David Cameron admits to profiting from father's offshore funds

[alanrchase]

Cameron purchased Blairmore shares for £12,497 and sold them at a profit for £31,500.

Investors in the fund were liable to income tax on dividends and capital gains tax, according to a 2006 prospectus from the firm.

But according to Cameron: "I paid income tax on the dividends, but there was a profit on it but it was less than the capital gains tax allowance, so I didn't pay capital gains tax”

Britain does provide for a yearly tax-free allowance for capital gains under a ceratin amount, ie., £11,100 in 2015-16. But Cameron's capital gain on the sale exceeds that limit. Unless he understated the gain.

Could you provide the full details of the investment? No idea if he had dodgy dealings. For the amount of media speculation I am supprised at the lack of facts. Social media is both a good and bad development. If he is guilty do him. I would be somewhat irritated about unfounded innuendo about myself.

[SheungWan]

Failing to register financial or business interest which someone might reasonably consider to influence their actions or words as an MP..

is breaking the law!

He sold these shares prior to becoming PM. There was nothing, AFAWK, illegal in the set up of Blairmore and its tax reporting.

However, Cameron introduced the concept of "morally wrong" rather than legally wrong and pilloried others for joining tax avoidance schemes.

Now he's been shown as a hypocrite and a liar in one short time.

Will he do the honorable thing and resign - will he <deleted>. That went out of British politics a very long time ago. He'll simply bluster is way on.

Not a hanging offence, except for those who want him out for any reason whatsoever.

So you consider it's ok for a PM to lie to the electorate and apply one set of rules to himself and a different one for everyone else?

Morals, ethics, honesty - not something you consider important in the person leading the government?

It is usually the case that blowhards, when they cannot nail someone on a point of law, start blathering on about morals, ethics, honesty and the kitchen sink. It reminds me of the guys in Thailand who charge around on their white horses screaming about 'the principle of the thing' when all it is about is some dispute over a few baht. Bunch of jokers.

[sonos99]

I believe Cameron and his wife jointly owned the shares. Therefore each of them was entitled use their Capital Gains Allowance for their share of the profits Therefore no capital gains tax was due to be paid.

[alanrchase]

What I love about the world is that I saved money for my retirement. Apparently the British Government wants 20% of my hard earned cash. Should have spent my life on benefits and be better looked after. Off topic I suppose.

[sonos99]

Cameron purchased Blairmore shares for £12,497 and sold them for £31,500.

That makes him a direct beneficiary of the profits of a tax avoiding company. It doesn't matter whether he paid capital gains or not - the growth in that company was a direct result of them having the unfair advantage of avoiding taxes.

So the gain in value itself was a result of avoidance.

That makes him a hypocrite - lambasting others for avoidance whilst secretly benefitting from it himself.

The same could be said for shareholders of any multinational companies. Any shareholder of Apple, Alphabet (Google) or Starbucks directly benefits from that company avoiding taxes.

[pedro01]

Cameron purchased Blairmore shares for £12,497 and sold them for £31,500.

That makes him a direct beneficiary of the profits of a tax avoiding company. It doesn't matter whether he paid capital gains or not - the growth in that company was a direct result of them having the unfair advantage of avoiding taxes.

So the gain in value itself was a result of avoidance.

That makes him a hypocrite - lambasting others for avoidance whilst secretly benefitting from it himself.

Still waiting for your post confirming illegal activity. You harp back to 2010. I assume the reason it takes so long to get through to HMRC on the phone is all the upstanding British Citizens demanding to pay more tax.

You can wait.

There are many reasons that a politician needs to stand down. Committing a criminal offense is just one of them.

Benefiting from tax avoidance whilst calling others immoral for doing the same thing is another.

You can keep asking the same question - but at this point you are looking fairly foolish for doing so as you are unable at this point to counter a single point raised.

What you are doing is akin to my daughter asking "are we there yet?" every 5 minutes on a car journey.

She is 5.

[pedro01]

He sold these shares prior to becoming PM. There was nothing, AFAWK, illegal in the set up of Blairmore and its tax reporting.

However, Cameron introduced the concept of "morally wrong" rather than legally wrong and pilloried others for joining tax avoidance schemes.

Now he's been shown as a hypocrite and a liar in one short time.

Will he do the honorable thing and resign - will he <deleted>. That went out of British politics a very long time ago. He'll simply bluster is way on.

Not a hanging offence, except for those who want him out for any reason whatsoever.

So you consider it's ok for a PM to lie to the electorate and apply one set of rules to himself and a different one for everyone else?

Morals, ethics, honesty - not something you consider important in the person leading the government?

It is usually the case that blowhards, when they cannot nail someone on a point of law, start blathering on about morals, ethics, honesty and the kitchen sink. It reminds me of the guys in Thailand who charge around on their white horses screaming about 'the principle of the thing' when all it is about is some dispute over a few baht. Bunch of jokers.

On the contrary.

We merely have to look at precedent. For example, David Blunkett resigning over private business appointments. David Laws resigning over expense abuse allegations.

I don't know how you got it into your head that a politicians position can only become untenable because they commit a crime because this is clearly not the case.

As for 'blowhard' - name calling is the domain of the immature. Do grow up.

[emilymat]

There is no way DC will resign on this issue, even though I agree with those who point out that resignation from office does not have to simply be because you have done something illegal.

He would not want to see Boris succeed him and his mate George Osbourne is 'damaged goods' within the party at present and would not be an automatic replacement. That leaves Teresa I suppose.

No, DC might now be secretly hoping the referendum vote is for 'leave' which would give him a perfect opportunity to step down and then make another fortune on the 'speaking' tour ala Tony Blair.

Conspiracies? Maybe, but it's all good stuff to keep us occupied for the next two months.

[craigt3365]

Seems he's released his tax reports for the past few years. A stand up thing to do. Wonder if other "elected" world leaders implicated in this mess will do the same thing? Hats off to DC for this.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36007718

[SgtRock]

Seems he's released his tax reports for the past few years. A stand up thing to do. Wonder if other "elected" world leaders implicated in this mess will do the same thing? Hats off to DC for this.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36007718

He has not released his tax reports. This is what has been released.

Though not the publication of the full tax returns

Downing Street has published an accountant-certified "schedule" of the main line items over six years. Some had expected the actual returns, as for example President Obama does.

http://news.sky.com/story/1675781/what-weve-learnt-from-pms-tax-disclosure

UK tax returns would not show any off shore related income, until it, if ever, came into the UK.

Not one word about Close International based in Jersey.

What else is he failing to mention ?

[Srikcir]

David Cameron has become the first Prime Minister to reveal personal details about his finances, including his tax.

Release of tax returns should be mandatory for every executive (PM, MP, Governor, Mayor) and judicial (judge, sheriff) elected position annually for as long as they hold the position.

Cameron can show his sincerity about tax compliance by proposing such a law.

[pitrevie]

Cameron's approval rating is now lower than that of Corbyn the Labour leader now that is an achievement.

[meltingpot2015]

What I love about the world is that I saved money for my retirement. Apparently the British Government wants 20% of my hard earned cash. Should have spent my life on benefits and be better looked after. Off topic I suppose.

Correct. Off topic.

try taking a trip to one of the many food banks that people on benefits have the privilege of visiting. See how well you are looked after.

Try the lifestyle of a disabled person on benefit, see how well look after you are. Guess, empathy and compassion arn't your strongest points.

[meltingpot2015]

David Cameron has become the first Prime Minister to reveal personal details about his finances, including his tax.

Release of tax returns should be mandatory for every executive (PM, MP, Governor, Mayor) and judicial (judge, sheriff) elected position annually for as long as they hold the position.

Cameron can show his sincerity about tax compliance by proposing such a law.

Cameron should have revealed his tax returns way before Panama Papers. Actually it was first proposed by the then leader of the Labour Party Ed Milliband, a few years ago. It has come up, again since then I think beginning of this year. There was no action by the PM, both for publishing HIS returns or proposing such a law to cover the PM, Cabinet Ministers, MPs, House of Lords Members, Mayors etc.

After the revelations he is trying to be all holy by saying:

Later on I will be publishing all the information that goes into my tax return, not just for this year but for years gone past because I want to be completely transparent and open about these things. I will be the first Prime Minister, the first leader of a major political party to do that. I think it's the right thing to do.

1) You are copying a proposal by a leader of another major party and claiming that you are the first leader of a major political party to DO That. Just word play. At least mention that it was suggested by Ed Milliband and demanded by Jeremy Corbyn recently and that you waited till now to DO it.

2) It's always Openness first then rooting out shady practices. Not the other way round. Have a look at Glasnost and Perestroika. It is no good trying to be ALL OPEN when you've been caught-out, particularly when you said it was "private matter" at the beginning.

Edited April 10, 2016 by meltingpot2015

[meltingpot2015]

THe UK system is pretty staight-forward when it comes to these things.

When a minister's (or the prime minister's) position becomes untenable, they resign. It's how it's been for years. Sure, "Officially" the queen appoints them and Can dismiss them, but that never happens (dismissal by the queen).

There is no impeachment process (like in the U.S.). Ministers aren't hauled before a Court (unless of course you get caught speeding in your car and you say your wife was driving so that your wife takes the flack (and the speeding points))

The usual practice is - hand in resignation letter. Anthony Eden resigned after being caught-out lying in parliament. Don't tell me lying to the public is not the same.

Edited April 10, 2016 by meltingpot2015

[emilymat]

THe UK system is pretty staight-forward when it comes to these things.

When a minister's (or the prime minister's) position becomes untenable, they resign. It's how it's been for years. Sure, "Officially" the queen appoints them and Can dismiss them, but that never happens (dismissal by the queen).

There is no impeachment process (like in the U.S.). Ministers aren't hauled before a Court (unless of course you get caught speeding in your car and you say your wife was driving so that your wife takes the flack (and the speeding points))

The usual practice is - hand in resignation letter. Anthony Eden resigned after being caught-out lying in parliament. Don't tell me lying to the public is not the same.

Quite so. As did Profumo (mentioned earlier), who had done nothing illegal but committed the cardinal sin of misleading parliament. DC not there yet, but we'll see what pans out. It really makes little difference to us ordinary mortals as any replacement PM will not change 'policies'.

Although we have fixed term parliaments, (which I think are a complete disaster as they create a 'lame duck' government for the last year/six months, bit like in the US) I think a government can be still brought down by losing a vote of confidence in the house. Not anticipating that will happen but the next year or so could be a real roller coaster, particularly if Brexit wins.

[sonos99]

I do believe it is unfair to compare the Jimmy Carr tax avoidance scheme with Cameron buying and selling shares in an offshore investment fund. I my view they are quite different.

The Carr scheme worked as follows

'The scheme is understood to work by UK earners "quitting" their job and signing new employment contracts with offshore shell companies. Those companies then "rehire" their new employee back out to the UK but take their earnings. The offshore company then pays their employee a much lower salary but also "loans" them thousands a month. However these loans can be written down as tax liabilities, and so reducing the overall bill to the government."

Carr paid little or no tax on his substantial salary

http://www.theguardi...jimmy-carr-hmrc

Cameron on the other hand bought and sold shares in an offshore investment fund.

This is incredibly common, Millions of shares or units are traded by thousands of UK tax payers every day. Offshore funds are provided by household names including HSBC, Standard Life, Aberdeen, M&G, Fidelity and iShares. The offshore funds are available for anyone to invest in, They are not just available to the rich. Many are traded on the London Stock exchange. There are 1,800 funds domiciled in Ireland alone which are marketed and sold to UK investors. The corporate tax in Ireland is 12.5 % much lower than the UK. There are many more in the other low tax countries such as the Caymans, Panama, Luxembourg etc. Some of you may have such funds in your pension or ISAs, I just checked mine and yes I have 2 iShare ETFs domiciled in Ireland.

If a UK tax payer invests in these funds his tax liability to the UK government is exactly the same as for a UK domiciled fund except in some cases Stamp duty (which I believe is 0.05% if it still exists) is not paid.

Yes by investing in an offshore fund there may be a benefit when compared to a UK fund in that the company that manages the fund may pay less Corporate taxes than a UK fund. i do not see why this is such a big deal. Different countries have different tax rates. I have seen newspapers stating that Blairmore hasn't paid UK tax for 30 years. Why would Blairmore pay UK taxes ? Blairmore is not a UK company and therefore has no obligation to pay UK taxes. It is now domiciled in Ireland and pays Irish taxes. If I buy shares in Apple or Microsoft I also benefit from their tax avoidance schemes. Apple is structured so that most of its profits from sales outside the US goes through Ireland where it only pays a maximum of 12.5 %. Apple earned 2 billion in profit in the UK but paid less than 12 million in taxes. Is that morally wrong ? Yes, maybe, but it is legal. If it is morally wrong it is Apple that is morally wrong not me . As long as I meet my UK tax obligations I have done nothing wrong.

According to the facts currently available Cameron paid all taxes required by the UK tax authorities.

[casualbiker]

I do believe it is unfair to compare the Jimmy Carr tax avoidance scheme with Cameron buying and selling shares in an offshore investment fund. I my view they are quite different.

The Carr scheme worked as follows

'The scheme is understood to work by UK earners "quitting" their job and signing new employment contracts with offshore shell companies. Those companies then "rehire" their new employee back out to the UK but take their earnings. The offshore company then pays their employee a much lower salary but also "loans" them thousands a month. However these loans can be written down as tax liabilities, and so reducing the overall bill to the government."

Carr paid little or no tax on his substantial salary

http://www.theguardi...jimmy-carr-hmrc

Cameron on the other hand bought and sold shares in an offshore investment fund.

This is incredibly common, Millions of shares or units are traded by thousands of UK tax payers every day. Offshore funds are provided by household names including HSBC, Standard Life, Aberdeen, M&G, Fidelity and iShares. The offshore funds are available for anyone to invest in, They are not just available to the rich. Many are traded on the London Stock exchange. There are 1,800 funds domiciled in Ireland alone which are marketed and sold to UK investors. The corporate tax in Ireland is 12.5 % much lower than the UK. There are many more in the other low tax countries such as the Caymans, Panama, Luxembourg etc. Some of you may have such funds in your pension or ISAs, I just checked mine and yes I have 2 iShare ETFs domiciled in Ireland.

If a UK tax payer invests in these funds his tax liability to the UK government is exactly the same as for a UK domiciled fund except in some cases Stamp duty (which I believe is 0.05% if it still exists) is not paid.

Yes by investing in an offshore fund there may be a benefit when compared to a UK fund in that the company that manages the fund may pay less Corporate taxes than a UK fund. i do not see why this is such a big deal. Different countries have different tax rates. I have seen newspapers stating that Blairmore hasn't paid UK tax for 30 years. Why would Blairmore pay UK taxes ? Blairmore is not a UK company and therefore has no obligation to pay UK taxes. It is now domiciled in Ireland and pays Irish taxes. If I buy shares in Apple or Microsoft I also benefit from their tax avoidance schemes. Apple is structured so that most of its profits from sales outside the US goes through Ireland where it only pays a maximum of 12.5 %. Apple earned 2 billion in profit in the UK but paid less than 12 million in taxes. Is that morally wrong ? Yes, maybe, but it is legal. If it is morally wrong it is Apple that is morally wrong not me . As long as I meet my UK tax obligations I have done nothing wrong.

According to the facts currently available Cameron paid all taxes required by the UK tax authorities.

But your father doesn't own Apple and you didn't state that you didn't own any shares in said company. Bit of a difference but I do GET what you mean about the rest.. Personally if a company sells products in a country then it should pay the relevant taxes in that country.

[sonos99]

I wish my father did own Apple!

Yes Cameron certainly made things worse by the way his previous share ownership was disclosed.

I agree with you that a company should be taxed where the profits are made.

[meltingpot2015]

@Emilymat:

If he (Cameron) repeatedly lied to the electorate he should go. Not only that he stalled and gave answers which were deceitful. Before the "all politicians lie" brigade come out tonight, I can honestly say, this is not the same. If you don't reveal something to begin with in the hope of deceiving the public, it constitutes a lie.

Why do you think, when we take an oath we say "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth". Not resigning because there is no one more suitable to do the job is frankly a lame excuse. (that's not a REASON to keep someone who has deceived the public) First of all, we don't know that the next in line WON't do a better job (unless it's George Osborne of course - if he can't write a successful budget in 6 years (after having 8 goes) then we can safely say he is not cut out for the premiers role). For all we know, Michael Gove or Theresa May could be the next in line. To be fair, I don't have much confidence in how the tories elect their leader. the process somehow managed to Elect David Cameron. Says it all really. When there were good, honest, politicians like Ken CLarke in the sidelines. Anyway, what were we talking about. Yes, its Theresa May or Boris. Boris is probably not ready yet for the mantle (but it may well land on his lap). if he comes in immediately, he'd want to print a set of leaflets supporting a Brexit to be delivered to every household (just like Cameron did). So more cost to the Tax payer

BTW, when Maggie Thatcher resigned. Things went relatively smoothly for the tory party. And they were quite turbulent times also. I guess, the candidates were stronger then more than now. For all of John Major's faults he was probably a better candidate than Boris Johnson.

[emilymat]

Some good points made in the previous post.

Just to be clear I was trying to make the point that it is 'lying' or 'misleading' parliament that is the cardinal sin. Many politicians are economical with the truth and have to have it dragged out of them. There are many examples, but we are talking about this specific DC issue. He's already said he is going before the next election and he will want to do that honorably in, say 2018/9 so that he can continue to be an ex 'world statesman' on the gravy train.

So, unless Brexit pushes him out I think he's pretty safe on this issue. In about a couple of weeks it will have blown over and we will be well into the In/Out campaign.

I have been a Labour party member since 1965 so I have no love whatsoever for the present government, but I have also learned to be pragmatic.

I wonder if anyone at No 10 is pleading with Chilcot to get his report out earlier than July. Then everyone can forget DC and start on about Tony Blair lying to parliament in respect of the dodgy dossier.

What a cynic I am!

[meltingpot2015]

@emilymat:

Many politicians are economical with the truth and have to have it dragged out of them.

Yes, but we have to look at under what circumstances and the intentions of the lie.

It's quite a leap from "many politican's lie", so we cannot let this one slide and brush it under the carpet (we are talking about tax affairs of the Prime Minister - the head). he is the leader of the country, conservative leader etc..etc. ....BTW Not all Politicians are economical with the Truth. I am pretty sure there is at least one politician out there that is NOT "economical with the Truth"

So, unless Brexit pushes him out I think he's pretty safe on this issue. In about a couple of weeks it will have blown over and we will be well into the In/Out campaign.

I dont think this will blow over in a couple of weeks. When Jimmy Carr's tax affairs were revealed, it was bought up again and again in all the shows he appeared. In fact he is still taking major flack for it. So don't be so sure.

I have been a Labour party member since 1965 so I have no love whatsoever for the present government, but I have also learned to be pragmatic.

Re. being pragmatic. We could argue, if a PM is confronted with an allegation about tax affairs. A) Does he tell the truth straighaway tell us it's a 'private affair'. Buy some time, see what the public reaction is, then respond with minimum details. 'Pragmatism', nice word, but doesn't always work.

Are you sure you are a Labour Party member?. You seem to have close links with ThaiVisa anyway (judging from your posts)

Re. chilcot: The Chilcot inquiry began after Tony Blair had resigned not during.

Re. your previous post -

It really makes little difference to us ordinary mortals as any replacement PM will not change 'policies'.

That would be a welcome change, because the current govermnet has been doing more U-Turns than a kerb crawler on a busy high street. most of their policies are copied anyway, just the opposite of Labour's. Economic policies have no economic basis, only political ends.

About: 'vote of confidence' - Not comparable to impeachment process in U.S. Vote of confidence is specific to the (the prime-minister) and the Government. so it affects the whole of government (as it stands some conservative MPs will have to vote against the government for the vote to go through). Impeachment process in U.s (BTW there is a impeachment process by law in UK, it's just not put in to practice) is for president, vice-president, and other officers. So its specific to individuals.

Let's not kid around, Cameron isn't going because he's being pragmatic or because he loves his people (maybe only some of his people). Over the past 5-6 years he is build up several business connections worth millions. If he goes, the "special favors" these businesses receive (and himself receive) are out in limbo. In comes, George Osborne, and he will have his own "special" mates to give "mates rates". You know that, I know that. So lets stop pretending shall we and start calling a spade a spade.

The problem with having a leader who is not as straight as an arrow is that it filters all the way down. Have you heard of the expression "the fish rots from the head down"?

Edited April 11, 2016 by meltingpot2015

[SheungWan]

It is usually the case that blowhards, when they cannot nail someone on a point of law, start blathering on about morals, ethics, honesty and the kitchen sink. It reminds me of the guys in Thailand who charge around on their white horses screaming about 'the principle of the thing' when all it is about is some dispute over a few baht. Bunch of jokers.

On the contrary.

We merely have to look at precedent. For example, David Blunkett resigning over private business appointments. David Laws resigning over expense abuse allegations.

I don't know how you got it into your head that a politicians position can only become untenable because they commit a crime because this is clearly not the case.

As for 'blowhard' - name calling is the domain of the immature. Do grow up.

There is one one thing about politicians committing offences while in office and another trying to conflate that with the non-committing of offences while not even being in office. But don't let that stop you keep on blowing.

Edited April 11, 2016 by SheungWan

[jaidam]

Cameron is made of teflon. If it wasn't a problem for him over the revelations he had sexual relations with a severed pigs head in front of a group of his chums, this tax avoidance will be a nonentity.

[SheungWan]

Cameron is made of teflon. If it wasn't a problem for him over the revelations he had sexual relations with a severed pigs head in front of a group of his chums, this tax avoidance will be a nonentity.

I guess you would make student high jinks a resigning issue if subsequently elected to office. The pig would certainly concur.

Edited April 12, 2016 by SheungWan

[jaidam]

Cameron is made of teflon. If it wasn't a problem for him over the revelations he had sexual relations with a severed pigs head in front of a group of his chums, this tax avoidance will be a nonentity.

I guess you would make student high jinks a resigning issue if subsequently elected to office. The pig would certainly concur.

i was young once, and had plenty of student high jinx. I never had sex with a decapitated animal head, it is gory and disgusting. Nobody i knew ever did such a thing. Now my sheep Flossy on the other hand.....

[meltingpot2015]

Here's something for you non-believers (and believers). Yes, its from the Guardian paper. Yes the comment may well be from a loony toone leftist. Whoever you support (Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, UKIP, Green). Take a step back and look at this with a wide angle:

That was in 2013. See the news article for yourself:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/11/osborne-tax-havens-details-wealthy

Are you seriously going to tell me that those doing the Tax AVOIDING are NOT Cameron's/Osborne's people?

[Srikcir]

Here's something for you non-believers (and believers). Yes, its from the Guardian paper. Yes the comment may well be from a loony toone leftist. Whoever you support (Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, UKIP, Green). Take a step back and look at this with a wide angle:

guardian - Cameron-osborne - tax avoidance.png

That was in 2013. See the news article for yourself:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/11/osborne-tax-havens-details-wealthy

Are you seriously going to tell me that those doing the Tax AVOIDING are NOT Cameron's/Osborne's people?

"Many developing world countries are unable to join information sharing groups until they upgrade their IT systems and put in robust controls to protect details concerning individual taxpayers."

That would include most of the ASEAN countries, including Thailand.

[up2u2]

"Many developing world countries are unable to join information sharing groups until they upgrade their IT systems and put in robust controls to protect details concerning individual taxpayers."

That would include most of the ASEAN countries, including Thailand.

Or put systems in place that protect the privacy of individuals / Corporations that are avoiding paying tax. That's what Offshore Tax havens do. They launder money. They are only transit points not the destination. The crucial factor of Offshore Tax Havens is that the beneficiary of the Corporate Fund Account is unknown and strictly secretive particularly to Tax Authorities.

Tax minimisation is open and transparent and perfectly legal there is absolutely no need for secrecy. Offshore Tax Havens need to be highly secretive because they are avoiding / evading tax payable from one or a number of jurisdictions.

All Cameron has to do is have an audit done on the Offshore Tax Haven account he invested in and clear up any suggestion of impropriety or tax evasion. Pretty simple.

[up2u2]

Here's something for you non-believers (and believers). Yes, its from the Guardian paper. Yes the comment may well be from a loony toone leftist. Whoever you support (Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, UKIP, Green). Take a step back and look at this with a wide angle:

guardian - Cameron-osborne - tax avoidance.png

That was in 2013. See the news article for yourself:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/11/osborne-tax-havens-details-wealthy

Are you seriously going to tell me that those doing the Tax AVOIDING are NOT Cameron's/Osborne's people?

I actually agree. Politicians are paralysed with fear because they all have their snouts in the Offshore Tax Haven trough. Guaranteed. lol