How did this happen? (From Bucks Free Press)

Tim Starkey, poses some pertinent questions in his open letter to Cheryl Gillan and Dominic Grieve, however some commentators (outside the Murdoch press empire) have pointed out Ashcroft is not the most scandalous cause for concern over the the Tories – both David Mitchell and Henry Porter commented recently in different editions of the Observer, how the Murdoch media threatens the BBC, has contemptuously dismissed a parliamentary enquiry into bribery and corruption by Murdoch newspapers, and how the Conservative party are going to be in debt to the Murdoch press for its support if they get to power after the next election, and will apparently be willing and able to damage the BBC in the interests of Murdoch’s media empire. Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian on 3 March pointed out that Tory policies on the BBC, Ofcom and BT’s ownership of the phone lines also required by Sky TV very closely resemble the publicly stated wishes of Rupert and James Murdoch. (It’s worth mentioning that on 26 February in this paper, Colin Baker attempted to justify public spending cuts in part by using anecdotal evidence over thirty years old, against the BBC – was this a sensible comment by Baker or just a case of sour grapes against his former employer?) The unaccountable secrecy of Ashcroft and his Conservative backers matches the unaccountability of Murdoch and his Tory supporters and is a sign of something very wrong in our society.

It seems worth reminding readers that Ashcroft only received his peerage on the strict understanding (ten years ago!) that he would abandon his non-dom status in return for the peerage and that Ashcroft’s estimated saving of £127 million in tax as a result of his continued non-dom tax status is equivalent to almost 98% of the £130 million that the NHS is looking to achieve in savings to stay in budget next year.

Secondly, it’s clearly outrageous that a man who avoids paying British taxes on such a scale by being non-domiciled for tax purposes, should be British-domiciled for political purposes, and wield any influence over the British political process, either by being in the Lords, by being a deputy chairman of the Conservative party, by bankrolling the Tories and, most particularly, by trying to affect the make up of the next government by pouring money into the Conservative organisation in marginal seats during the general election. People who live and work for low wages in this country, have to pay their taxes in full without any opportunity to affect politics except by their vote. No doubt Tory apologists will trot out the fact that there are wealthy individuals donating to Labour party funds, without mentioning that they are not deputy chairmen of the Labour party, nor have they made any attempt to disguise their tax status or to target aspects of the electoral process.

Mr Starkey asks why the shadow cabinet allowed this to continue so long and why no member ever gave a straight answer to questions about Ashcroft’s tax status. Commonsense would suggest that protestations by leading Tories that they were unclear about the situation are hilarious examples of what American political commentators call ‘plausible deniability’. Mr Starkey also asks ‘If you haven’t been able to deal with your own deputy chairman, how can you assure us the Tories have the backbone to stand up to big financial interests?’ The answer to this is obvious – if the Tories get to power they will not need such backbone as neither they nor New Labour have ever indicated any wish to 'stand up to big financial interests’ – merely to cosy up to them, (and sometimes to join them, after their retirement from politics). The answer to Mr Starkey’s final question ‘Will the shadow cabinet now insist that he pays this £127million to the Treasury?’ is also obvious – as we all know the answer I will end this post here.