Could Gordon Brown actually win the UK election? That was the head explosion inducing question posed by a Times article yesterday reacting to a new poll which showed just a two point Conservative lead:
The YouGov survey places David Cameron’s Conservatives on 37%, as against 35% for Labour — the closest gap between the parties in more than two years.
It means Labour is heading for a total of 317 seats, nine short of an overall majority, with the Tories languishing on a total of just 263 MPs. Such an outcome would mean Brown could stay in office and deny Cameron the keys to No 10.
Brown, a terminally uncharismatic politician who has weathered the fallout from the Iraq War, the financial crisis, and was recently hit with allegations of bullying his staff, is one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in recent history - so unpopular he's had to deal with multiple plots within his own party to oust him. A Gordon Brown win would, in the abstract, seem about as likely as George Bush pulling off a win in the 2008 election, had he been allowed to run a third time.
But David Cameron might have a bigger problem now. After losing elections for 14 years, the weakened Tory party found help from an extremely powerful donor - Baron Michael Ashcroft, a conservative billionaire of dual British/ Belizean nationality who has funneled millions into the party's operations. Ashcroft, who has helped lead the campaign to "modernize" the party's image, has worked his way up to Deputy Chairman of the party.
Ashcroft's business interests are concentrated in the small, impoverished South American of Belize, an ex-British colony known among other things as a tax haven. Ashcroft began investing in the nation's economy shortly after it acquired its independence, and by the 90s had gained near-monopoly control over everything from the telecommunications market, to the fruit trade, to the country's largest bank. His corrupt dealings (he gave millions to a far right political party who in turn passed a number of helpful laws) eventually led to such massive outrage from the country's population that Ashcroft's former company Telemedia was nationalized by the government, with the Prime Minister declaring that Ashcroft had "subjugated an entire nation."
Just today the UK press was hit with a bombshell when Ashcroft, after years of refusing to answer the seemingly simple question of whether he pays taxes in the UK, admitted that he does not. This comes as Bearwood Corporate Services, a company controlled by Ashcroft, is being investigated by the UK election commission, with widespread suspicision that it isn't a legitimate company at all but essentially a money laundering operation to funnel Ashcroft's tax-exempt funds into Conservative election operations.
This scandal touches on some of the same concerns raised by the recent Supreme Court decision in the States. Calling Ashcroft's funding of the election "representation without taxation" The Guardian slammed Cameron's dishonesty and declared the issue a matter of "profound public interest."
The potential conflict of interest becomes glaringly obvious in light of a controversy that emerged last month. William Hague, who would be Foreign Minister in a Cameron government, flew on Ashcroft's dime to Cuba, stayed on his yacht, and apparently participated in deliberations with the Cuban government - the content of which has never been revealed.
Of course, being the "change" candidate, the overall dynamics of the election still greatly favor Cameron. But with shady dealings like this taking place so easily in the UK, it's worth asking just how hard it would be for a politically-connected billionaire to perform a similar feat in this country. And what does someone like Ashcroft hope to gain anyway, once he has the Prime Minister's ear?