To think that David Cameron should resign?

[deeedeee]

Presiding over a government that is trying to spin doctors and teachers into militants ,

Supporting a chancellor that has failed to reduce the deficit by his own standards and has delivered two hated and u turning budgets in a row, over the death of the British Steel Industry, is attacking renewable energy in times of climate change, is taking support from the ill and disabled is and NOW he has admitted benefiting from TAX AVOIDANCE????!!!!
This is all wrong. How many more years of this?

The problem for Cameron is not what he did per se, but that he called other people doing it 'morally wrong' and then didnt tell the full truth about it.

Oh, and being the Prime Minister does require just a bit of moral leadership, you'd think. Not hypocrisy and lies.

LikeDylanInTheMovies - My sentence was interrogative. A question.

My "snobbishness" was a retort against Yoko's rude comments about Tory voter's inability to understand politics whilst, at the same, claiming her high level of education. Sweeping and insulting generalisations aren't something I'd expect of an Oxbridge gradaute.

Tony Benn. Prior to his death, and through a set of convoluted arrangements, he ensured that his children would pay the absolute minimum in tax upon the inheritance of his £5 million estate. Instead of securing a very healthy £2 million, HMRC received around £50k. So the notion that this sort of behaviour is the sole preserve of wealthy Tories is an absolute fallacy

I agree. Tax avoidance isn't a 'right wing' or Tory thing.

Greenish, the problem is that a certain amount of savviness and astuteness is arguably needed when running the country; there are very few people who don't try to legally avoid paying tax.

Most people who do pay maximum tax don't do so because of their lofty moral standing but because they are unaware how to do so - it's the same with Amazon and Starbucks: most businesses that are hugely profitable have also by that time for somebody or rather several somebodies running it who are excellent at maximising the profit.

Although it's a very general rule it does follow a rough pattern that the wealthier the area the more likely they are to vote conservative - why - because wealthy people don't want to pay yet more tax. Those who don't have much are less inclined to care about how to spend other people's money.

Another DC should resign thread ? Is there really a need for two.

Since people have been discussing it for five pages I would say yes.

What about Margaret Hodge's tax dealings?

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4d9e16b4-ee3d-11e4-98f9-00144feab7de.html#axzz45DYSh3Fb

Whataboutism does not get Cameron off the hook.

Whataboutism does not get Cameron off the hook.

No maybe it doesn't. It does however mean you can't have a rule for one and not for others though. So are people also willing if it true, to go after the Benn family too.

There are many other very wealthy Labour MPs too that are very quiet at the moment.

It does unless we are suggesting that everyone in the Houses of Parliament must be absolutely above reproach and that even legal tax dodging means resignations.

We'd all be in a bloody mess then!

He has many supporter and tax avoidance is perfectyl lawful and a moral good. It is a big high tax state which is a moral wrong.

Also he and Margaret Hodge cannot help having had rich ancestors.

The next general election will allow people to choose - either the correct choice of the UK again - Tories or a silly labour/Corbyn choice which will ruin Britain.

No don't let him resign, let him stay and bring the whole Tory party down with him. Last time the Tory party just got sleazy and more sleazy, before labour got in 1997.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to minimise tax but:

(a) surely everyone can see that there is a difference between minimising your tax by using transparent, domestic vehicles or ordinary tax planning (eg ISAs, or inheritance tax planning) and using opaque poorly regulated off-shore vehicles?

(b) we should expect higher standards of tax behaviour from government ministers, who are directly responsible for setting and spending taxes.

I imagine the conservatives will get in again - not sure how I feel about that. It depends who the leader is.

Greenish, the problem is that a certain amount of savviness and astuteness is arguably needed when running the country; there are very few people who don't try to legally avoid paying tax.

I don't dispute that raining and so it was foolish and hypocritical of DC to start moralising on this particular subject. At best it paints him as a bit stupid and at worst it paints him as viewing us as very very stupid.

surely everyone can see that there is a difference between minimising your tax by using transparent, domestic vehicles or ordinary tax planning (eg ISAs, or inheritance tax planning) and using opaque poorly regulated off-shore vehicles?

They are both legal though. That is the point. Let's face it if the Benn story is true then that is a heck of a lot of money 'avoided'.

Close the loopholes.

It's about as stupid a political stance as John Major's 'back to basics', Greenish .

People tried (and by and large succeeded) in turning Give into a figure to be hated.
But it made sod all difference to government policy or the way it is transacted.

Because 'playing the man not the ball' is going to be less effective than talking about the issues.

But one thing from the OP I agreed with is that I am sick of spin.

Corbin, rather than New Labour, is the biggest turning away from spin in response to grassroots voices.

Tories don't really go in for spin to the same extent as Blair and his cronies, and they tend to say 'this is what we are going to do' and then do it (odd exception, like changes to marriage) and more people voted for them than anyone else (and more than voted for some New Labour governments).

lazy "They are both legal though" - well, that's not always true is it? HMRC expends a fair bit of effort scrutinising tax avoidance schemes that may or may not be legal. Often "legal" turns out to be a matter of interpretation.

There is a clear difference between reducing tax in a way that is plainly intended and even encouraged by domestic legislation (ISAs, using gifts to avoid inheritance tax) and using off-shore vehicles to shelter money in a way that was never intended by domestic tax legislation.

Poor old Gove. The fact he wasn't the most photogenic person in the world didn't help matters!

My sentence was interrogative. A question.

I suspect your question was intended as rhetorical one. But okay, I will bite: it is different as one party self applied the term 'nasty party' the others didn't.

Oh for heaven's sake enough with the Tory v Labour voters are the better/worse shite. The two parties are ultimately the same; think of them like they are a pair of knickers. You (this be the population figuratively) have just two pairs of knickers, so you wear the first for as long as you can, until they become dirty and uncomfortable. So you swap them for the second, clean, pair. You wear the second until they too become so dirty and uncomfortable that the first (still unwashed) pair start the look desirable slightly better than the one you have on.

You really can think that politicians of certain parties are better than politicians of another. Where there's power, there'll more than likely be corruption. They are pretty comfortable bedfellows. As is hypocrisy and conceit.

The 'nasty party' wasn't what I found ridiculous about that post: it was the lofty position that anyone voting for the conservatives had neither empathy nor compassion. That poster, she was keen to inform us, had both.

Judy

What a wonderful analogy

Making ....are you suggesting that we all go knickerless?