Skip to main content

Ashcroft: the sky is dark with chickens coming home to roost

In May 2008 I blogged about the power of money in British politics, and how it has reshaped the forms and methods of political parties, especially the Conservatives. The point of the post was to highlight the sinister role of Michael Ashcroft as a major source of finance to the Conservatives.

The news that the electoral commission has launched an investigation into the donations offered by the Belizean billionaire rather underlines my point at the end of that first post: that the Conservatives may rue the day that they entered into such a close relationship with such a controversial figure.

More widely, it underlines the increasing urgency for a major reform of the House of Lords. Michael Ashcroft refuses to confirm whether he is a resident in the UK or Belize- and he has even served as ambassador for the tiny country to the United Nations. After several very large donations to the Conservatives, he was nominated for a peerage. It is hard to avoid the idea that essentially this man, who refuses to confirm whether he even pays taxes in Britain, bought his way into the lawmaking body of the United Kingdom.

Given that the ex-convict Jeffery Archer continues to be a member of the House of Lords, and the certain rather questionable deals of four Labour peers the upper house is beginning to resemble a rogues gallery. The time has come for the reform of the House of Lords to be completed as soon as possible. It should not be possible for foreigners to seemingly buy a seat and it should not be impossible to expel a convicted criminal from the Upper House of our Parliament.

As for Lord Ashcroft- we must of course await the results of the investigation, but should the commission find against the Conservatives, the consequences would be serious, and they ought to be.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...