If there was a general election tomorrow...

[Gringo]

Probably the same way he earned his seat in the house of lords - paying the right people.

[snowychap]

That's fair enough, but domicile is a weird thing. It basically goes off your father's domicile when you're born, and is incredibly hard to change thereafter. I know of cases where people have tried to change their domicile because they have lived away from the UK for 20 years or more, and they've still lost when they've tried to change domicile because of something trivial like visiting a relation once a year.

I'd be interested to know how Ashcroft came to be domiciled in Belize.

I understand that and accept that the law in the area (as with anything regarding taxation) isn't exactly simple. In my view, being a legislator in a particular country ought to be rather conclusive in the matter, though.

I think how he became domiciled in Belize would be interesting, too.

According to his website:

Michael Ashcroft grew up in Belize after his father had been posted there by the Foreign Office.

In 1982 he revisited the country and fell in love with its people and culture for a second time.

It seems unlikely that a diplomat stationed abroad would become domiciled in the country where they were posted, wouldn't it?

When does one inherit one's domicile status? At birth or on attaining majority?

[Risso]

When does one inherit one's domicile status? At birth or on attaining majority?

At birth (which is 'domicile of origin') , from your father's domicile if your parents are married, or from your mother if they're not. So you could be born in England, but have a Scottish domicile of origin if your dad is domiciled in Scotland.

'Domicile of choice' is when you choose to reside permanently in another country, and show beyond reasonable doubt that you do not intend to move back. In practice this is exceedingly hard to do, but not apparently, if you're a loaded Tory!

I'm actually studying this for my Chartered Institute of Taxation exams, so this is all good revision!

[snowychap]

So unless Ashcroft's father was domiciled in Belize in 1946 (which would be very unlikely as a British colonial civil servant), Ashcroft would have to have chosen Belize as his domicile of choice, saying, surely, that he intended to permanently reside in Belize and not to move back to this country. As you say, it appears that this process might be rather hard for some and not so for others.

[leviramsey]

Why?

Partly for the reason that Gringo has mentioned.

I object to anyone being a legislator in this country who is domiciled in another country (especially if it is a purely self-interested ruse).

That's fair enough, but domicile is a weird thing. It basically goes off your father's domicile when you're born, and is incredibly hard to change thereafter. I know of cases where people have tried to change their domicile because they have lived away from the UK for 20 years or more, and they've still lost when they've tried to change domicile because of something trivial like visiting a relation once a year.

I'd be interested to know how Ashcroft came to be domiciled in Belize.

To return to my Massachusetts example, unless I go to great length to establish domicile in another US state, I will be domiciled in Massachusetts for the rest of my days. Even if I manage to be no longer USA-domiciled, that would have no ability to make me no longer Massachusetts domiciled.

(the moral of the story, if you're from the USA, make sure you establish domicile in a low-tax state, e.g. New Hampshire, before emigrating).

[Risso]

To return to my Massachusetts example, unless I go to great length to establish domicile in another US state, I will be domiciled in Massachusetts for the rest of my days. Even if I manage to be no longer USA-domiciled, that would have no ability to make me no longer Massachusetts domiciled.

(the moral of the story, if you're from the USA, make sure you establish domicile in a low-tax state, e.g. New Hampshire, before emigrating).

I think it's actually a lot easier to change domicile between states in the US, than from the UK. Isn't it the case that you'd only retain Massachusetts domicile if you retain property there? Which really, wouldn't be diffferent from anywhere else.

[leviramsey]

To return to my Massachusetts example, unless I go to great length to establish domicile in another US state, I will be domiciled in Massachusetts for the rest of my days. Even if I manage to be no longer USA-domiciled, that would have no ability to make me no longer Massachusetts domiciled.

(the moral of the story, if you're from the USA, make sure you establish domicile in a low-tax state, e.g. New Hampshire, before emigrating).

I think it's actually a lot easier to change domicile between states in the US, than from the UK. Isn't it the case that you'd only retain Massachusetts domicile if you retain property there? Which really, wouldn't be diffferent from anywhere else.

Right, changing domicile between the states is easy.

But if you leave the USA, even if you go to great lengths to give up USA domicile (which is extremely difficult, especially since there's essentially a presumption that you're doing it for tax purposes and thus even if you give up USA domicile you still owe full income tax on your worldwide income for the next ten years), the states aren't bound to recognize that (they are bound to recognize a change of domicile in another state).

Which is why the advice for any American planning on expatriating is to first establish domicile in a state that (at the very least) doesn't have an income tax so that your previous state has no basis for a claim.

[drat01]

As predicted it seems that Hague is now distancing himself from Ashcroft - see the Indy on Thursday

Basically the Tory party have broken all of the promises they made about the chief donation to their marketing fund. Cameron is now being shown up for what many have suspected

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

What depresses me is this election will be decided by the generation who are comfortable in their homes and with their lives which were earned during the economic boom during the Blair years, now all of a sudden they are skint they jump on board the Tory train which will cut public spending like there is no tomorow, but as long as it doesn't effect them it's not a bad thing, right?

All at the same time forgetting the generation below them who have been royally **** over by the greed and carelessness of the past 15 years with a future that looks a whole lot bleaker and no real say in the matter.

[Rodders]

well there's still a load of young voters who are so comfortable they haven't even bothered to register to vote - I must admit I was a bit slow off the blocks, I'm waiting for my form or what ever it may be to come back to me...

[Chindie]

I'm slightly concerned with my vote actually. I've never registered to vote in Aberystwyth, didn't see the point. But dependant on when the election is, I may not be able to spoil my ballot in Brum.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

56% of under 25s aren't registered to vote, and it's nothing to do with 'comfort' it's to do with the fact Politics is an old mans game in Britain, exclusivity is killing it and they are too busy securing their pensions than to go out and speak to the younger generation.

In my opinion the system needs reformed to be more accessible to everyone, rather than turning on Daily Politics and seeing a bunch of middle class toffs yammer on about complete bullshit.

For people my age, it basically comes down to this, you've **** our futures up so who can we trust to sort it out? And to be honest there is no one that's grabbing the issue by the balls. Bunch of mild mannered, bland old farts in Westminster and it's no wonder the turnout has been falling steadily.

/rant.

[Davkaus]

well there's still a load of young voters who are so comfortable they haven't even bothered to register to vote - I must admit I was a bit slow off the blocks, I'm waiting for my form or what ever it may be to come back to me...

I haven't bothered. I just don't see the point. I've spent the last few months pondering over who to vote for, reading up on manifestos, regularly paying more attention than I usually do to shows like Question Time and Newsnight...And I'm still clueless. "We'll sort out this, we're thinking about..", noone actually says what they're going to do, they come out with soundbites that sound good, without actually saying what they have done since they were last elected, and without giving specifics on what they'll do in the next term. And even if they did give promises on what they'll do over the next 5 years or so, you just know that it means **** all once they're actually elected.

I despise Labour and the Tories as much as each other, a vote for either of them is pretty much "which colour do you prefer, red or blue?". I don't see any point voting for Liberal Democrats, as even his own mother doesn't recognise Nick Clegg when he walks into the room, and I can't see much point wasting my time spoiling a ballot paper, as it means nothing.

I'm not going to register or vote, it doesn't make much of a difference to me which of them **** me up the arse. It's a shame I can't opt out of the whole political process.

[tonyh29]

you've **** our futures up so who can we trust to sort it out?

genuine question but how exactly have "they" **** your future ?

[Davkaus]

Highest youth unemployment of all European countries apart from Spain, immense levels of national debt.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

you've **** our futures up so who can we trust to sort it out?

genuine question but how exactly have "they" **** your future ?

I realise it sounded more sinister than it was

But none the less, if you look at the unemployment rates, it's the 17-25 bracket that has been hit the hardest. Up to 20% are unemployed completely unable to find a job (that's a lot considering the national average is around 7.8%) and with employers opting for 'experienced' workers (rightly so, i would if i were an employer) up to one third of those young people are out of work for more than 6 months.

Add to this the plans for the Tories to increase the cost of tuition fee's (Labour might be at it too but you can never be sure with that lot) and to scrap such things as the EMA, it is more than obvious that the younger generation, my generation, is way down on their priorities and it should be the opposite, they should make up for their mistakes in hope for a better future for our and future generations rather than make their beds slightly more comfortable at night.

There is a serious danger of a 'lost generation' all of whom will come overqualified into a job market which quite frankly can't acomodate them, and public spending cuts by the red and blue tories will do **** all to help this.

It's all well and good for those over 30 at the moment, in general, as employers and land owners will still opt for you as you've had your chance to build some wealth and experience. But for us it'll be a long hard struggle and it's of no fault of our own. And it's just disheartening that we have little say in the matter and will be **** up the ass regardless of who's voted in.

[Rodders]

well I wouldn't be voting for clegg cameron or brown as I'm voting for the local MP who represents Cardiff Central - which is why those debates are a total waste of time for me - unless we massively reformed the process of voting - but to generate enough enthusiasm I think we need a widescale overhaul of the system and set up a system similar to US approach. At the moment it is all too easy to see a vote as being wasted and not having any representation. I'm no Tory yet the actual number of votes they get compared to the seats in Parliament is daft - on a smaller scale it affects the Lib Dems.

It's a debate that's been had several times over on here, but a means of voting for a local representative and a figurehead of govt would be much better - the media's power is such that we effectively have presidential attitudes towards politics anyway - talking about Brown, Cameron and occasionally Clegg so I think it's the sensible step forward.

[Davkaus]

Agreed that seperate votes for a PM and a local representative make sense. My MP does very good work, but a vote for him is tacit endorsement of Brown, so as harsh as it is on my MP, he won't be getting my vote, through no fault of his own.

[Rodders]

There is a serious danger of a 'lost generation' all of whom will come overqualified into a job market which quite frankly can't acomodate them, and public spending cuts by the red and blue tories will do **** all to help this.

Tis why I frequently ponder returning to Uni for an MA and PHD and just think ' sod it, let's just read books and be a lecturer' which would actually be cool, but I don't see much alternative. However I don't really have the spare thousands to fund that :/

[snowychap]

it's to do with the fact Politics is an old mans game in Britain

There are many arguments to the contrary on that score, here's one:

Youth in politics

One issue raised by James Purnell’s resignation is that politics is a young person‘s game. Like Ruth Kelly and Alan Milburn, he is leaving Parliament at an age when in the (perhaps mythical) past, people were just arriving in it. Whereas there was a time when people became MPs only after a career elsewhere - too often in trades unions or the law - politics now is a stepping stone to other careers.

This isn’t just true of a few disillusioned Blairites. If the Tories win the next election, their first Cabinet will have an average age of 51, three years younger than Thatcher’s first Cabinet in 1979. And I fear it has much less experience of life outside politics than Thatcher’s Cabinet - not least because most of the latter saw national service.

Is this youthening of politics a good thing? I fear not, for three reasons.

1. Young people, especially if they lack expertise themselves, tend to be more deferential towards experts and pseudo-experts. When combined with a lack of the experience which teaches us that apparently good ideas often go awry, this can lead to an excessive enthusiasm for new ideas: maybe Purnell’s support for public sector reform and Cameron’s attraction to Nudge are both examples of the lack of scepticism that comes with age.

2. Young people are energetic. In many ways, this is a good thing. But not in politics. A minister who is forever doing things is often meddling in things he doesn’t understand. Very often, it’s better to prioritize a few things, and regard others as not government business.

3. Younger politicians will often lack the outside support base that comes from having built connections over years, or from having the respect that comes with having expertise in a profession. They will therefore be more dependent for their career upon the patronage of party leaders; this is perhaps the main reason to lament the likes of Luciana Berger, or Cameron‘s A-list. This leads to even more centralism and fewer genuine challengers for the leadership. Despite his evident short-comings, Gordon Brown’s position relative to his Cabinet has probably been stronger than Thatcher’s was in 1979-80.

Now, I know I sound like an old git here. So are there offsetting advantages in having our politicians so youthful and inexperienced?

In my opinion the system needs reformed to be more accessible to everyone...

I'm not sure how reform of the system would make it more accessible to anyone. Reform of how politics conducts itself and how politicians conduct themselves might make it more attractive to more people but I don't think it is particularly inaccessible.

How do you think it is inaccessible?