Tories boycott Commons inquiry into Ashcroft peerage | Politics | The Guardian .
The Guardian reports:
A Westminster inquiry into the row over Lord Ashcroft's peerage was thrown into turmoil when the Tory MPs on the committee walked out and said they were boycotting it permanently.
In what is understood to be an unprecedented move, Conservative members have withdrawn from the public administration select committee, some following discussions with the party whips.
The committee, regarded as one of the most influential in parliament, announced an inquiry into Ashcroft's ennoblement in the aftermath of the peer's revelation last week that he has non-dom status.
Sources close to the committee have confirmed the three Tory members have walked out, claiming the inquiry is pursuing a Labour vendetta. Some are under pressure from their leadership via the party whips, one senior source claimed.
It also emerged that Lord Ashcroft failed to meet a 9.30am deadline today to respond to an invitation to give evidence to the committee next Thursday. Gordon Prentice, a Labour committee member who has campaigned vociferously against the peer, made the announcement on his website. The committee has no powers to order members of the Lords to give evidence.
Unprecedented.
But then so is the situation.
No wonder the Tories are slipping in the polls.
Day by day they reveal themselves to be the same old nasty party.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“the three Tory members have walked out, claiming the inquiry is pursuing a Labour vendetta”
I guess they are just cross that the same degree of scrutiny isn’t being applied to Lord Paul, Lakshmi Mittal or Bernie Ecclestone.
Or are some pigs more equal than others?
@mad foetus
You may not have noticed that none of those three gave undertakings to secure public office
Lord Ashcroft did
I do not condone Lord Paul being a non-dom
I think Labour profoundly unwise to have mixed with Mittal, Ecclestone and Cohen
But Ashcroft’s case is very different
As a lawyer you really should be able to spot these things for yourself
I’m not sure it is very different but haven’t kept up with the details of the case so may be wrong. You may be surprised, but I agree with you on virtually every aspect of this. Mind you, not sure that lying in order to gain public office (if that’s what he did) is any worse that telling the truth in order to get the government to turn a blind eye to activities that are in your financial interest.
Part of the solution, as ever, is to reduce the power of the whips: if “the party” in power (of whatever hue) was not made up of 300+ career-politician lemmings and 5 free thinkers then the super wealthy would not be so confident that they could buy such influence through giving a million to the party.
It would be good to have some things – football clubs, political parties, newspapers – that are not just playthings of the super-rich.
(Which you might find ironic coming from me!)
I do find that ironic
But since I agree I’ll let it pass 🙂
This does however beg the question as to why a Tory donor was required to make certain undertakings to secure his peerage while Labour donors were not?
JayPee, I think you will find that the reason for the requirement placed on Ashcroft was because up to that point he had not spent much time in the UK – unlike the Labour donors.