The problem with the Cameron family’s partial revelations about their assets is that there just has to be more to the story. They own a handful of 1 million Pound plus residences, including the 2.5 million Oxfordshire home which was given to his brother, Alexander, and some choice London addresses to boot. Are they suggesting that their houses and the occasional cash transfer (200,000 admitted to have occurred from Cameron’s mother) are the sum total of their assets?
Houses are in fact the only assets that cannot be hidden, and so they are forced to admit to their existence. All other assets, including significant shareholdings, overseas properties and so on can be hidden inside trusts, or simply not be declared.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just abolish Inheritance Taxes, you might think,so all this subterfuge is no longer necessary.
The reason IHT exists is to prevent ordinary people from accumulating the same level of wealth that the internationally established bankers already control. Being super wealthy is no use if everyone can aspire to reaching the same level. Ordinary folk have to be taxed to keep them down. The likes of the Camerons whose wealth must run into the billions will never vote for the abolition of inheritance tax, and other capital taxes that raise little, but successfully destroy private wealth for millions of people. They never intend to pay these taxes themselves. They ensure that there are enough loopholes, and they appoint their own advisers to run the tax offices, keeping their real wealth totally out of sight. Blair, for example, hasn’t paid a bean in tax since leaving office despite earning tens of millions, making full use of a tax exemption enacted during his time in office.
Cameron could declare all his assets and clear away all speculation, but he will not do so. The only way to save himself politically is simply impossible. His mother is a Levita, the family that owns the Standard Chartered Bank, which has operated across Asia for hundreds of years, running opium, slaves, war-lending operations, arms sales and so on. A few million of UK houses will be the tiniest part of their total wealth accumulated over centuries, and located carefully beyond the reach of Her Majesty’s Revenue Service. Samantha is an Astor heiress to boot. The true story can never and will never be told.
What’s interesting is how the Cameron story has been spilled out into the media so successfully. Cameron has more than once stated that he considers internet alternative news sources to be as big a threat as terrorism, and that he wants bloggers and the like prosecuted and jailed. No wonder when you consider the trail of secrets he is trying to keep from public view.
The Conservative Party will not survive for long if they don’t do what’s required, that is, throw out Cameron and replace him with someone who might pass for a man of the people. The new candidate can declare all his/her assets right from the beginning, so bloggers and so on, have got nothing exciting to chew on. The truth can no longer be hidden thanks to the internet.
From hereon, leadership candidates of choice must only have assets that can be publicly revealed. Cameron is of the past. He must be taken out and quietly shot by the 1922 Committee, or his Party will pay the inevitable political price for having selected a leader, who comes from the class of super rich Jewish war-bankers. They have secretly run the world for centuries, and, if they can, intend to keep doing so. They can see off all challenges to their power, it seems, except for the one thing they fear above all else, exposure of the truth.
The panama paper-chase widens (by Roger Helmer)
So far, there has been a broad uniformity of outlook between many of the papers on the Panama story. Today, however, that quasi-unanimity breaks down. The Mail, for example, throws Cameron a life-line: “Enough of this madness” – adding “For many, inheritance tax is itself immoral”. It calls on Cameron to make the case for parents’ right to pass wealth on to children – which apparently he intends to do, according to the Telegraph.
The Mirror, by contrast, raises a new issue. When Cameron cashed his £30,000 stake in his father’s company Blairmore Holdings in 2010, it emerges that he also cashed in other shares worth £72,000. He has made no statement regarding those shares, and Downing Street insists that he won’t. “Do you want to see his bank statements when he was eighteen?” they ask.
The Guardian fingers Edward Troup, Head of HMRC. They say that previously his law firm acted for Blairmore, Cameron Senior’s investment fund, and ask whether there might be a conflict of interests, since HMRC will lead the investigation into the Panama papers.
The Times broadens the issue to the next obvious victim, George Osborne, who is said to be about to publish his own tax returns. Where does this stop? Will all MPs publish? Will there then be pressure on the Downing Street Cat to follow suit?
New Day Headlines “Truth About Tax”. In the Express, Leo McKinstry makes explicit the link with Brexit: “Why Cameron’s tax crisis makes Brexit more likely”. Let’s hope he’s right.
Meantime in a thoughtful opinion piece in the Times, Tim Montgomerie argues forcefully that the witch-hunt on politicians’ private affairs is not the solution to a lack of trust in politics, and may have the perverse effect of discouraging good people from entering the public arena.
“UK Muslim Ghettoes”
The Mail headlines “Warning on UK Muslim Ghettoes – Nation within a nation developing warns former head of equalities watchdog”.The warning comes from Trevor Phillips, former Head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and follows a new survey of British Muslim attitudes which will be the basis of a Channel 4 documentary on Wednesday. Philips says he used to believe that British Muslims would, over time, come to accept Western values, but he now fears that this survey shows otherwise. Young Muslims largely share the views of their parents on social attitudes.
The research shows attitudes to women, family and relationships that are widely at variance with accepted norms in the West. Worryingly, there is also more sympathy with extreme views than most of us would like to think. This story was earlier covered in The Sunday Times. Phillips says that extremist ideas have flourished while politicians claim “only a tiny minority hold dangerous views”, and that an estimated 100,000 British Muslims admit having sympathy with “suicide bombers fighting injustice”.
This of course is not particularly a Brexit Referendum issue. But the story will do nothing to assuage widespread public concern about immigration, which is a key issue in the referendum campaign, especially in the light of the Paris and Brussels bombings.
“EU wants control of your pension”
The Express runs this alarming headline over a story that the Commission has advanced plans for “a social union” which could control member-states’ pensions. It quotes David Campbell Bannerman as say that the Commission is holding back a large volume of contentious legislative proposals until after the British Referendum in June. (As we have repeatedly warned, there is no status quo in the EU – it’s a process that keeps getting worse. A Remain vote is a vote for staying on the Runaway Train. I Tweeted recently that Commissioner Sefcovic, in my hearing, had promised “a tsunami of legislation”).
EU costs: fancy another £50 bn?
The Times reports a decision by the European Court of Justice which strikes down tax rules previously passed in Westminster. This has already required HMRC to return £8bn to companies between 2005 and 2014, and could cost a total of £50 billion in the end. That’s a massive sum – nearly 2½% of UK GDP, and an enormous loss to the Treasury at a time when we’re struggling with a stubborn deficit, and the public are tiring of austerity. Put it another way. If we’re paying £350 million a week to Brussels, that’s nearly three years’ worth of additional contributions.
As the Times helpfully points out, the extra £7.3 billion which HMRC is expected to pay out between 2016 and 2020 would build two more aircraft carriers like HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Aside from the mind-blowing sum, it’s the principle of the thing that is so outrageous. We elect our MPs to Westminster, and one of their key tasks is to vote a Budget. Yet a foreign court with foreign judges is able to over-rule our elected parliament, and declare its decisions contrary to EU law. And we meekly pay up. Time to fight back. The only way is Brexit.