I was asked by Nick Ferrari on LBC this morning whether the Panama Papers story has already run away from David Cameron and is now out of his control. I suspect Nick may be right on this one, but I made the following points.
First, Cameron has not spoken about his father. He is not, I stress, responsible for what his father did, but he must have a view. He could have said that much as he respects his father, much as he loves him and much as he is grateful for what he did for him he has to disagree with him on the use of offshore. This is what mature, responsible, children sometimes have to do: they have to say that they disagree with their parents. But Cameron has not done this. That, to me is quite significant, because it suggests that David Cameron may not have that disagreement, and I would find that deeply troubling. It would imply that all the conflicts of interest that are at the heart of the concern that has been raised about his family's affairs are real. If he laid those concerns to rest by making the type of comment I suggest I am quite sure that his own political progress on this issue would be much easier for him.
Second, David Cameron has said two things. Firstly he's has said that his family does not benefit from offshore at present, and that he does not think it will do so in the future. I accept his assurance on the present: he should know. But he cannot give that assurance for the future: there is some good reason for believing that his mother may still have an interest in his late father's company, in which case it is of course entirely possible that David Cameron may benefit from it at sometime to come, or that his children will. As a consequence his word on this is simply not worth relying upon. That is a big error of judgement on his part.
Third, he is given no assurance that he has not benefited from these arrangements in the past. I suspect he might have some considerable difficulty in doing so: he was at one point, very obviously, dependent upon his father, who presumably was in turn dependent upon these offshore operations to provide his main source of income. In that case, once again, David Cameron has not provided the assurance that is needed. He can only do this by using the form of words I suggest in my second paragraph.
In other words, so far, David Cameron has definitely not got himself off the hook with regard to this, and has, perversely, if anything made a situation worse by every comment he has made. This is unfortunate: there is an enormous challenge to be faced when dealing with the consequences of the Panama Papers. If the Prime Minister is not up to the task because he is conflicted then quite clearly he prejudices the best interest of the UK, and this is not a time for that to happen.
In that case, I very strongly suggest that David Cameron has little choice but make another statement making it clear that whatever his father did he would not do the same. Only by doing so can you provide himself with the room to go forward with the confidence of the nation behind him.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
We’ve seen the wordsmithing defence before – from Mr Blair and Bill Clinton. Maybe his “savings” are in property or in Swallow Bank, only a few know.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03qdlwc
I heard James Quarmby defending Cameron on Today this a.m.
I didn’t understand what he was saying plus Humphreys seemed to struggle.
Is there going to be a riposte to Quarmby’s very slick defence of Cameron? I do hope so.
Richard, many, many thanks for all your pioneering work re tax and trying to make this world a fairer place.
I hope it’s here – but admittedly, not all in one place
I agree with much of what you have said. Cameron undoubtedly benefitted from the actions of his father when Cameron-junior was a young man – but big deal I & no reasonable person would hold that against him. Where it all starts to fall apart is knowledge. At some point Cameron junior must have known in general terms, what Cameron senior was doing. He must have known that something was “not quite right”. Cameron has an Oxford PPE – he knows how the world works – he would not have become PM if he did not. By 2010 when Cameron junior became PM he would have known in general terms what his father was doing. He would have known that the structures that his father had set up were focused on dodging UK taxes. Those sturctures still exist. Cameron junior since assuming office has done nothing to address the underling systems that faciliate these structures.
I have started a petition on 38degrees to have Cameron impeached by parliament. His lack of action in two parliaments with respect to tax dodging has led to the loss of 10s of billions of £s in revenue. The rot has to stop & Cameron by his lack of action. his knowledge of wrong doings with respect to tax dodging, his government’s cutting of HMRC resources to address tax dodging show that he and his ilk are part of the problem.
David Cameron – J’accuse.
I promise you Mike that as a regular 38 Degrees voter I will definitely support your idea to have David ‘Panamaron’ impeached if the issue goes forward on that platform.
Fantastic! You will get a lot of support. The “well all politicians lie”does not excuse Cameron or so many members of this government for the lies and spin they repeat as a rote when debating many big issues facing our country. The Icelandic PM resigned and the youth want a government change as they don’t want an unelected replacement. Cameron had his change to tell the truth but he didn’t. Even then an honourable man would resign but clearly he is just a career politician and they only serve their own interests.
The purpose of the offshore arrangement is to hide the transaction trail and the ultimate beneficiary.
How would you know you were not a beneficiary unless you were aware of the hidden transaction trail?
I’d rather Cameron spend 5 minutes thinking about securing a free trade and free movement deal after Brexit than spend 5 minutes opining in public about his dad.
Oh dear
How misplaced can your judgement be?
Parenting will out! Our Dave was brought up in an environment that prioritised self above society; his culture has stemmed from his father. Dave’s wife’s family have supported tax havens.
The family trees make interesting reading, seems to be no doubt here where David Cameron’s interests might really lie (looking after the family jewels!)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/06/the-cameron-network-inherited-wealth-and-family-companies
We know he is a wealthy man. Of course he, or his advisors, will have taken the usual steps to protect his wealth. Shouldn’t he be focusing on taking down the tax havens and working with the OECD and other international groups to level the playing field?
Even if he said all the things you suggest, would you trust him until he has taken demonstrable action?
I need action
He has proven his word is not good enough
I know that the upper classes have funny ideas about inheritance but there is an inequality about the distribution of Cameron’s father’s will which seems curious.
The eldest brother did some sort of swop for the father’s family country home/seat in 2006, valued at 2.3 million. The two sisters received equal shares of a London property valued at 1 million and David Cameron, already PM, ‘only’ inherited a lump sum of 300k… barely enough to pay the Eton fees of David Cameron’s son.
Are you saying something else may have happened?
I’m just saying 🙂
🙂
At the end of the day, the Tax must be repaid to the UK. Is it possible, to callculate how much Tax has been avoided and declare what the position would be if Tax had been paid. All these expensive London Properties, how were they bought and who owned them?
The reality is that UK will be damaged further if it colludes with offshore crimminals. Cameroon must come clean and show by example. If propertys in London and elsewhere are needed to be sold to pay the Tax then the family should.
I think you have the nature of their avoidance wrong
His wording suggests that he has liquidated the trusts and stashed the money somewhere else. Surprised this possibility has not been picked up more widely.
Osborne, too, has failed to be very clear if he benefits from an offshore trust:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb5fnWwczTE
This little piggy was a banker,
This little piggy did accounts,
This little piggy was a lawyer,
This little piggy lived offshore,
And this little piggy went tax-free
tax-free tax-free all the way home.
Now on the blog
Thanks
A little poem to say thank you for your amazing work. Keep up the good fight!
I will