<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tories&#8217; undeclared Â£600,000 flight subsidy from Ashcroft</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/torys-undeclared-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/torys-undeclared-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/</link>
	<description>There&#039;s no flesh or blood within this cloak to kill. There&#039;s only an idea. Ideas are bulletproof.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:23:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: tory boys never grow uo</title>
		<link>http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/torys-undeclared-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/comment-page-1/#comment-25003</link>
		<dc:creator>tory boys never grow uo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:43:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/tories-get-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/#comment-25003</guid>
		<description>Unity - not sure the same residency requirements apply in respect of peers getting on the register for European elections as for everyone else - it is not automatic on being a peer (see Section 3 of the RPA 1985) - I have never seen any confirmation that Ashcroft is on such a register.  He did make some donations in his own name when PPERA first started but has now stopped.  And although he has not made any subsequent donations - he does talk about making donations - and Bearwood a company that he controls which carries out business in the UK as a &quot;merger broker&quot; (although I have yet to any evidence of any mergers brokered) does not make donations - but cannot be doing so as a proxy/agent of Ashcroft as to do so would be to do the same think as Abrahams (companies can act as agents just as much as individuals can).  



Paul - re the overseas travel exemption - as long as the travel, accomodation and subsistence is in connection with the donees political activities while overseas then it qualifies for the exemption - I suspect that there is little mileage in saying that the style of travel/accomodation was over lavish - unless Lion Air were in the habit of leaving nice gifts on the plane.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unity &#8211; not sure the same residency requirements apply in respect of peers getting on the register for European elections as for everyone else &#8211; it is not automatic on being a peer (see Section 3 of the RPA 1985) &#8211; I have never seen any confirmation that Ashcroft is on such a register.  He did make some donations in his own name when PPERA first started but has now stopped.  And although he has not made any subsequent donations &#8211; he does talk about making donations &#8211; and Bearwood a company that he controls which carries out business in the UK as a &#8220;merger broker&#8221; (although I have yet to any evidence of any mergers brokered) does not make donations &#8211; but cannot be doing so as a proxy/agent of Ashcroft as to do so would be to do the same think as Abrahams (companies can act as agents just as much as individuals can).  </p>
<p>Paul &#8211; re the overseas travel exemption &#8211; as long as the travel, accomodation and subsistence is in connection with the donees political activities while overseas then it qualifies for the exemption &#8211; I suspect that there is little mileage in saying that the style of travel/accomodation was over lavish &#8211; unless Lion Air were in the habit of leaving nice gifts on the plane.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Unity</title>
		<link>http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/torys-undeclared-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/comment-page-1/#comment-25001</link>
		<dc:creator>Unity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:32:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/tories-get-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/#comment-25001</guid>
		<description>Ashcroft can make cash donations - the register of peers is classed as part of the electoral roll for the purposes of PPERA.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ashcroft can make cash donations &#8211; the register of peers is classed as part of the electoral roll for the purposes of PPERA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/torys-undeclared-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/comment-page-1/#comment-25000</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:26:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/tories-get-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/#comment-25000</guid>
		<description>Surely the real question is whether the exception on residency for travel actually allows any old travel, rather than travel to one&#039;s business only. The latter being the way the laws look. Providing travel other than to one&#039;s factory or country is just cash. And Ashcroft isn&#039;t allowed to give cash.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely the real question is whether the exception on residency for travel actually allows any old travel, rather than travel to one&#8217;s business only. The latter being the way the laws look. Providing travel other than to one&#8217;s factory or country is just cash. And Ashcroft isn&#8217;t allowed to give cash.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tory boys never grow up</title>
		<link>http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/torys-undeclared-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/comment-page-1/#comment-24999</link>
		<dc:creator>tory boys never grow up</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:17:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/tories-get-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/#comment-24999</guid>
		<description>The question which needs to asked is what is the Tories motivation for wanting to massage the figures downwards given that it is already pretty well known that their snouts are already pretty deep into this particular trough.  I think that the answer may lie in two areas.  

Firstly, there are parlimentary rules in respect of advocacy - and not voting/speaking when MPs are financially conflicted more than certain amounts.  I&#039;m not sure about the details - but there is certainly a limit on how much trade unions can provide to the individual MPs (either directly or through their constituencies) - not sure why the same shouldn&#039;t apply 

Secondly, during the one year period prior to General/European elections there are national campaign expenditure limits (and these include amounts spent by accounting units/constituency associations in promoting the party or attacking another party - so all the Tory spending on posters in constitiencies etc should count to the limit) - and my guess is that an awful lot of expenditure is incorrectly being included from the reported totals by the Tories.  It was pretty clear that the Tories were outspending Labour at the last General Election - yet they reported about the same national campaign expenditure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The question which needs to asked is what is the Tories motivation for wanting to massage the figures downwards given that it is already pretty well known that their snouts are already pretty deep into this particular trough.  I think that the answer may lie in two areas.  </p>
<p>Firstly, there are parlimentary rules in respect of advocacy &#8211; and not voting/speaking when MPs are financially conflicted more than certain amounts.  I&#8217;m not sure about the details &#8211; but there is certainly a limit on how much trade unions can provide to the individual MPs (either directly or through their constituencies) &#8211; not sure why the same shouldn&#8217;t apply </p>
<p>Secondly, during the one year period prior to General/European elections there are national campaign expenditure limits (and these include amounts spent by accounting units/constituency associations in promoting the party or attacking another party &#8211; so all the Tory spending on posters in constitiencies etc should count to the limit) &#8211; and my guess is that an awful lot of expenditure is incorrectly being included from the reported totals by the Tories.  It was pretty clear that the Tories were outspending Labour at the last General Election &#8211; yet they reported about the same national campaign expenditure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ScotsToryB</title>
		<link>http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/torys-undeclared-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/comment-page-1/#comment-24990</link>
		<dc:creator>ScotsToryB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/tories-get-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/#comment-24990</guid>
		<description>Agreed. It would be more transparent to allocate the elevated cost to the principal with a reference given on the bag carriers&#039; declaration.

The problem is I find it difficult to understand why someone like Ashcroft would not ensure that the costs are declared properly considering how much he is loved by Labour.

I think it is probably as you state &#039;One cannot, however, rule out the possibility that MPs have been specifically advised to cite the costs of scheduled commercial travel in lieu of the actual costs of these flights and this is one area that the Electoral Commission should investigate given the size of the discrepancies in reporting involved.&#039;.

Clearly the rules have to be redrawn and discussed before implementation.

Have to go: three flying pigs just landed in my backyard and are knocking the teeth out of the chickens.

Good luck on the hunt.

STB.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed. It would be more transparent to allocate the elevated cost to the principal with a reference given on the bag carriers&#8217; declaration.</p>
<p>The problem is I find it difficult to understand why someone like Ashcroft would not ensure that the costs are declared properly considering how much he is loved by Labour.</p>
<p>I think it is probably as you state &#8216;One cannot, however, rule out the possibility that MPs have been specifically advised to cite the costs of scheduled commercial travel in lieu of the actual costs of these flights and this is one area that the Electoral Commission should investigate given the size of the discrepancies in reporting involved.&#8217;.</p>
<p>Clearly the rules have to be redrawn and discussed before implementation.</p>
<p>Have to go: three flying pigs just landed in my backyard and are knocking the teeth out of the chickens.</p>
<p>Good luck on the hunt.</p>
<p>STB.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Unity</title>
		<link>http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/torys-undeclared-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/comment-page-1/#comment-24989</link>
		<dc:creator>Unity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:13:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/tories-get-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/#comment-24989</guid>
		<description>ScotsToryB:

True... but then where are the recorded donations to the Conservative Party that relate to travel provided to staff accompanying MPs on these flights?

In certain cases, its clear that the notional cost of scheduled flights for bag carriers travelling with Shadow Ministers have been incorporated into donations booked against individual MPs - one such flight is recorded in the parliamentary register of MPs&#039; staff interests and the elevated cost of Cameron&#039;s trip to the Sudan (Â£16,000) compared to similar trips taken by Hague and Ancram, which were booked in at Â£5,400, can best be accounted for in terms of Cameron having taken a larger entourage.

Of course,that still leaves the notional value of the trip coming up a long way short of the cost price.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ScotsToryB:</p>
<p>True&#8230; but then where are the recorded donations to the Conservative Party that relate to travel provided to staff accompanying MPs on these flights?</p>
<p>In certain cases, its clear that the notional cost of scheduled flights for bag carriers travelling with Shadow Ministers have been incorporated into donations booked against individual MPs &#8211; one such flight is recorded in the parliamentary register of MPs&#8217; staff interests and the elevated cost of Cameron&#8217;s trip to the Sudan (Â£16,000) compared to similar trips taken by Hague and Ancram, which were booked in at Â£5,400, can best be accounted for in terms of Cameron having taken a larger entourage.</p>
<p>Of course,that still leaves the notional value of the trip coming up a long way short of the cost price.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ScotsToryB</title>
		<link>http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/torys-undeclared-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/comment-page-1/#comment-24988</link>
		<dc:creator>ScotsToryB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/tories-get-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/#comment-24988</guid>
		<description>You do not say whether the flight had one passenger or many. This jet can easily accommodate eight people. Should the cost be based on that then the declaration seems about right.

I would also imagine that Ashcroft would be supplying at wholesale rather than retail.

STB.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You do not say whether the flight had one passenger or many. This jet can easily accommodate eight people. Should the cost be based on that then the declaration seems about right.</p>
<p>I would also imagine that Ashcroft would be supplying at wholesale rather than retail.</p>
<p>STB.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/torys-undeclared-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/comment-page-1/#comment-24984</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:23:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/04/02/tories-get-600000-flight-subsidy-from-ashcroft/#comment-24984</guid>
		<description>NetJets, the private-jet-as-a-service operation which is almost certainly the cheapest way to travel by private jet, prices 25 flying hours on-demand anywhere at $100,000, so remember Â£2,000 an hour as an ROT. Of course that includes Warren Buffett&#039;s margins:-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NetJets, the private-jet-as-a-service operation which is almost certainly the cheapest way to travel by private jet, prices 25 flying hours on-demand anywhere at $100,000, so remember Â£2,000 an hour as an ROT. Of course that includes Warren Buffett&#8217;s margins:-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- www.000webhost.com Analytics Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://analytics.hosting24.com/count.php"></script>
<noscript><a href="http://www.hosting24.com/"><img src="http://analytics.hosting24.com/count.php" alt="web hosting" /></a></noscript>
<!-- End Of Analytics Code -->
