"Due diligence" and the Tories

That the Electoral Commission - despite a disgraceful boycott of their requests to interview senior Tories - has ruled that Lord Ashcroft's Bearwood company is entitled to pour money into buying the election in marginal constituencies does not absolve the party from the questions that arise after William Hague's astonishing admission on BBC Radio last night.

Hague effectively admitted that Lord Ashcroft had misled him - to put it politely - about his tax status. As Lord Turnbull, the former Cabinet Secretary, has indicated, ignorance is no defence when Hague had given clear undertakings as a condition of Ashcroft's peerage. The Electoral Commission maintains - despite their boycott of its interviewers - that the Tories had in all probability done their 'due diligence' over the Bearwood donations. Yet since Lord Turnbull is quite clear that Hague had not done his 'due diligence' with respect to Ashcroft's supposed willingness to pay his taxes as a UK resident, it is hard to see on what basis the Electoral Commission has decided to give his party colleagues the benefit of the doubt.

The facts appear to be these. Lord Ashcroft led Hague to believe that he would pay "tens of millions of pounds a year" in taxes if he entered the House of Lords. Ashcroft intended to do no such thing, preferring the congenial Belizean tax regime, and throwing a few quid to the Revenue as a non-dom instead. James Arbuthnot, a Tory chief whip, reached some side deal with Sir Hayden Philips, according to the Cabinet Office, that allowed Ashcroft to be declared a 'long-term' rather than 'permanent' resident, allowing his congenial Belizean tax regime to continue for most of Ashcroft's income. He presumably didn't feel it necessary to tell William Hague. As a result, Hague misled both Tony Blair and the Cabinet Secretary. And until a few months ago, neither Hague nor presumably David Cameron could be arsed to check what had gone one.

Of course, Ashcroft should be required to relinquish his role in the Tory party and his peerage. But isn't there also a big question over the judgment and competence of William Hague, and his ability to be Foreign Secretary if the Tories win the election, when he may be required to agree treaties and other matters with other countries? Presumably he won't be too bothered to check up on whether they keep their promises.

And I do so look forward to hearing David Cameron pontificating about cleaning up politics again.

Dave's Euro man wants Euro-taxes

With William Hague telling Euro-leaders not to back Tony Blair for the Presidency of Europe, it is instructive to read the considered thoughts of his most serious rival, Herman Van Rompuy, who one assumes to be David Cameron's preferred candidate in the absence of any loony right-wingers from Eastern Europe in the running. According to today's Times, Dave's man wants to see new European taxes. It is no wonder that the well-informed Ben Brogan is urging a small wager on Tony Blair winning through. With 4/1 available at Paddy Power, it doesn't sound like bad advice.

Hague shows his immaturity in Europe

It is quite extraordinary that William Hague is going around Europe bad-mouthing our former Prime Minister in a bid to scupper his chances of becoming European President. At the same time, despite the growing criticism at home and abroad, he remains doggedly wedded to his bizarre allies in Eastern Europe and further away from ever than the Christian Democrat mainstream in the European Parliament.

The more the facts show the extremism of Kaminski or the Latvian Fatherland party, the more those who raise them find themselves smeared and attacked. No wonder an experienced hand like Michael Heseltine has warned that they will have to be ditched pronto if the Tories win power.

The idea that a would-be future foreign secretary is leading campaign on behalf of the Luxembourg prime minister ahead of one of our greatest British prime ministers suggests a startling immaturity. We are not talking Nigel Farage or Nick Griffin here, after all, but someone aspiring to a great office of state. Yet Hague puts narrow Tory sectarianism first.

I had thought that Hague had become one of the more substantial figures on David Cameron's front bench. But his antics in recent months have shown how wrong I was. He is wholly lacking in the judgment required for the job, and prone to act in ways that are utterly at odds with the British national interest. It is no wonder that so many in the US and Europe are so bemused.

Why are the Tories descending into partisan pettiness?

A couple of years ago, David Cameron was keen to stress the all-embracing nature of the new Conservatives. They were nothing less than the new Blairites, he trilled, though not all of us were convinced.

But the message was clear: the partisan nastiness so aptly identified by Theresa May in her evocation of the 'nasty party' was a thing of the past. Voters who had shifted to Labour could turn to the new cuddly Tories safe in the knowledge that they had the national interest, rather than the partisan concerns of a minority of right wing obsessives, at heart.

Of course, in getting elected, David Cameron had to throw a few crumbs to the obsessives, pledging to abandon the European Christian Democrats in favour of a barmy alliance of fringe parties cobbled together among the also-rans of Europe. Nobody believed he really meant it. And then it came to pass. The Tories now sit with the Latvian Waffen SS memorial party, while decent middle of the roaders like Edward McMillan Scott are booted out.

And when there is a real chance that one of the greatest British politicians of our age could become the President of Europe, what is the considered response of the man who would be Cameron's Foreign Secretary? "He should be let nowhere near the job," he says, using the sort of diplomatic skills normally apparent in UKIP.

Tony Blair often put the national interest above partisan interests, appointing able Tories like Chris Patten to key posts in Northern Ireland, for example. Is it really too much to expect David Cameron to do the same?

Harriet hits Hague for six

Not only did Harriet Harman, remarkably, have the better jokes at PMQs today, she clearly outshone William Hague as a result. Of course, it helps that expectations for Harman were lowered by the media and Tory backbench gigglers. But those who helped prepare her did their job well and the doyen of parliamentary comedians was left reeling. (Contrary to the BBC's online report of the exchange, Hague did not as I suggested earlier say that Harman was the first woman to do PMQs for Labour (Margaret Beckett did so in 1994 as temporary leader of the opposition) but the first women to answer questions, so I have amended my earlier posting.)

The moral high ground

William Hague did his best not to sound too rattled this morning by the latest ramblings of David Cameron's 'security adviser', Lady (Pauline) Neville-Jones, who was political director of the Foreign Office when Britain abandoned Bosnians to their terrible fate. Neville-Jones apparently thinks Britain has 'lost the moral high ground' over Iraq. But then this is an area in which her expertise knows no bounds. As her security review (Pdf, p12) so aptly noted:

The UK will be judged both by how we treat our own people, and also by the standards that prevail in our external behaviour. Inconsistency will be spotted.

Quite. Hague cheekily ended his Today interview by pointing out how interventionism had worked well (with Blair's support) for the people of Sierra Leone and Kosovo (where Milosevic was defeated). Ouch!