Blah Blah

LM I will make comparisons to America if I like. The fact remains that they had negotiated a more transparent agreement with Panama and the result is less American nationals used those ofshore accounts. It was simply an illustration of levels of secrecy playing a part. And no-one is arguing for the wealthy to pay more tax, just to stop avoiding the tax they would normally pay if they kept their wealth onshore. The issue with VAT has been the addition of VAT on essentials like untilities which were formerly exempt. I still remember the scandal when the last Conservative government introduced that when they said they wouldn't (Major's government I think). VAT on those things is regressive. And then there is of course the other Tory invention, council tax. Can't get more regressive than that one.

But that won't wash LondonM because the reason there are so few Americans on those Panama lists is because America had negotiated a agreement with Panama on disclosure. Take away the secrecy and lo and behold, wealthy Americans don't go there. SO there is absolutely a sense that the wealthy know that they are being somewhat immoral while the ordinary worker is locked in to a paye arrangement. Now the wealthy in turn may argue that they use private services rather than public ones etc etc, but how much money does a person need? How much profit does a corporation need? This to me goes deeper into the psychology that now pervades business, where only the maximum amount of profit (over everything else) will do and that profit should grow year on year. Yes much of it is about shareholders and yes pension funds are the biggest investers in that, but is this really the only way we can come up with to fund those things? Really? And we live in a moderatively wealthy country. Most of us have no conception of how most of the worlds poor live, and what little access they have to anything. But back to Cameron - I agree with rahrah. When you are PM you should be holding high moral standards, otherwise it completely undermines your ability to form policy. I'm sure Blair is up to the same stuff as well. What Cameron can't help of course is that he was born to an expert in this stuff who made a fortune helping others to do it. But it is a fortune he has benefitted immensely from. And he needs to be humble abut that. And I think another issue in all of this, and this applies to Blairs government as well, is that we have an economy that it too heavily weighted in banking and finance, the conditions of which were laid down by MPs who themselves have backgrounds in banking, finance, law etc. Just who are they helping in all of that?

Lots of good points. The other thing to remember is that he didn't just sell shares to clean up his image on becoming PM. The family also moved said business from the tax haven to onshore, also to save the new PM from any embarassing scrutiny. Only they didn't move it to mainland Britain where tax is 20%. They moeved it to Ireland where tax is 12%. Had Cameron not becomw PM, he would still probably be benefitting from the dividends of a tax avoiding business interest. Corbyn is quite right when he says it's wrong to focus solely on post 2010. This whole issue for me is hypocrasy. Yes we know that lot's of people in public office take avantage of these loopholes, but that doesn't take away from the hypocrasy of preaching cuts and austerity and debt while living by a different standard. It insults ordinary people, and that matters when you are PM. Just on the Media thing. The Andrew Marr show had an interesting take that Media owners are largely for Brexit and that is the reason why they are running so hard with this story. They want to bring Cameron down. Cameron's leadership ratings have gone down dramatically but Corbyns haven't gone up either. Interesting article here that touches on some of the expressions of viewpoints we are making here....and perhaps why Corbyn is making no ground while the Tories are losing theirs. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/10/labour-heartland-doesnt-exist-voters?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Here's another example of the abstraction of wealth. The average salary is ?27.5k but 70% of the workforce don't earn it and 50% earn nowhere near it. So when government put average figures on starter homes, they take the average salary as proof that people will be able to afford these homes. They completely ignore that most people don't earn that wage. In every area outside of London and the home counties, the real average salary is around a third less. It DOES matter that we have MPs who have no concept of living on an ordinary wage when there are so many of them. It's why we end up with ideological models that don't work from Osborne and Cameron. They ignore the advice of on the ground experts, which is why many of their bills (poorly thought out and formed without any impact research) are being clobbered by the House of Lords.

Sigh Londonmix. I really do wish people would stop putting words into people's mouths. I was making the point that to an ordinary person, 'wealthy' is often an abstract thing - whereas once you start assigning figures to that wealth, it becomes less abstract. I thought that was clear. But just on the wealthy. 78% of MPs are millioniares so yes, I would argue that it skews parliament away from the interests of ordinary people. You only have to listen to the crap that comes out of Cameron and Osborne's (and formerly Ian Duncan Smith's) mouths to know that they are hardly the bringers of fair social policy. And when a disproportionate amount of cabinet minsters went to the same handful of top public schools, which all happen to be boys schools btw, it can be argued there is very much fundamentally wrong with parliament and it's overwhelming links to privilege and wealth. Half a million to most working people is a huge amount Seabag - so again you are missing my former point on the abstraction of wealth.

But the problem with Cameron is that he has inhertied vast wealth (none of which he has worked for) whilst telling the country that if they end up unemployed they are scroungers. It's about principle - and what this tax thing does is show up Camerons wealth, and therefore hypocrasy. It's not really about tax at all. That's not where the damage is really done. If you've never lived outside of the home counties or SE, you may have no idea of the real gap of inequality. Perception is definitely regional. Knowing that Cameron is wealthy is different to seeing amounts gifted to him, and yes, that might lead to a politics of envy, but you can't criticise the ordinary person struggling to make ends meet, whose life chances are limited, for wondering why Cameron gets to enjoy the good fortune of half a million quid from his parents.

I didn't say there weren't working class MPs ????. If you read what I wrote properly, I said that most MPs come from affluence or privilege, but I did not say all.

I agree with rahrah. The politics of envy are not the sole preserve of the poor or the left and many Labour MPs have also come from affluent backgrounds, gone through public school etc. There just isn't that division of background/ wealth in parliament and never has been. Even people like Wilson went to grammar schools, which in there day were seen as the state equivalent of public schools. And it could be argued that the 'politics of envy' is as bad as labelling people as 'deserving poor'. Both equate to a poor attitude. Your assumption Uncleglen, that Tory Mps are better for the country because of their privileged backgrounds doesn't make sense either. Working people and the poor were treated abismally until a Labour Party was formed to represent them. If anything, that party has become more Tory like over the years, not the other way round. And todays Tory party has never been more self serving. It's higher levels are dominated by the descendents of stockbrokers and bankers, rather than the industrialists of the past (who actually employed people). It's an important distinction to make. If your wealth comes from something that bears no direct realtionship to people, over something that does, your attitude to the role of money becomes skewed. It's partly why Cameron is in the mess he now is. Channel 4 also found links to Camerons father and another tax haven investment yesterday, so this is going to carry on for Cameron. And Nigel Farage has been exposed too as having set up an account in a tax haven - for all his pretence at being a common man, he is a city boy to the end.

I don't think Cameron will resign, but I think it strengthens Boris Johnson's cause for a leadership challenge after the EU referendum results are in. Whatever we, the public, are left thinking by all of this, we need to remember that there is a subtle movement growing within the Tory party to unseat both Cameron and Osborne, and all this plays into the hands of the usurpers. I don't know if Cameron would survive a leadership challenge or not, but it's usually the beginning of the end for a leader when a challenge comes.

I can honestly say that I haven't heard a single good arguement for Brexit, backed by any hard facts.

lol yeah and you get the feeling that's not all there is. The problem is that never again can he claim we are all in it together, and that he is for hard working families and all the other BS he comes out with. Of course he's been asked about this in the past, esp in relations to that viscount who's a family relative. And then there's this little gem from 2013 :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qjBec3fpBI

Aren't rising unit rents somewhat to blame as well for overpiced 'boutiques'?

Thise stats would not suprise me at all Parkdrive if true. It's an interesting discussion about legality and morality but no-one has yet mentioned fairness. A min wage PAYE worker (or any PAYE worker for that matter) has no say in how much tax they pay. And this is perhaps what is really wrong with the tax system, in that we catagorise workers and businesses in such a way that the more you earn, the more you can do to legally avoid paying tax. When looking at offshore havens, we could be literally talking about at least ?20 trillion, but don't really know for sure because of the secrecy involved. This amounts to 10-15% of global wealth - so the amounts lost in tax are huge. I don't know how much is lost in tax not paid on cash payments, and I know a lot of freelancers who struggle to make ends meet too, but I doubt it amounts to anything like ?20 trillion. Most workers are still paid PAYE though, so most workers are still paying their tax whilst the wealthy and corporations aren't.

That's why the only way to deal with it Seabag, is to not make it possible in the first place.

The media response has been interesting to say the least. There is definitely a sense of closing ranks in some quarters. I saw Toby Young even trying to say it was really a non issue on BBC news - incredible! And of course, this firm is just one of many accross the world doing the same thing. Trying to even imagine how much tax has not been paid from all of that wealth is mind boggling. Even the Brinks Mat bullion ended up there! I do think it's just part of a wider problem around finance and secrecy. Loretta Napoleoni, in her book 'Terror Inc' talks about this and how much money for both rogue governments and terrorist organisations sits in Swiss banks accounts for example. It's going to take a global solution and a massive reform of bankng and accounting practise to wipe all of this corruption out. I think the UK has 13 territories that operate as tax havens, so a massive part of the industry. we'd have to impose direct rule to shut them down, but don't because there are other places the money can go. It's all rather depressing.

I don't think anyone is at all suprised to see any of this or those names on the lists. The question is what do we do about it when so many 'masters of the universe' are involved, including those in top level politics. Even if Cameron doesn't beneift from it now, his privileged upbringing certainly did. Does he have any defense when HMRC go after ordianry people with a vengence, and 'we are all in it together' sounds more hypocritical than it ever has.

And libraries offer free internet and other services besides the loan of books. For the unemployed and poor with children, libraries are a valuable resource. How much do we put on the cost of every child having an equal stab at literacy for example, of which early access to books and language plays a huge part. Small local libraries tend to be used by the young and the old. And if you take a look at any of the large libraries offering things like study space, they are always oversubscribed. These things can not be measured in terms of financial profit. They are a public service central to both culture and learning. Just on the point of there being two libraries within walking distance of each other, well Lambeth are closing both - so that's not really an argument is it. If one were being closed and the other kept open that would be different. Lambeth are doing to the Library system the same thing that has happened with other sectors, by trying to centralise the service into larger venues. But they are completely missing the point of libraries.

I'm an 'IN' vote.

I also think that what is behind this is a money raising exercise. There can be no other explanation for replacing a public service with a commercial enterprise. There is no interest whatsoever from the council in the keeping libraries open. It's the same with the Cressingham and Central Hill proposals - no interest in community led alternative porposals over profitable sell offs to the highest bidder. A shelf of books within a gym is NOT a library, neighbourhood or otherwise, and Lambeth are taking people for fools if they think no-one sees past the stupid use of words to try and suggest otherwise.

The behaviour of some councillors has been childish and disgraceful. This is something to take up with their CLPs - especially given that they are paid around ?15k a year to serve - more if they hold cabinet or special positions. If they are going to make unpopular decisions, they should stand and defend those positions.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lambeth Labour is apparently being run by a right-wing faction of the party called 'Progress' > who have voted through these extensive cuts to library services. That might also explain why they are trying to demolish Cressingham Gardens and Central Hill estates too instead of considering alternate proposals for refurbishment. Equally baffling is why in the leadership election, Camberwell and Peckham CLP voted to support Liz Kendall - the candidate that I would say least represented the social makeup of those wards. There does seem to be a disconnect between some local Labour CLPs and the people they represent.

I agree with Burbage. If Lambeth council were closing one to keep another open, I think we could accept cuts as part of the reasoning. But what is happening is turning it into a gym with a side room labelled as a 'neighbourhood library'. I'm guessing the proceeds from the gym will fund the side room - except I've heard it will be staffed by volunteers, so not even a paid librarian. Lambeth council don't use the word 'gym' though. They use the words 'healthy living centre'. It's not a huge building. It's clearly the imposition of a commercial interest in place of a public service.

You have my support. Can't be there due to work but totally disgusted that a Labour council are doing this.

What is the point of AV, firewalls, malware defenders etc if they don't stop these things? I had something get through that turned windows updater into a massive CPU leak and ended up having to completely reinstall my laptop.

The government might backtrack on this though. Don't think even they want Teachers striking as well as junior doctors.