As the Mail has reported this morning:
David Cameron has come under intense pressure to crack down on offshore tax havens after a massive data leak exposed the scale of efforts by the rich and powerful to hide assets.
The Prime Minister's late father was reported to be among figures - including six peers, three ex-Tory MPs and political party donors - named in relation to investments set up by Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.
Downing Street said it was a "private matter" whether the Cameron family still had funds in offshore investments and insisted the PM was in the vanguard of efforts to increase the transparency of tax arrangements.
I was asked by a journalist about this yesterday and made two points.
The first is that David Cameron is not responsible for his father and need not account for him. It would be utterly unreasonable to demand that he was.
But David Cameron is accountable for his own actions and whether or not he has a link to a company using offshore now is a matter of public interest on which there is rightful public concern and he does have an absolute duty to answer the questions raised.
This is not, as he ways, a private matter when it comes to his interests. He is wrong. The public know he is wrong. And the sooner he addresses the point the better it will be for him.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“The public know he is wrong.”
Well, I wouldn’t quite say that. I think there is a slow change taking place but not enough yet to galvanise the public. Since the 80’s we’ve had wave after wave of this with ‘fat cat’ exposures in the 90’s. We’ve been fed with ‘greed is good’ mantras and a culture that celebrates ‘gaming the system’ with a perverted admiration for those who do it whilst laughing at the vulnerable/ill who are seen as losers.
No. I don’t think the public will, in general, explode with indignation-we’ve still got a long way to go before that happens, unfortunately.
Just to amplify my point, I was struck by Varoufakis’ comments about the British public:
“Hope is what is in deficit. Britain, the British public, has no hope. When they voted for Cameron last year it was not hopefully. It was reluctantly and because they did not like Ed [Miliband] and they did not trust the Labour Party. Now they will vote to stay in Europe out of fear, not out of hope. So what do we need to do to capture hope? ”
Worth a read of the whole interview: http://www.economist.com/ESDvaroufakis
That’s true
He seemed to think it fine to comment on Jimmy carrs tax affairs which presumably Jimmy would also consider a private matter?
Well, how private is private? The tax dodging that Camoron’s father indulged in (given the documents appear to show the “vehicle” it was mangaed from the Uk) undoubtedly funded Camorons education & his £1000 Bullingdon suit. What we are asked to believe is that Camoron-junior knew nothing of Camoron-seniors doings. Camoron has a PPE – the idea that he never talked to his dad about economics, taxation etc etc stretches credulity to breaking point. Given what Camoron’s gov (Mk1 & MkII) has wreaked on people in this country over 6 years, I’m willing to give Camoron the benefit of the doubt: that he knew everything that his dad got up to – & when UK PM knew his father had indulged in tax dodging – he knew of criminal behaviour & did nothing.
So, David Cameron’s father was involved in setting up an offshore fund 30 years ago. Of course the son is not acountable for the actions of the father. This is just a convenient political stick to beat Cameron with.
As always with entities established outside the UK, there is a question of whether or not they are really centrally managed and controlled by persons in the UK, and so UK tax resident. Presuambly HMRC has looked at this question more than once in the last 30 years.
In any event, the UK has specific rules to deal with the taxation of UK investors in offshore funds, and as I understand it the Blairmore company is registered with HMRC as a reporting fund (and was before that certified by HMRC each year as a distributing fund) which means that UK investors will have been paying UK tax on their share of the fund’s income, and will indeed pay UK tax when they realise their investment in the company. If it was not a reporting fund then UK investors would be paying UK income tax on the whole of their offshore gain.
No doubt there is a lot of bad behaviour revealed in the leaked Panama files, but this is not it.
You clearly have not read the allegations
Ofc ourse we can’t be held personally responsible for our parents’ actions but in his particular instance, as the country’s PM and in view of his governement’s statements re tax, he should publicly acknowledge that his extraordinarily privileged upbringing was financed by his father’s off-shore activities. He wouldn’t be where he is today if it hadn’t been for the family ‘business’. Let the electorate then decide whether this is the quality of leadership it wants. But, hey, before the next GE he’ll be off to the family estate in Aberdeenshire or his in-law’s 3000 acre estate in Lincolnshire so why should he care a toss? Such is the state of UK ‘democracy’ in the 21st century. No further comment.
What Aberdeenshire estate?
I would like to know what IHT avoiding measures our super rich ministers have taken.
I would like to know why the ‘left’ and in reality the entire political class support the tax while not subjecting the queen to it. The last cut Osborne announced was pitiful by any standard when you look around the world (non Tax haven countries)yet John McDonnell still opposed it. By all means go after the truly super super rich but cut some slack on the modestly wealthy. My contention is the reason the tax exists in tandem with many british overseas dependencies is to stop a independent middle class prospering while the real rich never will pay it. Where as a host of other countries that don’t have tax havens don’t tax the super rich (in this regard) but neither dont modestly wealthy individuals also.
I have already suggested you read my boomk
I do so again
If my father had stolen, say, an Old Master oil painting, I might be entirely ignorant of the crime, and of course I would be innocent of it, but I still would not be allowed to keep the painting and hang it over my mantelpiece.
Money is a lot less easy to trace than a painting, but if David Cameron is currently benefiting from funds arranged by his father in such a way as to avoid payments on them, it seems as if it ought to be allowable for us at least to raise the question.
I think what most people want to know about the Camerons (both Mr and Mrs because their financial/tax affairs can be easily interchangeable) is whether there is any blatant hypocrisy between what David Cameron says and what he and/or his wife do. And so for all the other Tory cabinet minister and MP’s (and their spouses) too.
It is the hypocrisy of the Tory argument that “we’re all in it together” that needs to be fully tested on this matter. My suspicion is that many of them are definitely “in it together” where it refers to tax avoidance that most of us cannot take advantage of.
And when that hypocrisy results in the continuation of an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth, when it results in public services being starved off the resources so desperately required, when it results in the poor, sick and disabled being treated like unwanted vermin – because some in society are not paying their dues – then yes we should know the full financial and tax details of every elected representative politician and every non-elected Lords and Ladies, and every member of the Royal household who benefits from the taxes we pay.
Because if we don’t, how can we decide if they are representing us or representing themselves and their friends/families when they are elected by the public or appointed or just plain inherit their positions.
Transparency should start at the top, lets see them set an example now and let’s start to clean up this rotting festering mess of a sham democracy which we have in this country.
I hope that I am not comparing apples to oranges here but there to be some principles or issues here that share common ground.
I had an interaction recently with Jolyon pertaining to Zac Goldsmith and the money that he had been left by his father, James.
I do agree with Jolyon (for he is nicer and more wise person than me perhaps) that Zac cannot be held responsible in law for his father’s behaviour but it is weird that Zac continues to enjoy the benefits of his fathers behaviour which I just see as very destructive and greedy – namely his asset stripping activities of British companies. I view these activities by James as criminal and the law that supported them as an ass.
The fact that Zac now seems involved in a smear campaign against another mayoral candidate doesn’t go down well with me either. It is not impossible to see Zac’s fortune being used to pay for the besmirching of another candidate.
Cut to Mr Cameron and his own rise to the top – no doubt funded in part or whole by his father’s off-shore behaviours – something else I totally disagree with.
In my view, both Cameron and Goldsmith junior have benefitted from some rather dodgy behaviour. Both men now sit at the top of the social table socially and economically and we know that in these circles money is everything. It is power.
I saw a ‘tax expert’ on BBC news say last night that tax is a ‘private matter’ that need not be divulged. Really? But given the status these men both now enjoy and that they are working in the public realm I agree with others that their tax affairs – past or present – are a matter for the public.
In my view, what is missing here is good law. Having read the Joy of Tax I agree that the systems we have can be changed if there is a will to do so.
The principle that could be enforced by law is that the fortunes of these men and women who want to do public service should be managed in a way that sets an example to the electorate – that is to say that their wealth and income must be fully taxable within the UK and if not taxed that exemption must be defined by the law – not the individual or their ‘wealth professionals’.
That to me is what is missing. Our states-people and would-be states people need to walk it like they talk it. It is the lack of setting a good example that is one of the biggest problems in politics and why people are turning away from it. They smell hypocrisy.
Cameron and Goldsmith are not responsible for their fathers behaviour – yes – that it is a fact. But to say they have not benefitted – or continue to benefit from ill-gotten gains is simply not true. And the law seems blind to this – yet people think there is something wrong about it. The law needs to catch up in my view as it may be an ass on this issue too.
As for Cameron and Goldsmith – they have within their powers to do something about this as individuals other than say these are ‘private matters’ or ‘It was my Dad – not me’.
Zac seemed to be involved in green issues for some time but looks as though – like the good rich chicken he is – coming home to roost in the bosom of the corrupt establishment that created him. He’s reverted to type in the end after going through his young persons’ rebellious stage against Daddy – sorry – Pater.
As for Cameron – he needs to bring his fortune home and face the tax in my view. No discounting or offsetting either you sneaky sod.
I won’t hold my breath.
It is important to remember that we all learn some things from our parents words and actions, many good but some definitely not so. It is not just genetics that we inherit from our parents, but also a sense of morality is often instilled in children from a young age which is often not questioned until much older in life (if at all).
In a world that lacks almost any sense of a communal “moral compass”, we often as individuals have to fall back to our own inner sense of social morality in order to make the more complex and difficult decisions in our lives. And I think that is where the question of who our parents are, what they did and what they taught us, becomes an important factor to be understood if we are to learn more about human decision making.
Even more so if you’ve chosen to go into public life – because let’s remember it is a choice it is not forced upon anyone to hold public office. So questioning what our politicians parents stood for and what they did in their lives is valid up to a point.
A line has to be drawn though in mud-slinging and personal abuse for pure political gain, which is what lurks in the murky world of some many supposed facts and alleged fiction which get dragged up by some of the media (for example the despicable smearing of Ralph Miliband prior to the last election).
“Zac seemed to be involved in green issues”-indeed he was but from a libertarian perspective. green libertarians believe that once you’ve got rid of Government/Cartels/Monopolies there will be an outbreak of brotherliness and harmonious balance all totally self regulating.
I thought his green credentials were too good to be true.
Thanks for clarifying.
‘But to say they have not benefited’- the usual variation of the ‘naffin to do wth me Gavnah’ involves the ‘Pecunia non olet’ argument, that is, the money can be put to good use despite its originins -perhaps these people should be obliged to put their money to good communal, public purpose use-don’t hold your breath. Goldsmith has just been froce to resign from a disabled charity in his constituency for voting for ESA cuts – I wonder if he offered the charity any of his own ‘smelly money.’?
I think Steve Bell sums this up nicely today in the Guardian. It shows Cameron as hiding a skeleton in the cupboard, and saying “its all private, nothing to see here.” The question left open is that a Prime Minister, who purports to be managing the country on behalf of us all, is showing a front to the public, but in private he hides the scandal of his real purpose – to work for an oligarchy that feeds off of the state but gives nothing back.
The question any tax investigator would ask is this.
What benefits in terms of cash and use of assets has David Cameron, his wife and children enjoyed from his fathers offshore trust in the last 20 years and have correct tax returns been made in respect of those benefits?
As summarised in the article in Daily Mail 6 April, David Cameron and his family are multi-multi-millionaires. He’s never hidden that.
So what puzzles me about his statement “I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds” is “So where has all money gone then?” Is it nominee shareholdings? Blind Trusts? Did he give it all to a donkey sanctuary? It would be very interesting to have someone knowledgeable look at what options would be compatible with the statements he’s made.
Good questions
I would love to know the answers
And let’s also be clear, he was very careful to make clear he was talking at the moment. What was not at all clear is what he meant that moment might be
As importantly, as I have just said on LBC, he also chose not to say that much as he loved and respected his dad that on this occasion his father got this wrong and he has to disagree with what he did. That was a serious omission – and an error of judgement
There is much more to this as yet