The Panama Tax scandal has put Prime Minister David Cameron under pressure to answer questions about how much he benefited personally from the tax avoidance of the Cameron family business. While we await the results of further investigation, we already know that the Chancellor George Osborne has definitely enjoyed just such benefits. Channel 4 News investigated the tax dealings of the Chancellor in 2015, and made an astounding discovery: Chancellor George Osborne’s family business made £6 million in a property deal with a developer based in a tax haven, a Channel 4 News investigation has found.7 Wallpaper firm Osborne & Little teamed up with a secretive corporation in the British Virgin Islands, to draw up plans to redevelop its former London headquarters into housing. The companies jointly applied for planning permission for around 45 flats and houses, and once given the go-ahead, Osborne and Little sold its site to the offshore firm for £6,088,000. A legal expert shown contracts obtained by Channel 4 News said Osborne & Little must have known the developer was based offshore, and had the potential to avoid millions in tax. At the time, the Chancellor was the beneficiary of a family trust that owned at least 15% of Osborne and Little, so would have personally benefitted from the sale. This scandal marked a major conflict of interest with performing the role of being the nation’s tax collector, and the setter of tax collection rules. Yet, rather than the Chancellor being removed from his role, he was permitted to stay. Since that time, Mr Osborne has made further cuts to Corporation Tax, made asweetheart deal with Google which saw them pay just 10% of the tax bill owed, all while continuing an assault on public services. When not transferring the burden of taxation from those with the most to those with the least, Mr Osborne has continued his fire-sale of public assets. By the end of this financial year, he will also have sold off more public assets than any Chancellor in UK history – outperforming the most ruthless privateers of the Thatcher era. After six years of this asset-stripping and tax-avoiding, the UK’s current account deficit is not only worse than it was in 2010, it is worse than during ANY period since records began in 1955. Furthermore, the Chancellor continues to miss his own targets on reducing the fiscal deficit (taxes versus spending), all while clocking up more debt in his first three years in parliament than even New Labour managed to in the previous 13. That is the kind of performance that will put George Osborne in the history books – as the worst Chancellor in UK history.
He won't because he won't get the opportunity to, it's as simple as that, he is completely un-electable. All he has achieved to date is the mobilisation of otherwise dormant activists, he has breathed life into a group of idealists who seem to think people like Russell Brand are the future of this country. People want a figurehead leader in this country, because we are having more challenges than ever to face on a daily basis, currently it doesn't look like any leader has the balls to make Britain Great again, least of all a ****ing tramp who wants us all drinking our own piss and listening to Dolphin music.
Plus you couldn't make this up if you tried - HMRC pays rent on its 600 regional offices from a company called Mapeley Steps Limited, which is registered in the tax haven Bermuda, as the result of a private finance initiative (PFI). ffs ...
By default, they are electable, because they have been elected already, therefore it matters not what I think, although I'd sooner have any of these than JC the tramp.
Well we will definitely disagree on this one... I am by no means a fan of Corbyn, but he is infinitely better than Cameron who will go on bleeding the poor and middle earners dry for the benefit of the few..
Jeremy Corbyn ate a primary school class' hamster and then caused WW1 and 2 - I read that in a newspaper so it must be right
We'll never agree on very much when it comes to politics, you and I mate. The fact is, you have no proof that he is better and you never will get any proof that he'd do a better job, it's just assumption based on your ideas of how a gov't should be run. I'd just like to point out, that I'm not a big fan of Cameron either, like I say, Barry Chuckle would be preferential to any of them for me. If I could take Corbyn seriously for even a split second, I think he'd worry me to the point where I'd get no sleep. I certainly wouldn't call myself a Conservative, I just want the right bloke in charge of the party who are in charge. I served in HM Forces under Blair and I never had any issues with him as our leader as he had balls and he was decisive, he made mistakes but they all do and all will. I am not averse to another Labour leader at all, just not this ****ing plonker, he'd be the worst leader this country has ever seen and he'd take it off it's knees and leave it face down in a puddle of it's own sick, ready to be put down... hypothetically speaking!
You may be right that he will never get the chance simply because our great British media will make sure of it..
Or you could give the general public an ounce of credit for being able to see through his piss stained corduroy jacket of a persona, and wanting a better alternative
In my experience the great British public fall for the media hype in huge numbers...The fact is that the majority of people are not interested in politics and develop opinions based on what they read in the papers and watch on TV..
There are also a lot of people who choose not to vote, for whatever reason, it's only voters that count. You're essentially saying you're better educated than those who base their opinions on what they see on the Television. How have you determined your knowledge of politics then gone on to ascertain that a 'majority' of others have not obtained their knowledge via the same process? You haven't, you're using assumption again, because it suits your argument and you're using words like 'fact' to add gravity to the statement. All politicians lie to get in the hot seat, they all get outed as liars from the day they enter No. 10, they leave with a legacy of lies and failure...now we're all expected to believe that a tramp who's pissed his pants and drinks dandelion tea is our saviour? Please, he's got a few damp-smelling hippies off their tatty carpets for a few weeks, he's done nothing but embarrass Labour since the day he put a tie on.
The real power here lies with the media, it is they that decide elections and that is why they can make or break governments because they know they can influence large swathes of the voting population (educated or not) and the governments know it to. Win the backing of fleet street etc and their masters and you win the election - here is a quote from Rupert Murdoch when asked about Britain coming out of Europe; I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.' and of course who could forget the sun's headline "It was the sun what won it" after the 92 election
By watching the media seeing how what they were saying was in direct contrast to what was happening - but I took a direct interest in it and most don't they just take what the media say as gospel and unfortunately that's what happens. Good propaganda will win more hearts than truth.
So are the media just bad when Conservatives are in power, or do they also try to sway the minds of the zombies when Labour is in power? Your vested interest in politics, how do you go about obtaining this knowledge?
well if you do take politics seriously, then can I assume you realise they don't work for the majority, they are working for the minorities vested interests >its a brand new world <open your eyes>
