Skip to main content

Zac Goldsmith and Richmond Park

Having a peer in the Tory Party whose tax arrangements are unclear (step forward Lord Ashcroft) is not that surprising. However, having a parliamentary candidate who is a "non domicile" is surprising.

The FT's Westminster blog points out on Richmond Park Conservatives Website That they say:
6. Tax the Super Rich and “non-domiciles”.
The over-seas population, living in this country, would make a financial contribution to it. Tax loopholes for the super rich would be closed by reducing the complexity of the tax system. This will pay for the previous two measures.

This is not just good news for Susan Kramer MP, but also a real challenge for David Cameron. Are his MPs really committed to the country?


To be fair to Zac Goldsmith he has been resident in his chosen constituency for most of his life and has paid pretty handsomely for the privilege of carrying the Conservative Party nomination.

That said there is a feeling afoot that he ought to make some conspicuous philanthropic contribution to the constituency to balance his political generosity. It has been suggested to him that he could pay for the forthcoming repairs to Richmond Park's car parks thereby freeing his intended constituents from the onerous burden of car parking fees as the beleaguered Department of Culture Media and Sport will attempt to claw back some of the outlay through charging. There is a public rally in the park organised by the Conservatives on 30th January 2010 about this - will he announce it then?

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.