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?

Comments

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

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…