Faisal made a pathetic claim in a tweet that Cameron had got £2500 because of the reduction in higher tax rate by Osborne. As if it was a personal chum bung
Quite like Cameron.. so may be biased, but the Sunday Times front page article is incredible... It claims that Cameron receives financial perks available only to the super-rich.. Turns out to be a higher rate of interest for a larger size deposit - what a bastard, taking advantage of interest rates only available to anyone who can type money supermarket.com into a browser... And the amount of interest earned? £3,000 last year.... what an utter bastard earning, er, less than me in interest... Nice to know I am super-rich mind
I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
I meant Prime Ministers rather than leaders. Has there ever been a Jewish Prime Minister?
Dear God what are they teaching them these days?
The only thing I was ever taught about the 19th century was an overview of British foreign policy - you'd think Disraeli would come up as a significant figure of the time, but he never did. And I only learned that much as it as at A level.
Tudors and nazis, it's all Tudors and nazis.
When 'Conservative boy' doesn't know about Disraeli we can surely say our country truly is f****d.
I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
I meant Prime Ministers rather than leaders. Has there ever been a Jewish Prime Minister?
Dear God what are they teaching them these days?
Not a practising Jew, Disraeli was an Anglican although obviously a Sephardic Jew by descent. Given that he and Howard both led the Tories, and they had the first woman leader as well, I wouldn't rule out Javid. He would also be the perfect person to take on Corbyn and McDonnell over some of their more unsavoury friends.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
We're one step away from a method in a fantasy novel i read, where a leader is chosen without their consent, then all their possessions sold and put in a fund, to go up or down depending how the national economy goes.
Can you imagine what will happen if a PM suggests significantly raising their salary?
You become PM on the tacit understanding that you make your money after you are PM. Be it after dinner speaking or advising assorted dictators etc.
And WTF is with that Sunday Tines story? Cameron to comply with tax law? What next - Cameron has the temerity to avoid tax by putting some money in an ISA? The bastard....
If people on the Left get wound up by people doing legitimate tax planning, then next time they are in power they could try spending less time on their pet virtue-waving projects and spend more time PROPERLY SCRUTINISING THE BUDGET FOR LOOPHOLES.
Are the Sunday Times, Telegraph, and Mail on the left now? When did this happen? This was a one-day story tucked away on page 94 until David Cameron's and CCHQ's third-rate PR came into play.
Wasn't there a Kissinger maxim along the lines of "ifs it's going to come out at some point, it's better it all comes out today"
Hopefully someone in CCHQ's PR Team is getting the hairdryer treatment, the handling in this has been a fiasco from beginning to end, deny it, then say it might be true but, then admit it, it almost like they are trying to keep this story in the headlines.
The European Commission mails out slick textbooks – such as daft cartoon adventure “The Mystery of the Golden Stars” – to school teachers free of charge to “educate” children about the EU “in a fun and stimulating way”.
The naff “book to be handed out to every pupil” is designed to introduce “the EU in a child-friendly way” and is paid for from the EU Commission’s hated £158million taxpayer-funded PR budget.
I love the idea that No 10 made voters suspicious about the Prime Minister on purpose to distract from the fact that a textbook the EU makes tells kids what the EU flag means and what the EC mark is.
This may explain other historical moves like when Eden provoked the Suez Crisis to stop people finding out that children were learning about the British Standard.
I sense a little more support for Cameron this am, a feeling that handled badly or not by him, the latest revelations are a step too far.
However, as Blackburn points out, millions of people are reading that Cameron is a shifty tax avoiding git this morning, and a rich push boy to boot. In the current environment, where even former supporters have been saying Cameron is unfair and untrustworthy, a lot of those millions will take away that he has done something wrong.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
We're one step away from a method in a fantasy novel i read, where a leader is chosen without their consent, then all their possessions sold and put in a fund, to go up or down depending how the national economy goes.
Can you imagine what will happen if a PM suggests significantly raising their salary?
I think our overly puritanical (in fact hypocritical) approach to our politicians must put a great number of able people off getting involved in politics in the first place. This is already a problem and the average quality of MPs and MSPs reflects this. Do we really want it to get any worse?
I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
I meant Prime Ministers rather than leaders. Has there ever been a Jewish Prime Minister?
Dear God what are they teaching them these days?
Not a practising Jew, Disraeli was an Anglican although obviously a Sephardic Jew by descent. Given that he and Howard both led the Tories, and they had the first woman leader as well, I wouldn't rule out Javid. He would also be the perfect person to take on Corbyn and McDonnell over some of their more unsavoury friends.
Quite like Cameron.. so may be biased, but the Sunday Times front page article is incredible... It claims that Cameron receives financial perks available only to the super-rich.. Turns out to be a higher rate of interest for a larger size deposit - what a bastard, taking advantage of interest rates only available to anyone who can type money supermarket.com into a browser... And the amount of interest earned? £3,000 last year.... what an utter bastard earning, er, less than me in interest... Nice to know I am super-rich mind
I wouldn't put that out in a Conservative broadcast if I were you, £60pw interest is a lot of money to ordinary families. Your post plays nicely into the hands of those saying politicians are out of touch.
Nah, demonising immigrants whilst sharing a marital bed with one is being out of touch
A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
Unfair then, unfair now.
Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.
Some, no doubt. But the inconsistency of some doesn't make it reasonable, even if Cameron and co themselves can hardly complain.
I'm against having it as standard practice to release this sort of information, but I'm intrigued by mr Meeks suggestion this could have been done in part to undermine someone in the cabinet specifically. Really on what grounds can any of them or shadow cabinet refuse to not release theirs right now? No one will want to as that could distract from the pressure currently on Cameron, but any cabinet et member coukd become PM, shouldn't they reveal now then? The shadow cabinet say they deserve to do the job, so shouldn't they all do do as well?
I'm sure Corbyn's finances are squeaky clean, but some on both sides must have similar 'skeletons' as the PM in their closets.
I take your points but those reading it are politically engaged. Millions of others are reading that Cameron's mum gave him £200k because his Dad had only left the poor lamb £300k. Meeks and others will look at it tactically but it enforces people's views.
I'm not in the slightest bit interested, I'm just shaking my head at the tories who think Dave shouldn't be fair game.
I'm sure this story will play very badly for David Cameron in the short term. Today's coverage is, however, a low point for the British press. Journalists are either being stupid or dishonest. I know which one my money is on.
And now the very same journalists are huffing and puffing on Twitter because it's being suggested that they should disclose their own tax affairs. They've got some brass neck, I'll give them that.
The irony of the Dave tax issue is that those calling for his resignation have probably been doing the same thing or similar tax avoidance measures themselves.. Do those calling for Dave's head have squeaky clean tax records.. We should be told and the media should investigate. especially Ken Livingstone.
Interesting to see Corbyn today - he'll never be an electric speaker, partly because he only does explanatory answers rather than "yes" and "no", but he's got much better at avoiding bear-traps and sticking to the key message he wants to make and tying it in to the general agenda of public service funding. He's had some good advice, I suspect.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
We're one step away from a method in a fantasy novel i read, where a leader is chosen without their consent, then all their possessions sold and put in a fund, to go up or down depending how the national economy goes.
Can you imagine what will happen if a PM suggests significantly raising their salary?
I think our overly puritanical (in fact hypocritical) approach to our politicians must put a great number of able people off getting involved in politics in the first place. This is already a problem and the average quality of MPs and MSPs reflects this. Do we really want it to get any worse?
I think people don't think it can get worse, although I think they are wrong on that.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
We're one step away from a method in a fantasy novel i read, where a leader is chosen without their consent, then all their possessions sold and put in a fund, to go up or down depending how the national economy goes.
Can you imagine what will happen if a PM suggests significantly raising their salary?
I've actually proposed something for CEO's of big companies. Instead of giving them a big bonus for that year's performance immediately, hold the bonus in an escrow account and release it over a set period - say ten years. The amount of that bonus they get each year depends on how well the company does that year.
It makes them think of the longer term rather than the immediate, and encourages them to ensure any successors are capable.
You'd almost think that I lost money through a firm where the management made terrible short-term decisions that gave them big fat bonuses, but hurt the company terribly after they left. But that would never happen ...
And now the very same journalists are huffing and puffing on Twitter because it's being suggested that they should disclose their own tax affairs. They've got some brass neck, I'll give them that.
Polly was supporting your idea that everyone should publish their tax returns, but was very sniffy when the Telegraph looked into her affairs a few years ago. I am inclined to agree with the backbencher that said if we are going to reveal everyones tax returns we might as well ban curtains at the same time, after all if you have nothing to hide...
Quite like Cameron.. so may be biased, but the Sunday Times front page article is incredible... It claims that Cameron receives financial perks available only to the super-rich.. Turns out to be a higher rate of interest for a larger size deposit - what a bastard, taking advantage of interest rates only available to anyone who can type money supermarket.com into a browser... And the amount of interest earned? £3,000 last year.... what an utter bastard earning, er, less than me in interest... Nice to know I am super-rich mind
I wouldn't put that out in a Conservative broadcast if I were you, £60pw interest is a lot of money to ordinary families. Your post plays nicely into the hands of those saying politicians are out of touch.
Nah, demonising immigrants whilst sharing a marital bed with one is being out of touch
I'll let you try and sell that one on the doorsteps
Interesting to see Corbyn today - he'll never be an electric speaker, partly because he only does explanatory answers rather than "yes" and "no", but he's got much better at avoiding bear-traps and sticking to the key message he wants to make and tying it in to the general agenda of public service funding. He's had some good advice, I suspect.
Good for him. You don't last 30 years in politics but not having some skills at the basics, he just needed some practice.
Quite like Cameron.. so may be biased, but the Sunday Times front page article is incredible... It claims that Cameron receives financial perks available only to the super-rich.. Turns out to be a higher rate of interest for a larger size deposit - what a bastard, taking advantage of interest rates only available to anyone who can type money supermarket.com into a browser... And the amount of interest earned? £3,000 last year.... what an utter bastard earning, er, less than me in interest... Nice to know I am super-rich mind
I wouldn't put that out in a Conservative broadcast if I were you, £60pw interest is a lot of money to ordinary families. Your post plays nicely into the hands of those saying politicians are out of touch.
Nah, demonising immigrants whilst sharing a marital bed with one is being out of touch
And now the very same journalists are huffing and puffing on Twitter because it's being suggested that they should disclose their own tax affairs. They've got some brass neck, I'll give them that.
Polly was supporting your idea that everyone should publish their tax returns, but was very sniffy when the Telegraph looked into her affairs a few years ago. I am inclined to agree with the backbencher that said if we are going to reveal everyones tax returns we might as well ban curtains at the same time, after all if you have nothing to hide...
It's the wrong day to accuse Polly Toynbee of hypocrisy for that reaction. Today's coverage shows perfectly why transparency for a few is unfair. One wonders whether newspaper proprietors would tolerate such coverage of politicians' tax affairs if their own were available for scrutiny.
Wasn't there a Kissinger maxim along the lines of "ifs it's going to come out at some point, it's better it all comes out today"
Hopefully someone in CCHQ's PR Team is getting the hairdryer treatment, the handling in this has been a fiasco from beginning to end, deny it, then say it might be true but, then admit it, it almost like they are trying to keep this story in the headlines.
I love the idea that No 10 made voters suspicious about the Prime Minister on purpose to distract from the fact that a textbook the EU makes tells kids what the EU flag means and what the EC mark is.
This may explain other historical moves like when Eden provoked the Suez Crisis to stop people finding out that children were learning about the British Standard.
“The EU flag consists of 12 golden stars in a circle on a blue background. The stars symbolise harmony among the peoples of Europe.
"The number twelve is a symbol of perfection and the circle is a symbol of unity.”
A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
Unfair then, unfair now.
Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.
Some, no doubt. But the inconsistency of some doesn't make it reasonable, even if Cameron and co themselves can hardly complain, shouldn't they reveal now then? The shadow cabinet say they deserve to do the job, so shouldn't they all do do as well?
I'm sure Corbyn's finances are squeaky clean, but some on both sides must have similar 'skeletons' as the PM in their closets.
I take your points but those reading it are politically engaged. Millions of others are reading that Cameron's mum gave him £200k because his Dad had only left the poor lamb £300k. Meeks and others will look at it tactically but it enforces people's views.
I'm not in the slightest bit interested, I'm just shaking my head at the tories who think Dave shouldn't be fair game.
I'm sure this story will play very badly for David Cameron in the short term. Today's coverage is, however, a low point for the British press. Journalists are either being stupid or dishonest. I know which one my money is on.
And now the very same journalists are huffing and puffing on Twitter because it's being suggested that they should disclose their own tax affairs. They've got some brass neck, I'll give them that.
I suppose it depends on the arguments used to demand Cameron come clean. If it's due to the level of his position they can argue they are not a public official holding a position of power who deserves such scrutiny, but if they are being moralistic about having nothing to hide generally, they don't have a leg to stand on.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
We're one step away from a method in a fantasy novel i read, where a leader is chosen without their consent, then all their possessions sold and put in a fund, to go up or down depending how the national economy goes.
Can you imagine what will happen if a PM suggests significantly raising their salary?
I've actually proposed something for CEO's of big companies. Instead of giving them a big bonus for that year's performance immediately, hold the bonus in an escrow account and release it over a set period - say ten years. The amount of that bonus they get each year depends on how well the company does that year.
It makes them think of the longer term rather than the immediate, and encourages them to ensure any successors are capable.
You'd almost think that I lost money through a firm where the management made terrible short-term decisions that gave them big fat bonuses, but hurt the company terribly after they left. But that would never happen ...
Isn't that the logic behind share options with a distant maturity as a bonus? If you look after the long term then years later the shares should be higher and the option is a good bonus. If you don't look after the long term then years later the shares won't be higher and the bonus is worthless.
Dugdale and Davidson are publishing their tax returns- will Nicola? As Stephen Daisley observes "The bastards. They're doing that opposition thing again. And during an election too. #forshame
Diddy politicians try desperate tactics as they wait to get losers list seats , up against real politicians these sad losers hope and pray for a miracle.
The irony of the Dave tax issue is that those calling for his resignation have probably been doing the same thing or similar tax avoidance measures themselves.. Do those calling for Dave's head have squeaky clean tax records.. We should be told and the media should investigate. especially Ken Livingstone.
And the other irony is so many of Cameron's supporters saying this is a non-story but the press should investigate those other people over there because our opponents' records are a legitimate target.
“The EU flag consists of 12 golden stars in a circle on a blue background. The stars symbolise harmony among the peoples of Europe.
"The number twelve is a symbol of perfection and the circle is a symbol of unity.”
Yeah, nice and balanced.
What would balance be explaining what the flag symbolizes, "Some people say the number 12 was chosen as a symbol of perfection and the circle as a symbol of unity, but others say it's the number 11 representing the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth, and the circle denotes that there's an extra one if you start counting at 0"?
Journalists are paid to sell papers, judging by this thread they've sold loads, job done. And yes they've got brass necks, a bloke I know well was hiding in a van outside Cameron's for ages working for a national paper when the Coulson/Brooks thing was going on. The media and govt are inextricably linked, Cameron's lot will retaliate strongly then the yah booing will be from the other side
Interesting to see Corbyn today - he'll never be an electric speaker, partly because he only does explanatory answers rather than "yes" and "no", but he's got much better at avoiding bear-traps and sticking to the key message he wants to make and tying it in to the general agenda of public service funding. He's had some good advice, I suspect.
If the advice he has received does not include 'resign for the good of the Labour Party and the country,' it is still bad advice. He has set himself an elephant trap of gargantuan size on this given his wife's business interests, and he remains the worst leader Labour have had in my lifetime, a list that includes Michael Foot.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
Sorry, is the ministerial salary ON TOP of MPs' pay?
If so it might explain why the coalition lasted all five years.
This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
Guardianistas are spitting feathers today..The PNMM who earns less in a year than most footballers do in a week has been kicked around the political football field for a week..and finally we get his tax returns..which are clean. It is obvious that most lefties cannot grasp the fact that some people come from a wealthy background,Cameron and his wife did...so get over it. Wanna discuss Wedgie Benns sons frantic efforts to avoid IHT..
Many of the attacks are coming from the right wing media so lets not pretend its just "Guardianistas". This is damaging the Tories because it reinforces the view that they care more about the wealthy than the rest. It's an image problem for the tories that stubbornly refuses to go away. This certainly doesn't help. Shouting "Look Squirrel" about Benn is going to do sod all.
In a GE I would vote for Cameron as the best option currently on offer. My take on what's happening is that Mail, Telegraph etc are so obsessed with the EU issue that they will do anything to win even if it means throwing dirt at every key Remain Tory in the way they habitually do at every Labour & Lib Dem politician.
When Cameron was riding high after last May the idea that the EU would tear the party apart was poo-poo'd by many of the PB Tories. What a difference a year makes. If Labour have the sense to change leader before 2020 the Tories could be in deep trouble.
I suppose it depends on the arguments used to demand Cameron come clean. If it's due to the level of his position they can argue they are not a public official holding a position of power who deserves such scrutiny, but if they are being moralistic about having nothing to hide generally, they don't have a leg to stand on.
The first argument is bogus too. The media have, indeed seek, public influence. It is legitimate to hold those seeking public influence to account, especially when they make value judgements so freely. If they're telling us that they think something is shocking or wrong, we need to understand the context in which they have formed that view.
I wouldn't take the nonsense that Cameron has to put up with for that sort of money..I have a friend who has just made $45 million in the States last year... he takes crap from no one..and he is nowhere near as bright as Cameron..
Yawn, bunch of useless greedy fannies, sell their grannies for a pound.
And now the very same journalists are huffing and puffing on Twitter because it's being suggested that they should disclose their own tax affairs. They've got some brass neck, I'll give them that.
Polly was supporting your idea that everyone should publish their tax returns, but was very sniffy when the Telegraph looked into her affairs a few years ago. I am inclined to agree with the backbencher that said if we are going to reveal everyones tax returns we might as well ban curtains at the same time, after all if you have nothing to hide...
It's the wrong day to accuse Polly Toynbee of hypocrisy for that reaction. Today's coverage shows perfectly why transparency for a few is unfair. One wonders whether newspaper proprietors would tolerate such coverage of politicians' tax affairs if their own were available for scrutiny.
You mean the Barclay brothers in their recently built castle on Breqhou aren't releasing their tax returns? Time for the Sarkese to organise a flotilla
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
David, you are having a laugh surely , "very able clever guy" should surely be "spiv coins it in"
I suppose it depends on the arguments used to demand Cameron come clean. If it's due to the level of his position they can argue they are not a public official holding a position of power who deserves such scrutiny, but if they are being moralistic about having nothing to hide generally, they don't have a leg to stand on.
The first argument is bogus too. The media have, indeed seek, public influence. It is legitimate to hold those seeking public influence to account, especially when they make value judgements so freely. If they're telling us that they think something is shocking or wrong, we need to understand the context in which they have formed that view.
The problem for politicians is they cannot effectively say what you have - because it would just appear a desperate politician attacking someone asking them questions.
And now the very same journalists are huffing and puffing on Twitter because it's being suggested that they should disclose their own tax affairs. They've got some brass neck, I'll give them that.
Polly was supporting your idea that everyone should publish their tax returns, but was very sniffy when the Telegraph looked into her affairs a few years ago. I am inclined to agree with the backbencher that said if we are going to reveal everyones tax returns we might as well ban curtains at the same time, after all if you have nothing to hide...
It's the wrong day to accuse Polly Toynbee of hypocrisy for that reaction. Today's coverage shows perfectly why transparency for a few is unfair. One wonders whether newspaper proprietors would tolerate such coverage of politicians' tax affairs if their own were available for scrutiny.
American presidential candidates release their tax records and the sky doesn't fall in. As regards David Cameron, it was widely reported when he became leader that he was worth about £30 million, which now seems a wild over-estimate (perhaps from adding in his entire extended family) but the point is that Cameron is now in his second term as Prime Minister despite voters always having known he was worth a few bob. The idea that being rich or "a toff" is an electoral liability has surely been tested to destruction by the success of Cameron, and Boris in London.
I've actually proposed something for CEO's of big companies. Instead of giving them a big bonus for that year's performance immediately, hold the bonus in an escrow account and release it over a set period - say ten years. The amount of that bonus they get each year depends on how well the company does that year.
It makes them think of the longer term rather than the immediate, and encourages them to ensure any successors are capable.
You'd almost think that I lost money through a firm where the management made terrible short-term decisions that gave them big fat bonuses, but hurt the company terribly after they left. But that would never happen ...
Isn't that the logic behind share options with a distant maturity as a bonus? If you look after the long term then years later the shares should be higher and the option is a good bonus. If you don't look after the long term then years later the shares won't be higher and the bonus is worthless.
Yes, although options are only one form of bonus.
IME the vesting dates for senior bods can be very different to those for the plebs on the shop floor. In one case I know, the vesting date for a tranche of shares was in a few weeks for the senior management, a couple of years for the workers. They sat on fat profits from the options, but by the time the workers' options vested they'd run the company into the ground.
I suppose it depends on the arguments used to demand Cameron come clean. If it's due to the level of his position they can argue they are not a public official holding a position of power who deserves such scrutiny, but if they are being moralistic about having nothing to hide generally, they don't have a leg to stand on.
The first argument is bogus too. The media have, indeed seek, public influence. It is legitimate to hold those seeking public influence to account, especially when they make value judgements so freely. If they're telling us that they think something is shocking or wrong, we need to understand the context in which they have formed that view.
Politicians need the media more than vice versa, Cameron gave Coulson (a very close friend of Brooks) a job, the man I referred to earlier was working with them at the time, it would be silly of me to repeat his tales. Mandelson was peerless at influencing the media.
“The EU flag consists of 12 golden stars in a circle on a blue background. The stars symbolise harmony among the peoples of Europe.
"The number twelve is a symbol of perfection and the circle is a symbol of unity.”
Yeah, nice and balanced.
What would balance be explaining what the flag symbolizes, "Some people say the number 12 was chosen as a symbol of perfection and the circle as a symbol of unity, but others say it's the number 11 representing the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth, and the circle denotes that there's an extra one if you start counting at 0"?
Surely there are twelve stars to symbolise the superiority of imperial measures over the rotten, Napoleonic metric system.
You still unable to grasp that no deal has been done. I know Tories find it hard to get beyond headlines, but you would expect by now that you would have realised you are making an even bigger twat of yourself than normal, and boring the pants off those of us who have read the full articles. NO DEAL has been signed , return to your village they are missing you.
Unusually at present he can count on strong support from his party if such a question is heard.
I'm genuinely interested what he will ask - what is in there that he thinks he can make more out of in the chamber? A bad headline is a bad headline, but Cameron can respond much more effectively in the chamber, so I'm not sure what question there will make things worse for Cameron.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
David, you are having a laugh surely , "very able clever guy" should surely be "spiv coins it in"
You're seriously suggesting that someone who got a first at Oxford, had the skills to win the leadership of his party, make the Coalition work for 5 years and then win an election outright would not have been capable of earning more than £200K a year?
Clearly he did not do that purely out of altruism. He did it because he believed he would be rather good at it and it would make him an important person. But arguing that he has been in this for the money or out of greed is frankly ridiculous.
Interesting to see Corbyn today - he'll never be an electric speaker, partly because he only does explanatory answers rather than "yes" and "no", but he's got much better at avoiding bear-traps and sticking to the key message he wants to make and tying it in to the general agenda of public service funding. He's had some good advice, I suspect.
I have to say I'm not finding him very impressive. Even those of us wishing the Tories ill will find the last few days of Corbyn playing Madame Defarge pretty unedifying
I wouldn't take the nonsense that Cameron has to put up with for that sort of money..I have a friend who has just made $45 million in the States last year... he takes crap from no one..and he is nowhere near as bright as Cameron..
Yawn, bunch of useless greedy fannies, sell their grannies for a pound.
English, post independence Scottish or offshore Jersey pound? ....
The idea that being rich or "a toff" is an electoral liability has surely been tested to destruction by the success of Cameron, and Boris in London.
I think it has been well established that the public as fine with toffs, witness the car-crash Labour had in the Crewe & Nantwich Byelection a few years ago. The public like Boris, they like The Mogg, both toffs to their manicured fingernails, what they largely can't stand is phoneys. Which is why I have been slightly surprised at the PM's earnest use of EasyJet and cheap holidays in Devon, he should have adopted the "Yes I'm a toff, so what" approach years ago, which would also have pretty much fireproofed him against this current charade.
Unusually at present he can count on strong support from his party if such a question is heard.
I'm genuinely interested what he will ask - what is in there that he thinks he can make more out of in the chamber? A bad headline is a bad headline, but Cameron can respond much more effectively in the chamber, so I'm not sure what question there will make things worse for Cameron.
He obviously wants Cameron to turn over his bank statements, receipts, etc. to forensic accountants...
Guardianistas are spitting feathers today..The PNMM who earns less in a year than most footballers do in a week has been kicked around the political football field for a week..and finally we get his tax returns..which are clean. It is obvious that most lefties cannot grasp the fact that some people come from a wealthy background,Cameron and his wife did...so get over it. Wanna discuss Wedgie Benns sons frantic efforts to avoid IHT..
Which is it? Politicians' financial affairs are fair game or private? And most of the running is being made by the right-wing press, not the left. The Guardian's headline story on the Panama Papers was Vladimir Putin, his friends and cellists -- not David Cameron.
A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
Unfair then, unfair now.
Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.
I take your points but those reading it are politically engaged. Millions of others are reading that Cameron's mum gave him £200k because his Dad had only left the poor lamb £300k. Meeks and others will look at it tactically but it enforces people's views.
I'm not in the slightest bit interested, I'm just shaking my head at the tories who think Dave shouldn't be fair game.
I'm sure this story will play very badly for David Cameron in the short term. Today's coverage is, however, a low point for the British press. Journalists are either being stupid or dishonest. I know which one my money is on.
And now the very same journalists are huffing and puffing on Twitter because it's being suggested that they should disclose their own tax affairs. They've got some brass neck, I'll give them that.
Hoist by his own petard, when you come out and pontificate that you are whiter than white and will slay all tax dodgers, you really should make sure you are squeaky clean. Ordinary people do not get taken in by the "tax avoidance", "tax planning" crap that rich greedy people come out with , it is seen as just cheating. He made a big deal of jimmy Carr etc and all the time he was doing just the same. You cannot trust a LIAR.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
David, you are having a laugh surely , "very able clever guy" should surely be "spiv coins it in"
You're seriously suggesting that someone who got a first at Oxford, had the skills to win the leadership of his party, make the Coalition work for 5 years and then win an election outright would not have been capable of earning more than £200K a year?
Clearly he did not do that purely out of altruism. He did it because he believed he would be rather good at it and it would make him an important person. But arguing that he has been in this for the money or out of greed is frankly ridiculous.
Your point is valid and I agree entirely but it also misses the bigger point. 99% of the country don't earn £200k, don't get £500k from their parents and aren't married to Samantha. A great deal of those 99% read headlines (and probably no more) that this wealthy bloke is fiddling taxes.
Hoist by his own petard, when you come out and pontificate that you are whiter than white and will slay all tax dodgers, you really should make sure you are squeaky clean.
A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
Unfair then, unfair now.
Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.
I take your points but those reading it are politically engaged. Millions of others are reading that Cameron's mum gave him £200k because his Dad had only left the poor lamb £300k. Meeks and others will look at it tactically but it enforces people's views.
I'm not in the slightest bit interested, I'm just shaking my head at the tories who think Dave shouldn't be fair game.
I'm sure this story will play very badly for David Cameron in the short term. Today's coverage is, however, a low point for the British press. Journalists are either being stupid or dishonest. I know which one my money is on.
And now the very same journalists are huffing and puffing on Twitter because it's being suggested that they should disclose their own tax affairs. They've got some brass neck, I'll give them that.
Hoist by his own petard, when you come out and pontificate that you are whiter than white and will slay all tax dodgers, you really should make sure you are squeaky clean. Ordinary people do not get taken in by the "tax avoidance", "tax planning" crap that rich greedy people come out with , it is seen as just cheating. He made a big deal of jimmy Carr etc and all the time he was doing just the same. You cannot trust a LIAR.
So when is Nicola Sturgeon publishing her tax returns? She seems oddly hesitant to do so at present.
I've actually proposed something for CEO's of big companies. Instead of giving them a big bonus for that year's performance immediately, hold the bonus in an escrow account and release it over a set period - say ten years. The amount of that bonus they get each year depends on how well the company does that year.
It makes them think of the longer term rather than the immediate, and encourages them to ensure any successors are capable.
You'd almost think that I lost money through a firm where the management made terrible short-term decisions that gave them big fat bonuses, but hurt the company terribly after they left. But that would never happen ...
Isn't that the logic behind share options with a distant maturity as a bonus? If you look after the long term then years later the shares should be higher and the option is a good bonus. If you don't look after the long term then years later the shares won't be higher and the bonus is worthless.
Yes, although options are only one form of bonus.
IME the vesting dates for senior bods can be very different to those for the plebs on the shop floor. In one case I know, the vesting date for a tranche of shares was in a few weeks for the senior management, a couple of years for the workers. They sat on fat profits from the options, but by the time the workers' options vested they'd run the company into the ground.
Not that I'm bitter or anything ...
Happened to me too. What is worse is the company went bust because its financial reserves were used in a vain attempt to prop up an unrelated American company the directors had invested in.
A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
Unfair then, unfair now.
Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.
I take your points but those reading it are politically engaged. Millions of others are reading that Cameron's mum gave him £200k because his Dad had only left the poor lamb £300k. Meeks and others will look at it tactically but it enforces people's views.
I'm not in the slightest bit interested, I'm just shaking my head at the tories who think Dave shouldn't be fair game.
I'm sure this story will play very badly for David Cameron in the short term. Today's coverage is, however, a low point for the British press. Journalists are either being stupid or dishonest. I know which one my money is on.
And now the very same journalists are huffing and puffing on Twitter because it's being suggested that they should disclose their own tax affairs. They've got some brass neck, I'll give them that.
Hoist by his own petard, when you come out and pontificate that you are whiter than white and will slay all tax dodgers, you really should make sure you are squeaky clean. Ordinary people do not get taken in by the "tax avoidance", "tax planning" crap that rich greedy people come out with , it is seen as just cheating. He made a big deal of jimmy Carr etc and all the time he was doing just the same...
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
David, you are having a laugh surely , "very able clever guy" should surely be "spiv coins it in"
You're seriously suggesting that someone who got a first at Oxford, had the skills to win the leadership of his party, make the Coalition work for 5 years and then win an election outright would not have been capable of earning more than £200K a year?
Someone with his network, certainly. Skills have little to do with it. Hence George W Bush and the US Presidency.
Some pretty dreadful economic data last week on productivity, the balance of trade and industrial production.
The manufacturing output data shows an interesting comparison:
Feb 2011 102.0 Mar 2011 Osborne proclaims the 'March of the Makers' Feb 2016 100.1
In a couple of weeks we'll get to see the government borrowing for all of 2015/16, which will allow us to compare Osborne's borrowing predictions from his 2010 Budget to what he has actually borrowed.
My thought last night was while his personal income number was unremarkable for London and the South East, the rental income number was eye catching but then we don't all have a four bedroom house in Notting Hill to let.
I also thought the £3,000 income from savings was enlightening. With most savings accounts paying almost nothing in interest, to garner that kind of income must mean there's a pretty big starting number.
This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.
Smoking is a choice as is puffing away around other people. Being gay isn't a choice as isn't poofing away around other people.
Obviously gay smokers are an anathema and should be put to death alongside advocates of STV and Ayrshire turnip patrons.
showing your age and Lord Fauntleroy status there Jack, who other than an old elite deviant come out with "poofing away around other people", how very old fashioned and elitist.
This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.
Smoking is a choice as is puffing away around other people. Being gay isn't a choice as isn't poofing away around other people.
Obviously gay smokers are an anathema and should be put to death alongside advocates of STV and Ayrshire turnip patrons.
showing your age and Lord Fauntleroy status there Jack, who other than an old elite deviant come out with "poofing away around other people", how very old fashioned and elitist.
Guilty as charged .. now excuse me as I nip out for a fag ....
I presume Tory donors caught up in the Panama scandal will be grateful to Cameron for revealing his vanilla tax affairs and thereby creating a useful distraction. I wonder if the PM can expect to be rewarded for taking one for the team?
It's a bit like a PM switching attention from an embarrassing sex scandal involving a colleague and drugs/prostitutes/S&M by making cringeworthy remarks about how he likes to lie back and think of England once a week.
Cameron, by marriage Although they would be up against some stiff competition from those tribunes of the people Hattie Harman and the late Viscount Stansgate
SELLING Scotland’s busiest airport to the rulers of Qatar was top of Alex Salmond’s agenda during a trade mission, secret papers reveal.
Briefing papers prepared by civil servants before the then first minister travelled to the Gulf in 2011 reveal touting Edinburgh Airport, then up for sale, was a priority.
The former first minister also tried to convince the oil-rich state, which has been attacked for its record on human rights, to invest billions of pounds in green energy projects.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
David, you are having a laugh surely , "very able clever guy" should surely be "spiv coins it in"
You're seriously suggesting that someone who got a first at Oxford, had the skills to win the leadership of his party, make the Coalition work for 5 years and then win an election outright would not have been capable of earning more than £200K a year?
Clearly he did not do that purely out of altruism. He did it because he believed he would be rather good at it and it would make him an important person. But arguing that he has been in this for the money or out of greed is frankly ridiculous.
David, he may have got a first at Oxford, I will not go int o how that could easily be achieved , but is not very bright. He thinks he can lie through his teeth with platitudes for the plebs and then is found to have feet of clay. Like lots of these rich clowns they get their positions not through personal talent or skills but by their connections. Of course he would have been given a nice earner by some chum of his Dad's or wife's family. The fact he is a liar is the issue, Tories may think that is perfectly acceptable but I do not.
Wasn't there a Kissinger maxim along the lines of "ifs it's going to come out at some point, it's better it all comes out today"
Hopefully someone in CCHQ's PR Team is getting the hairdryer treatment, the handling in this has been a fiasco from beginning to end, deny it, then say it might be true but, then admit it, it almost like they are trying to keep this story in the headlines.
I love the idea that No 10 made voters suspicious about the Prime Minister on purpose to distract from the fact that a textbook the EU makes tells kids what the EU flag means and what the EC mark is.
This may explain other historical moves like when Eden provoked the Suez Crisis to stop people finding out that children were learning about the British Standard.
“The EU flag consists of 12 golden stars in a circle on a blue background. The stars symbolise harmony among the peoples of Europe.
"The number twelve is a symbol of perfection and the circle is a symbol of unity.”
Yeah, nice and balanced.
If Bedfordshire County Council put out a pamphlet on the history if the county, do you think it contain passages like:
"Many consider the creation of Bedfordshire to be a democratic abhor ration, reducing the traditional freedoms enjoyed by the many borough councils."?
“The EU flag consists of 12 golden stars in a circle on a blue background. The stars symbolise harmony among the peoples of Europe.
"The number twelve is a symbol of perfection and the circle is a symbol of unity.”
Yeah, nice and balanced.
What would balance be explaining what the flag symbolizes, "Some people say the number 12 was chosen as a symbol of perfection and the circle as a symbol of unity, but others say it's the number 11 representing the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth, and the circle denotes that there's an extra one if you start counting at 0"?
Man, my jokey comment is rubbish compared to this.
Some pretty dreadful economic data last week on productivity, the balance of trade and industrial production.
The manufacturing output data shows an interesting comparison:
Feb 2011 102.0 Mar 2011 Osborne proclaims the 'March of the Makers' Feb 2016 100.1
In a couple of weeks we'll get to see the government borrowing for all of 2015/16, which will allow us to compare Osborne's borrowing predictions from his 2010 Budget to what he has actually borrowed.
Indeed and productivity remains the big problem but it's masked by the increase in the number of workers. It's so much easier for companies (including local Government) to buy in labour on a short-term basis to solve problems than do the necessary investment.
It's almost luddite - instead of the workers being replaced by machines, investment in new technology is being deferred as it's cheaper to employ more people..
If Bedfordshire County Council put out a pamphlet on the history if the county, do you think it contain passages like:
"Many consider the creation of Bedfordshire to be a democratic abhor ration, reducing the traditional freedoms enjoyed by the many borough councils."?
I think neither of them should put out those sort of pamphlets, public money should not be used to promote public bodies, especially so close to elections and similar events. I am equally unsympathetic to the "public information" adverts we see from governments of whatever colour running up to general elections, just in case we wanted to know how many cases were treated, how many holes in the road were filled in, or whatever. Obviously a political campaign organisation can say what it wants, with its own and/or its donors money.
Wasn't there a Kissinger maxim along the lines of "ifs it's going to come out at some point, it's better it all comes out today"
Hopefully someone in CCHQ's PR Team is getting the hairdryer treatment, the handling in this has been a fiasco from beginning to end, deny it, then say it might be true but, then admit it, it almost like they are trying to keep this story in the headlines.
I love the idea that No 10 made voters suspicious about the Prime Minister on purpose to distract from the fact that a textbook the EU makes tells kids what the EU flag means and what the EC mark is.
This may explain other historical moves like when Eden provoked the Suez Crisis to stop people finding out that children were learning about the British Standard.
“The EU flag consists of 12 golden stars in a circle on a blue background. The stars symbolise harmony among the peoples of Europe.
"The number twelve is a symbol of perfection and the circle is a symbol of unity.”
Yeah, nice and balanced.
Surely any history of Bedfordshire would require substantial reference to the county's behemoth presence known locally on PB as OGH ? ..
This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.
Smoking is a choice as is puffing away around other people. Being gay isn't a choice as isn't poofing away around other people.
Obviously gay smokers are an anathema and should be put to death alongside advocates of STV and Ayrshire turnip patrons.
showing your age and Lord Fauntleroy status there Jack, who other than an old elite deviant come out with "poofing away around other people", how very old fashioned and elitist.
Guilty as charged .. now excuse me as I nip out for a fag ....
When will we get a look at the tax arrangements being emitted from Jacks ARSE?
It should also be remarked upon that we haven't got a tax return, we have a summary of one. Even if we did have a tax return it wouldn't be a list of assets. We also haven't got Samantha Cameron's tax return, or assets. I'm sure everyone here thinks even the suggestion that we should see her details is beyond the pale, but married couples are often seen as one economic unit, and transferring of assets and liabilities between spouses to be more tax efficient is standard practice. We have therefore been given less than half the story.
I make no comment on whether the PM should have to reveal any personal financial information, but by revealing what he has, when he has, he has not satiated the public, but teased them with a bit of ankle, then some calf, then some knee etc. We're about up to the garter now with a fair way to go.
A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
Unfair then, unfair now.
Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.
So when is Nicola Sturgeon publishing her tax returns? She seems oddly hesitant to do so at present.
When are you posting yours. Why would I know or care about when she is posting her tax returns. Have you heard her pontificating on how she would fix UK tax havens, berating duff tax evading comedians etc. She also has not had the benefit of millionaire parents being able to bung her large six figures sums, put her through Eton , Oxford etc. I doubt she will need to worry much about tax avoidance when she shares the approx £70K value of their ex council house with her sister.
It should also be remarked upon that we haven't got a tax return, we have a summary of one. Even if we did have a tax return it wouldn't be a list of assets. We also haven't got Samantha Cameron's tax return, or assets. I'm sure everyone here thinks even the suggestion that we should see her details is beyond the pale, but married couples are often seen as one economic unit, and transferring of assets and liabilities between spouses to be more tax efficient is standard practice. We have therefore been given less than half the story.
I make no comment on whether the PM should have to reveal any personal financial information, but by revealing what he has, when he has, he has not satiated the public, but teased them with a bit of ankle, then some calf, then some knee etc. We're about up to the garter now with a fair way to go.
I agree he has not satiated the public (as represented by the press at least) though I cannot speak about how much else there is to see. While not wanting to see either of the Cameron's tax returns, I would also agree married couples are seen as one economic unit. People have to declare their spouses interests on register of interests don't they, because it could lead to a conflict.
Also, didn't Joe Biden claim to be the poorest person in congress, principally because everything was in his wife's name?
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
I'd assume that his mother or brother are paying the school fees... fairly standard practice and not a gift to Cameron so not disclosable...
This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.
Smoking is a choice as is puffing away around other people. Being gay isn't a choice as isn't poofing away around other people.
Obviously gay smokers are an anathema and should be put to death alongside advocates of STV and Ayrshire turnip patrons.
showing your age and Lord Fauntleroy status there Jack, who other than an old elite deviant come out with "poofing away around other people", how very old fashioned and elitist.
Guilty as charged .. now excuse me as I nip out for a fag ....
When will we get a look at the tax arrangements being emitted from Jacks ARSE?
When both Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister and TSE gives up his red shoes.
Japanese telly is doing Cameron's tax haven problems. They just mentioned that Britain has 20% VAT and everyone made a horrified face.
What's the VAT there?
8%. It's called Consumption Tax (消費税) rather than VAT because the Americans brought in a VAT after the war and it was unpopular, but it walks and talks like VAT.
It's supposed to go up to 10% but Abe has decided he wants to win another election first.
The nice thing about it at the moment is that it's nice and simple, unlike the British one with all its amazing different levels and zero-rates. Unfortunately their coalition partner Koumeitou, which is backed by Soka Gakkai which is like a Buddhist version of Scientology, is insisting that they make it complicated.
SELLING Scotland’s busiest airport to the rulers of Qatar was top of Alex Salmond’s agenda during a trade mission, secret papers reveal.
Briefing papers prepared by civil servants before the then first minister travelled to the Gulf in 2011 reveal touting Edinburgh Airport, then up for sale, was a priority.
The former first minister also tried to convince the oil-rich state, which has been attacked for its record on human rights, to invest billions of pounds in green energy projects.
LOL, you really are scraping the barrel, I take it you did not understand the words "briefing papers prepared by civil servants". Good old Tory, never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.
Comments
It reminded me of someone.
This may explain other historical moves like when Eden provoked the Suez Crisis to stop people finding out that children were learning about the British Standard.
However, as Blackburn points out, millions of people are reading that Cameron is a shifty tax avoiding git this morning, and a rich push boy to boot. In the current environment, where even former supporters have been saying Cameron is unfair and untrustworthy, a lot of those millions will take away that he has done something wrong.
https://twitter.com/MartinSLewis/status/719084146400894976
And now the very same journalists are huffing and puffing on Twitter because it's being suggested that they should disclose their own tax affairs. They've got some brass neck, I'll give them that.
It makes them think of the longer term rather than the immediate, and encourages them to ensure any successors are capable.
You'd almost think that I lost money through a firm where the management made terrible short-term decisions that gave them big fat bonuses, but hurt the company terribly after they left. But that would never happen ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313768/Christa-Ackroyd-The-BBCs-local-news-presenter-225-000--shes-air.html
Journalists are paid to sell papers, judging by this thread they've sold loads, job done. And yes they've got brass necks, a bloke I know well was hiding in a van outside Cameron's for ages working for a national paper when the Coulson/Brooks thing was going on. The media and govt are inextricably linked, Cameron's lot will retaliate strongly then the yah booing will be from the other side
If so it might explain why the coalition lasted all five years.
Obviously gay smokers are an anathema and should be put to death alongside advocates of STV and Ayrshire turnip patrons.
In a GE I would vote for Cameron as the best option currently on offer. My take on what's happening is that Mail, Telegraph etc are so obsessed with the EU issue that they will do anything to win even if it means throwing dirt at every key Remain Tory in the way they habitually do at every Labour & Lib Dem politician.
When Cameron was riding high after last May the idea that the EU would tear the party apart was poo-poo'd by many of the PB Tories. What a difference a year makes. If Labour have the sense to change leader before 2020 the Tories could be in deep trouble.
IME the vesting dates for senior bods can be very different to those for the plebs on the shop floor. In one case I know, the vesting date for a tranche of shares was in a few weeks for the senior management, a couple of years for the workers. They sat on fat profits from the options, but by the time the workers' options vested they'd run the company into the ground.
Not that I'm bitter or anything ...
With apologies to all - picture the scene.
West London - June 2010.
David Cameron painting the skirting as a yellow car pulls up and a man gets out:
ME: Dave - Mr Stodge from pb.com - don't get up. So you're a landlord now, a property magnate, a Prime Minister...
DC: It's just my wife's old four bedroom house in Notting Hill,
ME: Yes, but you've taken out Coalition Insurance which means if anything goes wrong there's someone else to take the blame in five years time.
DC: I didn't know that.
ME (picks up paint pot with picture of Nick Clegg): Prize plum....
DC: Yes, he is, isn't he ?
Now that's comedy, satire, wit and almost contemporary (well, not very).
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/719090235305508864
Unusually at present he can count on strong support from his party if such a question is heard.
NO DEAL has been signed , return to your village they are missing you.
Clearly he did not do that purely out of altruism. He did it because he believed he would be rather good at it and it would make him an important person. But arguing that he has been in this for the money or out of greed is frankly ridiculous.
https://twitter.com/scotlabpress/status/718395798329929728
Oh, and telling us we're all in it together.
The manufacturing output data shows an interesting comparison:
Feb 2011 102.0
Mar 2011 Osborne proclaims the 'March of the Makers'
Feb 2016 100.1
In a couple of weeks we'll get to see the government borrowing for all of 2015/16, which will allow us to compare Osborne's borrowing predictions from his 2010 Budget to what he has actually borrowed.
I also thought the £3,000 income from savings was enlightening. With most savings accounts paying almost nothing in interest, to garner that kind of income must mean there's a pretty big starting number.
It's a bit like a PM switching attention from an embarrassing sex scandal involving a colleague and drugs/prostitutes/S&M by making cringeworthy remarks about how he likes to lie back and think of England once a week.
Read more at http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/secret-papers-reveal-government-wanted-7724392#rOmVBSoP6hFA5G73.99
The fact he is a liar is the issue, Tories may think that is perfectly acceptable but I do not.
If Bedfordshire County Council put out a pamphlet on the history if the county, do you think it contain passages like:
"Many consider the creation of Bedfordshire to be a democratic abhor ration, reducing the traditional freedoms enjoyed by the many borough councils."?
Zoomers may think that is perfectly acceptable but others do not.
It's almost luddite - instead of the workers being replaced by machines, investment in new technology is being deferred as it's cheaper to employ more people..
It's 7 that represents perfection (of God), as in five fish and two loaves feed 5,000.
That was what I was taught, anyway.
Surely any history of Bedfordshire would require substantial reference to the county's behemoth presence known locally on PB as OGH ? ..
When will we get a look at the tax arrangements being emitted from Jacks ARSE?
I make no comment on whether the PM should have to reveal any personal financial information, but by revealing what he has, when he has, he has not satiated the public, but teased them with a bit of ankle, then some calf, then some knee etc. We're about up to the garter now with a fair way to go.
Also, didn't Joe Biden claim to be the poorest person in congress, principally because everything was in his wife's name?
It's supposed to go up to 10% but Abe has decided he wants to win another election first.
The nice thing about it at the moment is that it's nice and simple, unlike the British one with all its amazing different levels and zero-rates. Unfortunately their coalition partner Koumeitou, which is backed by Soka Gakkai which is like a Buddhist version of Scientology, is insisting that they make it complicated.
Read more at http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/secret-papers-reveal-government-wanted-7724392#rOmVBSoP6hFA5G73.99
LOL, you really are scraping the barrel, I take it you did not understand the words "briefing papers prepared by civil servants". Good old Tory, never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.