Sat 9th & Sun 10th April 2016

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 8:40 pm

Robbie Gibb ‏@RobbieGibb 5m5 minutes ago

Join @AndrewMarr9 for #marrshow with @jeremycorbyn @AmberRudd_MP, Nigel Lawson, @IainDale @pollytoynbee

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 8:43 pm

Ha ha. Amber Rudd is the most senior person they're putting out?

She'll be financially savvy, as an ex-banker. She'll probably speak OK, but it's not her we want to hear from.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 8:46 pm

Robbie Gibb ‏@RobbieGibb 2m2 minutes ago
Join @afneil for #bbcsp with @NeilUKIP @PennyMordauntMP @IsabelOakeshott @BethRigby @SamCoatesTimes, 11am BBC1

Are they going to have an all left wing guests programme next week to balance that out?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 8:46 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: What is the 'hated football act'?
This, I presume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive ... 9_Act_2012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like it might be badly drafted if an SNPer (John Mason) says that Yes badges should be arrestable.

In December 2014, MSPs met with representatives from Fans Against Criminalisation (FAC), an organisation that campaigns against the Offensive Behaviour Act. The meeting came after an incident where a football fan wearing a "Free Palestine" T-shirt was questioned by police at Tynecastle. Defending the legislation, SNP MSP John Mason told FAC he believes fans wearing "Yes" badges at football matches should also be susceptible to police action.[5]

At their annual conference in 2014, the Scottish Socialist Party backed calls for the Offensive Behaviour Act to be repealed immediately.[6][7]
Eh? Am I going bonkers?

You're not.

Maybe it's settled down a bit, and the police only go for the intended target- shouty sectarianism.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 8:49 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: What is the 'hated football act'?
This, I presume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive ... 9_Act_2012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like it might be badly drafted if an SNPer (John Mason) says that Yes badges should be arrestable.

In December 2014, MSPs met with representatives from Fans Against Criminalisation (FAC), an organisation that campaigns against the Offensive Behaviour Act. The meeting came after an incident where a football fan wearing a "Free Palestine" T-shirt was questioned by police at Tynecastle. Defending the legislation, SNP MSP John Mason told FAC he believes fans wearing "Yes" badges at football matches should also be susceptible to police action.[5]

At their annual conference in 2014, the Scottish Socialist Party backed calls for the Offensive Behaviour Act to be repealed immediately.[6][7]
Eh? Am I going bonkers?

The Act does seem to be open to wide interpretation. The Lord Advocate's draft guidelines are here:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_Ju ... elines.pdf

I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that these offences were quite adequately covered by the 'breach of the peace' law.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 9:24 pm

Something must be done.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 9:55 pm

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 9:57 pm

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 10:15 pm

Wouldn't take that too seriously. Unless he's incredibly stupid it'll be something Ed was accused of.

ie basic planning.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 10:17 pm

There's a Tweet saying they're going to blockade Downing St tomorrow so no-one can get in or out...

Hobiejoe · Post by **Hobiejoe** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 10:38 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:I hope Hobiejoe and family are having a good time sking - or, if they're already back, that they did.

I thought of them today ... driving to work this morning - started off a bit grey and nothingy - then brilliant sunshine as we passed the estuary - then as we climbed the hill we entered into a thick sleet storm which persisted all the way to Newport where we emerged into brilliant sunshine again ... but saw that the distant Preselis (or Presleys as Mr Riots calls them) were snow covered - almost totally white. The weirdest weather. We've had two hail storms at the same time as bright sunshine this afternoon.

Thanks for the thought - we did the same for you when we drove past Stonehenge on the way up to Heathrow last week, describing how the stones were somehow transported from the, from now on, Presley (uh-huh) Hills.

The weather here has been weird. We stopped in Bergen for a couple of days, where it always rains ("hey" says a tourist to a local lad, "does it always rain in Bergen?" "Don't know madam, I'm only 16") but they've got a cracking gallery at KODE - if you saw the Andrew Graham Dixon BBC4 doc on Scandi art, most of the pictures, and a lot of the scenery in episode one came from Bergen and around, including lovely Nickolei Astrups and some fascinating stuff on Munch, including Melancholy, Girl On The Bridge, and The Three Stages Of Woman. They only had a small working pencil sketch of the face from The Scream, but I noticed that Norwegians treated it almost like an Icon.

Anyhoo, this is the second year we've done this trip. as Charlie really liked it last year, so given his alphabet soup of initials that ebb and flow around his various -isms, we're doing it again. So we take the train to Oslo and get off halfway, at Geilo, after a spectacular ride over Europe's largest and highest mountain plateau. Spend a week in a cozy cabin with a stove and a sauna and a chance for the sprogs to learn to ski/snowboard on a nice mountain with incredibly nice instructors - Charlie's guy was brilliant and got him through his huge anxiety and built his confidence enormously. We only told him about the ASD towards the end of the week. He said he kind of knew, but it was never a problem, a quick snowball seemed to get him back on course. I could have hugged the guy. The weather was weirdly damp and muggy when we arrived - actual rain! But it settled down to some cold nights and bright days eventually. But definately not looking good in the long run.

We're back on the train tomorrow, on to Oslo to fly home. Last year we spent a day in Oslo and visited Amundsen's Fram and the Viking Ship Museum (see also whatsisname on BBC4). That visit was particularly satisfying, as a particularly unbending teacher had told Charlie that he wasn't allowed to go on a school trip to London to see a Longship brought to the British Museum because of his behaviour, even if (as I already did on every trip) Dad accompanied him. You can see why we took him out of school not long after.

However, the school trip was cancelled.

How many Bwahahaha's did I Bwaha to myself when Charlie took in a picture of himself, perfectly well behaved, in front of the Godstadt Ship to show his Dahlian teacher? Just enough not to be vulgar. Ish.

Sounds extravagant, but my wife and I work literally day and night - she's off by 7:50, back 6:30ish, I do some of Charlie's home schooling, feed the buggers and do all the admin for the pub, then hand over to K when she gets home and head off to work for the night. So time together is a bit hard for us.

So that holiday last year, BA flights from Heathrow, hotel in Bergen, epic train journey, seven nights in a cabin, train to Oslo, night in Oslo, train to airport and flight home was just over £700 each with an independant travel agent, Ski Safari. worth every penny to us, especially when we met some people who'd booked with Crystal Ski who flew them straight to an airport several hours away by coach and straight back again at the end of the week, without the nights in Bergen and Oslo and the train journey AND charged them nearly £200 more EACH for the privilege. Harrumph. Corporate bastids.

It is best, though, to try and avoid eating and drinking out, that's why we go self-catering, and C has views on what he eats. But even so the quality and cheapness of the accommodation and travel more than makes up for the price of the occaisional pizza and £8-12 beer (off-license beer is about £2 a pint, and Bergen airport has a duty free shop when you get OFF the 'plane).

Am I trying to hard to sell this place? Probably. But it's a wonderful country, and we're sorely tempted to take up a house swap offer in the Lofoten Islands (house swaps are how we do most of our travelling).

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-x ... e=57B51475" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 10:55 pm

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham 18m18 minutes ago

New blog post at midnight. Worth a read if you're up and sober.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 10:59 pm

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 7m7 minutes ago
Cameron's truly dubious act was raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1m.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 11:11 pm

Ian Fraser ‏@Ian_Fraser 17m17 minutes ago
Cameron hasn't actually published his tax returns. He's provided a dance-of-the-seven-veils version https://waitingfortax.com/2016/04/09/th ... x-returns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … @JolyonMaugham

Link goes to the Jolyon Maugham blog.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 11:14 pm

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 34m34 minutes ago
Cameron has sent message to Boris Johnson through intermediary that he will still get a big cabinet job in major reshuffle. See Sunday Times

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 33m33 minutes ago
Cameron and Boris aides held secret peace talks in Westminster bar 10 days ago to discuss local elections and Boris job. See Sunday Times

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 32m32 minutes ago
Bojo has had no specific offers from Dave but home sec, defence sec and health all in play I'm told. He'd only get home if May goes to FCO

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 11:16 pm

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 47m47 minutes ago
Since Sky have put it on their website, Cameron got 200k from his mum, because she thought his 300k inheritance from dad was not enough

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 46m46 minutes ago
Downing Street won't say where Mrs Cam got the cash to give to Dave but seems likely some of it was from offshore funds

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 45m45 minutes ago
By splitting Dave's inheritance into 300k from dad and 200k from mum, if she lives until 2018 PM will dodge 70+k inheritance tax

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 11:19 pm

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 25m25 minutes ago
The prognosis amongst senior Tories is that Osborne will have to put out his tax return by the end of the week. Treasury say "no plans"

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 11:28 pm

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 45m45 minutes ago
By splitting Dave's inheritance into 300k from dad and 200k from mum, if she lives until 2018 PM will dodge 70+k inheritance tax

Ah, Ok, I think get it now. It wasn't a "dodge", as such, it's what you'd be advised to do by your provincial solicitor. But it sort of becomes one by Cameron changing the threshold.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 11:34 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 45m45 minutes ago
By splitting Dave's inheritance into 300k from dad and 200k from mum, if she lives until 2018 PM will dodge 70+k inheritance tax
Ah, Ok, I think get it now. It wasn't a "dodge", as such, it's what you'd be advised to do by your provincial solicitor. But it sort of becomes one by Cameron changing the threshold.

Doesn't it just.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 11:38 pm

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 32m32 minutes ago
Bojo has had no specific offers from Dave but home sec, defence sec and health all in play I'm told. He'd only get home if May goes to FCO

Health has got to be a no-no. That's safe pair of hands stuff, get your head down stuff. Crude politicking by Hunt hasn't gone down at all well. They ought to get Philip Hammond in.

Defence might be suitable, seeing Michael Fallon just blusters anyway. And it's a weak point for Labour, so a popular politician might press that advantage home.

Surely Home Secretary, with Johnson coming on and talking about terrorism is a no-no, too? He was appalling in his reaction to the London Riots, I recall. Completely flustered.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 11:40 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 45m45 minutes ago
By splitting Dave's inheritance into 300k from dad and 200k from mum, if she lives until 2018 PM will dodge 70+k inheritance tax
Ah, Ok, I think get it now. It wasn't a "dodge", as such, it's what you'd be advised to do by your provincial solicitor. But it sort of becomes one by Cameron changing the threshold.
Doesn't it just.

I don't think he changed the threshold because of it- it's a crude populist policy that he'd go for anyway. But another unfortunate juxtaposition.

Imagine if he didn't routinely get the benefit of the doubt in the media so much.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 11:42 pm

Johnson could do Education. He can basically be the same as Gove, posh sounding, but talking bollocks.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 11:44 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Johnson could do Education. He can basically be the same as Gove, posh sounding, but talking bollocks.

Where would they send Morgan? Some far flung outpost?

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sat 09 Apr, 2016 11:55 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 45m45 minutes ago
By splitting Dave's inheritance into 300k from dad and 200k from mum, if she lives until 2018 PM will dodge 70+k inheritance tax
Ah, Ok, I think get it now. It wasn't a "dodge", as such, it's what you'd be advised to do by your provincial solicitor. But it sort of becomes one by Cameron changing the threshold.

Correctomundo. It's what I'd have advised when I was still a Solicitor (albeit with lower amounts). As such, there's nothing either illegal, immoral or even dubious about it. Except for it being associated with someone who's spent the past week behaving in so guilty and suspicious a manner that even the Tory Press have had to point it out. And the question of where Mummy Cameron got £200K to play with.

And the bit about, aw, poor baby, £3000,000 just isn't enough for Momma's precious little lambkins, of course.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 12:03 am

Labour might be advised not to go for this "avoidance" thing too much. Most people can, broadly speaking, tell the difference between what a good sollicitor (h/t mbc1955) would advise, and tax haven stuff.

So when does John Mann come crashing into the media to demand an explanation into Cameron's inheritance tax avoidance?

Doesn't look like he avoided tax on that offshore trust, to be fair. But surely he ought to have mentioned it, tax havens being a matter of public controversy? And poor judgement to have got involved with a tax haven anyway.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 12:05 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Johnson could do Education. He can basically be the same as Gove, posh sounding, but talking bollocks.
Where would they send Morgan? Some far flung outpost?

Don't know. They can probably lose somebody from somewhere. Whittingdale, if Byline is right about their story tmrw.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 12:07 am

btw, Mbc, not suggesting you're "provincial". Just meant non-City solicitors on £500 an hour charge out rates.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 12:08 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Labour might be advised not to go for this "avoidance" thing too much. Most people can, broadly speaking, tell the difference between what a good sollicitor (h/t mbc1955) would advise, and tax haven stuff.

So when does John Mann come crashing into the media to demand an explanation into Cameron's inheritance tax avoidance?

Doesn't look like he avoided tax on that offshore trust, to be fair. But surely he ought to have mentioned it, tax havens being a matter of public controversy? And poor judgement to have got involved with a tax haven anyway.

I don't think we can say that yet, being fair or otherwise. There are too many unanswered questions, and far too many missing sides to half-truths that have been carefully phrased before we can consider giving Cameron a clean bill of health. Remember, he is the Prime Minister with moral obligations to the country, who is supposed to observe the Nolan Priinciples: he does not get the privilege of innocent until proved guilty.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 12:08 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Robbie Gibb ‏@RobbieGibb 2m2 minutes ago
Join @afneil for #bbcsp with @NeilUKIP @PennyMordauntMP @IsabelOakeshott @BethRigby @SamCoatesTimes, 11am BBC1
Are they going to have an all left wing guests programme next week to balance that out?

With a Labour Minister's brother sending out the tweets?

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 12:09 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:btw, Mbc, not suggesting you're "provincial". Just meant non-City solicitors on £500 an hour charge out rates.

De nada. Anyway, I was provincial, even when I was a Local Authority Principal Conveyancer.

Post by **refitman** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 12:40 am

Can we have a slow hand-clap for Chris Leslie, Ben Bradshaw, Emma Reynolds and others. In a week where the focus has been squarely on Cameron and his finances, and even Jess Philips has worked out which way to point the blunderbuss, they've decided that now is the right time to have another pop at Corbyn.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -eu-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 2:13 am

I'd give them more than a slow hand clap...

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 8:12 am

ohsocynical wrote:Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham 18m18 minutes ago

New blog post at midnight. Worth a read if you're up and sober.

It's interesting, isn't it?

Cameron has not published his tax returns - although he will probably say he has.
He has released a letter from a firm of accountants which gives some details of income Cameron told them about.
It's a letter, not a proper tax return; and no mention of what happened before 2010.

I could go to an accountant, with information I choose to give them, maybe all of my financial dealings or maybe not, and ask them to tidy it all up into a nice little spreadsheet-style thing.
The I could get them to send it to me, and publish it wherever. They would be doing nothing wrong, just acting on instructions with the information given to them. Which might not be complete.
I notice that the £200K his mum gave him (allegedly) isn't in the paperwork. I also notice that there are no savings details, just the interest you would expect on a bequest of £300,000.
What this tells me is that all he has provided is a letter containing an accountant-certified list of income (as declared by him) with the details of income tax paid on that income.
What it doesn't tell me is how much money Cameron has actually got, it doesn't tell me where his mum's £200K is, and it doesn't tell me much that I don't know already.

Much as it annoys me, I think Cameron has got away with it - he has been suitably apologetic, he has "taken the blame", he has now published something that is likely to suffice (even if it isn't what he promised), and has, as usual, tugged on peoples' heartstrings by telling us how upset he is about the nasty claims made about his poor dead dad.

Business as usual, then.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 9:17 am

Cameron said this -
"And later on I will be publishing the information that goes into my tax return, not just for this year but for the years gone past...."

This, of course, is precisely what he has done - from 2010.
He has published information that accountants have certified, on the basis of information supplied, is his income and his income tax.

There remain unanswered questions, IMHO.
If Cameron's parents arranged things so that they avoided IHT, it's not that unusual - people do this, quite legally, all the time.
But where is the rest of the money?
Ian Cameron's net worth was supposedly a lot more than the £2.74M in his will; he had handed over the ownership of 2 properties (together worth more than £3.5M) to Cameron's siblings before he died.
It has been suggested that the family's investments etc. are worth about £30 Million - if that's true, where is it?
Why has Cameron only published his information from 2010? What happened before that?

If Cameron were not the PM, he'd be just another rich bloke whose personal tax affairs are none of my business (beyond wanting tax havens abolished and loopholes closed).
But he IS the PM - and he is happy to cut the incomes of the poor (who have to put up with PAYE) while cutting taxes for people like himself and not being entirely truthful about his own financial affairs.

It makes me sick.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 9:58 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Labour might be advised not to go for this "avoidance" thing too much. Most people can, broadly speaking, tell the difference between what a good sollicitor (h/t mbc1955) would advise, and tax haven stuff.

So when does John Mann come crashing into the media to demand an explanation into Cameron's inheritance tax avoidance?

Doesn't look like he avoided tax on that offshore trust, to be fair. But surely he ought to have mentioned it, tax havens being a matter of public controversy? And poor judgement to have got involved with a tax haven anyway.

I'm not sure he will. I think its pretty obvious the cash inheritance has been presented in a way to bait criticism that can easily be slapped down. The area Cameron is on shaky ground is the investment he made himself in an offshore trust, not how his father arranged his will, although the incongruity between what he brother and sisters got and what he got certainly invites speculation. I still think Mann was right to ask whether he should have shared his offshore interest with the public, not least because if the official answer is "no" it reveals how easily MPs can enjoy financial perks that may create conflicts of interest in complete secrecy.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 10:06 am

Bonnie Greer ‏@Bonn1eGreer 15m15 minutes ago City of London, London
#JeremyCorbyn struck right tone on #Marr.Cam made this rod for his own back.He misjudged the mood of his own country

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 10:09 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
refitman wrote:Can we have a slow hand-clap for Chris Leslie, Ben Bradshaw, Emma Reynolds and others. In a week where the focus has been squarely on Cameron and his finances, and even Jess Philips has worked out which way to point the blunderbuss, they've decided that now is the right time to have another pop at Corbyn.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -eu-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Are they not capable of campaigning themselves?

And, more to the point, where is the supposed saviour of the remain campaign (and poster boy for several "moderates") Alan Johnson??

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 10:14 am

Mr Cameron was last week forced to admit that he and his wife held a £30,000 stake in his father’s offshore company after questions about his tax affairs following the publication of the so-called “Panama Papers”.

The shares were sold four months before he became Prime Minister in 2010.

However, Downing Street refused to say whether an additional £72,000 worth of shares held by Mr Cameron before he became Prime Minister related to offshore companies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... ax-of-80k/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's still refusing to divulge information about his own investments held while an MP, interests undeclared in the Register of Member's Interests. There is still a sense he is hiding something, something about his own financial affairs, rather than his father's. His financial arrangements remain murky and complex prior to becoming PM, when there are indications of a conscious effort to "tidy them up", much as Zac Goldsmith was ordered to give up non-dom status. That there are no skeletons since 2010 is what you would expect. That he didn't embark on this "tidy up" before becoming an MP indicates how much this is for show rather than from a genuine sense of the need for heightened responsibility of financial probity among public servants.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 10:25 am

One question about Dave's 'tax return', does he own the house himself and it rents out for 4k/month, or does he own it jointly with Sam and it rents out for 8k/month?
Just want to know the degree to which my mind should be boggling about London prices.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 10:50 am

Willow904 wrote:
Mr Cameron was last week forced to admit that he and his wife held a £30,000 stake in his father’s offshore company after questions about his tax affairs following the publication of the so-called “Panama Papers”.

The shares were sold four months before he became Prime Minister in 2010.

However, Downing Street refused to say whether an additional £72,000 worth of shares held by Mr Cameron before he became Prime Minister related to offshore companies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... ax-of-80k/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's still refusing to divulge information about his own investments held while an MP, interests undeclared in the Register of Member's Interests. There is still a sense he is hiding something, something about his own financial affairs, rather than his father's. His financial arrangements remain murky and complex prior to becoming PM, when there are indications of a conscious effort to "tidy them up", much as Zac Goldsmith was ordered to give up non-dom status. That there are no skeletons since 2010 is what you would expect. That he didn't embark on this "tidy up" before becoming an MP indicates how much this is for show rather than from a genuine sense of the need for heightened responsibility of financial probity among public servants.

Quite, Willow - as I've said repeatedly, Cameron sanitised his image in all manner of things before 2010.

He may well think that this was necessary because he was planning to be PM - but whoever advised him earlier, he was clearly doing this cleaning-up operation when he became Tory leader. A lot of unsavoury stuff was dumped before 2010 - hunting, nightclubs, etc.
He had to look good as leader of the opposition too - the cleaning-up was going on for some time.

Cameron comes from a class of society that basically does not think the rules they make for us apply to them. I doubt that he would have bothered with this sanitising of his image if he'd chosen not to go into politics. I also doubt the apple fell far from the tree in his case - he has benefited massively from his fathers' wealth and his family's bloodlines, and no amount of pretending he's just some ordinary bloke will wash with me or most other people.

I also think that part of the delay in 'fessing up was engineered for him to get as much political capital out of it as possible - he's got his little bit of paper to impress us all with his transparency (not), he's had a pop at people being rotten to his dad, and he has effectively warned his colleagues that they need to clean up too.
The collective net worth of Cameron's cabinet is estimated to be between £70 and £100 Million. Philip Hammond has declared worth of more than £8 Million, and has been accused of dodging tax by making expensive gifts to his wife. Hunt is also very wealthy. And we all know about Osborne's dodgy dealings and his £12,000 tax rebate.

However much they squabble about Europe or whatever the issue du jour happens to be, the Tories have an ingrained habit of always sticking together when they are attacked like this.
I think we can now expect lots of praise for Cameron for his "honesty" in the MSM, plenty of criticism for those who dared to impugn the memory of his sainted Papa, and business as usual.
Cameron will go to his summits and make lots of noise about tax havens and whatnot, and at home his cabinet will be quietly covering up their own dodginess and telling us all to move along.

Nothing to see here - and that'l be right. It'll all be hidden away where the hoi polloi can't see it.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 11:15 am

gilsey wrote:One question about Dave's 'tax return', does he own the house himself and it rents out for 4k/month, or does he own it jointly with Sam and it rents out for 8k/month?
Just want to know the degree to which my mind should be boggling about London prices.

Cameron's house in Notting Hill is in the conservation area around Oxford Gardens in W10.

Flats are about £750,000 for a 1-bed to way over a million for bigger ones. Houses start at about £4 Million.

Cameron's house is a 4-bed - the lowest price for rent PCM on RightMove is £3,987, the highest £39,000. Yes - £39K PCM.

As Dave says his house is shared with Sam, I can only assume it's rented out for about £8K a month. That would be about right.
Some news outlets have said that he's made about £500,000 from rent since 2010, which would make the above figures close.

Assuming he gets half of the rent, he is probably getting about £4K a month, which he should pay income tax on.

Property prices in London are insane.

Maeght · Post by **Maeght** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 11:24 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
refitman wrote:Can we have a slow hand-clap for Chris Leslie, Ben Bradshaw, Emma Reynolds and others. In a week where the focus has been squarely on Cameron and his finances, and even Jess Philips has worked out which way to point the blunderbuss, they've decided that now is the right time to have another pop at Corbyn.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -eu-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Are they not capable of campaigning themselves?

When I saw the headline:
'Decisive EU referendum victory is essential- we must help deliver it',
I naively assumed that the people who wrote it were going to campaign for a victory.
Now I see that 'we' doesn't actually mean we, it means Jeremy Corbyn.

What on earth is wrong with these people?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 11:26 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
refitman wrote:Can we have a slow hand-clap for Chris Leslie, Ben Bradshaw, Emma Reynolds and others. In a week where the focus has been squarely on Cameron and his finances, and even Jess Philips has worked out which way to point the blunderbuss, they've decided that now is the right time to have another pop at Corbyn.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -eu-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Are they not capable of campaigning themselves?

Actually, coming at this question from another angle, I seriously doubt that they *are* (or at any rate effectively) Completely captive creatures of the Westminster "bubble" (PLP, SPADs/bag carriers, "think tanks") and sustained almost entirely now by uncritically deferential coverage by parasitical lobby "journalists".

Their time has been and gone.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 11:36 am

Maeght wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
refitman wrote:Can we have a slow hand-clap for Chris Leslie, Ben Bradshaw, Emma Reynolds and others. In a week where the focus has been squarely on Cameron and his finances, and even Jess Philips has worked out which way to point the blunderbuss, they've decided that now is the right time to have another pop at Corbyn.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -eu-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Are they not capable of campaigning themselves?
When I saw the headline:
'Decisive EU referendum victory is essential- we must help deliver it',
I naively assumed that the people who wrote it were going to campaign for a victory.
Now I see that 'we' doesn't actually mean we, it means Jeremy Corbyn.

What on earth is wrong with these people?

I posted, yesterday, that I thought that Labour should be taking its own initiative re the Referendum and "In" campaign. I still think that they should do so (despite the fact that, within the Party, it would be bound to ruffle a few feathers). But, as has been already observed, it behoves Alan Johnson (Labour's "poster boy" for "In") to be rounding them up and heading them out, so to speak. He's as invisible as Stuart Rose - whose name I had trouble remembering the other day.

Edited

Extra "and" removed

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 11:36 am

Good morfternoon.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 12:06 pm

Well I wonder if Corbyn hasn't played this rather well.

A "contrite" Cameron publishes something meant to resemble his tax returns and Corbyn just says fine, I think all MPs should have to publish their tax returns.

So, the best possible question to ask Dave is "Do you believe that all MPs should publish their tax returns? And if so when will they all do so please?"

Of course Corbyn will upset a few from his own party with this, but it's the Tories that will suffer most.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 12:27 pm

The Guardian & Observer articles still dissatisfied with Cameron
More questions than answers, the content damaging - what he's chosen to share is edited - what is shared leaves Dave exposed - he's a beneficiary of resources he's never worked a day to earn

'...but everyone already knows that...'

Maybe, but something is different - the content of articles today are scathing and demonstrate the lengths Dave has engaged in manipulating his public persona

Good-afternoon, everyone

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 12:31 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Well I wonder if Corbyn hasn't played this rather well.

A "contrite" Cameron publishes something meant to resemble his tax returns and Corbyn just says fine, I think all MPs should have to publish their tax returns.

So, the best possible question to ask Dave is "Do you believe that all MPs should publish their tax returns? And if so when will they all do so please?"

Of course Corbyn will upset a few from his own party with this, but it's the Tories that will suffer most.

Unwise to push Cameron's tax free gift, I think. It's as uncontroversial a bit of tax planning as exists. They could slyly mention it while saying it's OK, mind.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 12:35 pm

I think this goes some way to answering the rent question - but what share of the rent David Cameron receives (50\50, 40\60, or whatever) isn't specified.

Last year, he paid almost £76,000 in tax on an income of more than £200,000. Those earnings included almost £47,000 from a share of rent paid on his family home in west London. (BBC News website)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36007718

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 10 Apr, 2016 12:38 pm

"As the tax returns of the sons of wealthy stockbrokers go, David Cameron’s have been unspectacular for the last six years.

Since he tidied up his affairs before becoming prime minister, it’s no surprise that his returns show no obvious signs of offshore
shenanigans. The last time he received any dividends, which may or may not have come from offshore companies, was in 2010-11,
when he received just £114.

What the returns do show, however, is just how financially “lucky” Cameron is, as he admitted last week.

On top of his prime ministerial salary, Cameron and his wife, Samantha, “earned” £430,800 (after expenses) from renting out their
£3.5m west London home in the five years up to March 2015. At a rate approaching £100,000 a year, the couple will by now have
cleared more than half a million pounds since arriving in 10 Downing Street.

Not much room for the PM to argue he’s not part of the “rentier” class."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-analysis

(my emphasis)

This is as good as it gets in 'defence' of Dave Cameron read from the Guardian today.

Take a look at the other articles on this issue
Bedroom Tax legislation written and voted for by this UK PM gets mentioned to great effect
Dave didn't handle this better because he can't