Lord, but I'd certainly prefer him on my side rather than against

BBC - Nick Robinson's Newslog: 'Non-dom' donor Lords‏

"It's partly because he hid his tax status for almost a decade after being forced to give undertakings to secure a peerage which his critics claim he never met."
Well exactly. I don't know how many people are Ashcroft's friends or enemies, but Robinson makes a good point about the realities of politics. The problem with Ashcroft is the dishonesty

BBC News - Lord Ashcroft admits 'non-dom' status‏

"Lord Ashcroft has admitted he is "non-domiciled" in the UK for tax. He said he agreed with David Cameron that anyone sitting in the Lords must be "resident and domiciled" in the UK. He said he expected "to be sitting in the House of Lords for many years to come", "
He's full of shit this bloke, he just doesn't want to pay taxes. Anyone who doesn't pay UK tax should not be allowed to formally influence policy

Gove on Ashcroft

“The party’s unhealthy reliance on Ashcroft puts its entire electoral strategy at risk. Move over Jim Davidson, there’s an even more high-profile comedian backing the Tories. Let’s give a big welcome to the king of the one-liners, self-made millionaire, self-style Lord, I was just taking the Michael Ashcroft”. Michael Gove on Ashcroft in 2000

Lord Ashcroft: new demands for a full tax inquiry

Pikey bastard. Of that there seems no doubt. Lying, two faced and fundamentally dishonest. But not just him, also all those willing to take his money to further themselves. Apparently he has no input into policy at all. Bullshit. People like that don't get and stay rich by giving all their money away.
No non-doms should sit in parliament, of any party. No representation without taxation: It's a simple reversal of the thinking from the American War of Independence.
He's a disgrace, and Cameron's moralising and broken promises (and Hague) show them in a poor light

Interesting couple of quotes I got:
"This is a man whom gave an unequivocal promise which he has since broken. The Tories do not see this as any problem as long as they were benefiting. So what is the status of the donations given to Tory associations in key marginals?
Unbreakable pledges do seem to get broken with remarkable ease around senior Conservatives.


I feel that this is going to emphasise that the Tories haven't changed. Which they haven't. We have in the red corner Gordon 'Incompetent' Brown and the blue corner Dave 'Lets stay rich and push the rules to the limits' Cameron. I am no fan of Brown, but the Tories are beginning to stink."

David Cameron should either sack William Hague or Lord Ashcroft, says Harriet Harman | Politics |

I'd like to see some trouble for the Tories, so from that point of view it would be good. But should it really be in their hands, or is it for the authorities?
Ashcroft is a devicive figure due to the amount of money he has ploughed into the Tories in the past ten years, so the stakes will be high and the rhetoric hot. But if there's a serious issue here it needs to be teased out and dealt with.
Trouble for the Tories is good for me

new Cameron piss take

Top work, made me laugh

Lord Ashcroft

I'm not a big fan of him.
His tax status is shrouded in mystery, but i'm not sure it really should be public knowledge, but then he's bank-rolling the party that will probably form the next government. So it probably should be transparent.
In the way that some criticise Labour for being funded by Union, the Tories' funding by Lord Ashcroft is more worrying. At least the Unions are transparent.

The article above slags him off, rightly. But going on about the poverty in Belize and his power and influence there didn't really grab me. Apparently he owns everything through some very shadowy businesses practices. Which I suppose is important in light of his support for, and bankrolling of, the Tories.
I don't like having a (soon to be) governing party so dependent on the monies of one man. He shouldn't have so much power