Funding the Conservative campaign in Copeland
The vast majority of money for the Conservative campaign in Copeland has been raised locally, here in Cumbria, through membership subscriptions, support for events, and donations from residents and businesses in Cumbria. The remainder of our funding has come from the national Conservative party.
If any candidate in Copeland has any questions to answer about how they paid for the material they have been putting out, it is Labour's Jamie Reed, who in recent years used taxpayers' money from the Parliamentary Communications Allowance to send glossy magazines full of photographs of himself around the constituency.
This has not prevented Mr Reed from writing a very inaccurate article in "Egremont today" which challenges Copeland Conservatives to explain where our funding comes from.
A letter signed by Rachel Stalker which was remarkably similiar to Mr Reed's Egremont Today article - one or two phrases were actually word for word the same - also appeared in today's Whitehaven News.
Anyway to answer the questions posed by Mr Reed, here is a little light fisking of his article. My responses are in bold.
"Shockingly, it has now been revealed that the Conservative Party has been significantly funded by non-dom billionaire Lord Michael Ashcroft who for the most part lives in the South American country of Belize."
No he doesn't. He has been normally resident in the UK for the past ten years.
"Certain people choose to become non-doms in order to avoid paying tax on all of their income in Britain."
That's a sloppy form of words which could easily be misunderstood. "Non-doms" pay UK tax on their UK income, and tax on their income from other countries in the nation where that money was earned.
"This sticks in the throat, but it's legal and all political parties have received some money from non-doms."
If this "sticks in the throat" why have Labour not done anything about it in the past thirteen years? The Conservatives did propose a levy on non-doms - Labour attempted to copy the idea, but mishandled it, lost their nerve, and backed down.
But you're certainly right about all parties having received money from non-doms. For example in the past nine years the Labour party has received more than £10 million from eight reportedly non-dom donors such as Lord Paul, Lakshmi Mittal, and Sir Ronald Cohen. That's significantly more than the Conservative party has received from Lord Ashcroft over the same period.
"The allegation is that Lord Ashcroft avoided paying British taxes at the same time as he was funding the Conservative Party and funding its marginal seats campaign, including in seats like Copeland."
Lord Ashcroft has declared his UK income to the Inland Revenue. With regard to his non-UK income, his tax status is no different from that of major Labour non-dom donors who have given even more money to Labour than he has to the Conservative party. Sauce for the Tory goose is sauce for the Labour gander.
"The Copeland Conservatives should now tell the people of this borough if they have received any Ashcroft money, if so how much they have received and how this money has been spent."
As I have explained, most of our funds were raised locally here in Cumbria and the rest came from the Conservative party. We have received no money directly or personally from Lord Ashcroft or any of his businesses.
Britain needs cleaner and more transparent politics including a cap of £50,000 on donations to any party by any individual. In future all MPs and all members of the upper house should be full UK taxpayers.
All political parties need to do better on this and for anyone to point fingers at their opponents while pretending to be perfect themselves really is the pot calling the kettle black.
If any candidate in Copeland has any questions to answer about how they paid for the material they have been putting out, it is Labour's Jamie Reed, who in recent years used taxpayers' money from the Parliamentary Communications Allowance to send glossy magazines full of photographs of himself around the constituency.
This has not prevented Mr Reed from writing a very inaccurate article in "Egremont today" which challenges Copeland Conservatives to explain where our funding comes from.
A letter signed by Rachel Stalker which was remarkably similiar to Mr Reed's Egremont Today article - one or two phrases were actually word for word the same - also appeared in today's Whitehaven News.
Anyway to answer the questions posed by Mr Reed, here is a little light fisking of his article. My responses are in bold.
"Shockingly, it has now been revealed that the Conservative Party has been significantly funded by non-dom billionaire Lord Michael Ashcroft who for the most part lives in the South American country of Belize."
No he doesn't. He has been normally resident in the UK for the past ten years.
"Certain people choose to become non-doms in order to avoid paying tax on all of their income in Britain."
That's a sloppy form of words which could easily be misunderstood. "Non-doms" pay UK tax on their UK income, and tax on their income from other countries in the nation where that money was earned.
"This sticks in the throat, but it's legal and all political parties have received some money from non-doms."
If this "sticks in the throat" why have Labour not done anything about it in the past thirteen years? The Conservatives did propose a levy on non-doms - Labour attempted to copy the idea, but mishandled it, lost their nerve, and backed down.
But you're certainly right about all parties having received money from non-doms. For example in the past nine years the Labour party has received more than £10 million from eight reportedly non-dom donors such as Lord Paul, Lakshmi Mittal, and Sir Ronald Cohen. That's significantly more than the Conservative party has received from Lord Ashcroft over the same period.
"The allegation is that Lord Ashcroft avoided paying British taxes at the same time as he was funding the Conservative Party and funding its marginal seats campaign, including in seats like Copeland."
Lord Ashcroft has declared his UK income to the Inland Revenue. With regard to his non-UK income, his tax status is no different from that of major Labour non-dom donors who have given even more money to Labour than he has to the Conservative party. Sauce for the Tory goose is sauce for the Labour gander.
"The Copeland Conservatives should now tell the people of this borough if they have received any Ashcroft money, if so how much they have received and how this money has been spent."
As I have explained, most of our funds were raised locally here in Cumbria and the rest came from the Conservative party. We have received no money directly or personally from Lord Ashcroft or any of his businesses.
Britain needs cleaner and more transparent politics including a cap of £50,000 on donations to any party by any individual. In future all MPs and all members of the upper house should be full UK taxpayers.
All political parties need to do better on this and for anyone to point fingers at their opponents while pretending to be perfect themselves really is the pot calling the kettle black.
Comments
International experience suggests that countries where there is state funding of political parties still have scandals about that funding.
If the national finances were in a better state and the country could afford it - which they are not and we can't - I would have liked to see a national funding scheme controlled by voters through the ballot box.
My personal preference, which is my own view rather than Conservative policy, would have been to have a second question on the General Election ballot paper which reads something like "Do you wish the party you have voted for to receive support from the national political fund?"
You would then pay registered parties an annual sum - probably a few pounds a year - for each of their voters who ticks the "yes" box, shared between the national party and the local organisation in that constituency, for the duration of the following parliament. This would be combined with tight limits on other funding.
That way state funding would be precisely tied to public support, and it effectively also means that no taxpayer is forced to fund a party they despise, possibly including the one they voted for! It would also give voters in safe seats an easy way to punish the local incumbent party even if they don't want to vote in the other lot, by hitting them in the wallet.
However, let's be realistic - in the present climate
* with the government spending four pounds for every three coming in,
* and public contempt for politicians at unprecedented levels,
even such a modest and democratic proposal for giving taxpayers' money to political parties does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being adopted.
I am delighted to hear that you are the candidate in Copeland - you will be an excellent MP! I'm sorry I cannot come and support you personally, but all best wishes for a successful campaign.
Kindest regards
Ian Morley
It is frightening to realise that it is 25 years since you were first elected chairman of Eastern Area YCs and 24 years since I became a member of your management committee.
All the very best.