Lord Ashcroft: Opening up an own goal for Labour in marginals

By David Higgerson on Mar 2, 10 07:24 PM

Sat on a Metrolink tram as it trundled between Bury and Manchester today (why doesn't Liverpool get one of those?), I found myself wondering how much of an impact the Lord Ashcroft non-dom revelations will have had.

The answer, uncomfortably for those who have devoted so much time on air and space in print to the story, is not a lot. Will people be talking about it down the pubs tonight? Probably not.

But does it have the potential to damage the Tories at the election? I think so, especially in key marginals such as Bury North, through which my tram travelled today.

Lord Ashcroft, as we know, has pumped millions of pounds into the Tory Party in recent years. Despite claims by the Tories that his donations only equate to 5% of total donations, it's still a lot of money.

And he also has a lot of influence. Deputy chairman of the party, and a lot of his money has been channeled into key marginal constituencies where he is apparently masterminding the campaign to win.

Again, the Tories seek to reduce the level of his financial influence, saying that his donations never make up more than 10% of any individual campaign fund. Their argument is that he isn't therefore buying the general election - although if that 10% turns out to be the difference between what the Tories spend above the other parties, then you can just as easily argue he has.

But in key marginals, where the Tories have had candidates in place since 2006, there is probably a heightened awareness of politics - partly due to the fact that money - including Ashcroft's millions - have paid for massive awareness campaigns.

Therefore, Ashcroft's presence in something which feels murky - being heavily involved in wanting to influence how the country is run, but seeking to pay as little tax as possible to help fund the way the country is run - could become a tricky problem for the Tories.

It just smells wrong. Labour, the Lib Dems and any other rival can use that stick to beat the Tory candidate in key marginals. And coming so soon after the expenses row, it's quite possible people will turn back away from the Tory candidate.

You can see the argument now: "You could vote Tory, but do you really want an MP whose campaign was funded by a Lord who won't even pay tax on his earnings?" Given the reputation of MPs is already in the gutter, it seems unlikely rival parties won't seek to make gain out of this.

And so they should. It's a huge open goal on the part of David Cameron who, along with his fellow shadow cabinet, have had years to deal with this.

Lord Ashcroft is non-domiciled for tax purposes. The arrangement is not illegal nor an automatic bar to membership of the Lords, but it is contrary to the spirit of many assurances given by senior Tories over the years about their most generous donor.

So when the Tories try to point out that Labour too has received money from a non-dom Lord, Lord Paul, they're missing the point. Lord Paul has never been anything other than totally open about his tax status.

On the other hand, the Tories over the years have ducked the issue and made vague notions about 'the problem being resolved'.

David Cameron said today: "I admire people who try to flog a dead horse. But the horse is dead and should no longer be flogged."

The only problem for David Cameron is that it isn't. Had he been decisive back in 2006 and insisted Lord Ashcroft be open and up front, then it would be a dead issue.

Instead, Lord Ashcroft is in a hugely powerful position in the Tory party and the leadership seem reluctant to be open and honest about the issue.

It might not be wrong in law, but it feels wrong. And given that Cameron has been making bold promises about an open, honest new politics, even the vague stench of something wrong will be enough to put those crucial swing seat voters off.

What a way to waste millions, Lord Ashcroft. Should the Tories lose the election now, they'll be a poetic justice for Lord Ashcroft to reflect upon.