Is Cameron a blatant hypocrite?

Well surprise surprise, Cameron expressing uneasiness about unbridled market economy? Well where did I hear this all before?....O yes....Ed Milliband said it....why do you think he is now saying all of this? as I thought it was Cameron who said Ed was out of touch with the UK People? So why copy him then? Thought the Media was saying that Ed was failing?.......Well funny sort of failing when Cameron is following him?......Maybe this is why Ed is not laying out his economic policy with three years still left to go....maybe he can see Cameron coming after all? as it looks like we now have our first Cross dressing PM on our hands. What do you think?


The Prime Minister, by contrast, has a record of expressing uneasiness about the ugly side effects of an unbridled market economy. There are speeches dating back to the early years of opposition on poverty, social cohesion, corporate responsibility. Those interventions, casually dismissed by Labour as glib marketing exercises, are now being excavated from the Cameroon archive. Downing Street aides brandish them as evidence that the Conservative leader was talking about responsible capitalism when Miliband was still serving Gordon Brown, the man who many voters blame for letting the bankers off the leash.

The Labour leader has responded to this land grab with self-assuredness, touching on complacency. He expects the country to utter a mass snort of derision when Cameron says he wants to reform capitalism. "The public are not going to buy it," Miliband told the Guardian on 6 January. This confidence rests on the belief that Labour is the only party with sufficient depth of social conscience to talk credibly about injustice. Miliband's view is that only Labour can be trusted to administer austerity without wanton cruelty. As he said on 10 January: "Only Labour can deliver fairness when there is less money around."

Picking pockets
There are three problems with this approach. First, it implies a rebuke to those who voted for other parties. Second, it glosses over the party's patchy record on delivering fairness when there was plenty of money around. Third, most people dislike politicians equally and are unmoved by nostalgia for party tradition. There is hardly a less persuasive argument on responsible capitalism than the one that goes: "That lot say they want it because they are cynical opportunists; we say it because we have nobility of purpose inscribed in our souls."

There are many reasons why Cameron and Clegg might fail to build a fairer economy: the cuts, rising unemployment, the absence of growth. The circumstances promise to raise inequality and stifle opportunity faster than the coalition can imagine ways to offer redress.

Miliband believes that the obstacle is more fundamental, however. He thinks that the Lib Dems and Conservatives are prevented by ideological blinkers from seeing the true scale of the task; he supposes them unequal to the historical moment.

Yet, as Miliband's eyes are set on a far horizon where he thinks he can discern voters realising that the duty to fix the British economy belongs inevitably to Labour, Clegg and Cameron are going through his pockets for slogans and policies. The Labour leader is fond of saying that his opponents "just don't get it". When it comes to capitalism, it would be safer to assume that they do.

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2012/01/labour-cameron-miliband-party

So Cams a copy cat hypocrite. Something I've always suspected!

"....the Conservative leader was talking about responsible capitalism when Miliband was still serving Gordon Brown, the man who many voters blame for letting the bankers off the leash."

While the City slickers continued balancing the Treasury's revenue requirement, Gordon Brown was understandably reluctant to kill the goose that laid golden eggs.

Then when it was no longer possible to ignore the mess, in 2008, Government felt it had no alternative but to bail out the Banking system when it failed the Nation.

No Banks at all would not have been an improvement on the situation.

Come on OW....You cannot hit these people with the Inconvenient truth, that's just not fair!!!! You will upset them you know

You know the bankers are only friends with the Tories...Blair and Brown changed Banking legislation to make sure the banks didn't take unnecessary gambles with our money and get themselves and us into trouble..... and they also hated taking all that tax revenue off them too.

blueturando wrote:Come on OW....You cannot hit these people with the Inconvenient truth, that's just not fair!!!! You will upset them you know

You know the bankers are only friends with the Tories...Blair and Brown changed Banking legislation to make sure the banks didn't take unnecessary gambles with our money and get themselves and us into trouble..... and they also hated taking all that tax revenue off them too.

To be honest I have often thought what would have happened if Gordon Brown had not bailed the banks out, after all if a business in the private sector fails it goes down the plug hole like we have seen over the past weeks so why not the banks?

".. what would have happened if Gordon Brown had not bailed the banks out?"

Aye, there's the rub.

How were you going to receive your wages? How were you going to spend your wages? Who was going to believe that the piece of colour-printed paper you are offering is "worth" £20? Which shopkeeper would have provided valuable goods upon production of a sliver of plastic bearing the name of a Bank no longer extant? What would your last Bank Statement have explained about turning the figures into money?

How were we going to pay for THE OIL?

According to Revenue & Customs, multi millionaire Andrew Michell Tory Minister indulged in ‘aggressive tax avoidance’.
Mitchell, a former City banker, has sizeable stakes in two property companies that are registered in the British Virgin Islands.

Since the saga generated by the press on Carr’s offshore tax activity where Cameron came out and condemned the comedian, he has now refused to comment upon his buddy Barlow’s tax avoidance measures, the man who assisted Cameron with his election campaign. Nod nod wink wink.


For Cameron to pretend to find these offshore tax facilities as “disgusting and morally wrong is highly hypocritical of him when he engaged Philip Green (tax avoider) to advise the government on financial matters.

To make Cameron’s hypocritical stance even worse is the fact that his father ran offshore investment funds to help build the family fortune that paid for the prime minister's inheritance.
Though entirely legal, the funds were set up in tax havens such as Panama City and Geneva, and explicitly BOASTED of their ability to remain outside UK tax jurisdiction.


Prime Minister David Cameron said he would not be giving a "running commentary on different people's tax affairs" as "that would be wrong". That is nonsense, he set a precedent with his comments on Carr’s tax avoidance activity.
Cameron also said it was important to distinguish between tax avoidance and tax evasion: the latter being illegal. He said the government would support for HMRC to pursue individuals engaging in "aggressive tax avoidance." That is utter rubbish. What support?

The fact is we need the whole issue of tax avoidance addressed and a law to make it illegal for offshore havens to be utilised for tax avoidance purposes.
It won‘t happen because too many wealthy Tories, including members of the Cabinet indulge and condone such activities.

It may not be entirely surprising that Cameron voices what has always been Tory Policy. The Rich Man's Party believe that there should be few restrictions on a person's ability to prosper, and are genuinely fearful that their City Spiv pals will up sticks and go to work somewhere else if we are unfriendly towards them.

I say we should call their bluff and let 'em go - (but check my name again).

Yes OW, call their bluff and let them go if they wish, but where? Not France I suspect now that a 75% top rate is to be set. Cameron want's the UK to become a tax haven for the rich Frenchies. Hypocrite that he is.

This issue has brought out many of better off commentators onto news and discussion programs, like Daily Politics' who are calling for a flat rate tax which 'everyone' will pay......

Of course this flat rate would likely be above the current basic rate as the government would have to make up for the loss of the higher rate contributions.......

Does anyone really believe that those who have been using offshore havens would bring their money back to Britain if they were given the opportunity to save 9% off the current higher rate tax level?

"Does anyone really believe that those who have been using offshore havens would bring their money back to Britain if they were given the opportunity to save 9% off the current higher rate tax level? "

There would inevitably be those of extreem naivety who would be convinced astradt. Just as there are those who think Cameron is a genuine person.

Here we return to the old argument about whether "my expert witness" is more credible than your expert witness.

HM Treasury employs expert people to draft Tax Law, whilst wealthy individuals and companies pay equally expert Accountants to circumvent those laws.

It's the democratic way.

Make tax avoidance by way of offshore havens illegal, simples!

Then the British taxpayer would have to subsidise life on the Cayman Islands, BVI et al.

Probably cheaper the way things are.

" Is Cameron a blatant hypocrite?"

This is a question of the nature of " will the sun rise in the East tomorrow...?"

But he comes across as such a NICE chap. Nearly as good an Actor as Tony Blair.

every time I see him (wor Davey Boy), all I feel from the image is contempt

It seems they can change the rules quickly to snatch money from the most vulnerable; but they're a lot slower to make these tax loopholes for the rich illegal and force them to pay their fair share.

If Jimmy Carr wants to donate to charity he can do so with the money left once he's paid his taxes.

Hear hear chip.

He's broken no law and it's probably immoral to give more than required to a government that will simply waste it on some moral whim of their choosing. Far better to keep it and do the honourable thing, like spend it?

Gordon Brown came before the U.S. Congress and asked, "How much safer would everybody's savings be if the whole world finally came together to outlaw shadow-banking systems and offshore tax havens?"

His thinking was also that these activities were exacerbating the Global Crisis.

Having said that, Often Wrong has a point (as always) Quote "Then the British taxpayer would have to subsidise life on the Cayman Islands, BVI et al.

Probably cheaper the way things are.

"Probably" is the operative word here. I should prefer proof that it would be cheaper to leave things as they are.

How come if a poor person does work cash in hand in the black market economy it's illegal; but when rich people to all intents and purposes work (I use the word 'work' loosely here) cash in hand, it's deemed perfectly legitimate?

ow

Then the British taxpayer would have to subsidise life on the Cayman Islands, BVI et al.

Probably cheaper the way things are.

Really? Why would we 'have to'? Would we have a legal obligation to? Explain, please?

Shouldn't Jimmy Carr (the self-serving little prick) now be paying his audiences to come and see him?

After all, the £3million a year he's been avoiding paying into the system, along with countless others failing to contribute to societies infrastructure purely out of selfishness, greed, and personal vanity, means less books and poorer schools for kids, less money for the NHS, poorer roads, a stretched police and fire service, etc.

How come if a poor person does work cash in hand in the black market economy it's illegal; but when rich people to all intents and purposes work (I use the word 'work' loosely here) cash in hand, it's deemed perfectly legitimate

And, how come, if you tidy a rich person's garden or plumb in a washing machine, they allways want to pay in cash (er tomorrow! )


Jimmy Carr fell flat on his face!!

After Wee Davey lambasted him, he should have come out and said -

"I am only doing what the PM and MOST of his cabinet, (can't say all, though it is probably true!) and most of the members of the house of Lords, and all of the entertainers are doing! If anyone, including the Prime Minister has any complaints about that, let me see them in court!"

This IMO would have blown the whole subject out of the water and into the open, but no, another chance missed

astra, that Jim Davison would have had the neck to "blow the whole suject out of the water" ony he's a staunch Tory supporter, like the rest of those who avoid paying their fair share of tax.
They prefer to leave that duty of paying taxes to the working classes.

If an IRS agent and a lawyer were drowning and you could only save one of them would you;
a. go to lunch or
b. read a newspaper.

As Ken Dodd once said. 'They sent me a self-assessment form. ME!! I invented self-assessment.'

Finacial Lobby "Tory Peer hired as tax haven lobbyist.." thebureauinvestigates.com/

Lord Blencathra visited the Cayman Islands (www.shutterstock.com)

A former Conservative minister with close links to the Government is simultaneously sitting as a peer in the House of Lords and lobbying on behalf of a Caribbean tax haven.

Lord Blencathra, a former MP and Tory Chief Whip, is being paid by the Cayman Islands’ government to represent the interests of its financial services industry – despite also being able to vote on legislation affecting the territory.

‘I have been meticulous in ensuring that I have no conflict of interest between that role and my duties in the Lords. You cannot point to one single incident, speech, vote or question where I have sought to advance the Cayman Islands in the Lords’.
Lord Blencathra
Inquiries by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Independent have established that Lord Blencathra has lobbied on behalf of the Caymans while claiming thousands of pounds in House of Lords attendance allowances.

In the last few months Lord Blencathra has:

* Lobbied the Chancellor George Osborne to reduce the burden of air passenger transport taxes on the Caymans;
* Facilitated an all expenses paid trip to the Caymans over the Easter recess for three senior MPs with an interest in the islands, including the Chairman of the influential Conservative backbench 1992 committee;
* Followed up an early day motion in the Commons that had called for the Caymans to be closed down as a tax haven by trying to introduce the MP responsible, the former Treasury Select Committee member John Cryer, to members of a Cayman Islands delegation in London. The meeting never took place.

"The meeting never took place" Ha!!!!! surprise surprise.

sickchip wrote:ow

Then the British taxpayer would have to subsidise life on the Cayman Islands, BVI et al.

Probably cheaper the way things are.

Really? Why would we 'have to'? Would we have a legal obligation to? Explain, please?

You might like to research British Aid to the following, sickchip, as your taxes have supported all of them in one way or another, at some time or other. Ascension Island. Falklands. Fiji. Grenada. Pitcairn. St. Helena. St. Lucia. Tristan da Cunha. and may well continue to do so.

"Then the British taxpayer would have to subsidise life on the Cayman Islands"

Surely we would not support or be expected to support the inabitants of the Cayman Islands to such a degree that they would enjoy the same wonderful lifesyle that they currently receive at our expense? The savings on the tax losses would no doubt outweigh the cost of the subsidy.
As it stands, I undertand that many UK and US wealthy recipients of the offshore tax haven benefits, are given the option to pay £30K pa (not the US) which has been agreed by HM Revenue & Customs instead of having them carry out indevidual investigations into tax evasion/avoidance which would be "costly with insufficient staff available to carry out the investigations".

Obviously most if not all the wealthy are more than happy to pay that pittance of £30K pa. A pee in the Ocean to them.

Something ain't quite right here.

My late Mother-in-law was right.

"You can always get off by paying".

oftenwrong wrote:

You might like to research British Aid to the following, sickchip, as your taxes have supported all of them in one way or another, at some time or other. Ascension Island. Falklands. Fiji. Grenada. Pitcairn. St. Helena. St. Lucia. Tristan da Cunha. and may well continue to do so.

Last bits of pink on the map. In the main coaling stations for long sunk battleships

" In the main coaling stations for long sunk battleships. "

Oh, yes. Better add Aden and Somalia to the list. Incidentally, in 1898 Guantanamo on Cuba was a coaling station for the Royal Navy. That is also the historical explanation for Pearl Harbour being a base for the Pacific Fleet of the USA.

Top Tory donor Michael Hintze’s company pays just £77,000 in corporation tax in Britain despite annual ­earnings of £125million.

His hedge fund empire CQS handles £5.5billion worth of investments around the world and pays its UK staff salaries of £111million.

But Mr Hintze’s high-earning traders, while licensed to operate in the UK, are officially registered to the company’s off-shore operation in Jersey. This means potentially tens of millions of pounds of income and employment taxes to the British Government could be avoided.

Accounts also reveal that Mr Hintze’s UK operations are ultimately controlled through a company in the Cayman ­Islands, a well-known tax haven.

Mr Hintze is estimated to be ­personally worth £700million. Nicknamed a ­“sugar daddy” to PM David Cameron and senior Tories, he has become one of the most important figures in politics after ­donating at least £1.2million to the party and providing a further £2.5million in loans since 2005.

Among the list of Tory beneficiaries is Chancellor George Osborne, who has described tax avoidance as “morally repugnant”. He received £37,500 in donations from Mr Hintze and £1,254 in services from his company CQS.

Daily Mirror.



Ha!!! "sugar daddy" indeed. No wonder Cameron keep saying "tax avoidance by way of offshore facilities is legal"

John Prescott has said "So if you're a comedian and avoid tax, the Tories condemn you. If you're a millionaire donor and avoid tax, you get a peerage! ‪#ashcroft," he tweeted on Wednesday evening, in reference to former Tory deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft, who was not domiciled in Britain for tax purposes.

Tax dodging is more morally repugnant and offensive than last years riots.

Tax dodgers deprive us of £billions that could be spent on improving societies infrastructures and public services. I hope Jimmy Carr is severely maimed and lying bleeding to death in a road accident...and that there is no ambulance available to save the twat.

Rioters nicked a few tellys, etc - so what. The top earners have been robbing the majority blind for the past 30yrs - with wealth being disgustingly redistributed during the past 30yrs from the majority into the hands of the few.

Cameron demanded fast tracking through courts and longer prison sentences for rioters. Will he fast track laws to close tax loopholes that are far more damaging to this country than a few disenfranchised young people venting their frustrations by smashing windows ands nicking stuff. I doubt it.

Doesn't seem much prospect for a Long Hot Summer to inflame similar passions in 2012.

That's inconvenient. I was hoping for a new TV on which to watch the Olympics...

and matching Bang and Oluffson sound system

Having just picked on a left leaning comedian and ignored a right leaning 'Musician'...

He now has the cheek to say he's going to take housing benefits from under 25 year olds..... thereby saving £4 billion....How much is lost via tax avoidance and tax evasion?

Of course he forgets that he has two homes paid for by benefits...1 No 10 Downing Street the other his London home paid out of his £17500 a year housing allowance (Benefit)