Jimmy Carr tax arrangements 'morally wrong', says David Cameron Cameron criticises comedian but says he has not had time to look at allegations about singer Gary Barlow's tax affairs
Or his Dads?
Please give us chapter and verse about your father's tax arrangements.
PAYE all his life
I have never benefited from any overseas tax haven avoidance by my father.
Easy see
Still not answering tax avoidance question...not easy see...no is as, no pension planning, no IHT planning, etc etc etc. Unless you have seen every single bank statement, pay slip, etc etc etc of your father you can't say yes or no for certain.
Its very easy
The prospect of a sitting Prime Minister having benefitted from offshore funds stashed there so as to avoid tax is a frightening one. Though this may do the Prime Minister some short-term political damage, avoiding an honest and direct answer does more harm in the long-term.
When the same question was posed yesterday, the Prime Minister's spokesperson replied that it was 'a private matter'. But realistically it isn't. This is a very public matter and interest in it has been fuelled primarily by the Prime Minister himself. His shady-sounding answer has only fuelled calls for clarification and further statements.
Have you personally ever benefitted from any tax avoidance scheme? Straightforward question.
It is.
Pity Dave tries to avoid answering.
So what's the answer?
No for me (except ISAs)
Now its yours and Daves turn
Have you seen every piece of financial documentation relating to ever relative then? Because you could have benefitted 2nd hand and never known.
No actually. Not paying taxes is easy to understand, and using schemes to avoid them is simple. But it just makes you feel like you are obsessed with money, and that is not a particularly healthy thing in my view.
FWIW- I have also completely lost pretty much all interest in gambling over recent years too, despite making very good returns on political betting. I made a good return on GE 2015, and that was about as satisfying as catching a flu. I mostly look at the betting markets as a predictor to see what'll happen.
I really do find the wealthy grubbing around looking for tax savings rather pathetic really- the wealthier, the uglier it becomes because it shows them to be such greedy, grasping, little vultures who hate giving away anything.
There was a story about Ronnie Corbett gifting his house to avoid inheritance. Sorry, what is the problem in paying tax on one's inheritance, and why would go to such lengths to move house to avoid paying it?
I really cannot be arsed looking for any kind of tax savings, ISA's, pensions, or whatever. I did a few years ago, but the whole thing makes you feel a bit dirty.
Tax is something you pay on something you earn, so just pay it, and behave like a man, not some scummy, tax dodging, greedy grasper.
Jimmy Carr tax arrangements 'morally wrong', says David Cameron Cameron criticises comedian but says he has not had time to look at allegations about singer Gary Barlow's tax affairs
Or his Dads?
It's almost as pathetic as the whining about the currency exchange losses you're enduring.
'I really cannot be arsed looking for any kind of tax savings, ISA's, pensions, or whatever. I did a few years ago, but the whole thing makes you feel a bit dirty.'
Or, shock horror, I think he has made the wrong call about the 'deal' and that it is, along with too much faith in a poor chancellor, leading the party to disaster. And that the best way to get back on the right track is for him to take early retirement.
Have you ever been a member of a political party?
You could have saved us a lot of time if you'd admitted early on that being on the "right" side of the referendum was of paramount importance. But we got there in the end.
Again, simple failure to understand the difference between
a) someone who is a committed leaver b) someone like me, who was persuadable for Remain if the deal was any good
You crossed whatever Rubicon you had to cross a long time ago. Now you want to oust David Cameron because he campaigns for Remain and pay money to Vote Leave in preference to the Conservatives.
Tell yourself whatever you like: it's clear what's most important to you from your actions.
No, I want Cameron replaced, in due course, because he has shafted his party.
Never been in a political party then?
Genuine question , how has he shafted it ? He has followed ever Conservative PM from Heath Thatcher Major in advocating EU Membership.
"Daves decision today to take no further questions has only raised the eyebrows of commentators and the public alike. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide from, he should release relevant documents and confirm neither he or anyone in his direct family benefits from the proceeds of offshore tax avoidance wrangling.
Let’s give Cameron one final chance to state his position before we send him to the naughty step. If he does choose to supply a straight answer, great. If he doesn't, then the inquiry that Jeremy Corbyn called for earlier today should be given every resource to investigate and clarify for us. Because if we’re really all in this together, then there can’t be one rule for him and one rule for the rest of us".
You are just being a idiot now. Cameron has made a pretty clear statement of his & wife financial affairs. In reality if it is found not to be true or spun the "careful" words won't help him & he will be in big trouble. The fact is this story has been public knowledge for 4 years & it hasn't moved on at all with this leak, even the sky guy who asked the question said that.
Forgive me for being naive, but I think your old fella making his living fiddling taxes for the wealthy is not particularly good karma, and probably something Cameron would rather do without.
You cannot blame Cameron for his old boy- but the chickens do appear to be flying back for a spot of roosting.
Jimmy Carr tax arrangements 'morally wrong', says David Cameron Cameron criticises comedian but says he has not had time to look at allegations about singer Gary Barlow's tax affairs
Or his Dads?
Please give us chapter and verse about your father's tax arrangements.
PAYE all his life
I have never benefited from any overseas tax haven avoidance by my father.
Easy see
Still not answering tax avoidance question...not easy see...no is as, no pension planning, no IHT planning, etc etc etc. Unless you have seen every single bank statement, pay slip, etc etc etc of your father you can't say yes or no for certain.
Its very easy
The prospect of a sitting Prime Minister having benefitted from offshore funds stashed there so as to avoid tax is a frightening one. Though this may do the Prime Minister some short-term political damage, avoiding an honest and direct answer does more harm in the long-term.
When the same question was posed yesterday, the Prime Minister's spokesperson replied that it was 'a private matter'. But realistically it isn't. This is a very public matter and interest in it has been fuelled primarily by the Prime Minister himself. His shady-sounding answer has only fuelled calls for clarification and further statements.
Have you personally ever benefitted from any tax avoidance scheme? Straightforward question.
It is.
Pity Dave tries to avoid answering.
So what's the answer?
No for me (except ISAs)
Now its yours and Daves turn
Have you seen every piece of financial documentation relating to ever relative then? Because you could have benefitted 2nd hand and never known.
Jimmy Carr tax arrangements 'morally wrong', says David Cameron Cameron criticises comedian but says he has not had time to look at allegations about singer Gary Barlow's tax affairs
Or his Dads?
I never knew about my father's tax affairs. And my children don't know mine.
What Cameron's father did was legal at the time and was his responsibility not that of his children. It is pretty unedifying this attempt to put the "sins" (retrospectively assessed) of the dead father onto the son on the basis of no evidence at all other than, seemingly, some sort of vague and juvenile assumption that someone who is rich must necessarily be a crook.
Cameron comes from a very well off family. Big deal. He's never hidden this. He's gone into public service rather than doing what so many like him do - go into lucrative careers.
Apparently public service is a good thing when saintly doctors do it and evidence of misfeasance and corruption when rich toffs do it.
Have you ever invested in a Jimmy Carr / Ian Cameron "morally offensive" overseas avoidance scheme.
No
Me neither.
Nor have any of my family. Dave trying to half answer will not wash IMO
For somebody who is very critical at somebody for failing to answer a "straightforward question" you have shown yourself incredibly dextrous at your ability to fail to answer the same question, disseminate to answer it in a non-straightforward way to suit the answer you want to give and change the question from what was asked.
LOL an ISA is just the same as an overseas Tax Haven Investment Trust.
Really is that your real opinion.
Is your opinion that an ISA isn't a tax avoidance vehicle?
No, it's a savings vehicle that the government has incentivised by providing tax relief on interest earned.
It is deliberately designed to encourage people to save, that encouragement is through the form of tax relief.
Perfectly true. And that tax relief means that you pay less tax than you otherwise would had you not invested your money in an ISA. You avoid paying tax, in other words.
Forgive me for being naive, but I think your old fella making his living fiddling taxes for the wealthy is not particularly good karma, and probably something Cameron would rather do without.
You cannot blame Cameron for his old boy- but the chickens do appear to be flying back for a spot of roosting.
Jimmy Carr tax arrangements 'morally wrong', says David Cameron Cameron criticises comedian but says he has not had time to look at allegations about singer Gary Barlow's tax affairs
Or his Dads?
Please give us chapter and verse about your father's tax arrangements.
PAYE all his life
I have never benefited from any overseas tax haven avoidance by my father.
Easy see
Still not answering tax avoidance question...not easy see...no is as, no pension planning, no IHT planning, etc etc etc. Unless you have seen every single bank statement, pay slip, etc etc etc of your father you can't say yes or no for certain.
Its very easy
The prospect of a sitting Prime Minister having benefitted from offshore funds stashed there so as to avoid tax is a frightening one. Though this may do the Prime Minister some short-term political damage, avoiding an honest and direct answer does more harm in the long-term.
When the same question was posed yesterday, the Prime Minister's spokesperson replied that it was 'a private matter'. But realistically it isn't. This is a very public matter and interest in it has been fuelled primarily by the Prime Minister himself. His shady-sounding answer has only fuelled calls for clarification and further statements.
Have you personally ever benefitted from any tax avoidance scheme? Straightforward question.
It is.
Pity Dave tries to avoid answering.
So what's the answer?
No for me (except ISAs)
Now its yours and Daves turn
Have you seen every piece of financial documentation relating to ever relative then? Because you could have benefitted 2nd hand and never known.
I don't believe even the guardian are alleging Cameron's father "fiddled" taxes.
"Daves decision today to take no further questions has only raised the eyebrows of commentators and the public alike. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide from, he should release relevant documents and confirm neither he or anyone in his direct family benefits from the proceeds of offshore tax avoidance wrangling.
Let’s give Cameron one final chance to state his position before we send him to the naughty step. If he does choose to supply a straight answer, great. If he doesn't, then the inquiry that Jeremy Corbyn called for earlier today should be given every resource to investigate and clarify for us. Because if we’re really all in this together, then there can’t be one rule for him and one rule for the rest of us".
You are just being a idiot now. Cameron has made a pretty clear statement of his & wife financial affairs. In reality if it is found not to be true or spun the "careful" words won't help him & he will be in big trouble. The fact is this story has been public knowledge for 4 years & it hasn't moved on at all with this leak, even the sky guy who asked the question said that.
Its from here and we will see if half answers are sufficient. I dont think they are. I suppose you were happy with yesterdays "its a private matter"?
Or, shock horror, I think he has made the wrong call about the 'deal' and that it is, along with too much faith in a poor chancellor, leading the party to disaster. And that the best way to get back on the right track is for him to take early retirement.
Have you ever been a member of a political party?
You could have saved us a lot of time if you'd admitted early on that being on the "right" side of the referendum was of paramount importance. But we got there in the end.
Again, simple failure to understand the difference between
a) someone who is a committed leaver b) someone like me, who was persuadable for Remain if the deal was any good
You crossed whatever Rubicon you had to cross a long time ago. Now you want to oust David Cameron because he campaigns for Remain and pay money to Vote Leave in preference to the Conservatives.
Tell yourself whatever you like: it's clear what's most important to you from your actions.
No, I want Cameron replaced, in due course, because he has shafted his party.
Never been in a political party then?
Genuine question , how has he shafted it ? He has followed ever Conservative PM from Heath Thatcher Major in advocating EU Membership.
A combination of the faux renegotiation, which because it was negotiated from a position of weakness failed to meet even the low expectations set by the No. 10 machine, vociferous and often arrogant campaigning for remain after years of fine words re: the EU, questionable domestic policy agendas and inexplicable loyalty to a tinkering chancellor has either alienated much of the party faithful or will do so post June.
My fear on Corbyn being elected was that the Tory party would rip itself to shreds in the false expectation of guaranteed victory. It looked ok for a few months, and to be perfectly honest thought it would be the sceptics that would cause trouble - not the leadership itself....
Jimmy Carr tax arrangements 'morally wrong', says David Cameron Cameron criticises comedian but says he has not had time to look at allegations about singer Gary Barlow's tax affairs
Or his Dads?
Please give us chapter and verse about your father's tax arrangements.
PAYE all his life
I have never benefited from any overseas tax haven avoidance by my father.
Easy see
Still not answering tax avoidance question...not easy see...no is as, no pension planning, no IHT planning, etc etc etc. Unless you have seen every single bank statement, pay slip, etc etc etc of your father you can't say yes or no for certain.
Its very easy
The prospect of a sitting Prime Minister having benefitted from offshore funds stashed there so as to avoid tax is a frightening one. Though this may do the Prime Minister some short-term political damage, avoiding an honest and direct answer does more harm in the long-term.
When the same question was posed yesterday, the Prime Minister's spokesperson replied that it was 'a private matter'. But realistically it isn't. This is a very public matter and interest in it has been fuelled primarily by the Prime Minister himself. His shady-sounding answer has only fuelled calls for clarification and further statements.
Have you personally ever benefitted from any tax avoidance scheme? Straightforward question.
It is.
Pity Dave tries to avoid answering.
So what's the answer?
No for me (except ISAs)
Now its yours and Daves turn
No Pension, National Savings, Premium Bonds, Tax on betting wins or paid a tradesman cash in hand?
I wouldn't expect anyone to know every tube station in London.
But not knowing the stations on the Central Line in the very middle of London does give the impression of someone who knows very, very little about London.
Fabians report on the problem with Labour voters. "Remain’s vote is softer. Using GQRR’s in-house measure of how loyal voters are to their cause, we show that there are nearly double the number of Leave loyalists as there are Remain loyalists." http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/argument-or-organisations-the-battle-over-membership-of-the-european-union/ "Only 56 per cent of Labour voters from May are very likely to vote in June – but with as many as 6 million votes on the line for Remain (two thirds of Labour’s vote from May) turnout is key."
Um... The U.S. senator from Texas has 35.2 percent support among Republicans to Trump’s 39.5 percent, according to the survey taken from April 1-5, putting the two within the poll’s credibility interval of 4.8 percentage points.
So there's a, er, 95% chance Trump still leads.Or is that 97.5% I forget...
The problem with ISA's is that the vast majority of folk who use them do not need the money; same with tax relief on pensions. But the people who have the inclination to use offshore tax avoidance schemes really do not need the money, they really don't.
The fairest way to target money onto the neediest is through benefits and working tax credits- these other schemes just gets snaffled up by greedy snafflers who do not need it.
"Daves decision today to take no further questions has only raised the eyebrows of commentators and the public alike. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide from, he should release relevant documents and confirm neither he or anyone in his direct family benefits from the proceeds of offshore tax avoidance wrangling.
Let’s give Cameron one final chance to state his position before we send him to the naughty step. If he does choose to supply a straight answer, great. If he doesn't, then the inquiry that Jeremy Corbyn called for earlier today should be given every resource to investigate and clarify for us. Because if we’re really all in this together, then there can’t be one rule for him and one rule for the rest of us".
You are just being a idiot now. Cameron has made a pretty clear statement of his & wife financial affairs. In reality if it is found not to be true or spun the "careful" words won't help him & he will be in big trouble. The fact is this story has been public knowledge for 4 years & it hasn't moved on at all with this leak, even the sky guy who asked the question said that.
Its from here and we will see if half answers are sufficient. I dont think they are. I suppose you were happy with yesterdays "its a private matter"?
You have to have reading difficulties, I said the exact opposite multiple times on here, that a private matter wasn't acceptable & dumb. You are just making a fool of.yourself.
LOL an ISA is just the same as an overseas Tax Haven Investment Trust.
Really is that your real opinion.
Is your opinion that an ISA isn't a tax avoidance vehicle?
No, it's a savings vehicle that the government has incentivised by providing tax relief on interest earned.
It is deliberately designed to encourage people to save, that encouragement is through the form of tax relief.
Yes that is true. The Chancellor said that no tax will be deducted on the first £1,000 of interest earned every year on savings from April 2016. No need for an ISA.
If we believe that an ISA is a tax avoidence vehicle , then 17 million of us , have now been made tax avoiders by Osborne , which is fatuous.
LOL an ISA is just the same as an overseas Tax Haven Investment Trust.
Really is that your real opinion.
Is your opinion that an ISA isn't a tax avoidance vehicle?
No, it's a savings vehicle that the government has incentivised by providing tax relief on interest earned.
It is deliberately designed to encourage people to save, that encouragement is through the form of tax relief.
Yes that is true. The Chancellor said that no tax will be deducted on the first £1,000 of interest earned every year on savings from April 2016. No need for an ISA.
If we believe that an ISA is a tax avoidence vehicle , then 17 million of us , have now been made tax avoiders by Osborne , which is fatuous.
You're not avoiding tax if there is no tax levied.
Jimmy Carr tax arrangements 'morally wrong', says David Cameron Cameron criticises comedian but says he has not had time to look at allegations about singer Gary Barlow's tax affairs
Or his Dads?
Please give us chapter and verse about your father's tax arrangements.
PAYE all his life
I have never benefited from any overseas tax haven avoidance by my father.
Easy see
Still not answering tax avoidance question...not easy see...no is as, no pension planning, no IHT planning, etc etc etc. Unless you have seen every single bank statement, pay slip, etc etc etc of your father you can't say yes or no for certain.
Its very easy
The prospect of a sitting Prime Minister having benefitted from offshore funds stashed there so as to avoid tax is a frightening one. Though this may do the Prime Minister some short-term political damage, avoiding an honest and direct answer does more harm in the long-term.
When the same question was posed yesterday, the Prime Minister's spokesperson replied that it was 'a private matter'. But realistically it isn't. This is a very public matter and interest in it has been fuelled primarily by the Prime Minister himself. His shady-sounding answer has only fuelled calls for clarification and further statements.
Have you personally ever benefitted from any tax avoidance scheme? Straightforward question.
It is.
Pity Dave tries to avoid answering.
So what's the answer?
No for me (except ISAs)
Now its yours and Daves turn
So with an ISA even you have quite legally avoided paying some tax by specifically seeking a mechanism to do so. Well glad we have that cleared up. However if like Tyson you feel a little "dirty" may I suggest the RNLI as a worthy deposit of your additional tax free gains or is only everyone else that has to conform to the standards you espouse?
I wouldn't expect anyone to know every tube station in London.
I would Sunil for Mayor!
Not just the Tube stations! (just a Salfords and a Horley short of keeping my achievement of visiting every station on the London Oystercard map intact! Stations added out to Hertford East and to Gatwick in 2015-16)
I like the way Cameron said "I get a salary as PM, I have some savings, a house we used to live in that we now let out....and that's all I have."
That's probably much less than many posting here this evening. And a lot more than others.
I know he didn't mean it to sound like he was saying it wasn't much, but that's how it came across. I have savings and a salary...unfortunately I don't have a house to let out in Notting Hill.
Maybe fudging is more appropriate- whatever- being a stockbroker for the greedy, grasper, wealthy tax avoiders is hardly the most salubrious career, and hardly something to make one's offspring tingle with pride.
But granted, DC could have stuck to his roots and continued a life of excess, fox hunting, shooting, Bullingdon club excesses, and making even more money and chumming around with obnoxious, opinionated, tax avoiders etc...
Instead he has devoted his life to public service and keeping us within the EU.
Forgive me for being naive, but I think your old fella making his living fiddling taxes for the wealthy is not particularly good karma, and probably something Cameron would rather do without.
You cannot blame Cameron for his old boy- but the chickens do appear to be flying back for a spot of roosting.
Jimmy Carr tax arrangements 'morally wrong', says David Cameron Cameron criticises comedian but says he has not had time to look at allegations about singer Gary Barlow's tax affairs
Or his Dads?
Please give us chapter and verse about your father's tax arrangements.
PAYE all his life
I have never benefited from any overseas tax haven avoidance by my father.
Easy see
It is.
Pity Dave tries to avoid answering.
So what's the answer?
No for me (except ISAs)
Now its yours and Daves turn
Have you seen every piece of financial documentation relating to ever relative then? Because you could have benefitted 2nd hand and never known.
I don't believe even the guardian are alleging Cameron's father "fiddled" taxes.
I like the way Cameron said "I get a salary as PM, I have some savings, a house we used to live in that we now let out....and that's all I have."
That's probably much less than many posting here this evening. And a lot more than others.
Strangely, come to think of it, that's about the same as me (although I have a much smaller salary than him - equally I have very low work-related expenses compared to him). And I certainly don't come from a millionaire background, I'm a lot younger than Cameron, and I don't have a young family to pay for. That strikes me as rather surprising.
With regard to Jimmy Carr, the reason there was genuine and legitimate outrage over his tax arrangements was because he had spent his whole life attacking, often in a very nasty and personal way, anyone who had made any tax avoidance arrangements whatsoever. That he was caught using the most aggressive and arguably deceitful form of all such arrangements was strikingly indicative of his hypocrisy.
The really ironic point was it the about the first time he had ever said or done anything remotely funny in his whole life - and the joke was very much on him.
Late to the party but...sorry if you don't know who plays at Loftus Road or Selhurst Park or which stops are adjacent to Bond St and are a grown up interested in the world around you, you really don't have any business wanting to be Mayor of London.
Um... The U.S. senator from Texas has 35.2 percent support among Republicans to Trump’s 39.5 percent, according to the survey taken from April 1-5, putting the two within the poll’s credibility interval of 4.8 percentage points.
So there's a, er, 95% chance Trump still leads.Or is that 97.5% I forget...
National polls for the nominations are rather misleading now anyway. Most Republican delegates have already been allotted and I think the same is true for the Democrats.
Forgive me for being naive, but I think your old fella making his living fiddling taxes for the wealthy is not particularly good karma, and probably something Cameron would rather do without.
You cannot blame Cameron for his old boy- but the chickens do appear to be flying back for a spot of roosting.
Jimmy Carr tax arrangements 'morally wrong', says David Cameron Cameron criticises comedian but says he has not had time to look at allegations about singer Gary Barlow's tax affairs
Or his Dads?
Please give us chapter and verse about your father's tax arrangements.
PAYE all his life
I have never benefited from any overseas tax haven avoidance by my father.
Easy see
Still not answering tax avoidance question...not easy see...no is as, no pension planning, no IHT planning, etc etc etc. Unless you have seen every single bank statement, pay slip, etc etc etc of your father you can't say yes or no for certain.
Ws for clarification and further statements.
Have you personally ever benefitted from any tax avoidance scheme? Straightforward question.
It is.
Pity Dave tries to avoid answering.
So what's the answer?
No for me (except ISAs)
Now its yours and Daves turn
Have you seen every piece of financial documentation relating to ever relative then? Because you could have benefitted 2nd hand and never known.
I don't believe even the guardian are alleging Cameron's father "fiddled" taxes.
You don't have to with these type of stories. 'Did stuff involving tax and less was paid' equals 'fiddling taxes' as far as many will take it in. The same way anyone involved with the finance industry ends up as a 'banker'.
And indeed 'inserted indeterminately tumescent penis into a pig's mouth' becomes 'shagged a pig'.*
*that the story is bollocks hardly mattered either.
I like the way Cameron said "I get a salary as PM, I have some savings, a house we used to live in that we now let out....and that's all I have."
That's probably much less than many posting here this evening. And a lot more than others.
I reckon by "some savings" we are probably talking about a fair bit of reddies...
Probably. And good for him. Besides, the real wealth is Mrs C's.
I actually think that is as.much of the embarrassment for Cameron & Osborne, they aren't actually anywhere near as wealthy as their family eg Osborne stake in the wallpaper business is laughably small...he could have saved himself quite a few bad headline for what is a few grand of shares.
And Mrs c is not.only wealthy background but been very successful herself.
I cannot help but think of Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that women..." answer.
David Cameron is a very wealthy man. His answer today provides a green light for all and sundry to go looking for that dress with some old, crusty stains on it.
Forgive me for being naive, but I think your old fella making his living fiddling taxes for the wealthy is not particularly good karma, and probably something Cameron would rather do without.
You cannot blame Cameron for his old boy- but the chickens do appear to be flying back for a spot of roosting.
Jimmy Carr tax arrangements 'morally wrong', says David Cameron Cameron criticises comedian but says he has not had time to look at allegations about singer Gary Barlow's tax affairs
Or his Dads?
Please give us chapter and verse about your father's tax arrangements.
PAYE all his life
I have never benefited from any overseas tax haven avoidance by my father.
Easy see
Still not answering tax avoidance question...not easy see...no is as, no pension planning, no IHT planning, etc etc etc. Unless you have seen every single bank statement, pay slip, etc etc etc of your father you can't say yes or no for certain.
Ws for clarification and further statements.
Have you personally ever benefitted from any tax avoidance scheme? Straightforward question.
It is.
Pity Dave tries to avoid answering.
So what's the answer?
No for me (except ISAs)
Now its yours and Daves turn
Have you seen every piece of financial documentation relating to ever relative then? Because you could have benefitted 2nd hand and never known.
I don't believe even the guardian are alleging Cameron's father "fiddled" taxes.
You don't have to with these type of stories. 'Did stuff involving tax and less was paid' equals 'fiddling taxes' as far as many will take it in. The same way anyone involved with the finance industry ends up as a 'banker'.
And indeed 'inserted indeterminately tumescent penis into a pig's mouth' becomes 'shagged a pig'.*
*that the story is bollocks hardly mattered either.
Plus in Guardian-land, buying and selling shares is a complex financial transaction.
Or rather, in Guardian-land they would have the plebs believe that buying and selling shares is complex. What is really complex is setting up Cayman Islands-based vehicles to avoid stamp duty on properly complex acquisitions and disposals but that's of course another story.
@hugorifkind: "Jez, mate. It's Seamus. We've got the Tories on the run. Seems wrong. Reckon you can fuck it up somehow?" "Can do!" https://t.co/U7QFYhPbaw
Fabians report on the problem with Labour voters. "Remain’s vote is softer. Using GQRR’s in-house measure of how loyal voters are to their cause, we show that there are nearly double the number of Leave loyalists as there are Remain loyalists." http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/argument-or-organisations-the-battle-over-membership-of-the-european-union/ "Only 56 per cent of Labour voters from May are very likely to vote in June – but with as many as 6 million votes on the line for Remain (two thirds of Labour’s vote from May) turnout is key."
"Whatever happens between now and then it is clear that for the Remain camp to win, it will need to think seriously about how to counter the appeal of anti-immigration populism, mobilize its younger voters to turn out and build a sophisticated grassroots operation that can increase the appeal of the status quo."
Late to the party but...sorry if you don't know who plays at Loftus Road or Selhurst Park or which stops are adjacent to Bond St and are a grown up interested in the world around you, you really don't have any business wanting to be Mayor of London.
Well, that depends if you can read a map or listen to the Sonia announcements.
In real life, knowing the connections is more useful. For instance, I'd find more telling finding out if people know how to get from London Bridge to Heathrow by tube with a suitcase.
(Edit: don't answer, Sunil - I know *you* know...)
32% of GOP voters are angry (very low for a primary). 62% are female. 42% evangelical.
Nominate the candidate with most votes 56%. Delegates should choose 42%.
86% of Trump voters say candidate who has most votes. 42% of non-Trump voters say candidate who has most votes.
Get your calculators out. It's pretty clear that Trump is behind in the exit poll from the "nominate" question breakdown. Looks like Trump is at around 38%
An exit poll from the town of Eue Claire (CD-3) had Trump 57, Cruz 33, Kasich 7.
but I do wonder whether the Lynton Crosby Tory campaign might have some aces up their sleeves for the final month.
But what if those "aces" turn out to be so egregiously offensive that they just turn out the Labour vote in even greater numbers?
The Republican/UKIP-style campaign of painting Khan as an Islamist sympathiser might've been an effective strategy in a UK-wide election, where the average swing voter is undeniably quite socially conservative - but it's never been clear to me why it makes sense for London where there is a fundamental Labour majority, and where a good number of the swing voters are socially-liberal City types who, while maybe not enamoured of traditional leftist "soak the rich" policies, do not really want to associate themselves with race-baiting campaigns either.
In response to Danny565:-
Goldsmith is a weak candidate. But attacking Islamists seems to me to be a good thing. This is not race-baiting. Islamists are not a race. And it is Khan himself who has used his religion as a reason for supporting him with his "Look at what electing a Muslim as Mayor of London would mean" message.
Islamists and their supporters should be attacked as often as possible. Khan was stupid to speak at rallies with Cage. Either he supports them (very bad and would make him IMO unfit to be Mayor) or he does not care (also bad) or he did not bother to do any due diligence (negligence) or he thinks that he needs to do this to get Muslim votes (both cynical and contemptuous). He should have learnt the lessons of Livingstone and Qaradawi . Or he could look to his own party leader to see what carelessness about your associations does to you.
Edited: by "attack" I mean verbally only obviously.
@hugorifkind: "Jez, mate. It's Seamus. We've got the Tories on the run. Seems wrong. Reckon you can fuck it up somehow?" "Can do!" https://t.co/U7QFYhPbaw
Don't worry Carol Vorderman is taking the fight to the Tories.
Forgive me for being naive, but I think your old fella making his living fiddling taxes for the wealthy is not particularly good karma, and probably something Cameron would rather do without.
You cannot blame Cameron for his old boy- but the chickens do appear to be flying back for a spot of roosting.
Please give us chapter and verse about your father's tax arrangements.
snip
Still not answering tax avoidance question...not easy see...no is as, no pension planning, no IHT planning, etc etc etc. Unless you have seen every single bank statement, pay slip, etc etc etc of your father you can't say yes or no for certain.
snip
Have you personally ever benefitted from any tax avoidance scheme? Straightforward question.
It is.
Pity Dave tries to avoid answering.
So what's the answer?
No for me (except ISAs)
Now its yours and Daves turn
Have you seen every piece of financial documentation relating to ever relative then? Because you could have benefitted 2nd hand and never known.
I don't believe even the guardian are alleging Cameron's father "fiddled" taxes.
You don't have to with these type of stories. 'Did stuff involving tax and less was paid' equals 'fiddling taxes' as far as many will take it in. The same way anyone involved with the finance industry ends up as a 'banker'.
And indeed 'inserted indeterminately tumescent penis into a pig's mouth' becomes 'shagged a pig'.*
*that the story is bollocks hardly mattered either.
Plus in Guardian-land, buying and selling shares is a complex financial transaction.
Or rather, in Guardian-land they would have the plebs believe that buying and selling shares is complex. What is really complex is setting up Cayman Islands-based vehicles to avoid stamp duty on properly complex acquisitions and disposals but that's of course another story.
Remember, the Left's avoidance is always 'good'. The Guardian Media Group dodged taxes with the Apax deal so that the actions of the Right could be probed and exposed. Never mind that they skipped out of coughing up for the odd hospital or thousands of nurses. Public Interest must come first and all that.
Cameron can't make a simple statement that his family has never benefited from offshore tax planning. In my belief it simply isn't true.
This is entirely based on supposition, but she was a shareholder in Smythsons when it was sold - I've seen press articles that her shares were worth £400K.
There are two points of risk:
(1) How was Smythson structured when S. Cameron sold it? It's quite possible that it was a simple UK company, but there may have been something more creative (over which she would have had no control, but would have benefited)
(2) The buyer most likely used clever structuring to maximise their profits. If so then, in theory, this increased the price they were willing to pay. Again, she would have had no control, but would have benefited
Unfortunately for the Camerons a blanket denial would be taken as an excuse to go fishing and a case could be made for the prosecution (at least in the court of public opinion)
But it is amusing the way that everyone is looking in the wrong direction
You expect right wingers to be greedy, grasping, selfish, me, me, individuals. How their brains are wired, and pretty much how all of them function. The nature of the beast.
It is why it is all the more disappointing why a few lefties behave in the same way. They should be dealt with more harshly.
Forgive me for being naive, but I think your old fella making his living fiddling taxes for the wealthy is not particularly good karma, and probably something Cameron would rather do without.
You cannot blame Cameron for his old boy- but the chickens do appear to be flying back for a spot of roosting.
Please give us chapter and verse about your father's tax arrangements.
snip
Still not answering tax avoidance question...not easy see...no is as, no pension planning, no IHT planning, etc etc etc. Unless you have seen every single bank statement, pay slip, etc etc etc of your father you can't say yes or no for certain.
snip
Have you personally ever benefitted from any tax avoidance scheme? Straightforward question.
It is.
Pity Dave tries to avoid answering.
So what's the answer?
No for me (except ISAs)
Now its yours and Daves turn
Or rather, in Guardian-land they would have the plebs believe that buying and selling shares is complex. What is really complex is setting up Cayman Islands-based vehicles to avoid stamp duty on properly complex acquisitions and disposals but that's of course another story.
Remember, the Left's avoidance is always 'good'. The Guardian Media Group dodged taxes with the Apax deal so that the actions of the Right could be probed and exposed. Never mind that they skipped out of coughing up for the odd hospital or thousands of nurses. Public Interest must come first and all that.
A few lefties Tyson....most of the media & entertainment industry set their affairs to be tax efficient eg until recently most of the talent at the BBC.
Always fun to have a decent tax story at the top of the political agenda. For those bleating about ISAs being tax avoidance, BUT-THE-GUARDIAN!! and so on, the key point here is that the current government has been even more aggressive than its predecessors in blurring the line between (illegal) evasion and (legal) avoidance, as well as constantly talking up the morality of "paying one's share". So regardless of whether that's a good Conservative view or not, Cameron really has no more right to squeal than a dead pig if he gets fucked on this one.
And the denials are interesting, aren't they? Anyone with a cursory knowledge of trust law can reasonably conclude that none of Dave's nuclear family has an interest in possession or a direct ownership of overseas assets, but the lack of denial of being a beneficiary of any trust seems rather telling. The only statement that puts this to bed is "neither I nor my family members stand to benefit from assets that have escaped tax by being held in a secrecy jurisdiction". So he's either been very badly advised and failed to make a statement that does the job, or been pretty well advised to make a statement which is both technically true and may convince people that he's not receiving any benefit that's incompatible with his stated position on tax avoidance or tax evasion. I wonder if we'll find out which of those is the case.
Cameron can't make a simple statement that his family has never benefited from offshore tax planning. In my belief it simply isn't true.
This is entirely based on supposition, but she was a shareholder in Smythsons when it was sold - I've seen press articles that her shares were worth £400K.
There are two points of risk:
(1) How was Smythson structured when S. Cameron sold it? It's quite possible that it was a simple UK company, but there may have been something more creative (over which she would have had no control, but would have benefited)
(2) The buyer most likely used clever structuring to maximise their profits. If so then, in theory, this increased the price they were willing to pay. Again, she would have had no control, but would have benefited
Unfortunately for the Camerons a blanket denial would be taken as an excuse to go fishing and a case could be made for the prosecution (at least in the court of public opinion)
But it is amusing the way that everyone is looking in the wrong direction
Nothing amusing about it. There is something a bit vile about the way people are attacked for complying with the law. It's as if the rule of law can simply be discarded if it enables ones opponents to be more easily smeared - using their dead parents to do so. Nasty.
Chris Pants Bryant on Newsnight. Starts off attacking Bermuda. FFS. How did the church of england think he was a fit and proper person to be in their clergy?
"for the Remain camp to win, it will need to think seriously about how to ... build a sophisticated grassroots operation that can increase the appeal of the status quo."
We are not voting on the status quo. We are voting for our future either outside the EU, or how it will evolve within the EU if we decide to remain. Neither of those options is the status quo.
Goldsmith is a weak candidate. But attacking Islamists seems to me to be a good thing. This is not race-baiting. Islamists are not a race. And it is Khan himself who has used his religion as a reason for supporting him with his "Look at what electing a Muslim as Mayor of London would mean" message.
Islamists and their supporters should be attacked as often as possible. Khan was stupid to speak at rallies with Cage. Either he supports them (very bad and would make him IMO unfit to be Mayor) or he does not care (also bad) or he did not bother to do any due diligence (negligence) or he thinks that he needs to do this to get Muslim votes (both cynical and contemptuous). He should have learnt the lessons of Livingstone and Qaradawi . Or he could look to his own party leader to see what carelessness about your associations does to you.
Edited: by "attack" I mean verbally only obviously.
I quite agree that Islamist extremists should be attacked - but I'm afraid I just don't agree that Khan is one - and the fact he once spoke at a rally about something innocuous like an extradition treaty, which happened to be attended by people who years later would be in CAGE, doesn't change my view.
I also agree that Khan being Muslim should not in itself be enough for people to vote for him, if they think he's an otherwise weak candidate (and there's plenty of reasons given his constant flip-flops and lack of charisma to think that) - but equally him being Muslim shouldn't in itself disqualify him from the job either.
Saw The Huntsman- A Winter's War today. Harmless nonsense, but Sheridan Smith and Rob Brydon as the Huntsman's midget followers stole the show. Haven't laughed so much for ages when Sheridan said she would love to take Chris Hemsworths clothes off.
Interesting politics this one. It's in the Tory Leavers firm interest to have Cameron discredited and dumped before the vote. There is clearly no love lost on the Tory side. The Telegraph shows the media is up for it. I wonder if there is someone closer to home who is willing to give him a shove.
A few lefties Tyson....most of the media & entertainment industry set their affairs to be tax efficient eg until recently most of the talent at the BBC.
Funny how Tyson chooses to reside in 'hideously white' Italy, where tax evasion is considered by most to be a national pastime.
"In another new set of questions, nearly four in 10 GOP primary voters in Wisconsin say they’d “scared” of what Trump would do in office if elected president - hitting nearly six in 10 among Cruz and Kasich supporters."
"Six in 10 overall are “excited” or “optimistic” about a Cruz presidency. Fewer, about half, are excited or optimistic about a Kasich presidency, declining to just over four in 10 for Trump."
"Nearly half of GOP voters want someone with experience in politics, close to as high as it’s been so far this election cycle – and previously Trump’s won only 7 percent of these voters, vs. 33 percent for Cruz and 24 percent for Kasich. About half of voters instead say they’d like the next president to be someone from “outside the political establishment.” Trump’s previously won two-thirds of outsider voters."
"More than four in 10 Wisconsin voters think Cruz has the best chance to beat Clinton. Only a third think Trump’s got the best shot, and fewer than two in 10 say it’s Kasich."
It's pretty clear this is a Trump rout. In such circumstances it's pretty likely that Trump and Cruz should have the same odds for the GOP nomination in the betting markets soon.
Fabians report on the problem with Labour voters. "Remain’s vote is softer. Using GQRR’s in-house measure of how loyal voters are to their cause, we show that there are nearly double the number of Leave loyalists as there are Remain loyalists." http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/argument-or-organisations-the-battle-over-membership-of-the-european-union/ "Only 56 per cent of Labour voters from May are very likely to vote in June – but with as many as 6 million votes on the line for Remain (two thirds of Labour’s vote from May) turnout is key."
"Whatever happens between now and then it is clear that for the Remain camp to win, it will need to think seriously about how to counter the appeal of anti-immigration populism, mobilize its younger voters to turn out and build a sophisticated grassroots operation that can increase the appeal of the status quo."
You expect right wingers to be greedy, grasping, selfish, me, me, individuals.
Or, to put it another way, human.
Tyson us right! Tories are different, more selfish. Can always tell if a work colleague is a Tory. Always a struggle to get them to pay into the tea fund.
I see we're writing Dave's political obituary - for the 10,000th time.
He wwill have more time to ride a horse to morrisons to buy a pasty, stop on the way back at the pub for a Guinness & then host a dinner party with the murdochs & supporters of the Waffen-SS ;-)
As someone who felt using EdM's dead Dad as a weapon against him was repulsive, I have to say proxy attacks on David Cameron via decisions his Dad took are pretty sickening too. Those who revelled in the Mail's attacks on Ralph Miliband, though, can hardly complain about what's happening now. They helped to create this culture.
Are we still playing the mug's game of trying to work out the result from partial second- and third-order questions from an exit poll? After all the experience we've gained over the last couple of months?
Goldsmith is a weak candidate. But attacking Islamists seems to me to be a good thing. This is not race-baiting. Islamists are not a race. And it is Khan himself who has used his religion as a reason for supporting him with his "Look at what electing a Muslim as Mayor of London would mean" message.
Islamists and their supporters should be attacked as often as possible. Khan was stupid to speak at rallies with Cage. Either he supports them (very bad and would make him IMO unfit to be Mayor) or he does not care (also bad) or he did not bother to do any due diligence (negligence) or he thinks that he needs to do this to get Muslim votes (both cynical and contemptuous). He should have learnt the lessons of Livingstone and Qaradawi . Or he could look to his own party leader to see what carelessness about your associations does to you.
Edited: by "attack" I mean verbally only obviously.
I quite agree that Islamist extremists should be attacked - but I'm afraid I just don't agree that Khan is one - and the fact he once spoke at a rally about something innocuous like an extradition treaty, which happened to be attended by people who years later would be in CAGE, doesn't change my view.
I also agree that Khan being Muslim should not in itself be enough for people to vote for him, if they think he's an otherwise weak candidate - but equally him being Muslim shouldn't in itself disqualify him from the job either.
I don't think Khan is an Islamist. But I think he has been stupid and careless about whom he associates with. He has spoken at rallies with Cage more than once and has had other dubious associations. So I think he has displayed poor judgment and that for me is an important issue. I couldn't care less about his religion and I find his "Vote for a Muslim as Mayor" message to be repellent. But he chose to make it and he cannot then be surprised if others then choose to ask exactly what kind of a Muslim he is.
BTW there was a Radio 4 programme this evening on the Deobandi version of Islam which is both hardline and prevalent in ca. 40% of British mosques, with strong links to the Pakistani Taliban. Not encouraging.
Late to the party but...sorry if you don't know who plays at Loftus Road or Selhurst Park or which stops are adjacent to Bond St and are a grown up interested in the world around you, you really don't have any business wanting to be Mayor of London.
Well, that depends if you can read a map or listen to the Sonia announcements.
In real life, knowing the connections is more useful. For instance, I'd find more telling finding out if people know how to get from London Bridge to Heathrow by tube with a suitcase.
(Edit: don't answer, Sunil - I know *you* know...)
Easy. Taxi to Hounslow East. Picadilly Line to your terminal.
Cameron can't make a simple statement that his family has never benefited from offshore tax planning. In my belief it simply isn't true.
Nothing amusing about it. There is something a bit vile about the way people are attacked for complying with the law. It's as if the rule of law can simply be discarded if it enables ones opponents to be more easily smeared - using their dead parents to do so. Nasty.
It's disingenuous to describe tax avoidance as "complying with the law". It's true that it's not breaking the law but it's not seen as that acceptable. It's not a smear to accuse a person of doing something they themselves have condemned (it may be a lie, but that's different).
This is David Cameron's view of what you call "complying with the law":
"Again let me put my cards squarely on the table. Of course there is a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Evasion is illegal. It can and should be subject to the full force of the criminal law. But what about tax avoidance? Now of course there’s nothing wrong with sensible tax planning and there are some things that governments want people to do that reduce tax bills, such as investing in a pension, a start up business or giving money to a charity. But there are some forms of avoidance that have become so aggressive that I think it is right to say these raise ethical issues, and it is time to call for more responsibility and for governments to act accordingly.
In the UK we’ve already committed hundreds of millions into this effort, but acting alone has its limits. Clamp down in one country and the travelling caravan of lawyers, accountants and financial gurus will just move on elsewhere. So we need to act together, including at the G8. If there are difficult questions about whether existing standards are tough enough to tackle avoidance we need to ask them. If there are options for more multilateral deals on automatic information exchange to catch tax evaders we need to explore them."
Broadly, it seems he'd like the rule of law to be discarded if enables those who pay too little tax to be more easily, and copiously, taxed. And he thinks it's an ethical issue.
You expect right wingers to be greedy, grasping, selfish, me, me, individuals.
Or, to put it another way, human.
Tyson us right! Tories are different, more selfish. Can always tell if a work colleague is a Tory. Always a struggle to get them to pay into the tea fund.
They're probably reluctant to make a contribution, only for a Lefty to steal it when they think no one is looking.
You expect right wingers to be greedy, grasping, selfish, me, me, individuals.
Or, to put it another way, human.
Tyson us right! Tories are different, more selfish. Can always tell if a work colleague is a Tory. Always a struggle to get them to pay into the tea fund.
Tories - standing up for the strong against the weak since 1912
Comments
FWIW- I have also completely lost pretty much all interest in gambling over recent years too, despite making very good returns on political betting. I made a good return on GE 2015, and that was about as satisfying as catching a flu. I mostly look at the betting markets as a predictor to see what'll happen.
He has followed ever Conservative PM from Heath Thatcher Major in advocating EU Membership.
No
Me neither.
Nor have any of my family. Dave trying to half answer will not wash IMO
It is deliberately designed to encourage people to save, that encouragement is through the form of tax relief.
You cannot blame Cameron for his old boy- but the chickens do appear to be flying back for a spot of roosting.
I never knew about my father's tax affairs. And my children don't know mine.
What Cameron's father did was legal at the time and was his responsibility not that of his children. It is pretty unedifying this attempt to put the "sins" (retrospectively assessed) of the dead father onto the son on the basis of no evidence at all other than, seemingly, some sort of vague and juvenile assumption that someone who is rich must necessarily be a crook.
Cameron comes from a very well off family. Big deal. He's never hidden this. He's gone into public service rather than doing what so many like him do - go into lucrative careers.
Apparently public service is a good thing when saintly doctors do it and evidence of misfeasance and corruption when rich toffs do it.
Sunil for Mayor!
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cameron-just-refused-to-give-a-straight-answer-about-whether-hed-benefited-from-tax-avoidance-big-a6969941.html
My fear on Corbyn being elected was that the Tory party would rip itself to shreds in the false expectation of guaranteed victory. It looked ok for a few months, and to be perfectly honest thought it would be the sceptics that would cause trouble - not the leadership itself....
Exciting, ain't it?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Central_line_mixed_case_line_diag.JPG?uselang=en-gb
"Remain’s vote is softer. Using GQRR’s in-house measure of how loyal voters are to their cause, we show that there are nearly double the number of Leave loyalists as there are Remain loyalists."
http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/argument-or-organisations-the-battle-over-membership-of-the-european-union/
"Only 56 per cent of Labour voters from May are very likely to vote in June – but with as many as 6 million votes on the line for Remain (two thirds of Labour’s vote from May) turnout is key."
So there's a, er, 95% chance Trump still leads.Or is that 97.5% I forget...
The fairest way to target money onto the neediest is through benefits and working tax credits- these other schemes just gets snaffled up by greedy snafflers who do not need it.
The Chancellor said that no tax will be deducted on the first £1,000 of interest earned every year on savings from April 2016.
No need for an ISA.
If we believe that an ISA is a tax avoidence vehicle , then 17 million of us , have now been made tax avoiders by Osborne , which is fatuous.
(just a Salfords and a Horley short of keeping my achievement of visiting every station on the London Oystercard map intact! Stations added out to Hertford East and to Gatwick in 2015-16)
http://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/01/07/09/GATWICKtubemapHIRES.jpg
@carolvorders
Oh no David Cameron... it is NOT a private matter.It is a matter of utter hypocrisy.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-campaign-staff-disarray-221557
But granted, DC could have stuck to his roots and continued a life of excess, fox hunting, shooting, Bullingdon club excesses, and making even more money and chumming around with obnoxious, opinionated, tax avoiders etc...
Instead he has devoted his life to public service and keeping us within the EU.
With regard to Jimmy Carr, the reason there was genuine and legitimate outrage over his tax arrangements was because he had spent his whole life attacking, often in a very nasty and personal way, anyone who had made any tax avoidance arrangements whatsoever. That he was caught using the most aggressive and arguably deceitful form of all such arrangements was strikingly indicative of his hypocrisy.
The really ironic point was it the about the first time he had ever said or done anything remotely funny in his whole life - and the joke was very much on him.
Bad debts can be written off against tax too.
Gets coat and goodnight.
And indeed 'inserted indeterminately tumescent penis into a pig's mouth' becomes 'shagged a pig'.*
*that the story is bollocks hardly mattered either.
And Mrs c is not.only wealthy background but been very successful herself.
David Cameron is a very wealthy man. His answer today provides a green light for all and sundry to go looking for that dress with some old, crusty stains on it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/07/carol-vorderman-politics-question-time
Or rather, in Guardian-land they would have the plebs believe that buying and selling shares is complex. What is really complex is setting up Cayman Islands-based vehicles to avoid stamp duty on properly complex acquisitions and disposals but that's of course another story.
"Can do!"
https://t.co/U7QFYhPbaw
From a Cameroon to a Corbynista within a very short time.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/don-t-trust-received-wisdom-uk-eu-referendum-vote#sthash.5RbOBcXr.dpuf
In real life, knowing the connections is more useful. For instance, I'd find more telling finding out if people know how to get from London Bridge to Heathrow by tube with a suitcase.
(Edit: don't answer, Sunil - I know *you* know...)
32% of GOP voters are angry (very low for a primary).
62% are female.
42% evangelical.
Nominate the candidate with most votes 56%.
Delegates should choose 42%.
86% of Trump voters say candidate who has most votes.
42% of non-Trump voters say candidate who has most votes.
Get your calculators out.
It's pretty clear that Trump is behind in the exit poll from the "nominate" question breakdown.
Looks like Trump is at around 38%
An exit poll from the town of Eue Claire (CD-3) had Trump 57, Cruz 33, Kasich 7.
https://twitter.com/tjrocks18/status/717418626232397824
The Republican/UKIP-style campaign of painting Khan as an Islamist sympathiser might've been an effective strategy in a UK-wide election, where the average swing voter is undeniably quite socially conservative - but it's never been clear to me why it makes sense for London where there is a fundamental Labour majority, and where a good number of the swing voters are socially-liberal City types who, while maybe not enamoured of traditional leftist "soak the rich" policies, do not really want to associate themselves with race-baiting campaigns either.
In response to Danny565:-
Goldsmith is a weak candidate. But attacking Islamists seems to me to be a good thing. This is not race-baiting. Islamists are not a race. And it is Khan himself who has used his religion as a reason for supporting him with his "Look at what electing a Muslim as Mayor of London would mean" message.
Islamists and their supporters should be attacked as often as possible. Khan was stupid to speak at rallies with Cage. Either he supports them (very bad and would make him IMO unfit to be Mayor) or he does not care (also bad) or he did not bother to do any due diligence (negligence) or he thinks that he needs to do this to get Muslim votes (both cynical and contemptuous). He should have learnt the lessons of Livingstone and Qaradawi . Or he could look to his own party leader to see what carelessness about your associations does to you.
Edited: by "attack" I mean verbally only obviously.
Left wing avoidance good right wind avoidance bad.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Guardian
But it's not as wickedly accurate as the article on Polly Toynbee!
This is entirely based on supposition, but she was a shareholder in Smythsons when it was sold - I've seen press articles that her shares were worth £400K.
There are two points of risk:
(1) How was Smythson structured when S. Cameron sold it? It's quite possible that it was a simple UK company, but there may have been something more creative (over which she would have had no control, but would have benefited)
(2) The buyer most likely used clever structuring to maximise their profits. If so then, in theory, this increased the price they were willing to pay. Again, she would have had no control, but would have benefited
Unfortunately for the Camerons a blanket denial would be taken as an excuse to go fishing and a case could be made for the prosecution (at least in the court of public opinion)
But it is amusing the way that everyone is looking in the wrong direction
Like BJO, I'll get my coat and wish you goodnight.
65% are Republicans.
29% Independents.
More than 40% think Cruz has the best chance of beating Hillary.
So it's seems that Cruz has won Wisconsin by lets say a margin of 3-7 points.
It is why it is all the more disappointing why a few lefties behave in the same way. They should be dealt with more harshly.
Always fun to have a decent tax story at the top of the political agenda. For those bleating about ISAs being tax avoidance, BUT-THE-GUARDIAN!! and so on, the key point here is that the current government has been even more aggressive than its predecessors in blurring the line between (illegal) evasion and (legal) avoidance, as well as constantly talking up the morality of "paying one's share". So regardless of whether that's a good Conservative view or not, Cameron really has no more right to squeal than a dead pig if he gets fucked on this one.
And the denials are interesting, aren't they? Anyone with a cursory knowledge of trust law can reasonably conclude that none of Dave's nuclear family has an interest in possession or a direct ownership of overseas assets, but the lack of denial of being a beneficiary of any trust seems rather telling. The only statement that puts this to bed is "neither I nor my family members stand to benefit from assets that have escaped tax by being held in a secrecy jurisdiction". So he's either been very badly advised and failed to make a statement that does the job, or been pretty well advised to make a statement which is both technically true and may convince people that he's not receiving any benefit that's incompatible with his stated position on tax avoidance or tax evasion. I wonder if we'll find out which of those is the case.
From the breakdown of the figures of the question " If no one comes to Cleveland with delegate majority", Trump is actually at 31-32% not 38%.
So the Cruz victory margin is in double digits.
"for the Remain camp to win, it will need to think seriously about how to ... build a sophisticated grassroots operation that can increase the appeal of the status quo."
We are not voting on the status quo. We are voting for our future either outside the EU, or how it will evolve within the EU if we decide to remain. Neither of those options is the status quo.
I also agree that Khan being Muslim should not in itself be enough for people to vote for him, if they think he's an otherwise weak candidate (and there's plenty of reasons given his constant flip-flops and lack of charisma to think that) - but equally him being Muslim shouldn't in itself disqualify him from the job either.
Only 67% are early voters.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-republican-primary-exit-poll-analysis/story?id=38164180
"In another new set of questions, nearly four in 10 GOP primary voters in Wisconsin say they’d “scared” of what Trump would do in office if elected president - hitting nearly six in 10 among Cruz and Kasich supporters."
"Six in 10 overall are “excited” or “optimistic” about a Cruz presidency. Fewer, about half, are excited or optimistic about a Kasich presidency, declining to just over four in 10 for Trump."
"Nearly half of GOP voters want someone with experience in politics, close to as high as it’s been so far this election cycle – and previously Trump’s won only 7 percent of these voters, vs. 33 percent for Cruz and 24 percent for Kasich. About half of voters instead say they’d like the next president to be someone from “outside the political establishment.” Trump’s previously won two-thirds of outsider voters."
"More than four in 10 Wisconsin voters think Cruz has the best chance to beat Clinton. Only a third think Trump’s got the best shot, and fewer than two in 10 say it’s Kasich."
It's pretty clear this is a Trump rout.
In such circumstances it's pretty likely that Trump and Cruz should have the same odds for the GOP nomination in the betting markets soon.
Trump is probably 10-20 points behind Cruz.
Safe in the knowledge that they have won by 10-20 points.
Looks like the worst night for Trump since Iowa.
If Bernie can't win this, he may as well drop out.
BTW there was a Radio 4 programme this evening on the Deobandi version of Islam which is both hardline and prevalent in ca. 40% of British mosques, with strong links to the Pakistani Taliban. Not encouraging.
This is David Cameron's view of what you call "complying with the law":
"Again let me put my cards squarely on the table. Of course there is a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Evasion is illegal. It can and should be subject to the full force of the criminal law. But what about tax avoidance? Now of course there’s nothing wrong with sensible tax planning and there are some things that governments want people to do that reduce tax bills, such as investing in a pension, a start up business or giving money to a charity. But there are some forms of avoidance that have become so aggressive that I think it is right to say these raise ethical issues, and it is time to call for more responsibility and for governments to act accordingly.
In the UK we’ve already committed hundreds of millions into this effort, but acting alone has its limits. Clamp down in one country and the travelling caravan of lawyers, accountants and financial gurus will just move on elsewhere. So we need to act together, including at the G8. If there are difficult questions about whether existing standards are tough enough to tackle avoidance we need to ask them. If there are options for more multilateral deals on automatic information exchange to catch tax evaders we need to explore them."
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-minister-david-camerons-speech-to-the-world-economic-forum-in-davos
Broadly, it seems he'd like the rule of law to be discarded if enables those who pay too little tax to be more easily, and copiously, taxed. And he thinks it's an ethical issue.