The Bahamas Leaks show that Amber Rudd, the UK's home secretary, has been shown to have had links with two Bahamas registered companies to which she had not made apparent previous reference. The details of what she and they did can be found elsewhere; I am concerned here with the consequence of this revelation.
It should be remembered that the Home Secretary's job, above all else, is to uphold the rule of law in the UK. I am aware that the Justice Ministry has a specific task in the regard now, but the Hone Secretary has the overall charge. It is one of the great offices of state.
Ii is also appropriate to note that I define secrecy jurisdictions as places that intentionally create regulation for the primary benefit and use of those not resident in their geographical domain with that regulation being designed to undermine the legislation or regulation of another jurisdiction and with the secrecy jurisdictions also creating a deliberate, legally backed veil of secrecy that ensures that those from outside the jurisdiction making use of its regulation cannot be identified to be doing so. This understanding has become commonplace since I first suggested it.
The contradictions between the task of the Home Secretary and the role of secrecy jurisdictions is immediately apparent: one is tasked with upholding the law that secrecy jurisdictions and their users seek to subvert. It is very hard to think of roles more juxtaposed. And now Amber Rudd holds the post of Home Secretary as someone who used tax havens and who did not reveal that fact when talking about David Cameron's father's activities in such places not that long ago.
If she had done so at that time and said she had changed her mind about their use and role her position now would be easy to manage: anyone is entitled to realise they have made a mistake, apologise and move on (assuming they have not broken the law) and expect the apology and change of heart to be accepted. But we have never heard that come from Amber Rudd, as far as I am aware. In that case questions as to whether she is now fit for office, given that she had a specific opportunity to make such apology in the recent past, are appropriate.
I will be explicit: you cannot, in my opinion, believe that secrecy jurisdictions like the Bahamas have a valid role when that role is to undermine the rule of law in other countries and also be UK Home Secretary. Your job as Home Secretary will be compromised if that is what you believe. It is a hard enough task for anyone to do. When your beliefs undermine your ability to undertake the task you have no chance of doing it properly.
It may be time for Amber Rudd to go.
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:
I think that we have reached a point where every Conservative MP who has achieved a position of prominence in the Party has made tax ‘arrangements’ that involve offshore funds.
Conservatives, and others.
It may well be that there is no-one who can break ranks on this issue: any junior MP would terminate tgeir political career by raising the issue, and every senior MP is complicit – and well aware that they, and they alone, will face an intensive and hostile press campaign if they seek to undermine their colleagues on this issue.
We both know where the press stand on this, and why.
I hardly need remind you of our former Chancellor’s family business; nor of his role in the coalition’s very first cabinet meeting, in pushing for the renegotiation of our treaties with the Swiss on the taxation of family trust funds.
This is no longer ‘a few bad apples’: it is all of them, it is ‘the way things are done’, it is the culture.
It’s going to be a long, long haul of campaigning to get anywhere with this; and you will get nowhere with established politicians.
Again, be assured that I am not a misogynist but I totally agree with the fact that she has sullied her position and that she must go (never mind ‘may’). There are just too many contradictions here.
But also, should a certain Theresa May not have been getting her not insiginficant staff checking up on who she appoints?
So, should the Chair of the PAC have links to a Secrecy jurisdiction such as Litchenstein?
She didn’t have such links
She inherited finds that had and sorted it out
Fundamentally different
And revealing if your ignorance
It is worth reading up about Amber Rudd. She seems to be an ex venture capitalist. Since when did that qualify anyone to be SoS? This is someone who does deals for investors (individuals or small groups of them). That’s very different to governing a country for the benefit of all. Unless of course your job is hive of more of the state to those investors of course which I suspect is the case.
I will be explicit: you cannot, in my opinion, believe that secrecy jurisdictions like the Bahamas have a valid role when that role is to undermine the rule of law in other countries and also be UK Home Secretary.
Bang on. You have to support the interests of the Crown Dependencies instead, which are your responsibility. Trebles all round! 🙂
People can wriggle and quibble, indeed the people with the kind of money needed to be involved with offshore in the first place can afford to pay people to wriggle and quibble for them. These people can argue semantics and nuance when it comes to the law and their responsibilities as MPs and ministers. The bottom line, however, should always be the spirit of the law and operating with the utmost probity when taking up public office, and that includes proper supervision of the various people and organisations that look after your money.
As has been eluded to already that there may be too few MPs sufficiently ‘clean’ to cast the first stone speaks volumes about the top most layers of power in the UK.
Amber , sister of Roland and daughter of Tony both with a ” tangible” financial ” pedigree”
Hmmm. ” Monti” cello ? Obviously never ever worth a ” hill” of beans ( alive or dead)
Haven’t you in the past boasted of your involvement with the company which held the UK rights to Trivial Pursuit? And were not the worldwide rights to Trivial Pursuit held by a Barbados registered company? So you too have had in the past links to Barbados companies which were used to funnel UK profits out of the UK.
Of course, you will say it is different because you allow yourself different standards than you expect from others. But the red of us can see the hypocrisy.
I have never denied it
And as I made clear, seeing the structures advised on by the big firms was what decided me to never replicate them or partake in such activity
I made very clear that I was opposed
You will note that I have covered that angle in the blog post
There is no hypocrisy here
I acknowledged what I did and made clear that although it was all legal I would not want to do it again
There is not a hint of hypocrisy in that. learning from mistakes is not something anyone has to apologise for. Not doing so is
Harry mate………….would you rather Richard had just carried on doing what he did previously and hadn’t started doing this blog, the writing and more importantly the campaigning?
Seems like it to me. And thank goodness he didn’t. I wish more of the parasites in the City would stop and reflect on what they are doing and do the same. Don’t you?
I’m all for poachers turning into game keepers. The benefits are obvious. Except perhaps to you.
Keep being perfect but please remember that expertise is not just a simple case of studying – it also comes from learning from doing and from making mistakes.
Blessed the repentant sinner. Harry go stand in the corner.