Cameron Tax Dodger

kabayiri

chucknorris wrote: »

To be fair though Corbyn manages that quite well himself, without any help from Dave.

It's such a waste of talent.

He would have made a perfectly serviceable Geography teacher in some middling high school.

Jonbvn

I am somewhat ambivalent on this issue. It is clear that Dave has complied with the letter of the law, but has made a serious PR faux pas.

I am somewhat surprised by the defensiveness of several posters on this board. That is more revealing than Dave's tax planning.

somethingcorporate

Another non-story being sensationalised by the media.

mwpt

Jonbvn wrote: »

I am somewhat ambivalent on this issue. It is clear that Dave has complied with the letter of the law, but has made a serious PR faux pas.

I am somewhat surprised by the defensiveness of several posters on this board. That is more revealing than Dave's tax planning.

People choose sides normally. I don't really feel strongly for Cameron either way but I do feel strongly that the media loves to sell a story and people love to bite. So I was interested, what hypocrisy?

michaels

I seem to remember there were a lot of questions about the tax planning that went on with Milliband's inheritance from his parents, I don't remember it being such a huge issue for the BBC....

padington

He's blown it, the knives will be out now, not just at the hypocrisy but the feeling that his wealth means he can't have any idea what its like to be a normal person. His privileged position was always a toxic timebomb for the uk electorate. Thatcher was a grocers daughter, the tories forgot their own key formula for success.


He's blown it so so so so badly he might even be the reason why the United kingdom breaks up.


Complete turnip, giving a referendum on leaving Europe was just complete utter stupidity, playing the referendum this poorly is for David's
political career, probably the end.


We could end now with Boris overseeing the single largest negotiations in living memory, with Europe spitting in our direction.


God help us.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's been very clear explanations given not least by the BBC economics editor on the Jeremy Vine show. Even Jeremy was so into rottweiler mode that the Conservative respondent had to point out what had been said previously and that Jeremy was straying into slanderous terrority. Making a story appears to be the name of the game rather than a factual discussion to educate and inform. Politics has returned to the dark days of Punch and Judy.

I see it the other way around too.

I have put quite a bit of money into a local Credit Union. It's not because they pay good interest rates (they don't). They claim to lend the money out to local businesses, which in turn will help my neighbourhood.

I understand this, and it makes a certain amount of sense, but when I mentioned this on here before people questioned my judgement, considering it not very MSE !

I'll be honest in saying that I don't quite understand how a fund based in British Virgin Isles is going to help business and individuals local to me. Such a global fund would surely find more profit in investing in Malaysia or China or Vietnam?

The other issue is : how do we know if a lot of the money in these funds isn't the proceeds of global crime? There is a lot of secrecy surrounding these schemes.

kabayiri

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Another non-story being sensationalised by the media.

I disagree.

It's most definitely a "story". I can guarantee it will occupy copious hours in morning telly; loose women; the Wright show; LBC; Radio 5; all the papers; etc etc.

It might be a story without substance however...

kabayiri

padington wrote: »

...
Complete turnip, giving a referendum on leaving Europe was just complete utter stupidity, playing the referendum this poorly is for David
political career, probably the end.
...

That was tactical. The Conservatives were clearly worried about the rise of the UKIP vote.

Looking at the numbers that did vote for UKIP anyway in the GE, I think they had some justification to be concerned.

padington

see

kabayiri wrote: »

That was tactical. The Conservatives were clearly worried about the rise of the UKIP vote.

Looking at the numbers that did vote for UKIP anyway in the GE, I think they had some justification to be concerned.

It was tactically selfish, he jeopardised the whole united kingdom to increase the chance of him keeping the keys to number 10.