Lord Ashcroft - Only Dom When We're Winning

Of all the aspects of the Lord Ashcroft revelations regarding his now admitted non-dom status, the one that stands out the most for me is the suggestion that he will only sort this out and become domiciled for tax purposes if the Tories win the election.

As highlighted in this story in the Mail today:

Lord Ashcroft suggested yesterday that he would change his status and remain in the Lords if the Tories win the election and press ahead with a planned change in the law forcing all MPs and peers to pay tax on their worldwide income.

So even now he is hedging his bets and making any change in his status contingent on a Tory win. Perhaps this goes a long way to explaining why it has taken him 10 years to admit his tax status. Had he done so in he last decade he may well have found it impossible to remain a non-dom whilst being deeply involved in domestic politics.

The reason this issue is so politically explosive in the first place is because of the impression given that a wealthy man who is not paying all his tax in this country is nevertheless able to hugely influence the potential outcome of an election using his wealth.

The fact that it seems like he is only willing to resolve this if his friends get into power gives an even worse impression in my view.

Ashcroft - "Someone on your side did it too" is no defence

Following the admission this morning from the Tory Lord Ashcroft that he is non-domiciled for UK tax purposes I have just spotted the following from Eric Pickles on Twitter:

ericpickles

19 minutes ago from UberTwitter

@johnprescott have you told Lord Paul to pay back 10 years of tax or shall I tell him?

ericpickles

8 minutes ago from UberTwitter

@johnprescott have you told Lakshmi Mittal to pay back 10 years of tax or shall I tell him?

ericpickles

4 minutes ago from UberTwitter

@johnprescott have you told Sir Ronald Cohen to pay back 10 years of tax or shall I tell him?

The other day when Labour were using the fact that Andy Coulson has been implicated in bullying allegations in response to the accusations against Brown, I pointed out that this attempted defence or deflection was very weak.

I am afraid the same applies here. Pickles should reflect on why it has taken years for Ashcroft to admit this, the damage it has caused to them and repairing this rather than trying to fling mud at the other side as a reflex response. It does not look good. Any party, including the Lib Dems that have non-doms will need to sort this out.

The Tories should concentrate on getting their own house in order.

Why Iain Dale is wrong about Zac Goldsmith

Numerous bloggers (including plenty of Lib Dems) have commented on the story in the Sunday Times today that Tory Richmond Park PPC Zac Goldsmith is a non-dom and currently avoids UK income tax.

Iain Dale has had a crack at a defence of Mr Goldsmith. In a blogpost entitled "Tofftastic" he says:

There was lots of sanctimonious guff on Twitter from assorted lefties last night about the Sunday Times story that Zak Goldsmith is a 'non dom'. They even tried to suggest that he should resign as a candidate or David Cameron should sack him. Er, on what grounds exactly? What law has he broken? Yup, that's right, none. His tax status is a matter between him and the tax authorities. If they are satisfied with it, it's rather difficult to see why Kerry McCarthy (for it is she) shouldn't be. In any case, Goldsmith has decided to withdraw from 'non dom' status before the election so that's rather spiked the guns of those who seek to do him down.

I'm afraid that that is just not good enough. Whilst Mr Goldsmith has indeed not broken any laws, what Iain is ignoring is how important it is that politicians are affected by the same rules that govern ordinary people. This was one of the big issues that the expenses scandal threw up that MPs were not subject to the same sort of scrutiny regarding expenses as the rest of us and Iain knows very well just how well the defence of "it was within the rules" went down there. If Mr Goldsmith has not been subject to the same tax laws as the vast majority of UK citizens then surely he has put himself in a similar category at least in the eyes of the average taxpayer.

Iain's claim that Zac's decision to withdraw from non-dom status before the election has "spiked the guns" of those who are questioning this cuts no ice with me. Reverting to domestic status at the last minute just before an election where to do otherwise would be politically suicidal does not spike anyone's guns.

I met Zac at an event we were both speaking at a couple of months ago which I blogged about here. He is a very charismatic and charming man and he has some very good, strongly held views about the environment. I liked him on a personal level and I could not really find much that he said politically that I disagreed with either. Indeed I think the Parliamentary Conservative Party would be a much better place if they had lots more MPs like him. However this revelation is immensely damaging to his campaign. It has nothing to do with the "Toff" tag as Iain is trying to imply with the title of his post and everything to do with a sense of fair play.

As Paul Walter mentioned in his blogpost on this, Mr Goldsmith's own website points out that "Zac grew up in Richmond and went to school in Richmond. He has lived in Richmond most of his life." I think many in Richmond will struggle to reconcile that statement with his tax status. You can't credibly play the local card if you don't pay tax in this country.

I think Susan Kramer's chances of retaining her seats for the Lib Dems in Richmond Park just got a lot better.