Turn on thread page Beta

Should Cameron Resign? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should Cameron resign?
    Yes, Cameron should resign
    41
    40.59%
    No, Cameron shouldn't resign
    50
    49.50%
    Don't know enough facts or don't care
    10
    9.90%

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FarageCollage)
    yeah but he didn't immediately sell them, did he
    He sold them in Jan. 2010 so before the election campaign.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    May I ask what the point is in buying shares if you are going to sell them as soon as you get them?
    using those shares for tax avoidance?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And as far as we know paid tax on the dividends.
    So if anything he's guilty of owning shares in a dodgy company before he was PM?
    People clearly just want blood
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But the leader ultimately manifests itself in the policies, so if you vote on policies rather than blindly vote for a party you are indirectly voting confidence in the leader of the party.
    Agreed. Obviously if we had a presidential system where we voted directly for the Prime Minister it would be undemocratic not to get to vote, but we don't, so it's not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by FarageCollage)
    using those shares for tax avoidance?
    So how do you do that if you invest in a company that has a structure that doesn't even have you avoiding any tax, and additionally sell the shares immediately ergo not even benefiting from this imaginary tax avoidance that exists in your head?

    (Original post by BaronK)
    So if anything he's guilty of owning shares in a dodgy company before he was PM?
    People clearly just want blood
    It's not even dodgy
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So how do you do that if you invest in a company that has a structure that doesn't even have you avoiding any tax, and additionally sell the shares immediately ergo not even benefiting from this imaginary tax avoidance that exists in your head?
    I don't know, I have no idea
    I'm working from the assumption that cameron himself said he *did* gain from owning these shares in panama
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by FarageCollage)
    I don't know, I have no idea
    I'm working from the assumption that cameron himself said he *did* gain from owning these shares in panama
    Do you even know what tax avoidance is? Profiting on an investment made in a business based overseas is not necessarily tax avoidance.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorwhofan98)
    Ah ok, it's interesting to hear from the viewpoint of a conservative on this matter. Being a Labour supporter I really hope Corbyn won't be leader by the time the next election occurs, be it 2018 or 2020, as I'm fairly sure any conservative leader could beat him in a general election, though I doubt the rest of the party members won't let him go until he's lost a general election, despite polling.
    I should say tha i'm pretty loyal to the party i support, that party can change. My interest is in the pragmatic right being elected be that Blair (i'd have supported him 01 and 05 after the faultless first term) or had the Lib Dems had their electoral strategy as one which attempted to seize the classically liberal vote, they really missed a trick there. It's also good to see a Labour supporter who can see what a loser you've elected, i find the attitude of some that it's better to be pure and have no power than in government to be extremely alarming and dangerous for British democracy.

    Given that boundary reforms will turn the current majority of 12 into 44 i'd suggest that if the Tories are smart in picking their leader then they could well walk into 2020 with a majority breaching 100. The problem you guys on the left have is that many of your kin can't see that your bleeding (there are 4 seats in north Wales which have been red for yonks and yet the biggest majority is just 3200 now, in West Yorkshire Halifax has all but gone and Wakefield could dump out one of your leadership candidates) and you have no idea what to do with it. The Tories do have severe problems in Scotland and NI (no clue how to take them back) but in England it's the Tories to lose.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    For the second part, it would require the support of Labour as the early election has to be supported by two thirds of of the total membership of the house, including vacant seats, and not 55% of those who vote.
    In that case i believe there's a weird thing involving a motion of confidence that they can do.

    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    What would happen if he did resign? Would Osbourne take over, would there be a new vote within the Conservative party or would there be a whole new general election?

    I'm not really a big fan of any of these outcomes tbh
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Party leadership contest, not sure who would take acting leader, I would assume George but not certain.
    Osbourne is first secretary of state which is the Tory equivalent of DPM. It's a crying shame Hague left parliament because it was him until 2014.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I should say tha i'm pretty loyal to the party i support, that party can change. My interest is in the pragmatic right being elected be that Blair (i'd have supported him 01 and 05 after the faultless first term) or had the Lib Dems had their electoral strategy as one which attempted to seize the classically liberal vote, they really missed a trick there. It's also good to see a Labour supporter who can see what a loser you've elected, i find the attitude of some that it's better to be pure and have no power than in government to be extremely alarming and dangerous for British democracy.

    Given that boundary reforms will turn the current majority of 12 into 44 i'd suggest that if the Tories are smart in picking their leader then they could well walk into 2020 with a majority breaching 100. The problem you guys on the left have is that many of your kin can't see that your bleeding (there are 4 seats in north Wales which have been red for yonks and yet the biggest majority is just 3200 now, in West Yorkshire Halifax has all but gone and Wakefield could dump out one of your leadership candidates) and you have no idea what to do with it. The Tories do have severe problems in Scotland and NI (no clue how to take them back) but in England it's the Tories to lose.



    In that case i believe there's a weird thing involving a motion of confidence that they can do.





    Osbourne is first secretary of state which is the Tory equivalent of DPM. It's a crying shame Hague left parliament because it was him until 2014.
    They can no confidence themselves, but it would be damaging because it will be seen as underhand and not in the spirit of the rules which the Tories aren't in the best of positions with in the first place

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes he should.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Do you even know what tax avoidance is? Profiting on an investment made in a business based overseas is not necessarily tax avoidance.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    but how is the prime minister involved and being discussed in the panama scandal if he wasn't implicated in tax avoidance? e.g. his father's activities?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by FarageCollage)
    but how is the prime minister involved and being discussed in the panama scandal if he wasn't implicated in tax avoidance? e.g. his father's activities?
    Also not tax avoidance. You can be related to an activity without engaging in it. Do you ever use Amazon? If so by your very own logic you must be avoiding UK taxes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I'm probably going to be voting labour but that's ridiculous; you sound like a ukipper
    I thought you became a Tory and then abandoned liberalism to become authoritarian. What's with the Labour support now?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's not undemocratic though. We don't vote for a Prime Minister in the first place. No one voted directly for David Cameron as prime minister, nor any other prime minister for that matter. You vote for a representative of a party knowing that the leader of the biggest/majority party will be PM.
    Technically i agree. Unfortunately, politics is imperfect and people will in many cases vote based on the leader.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Also not tax avoidance. You can be related to an activity without engaging in it. Do you ever use Amazon? If so by your very own logic you must be avoiding UK taxes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    you're honestly claiming that his father didn't avoid or evade taxes?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by FarageCollage)
    you're honestly claiming that his father didn't avoid or evade taxes?
    I have not got detailed statements that show he did not, but then again nor that he did, it can be assumed that he did, but in the same ways as you or I do and not with some elaborate off shore scheme.

    Also not quite sure what his father has to do with this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FarageCollage)
    you're honestly claiming that his father didn't avoid or evade taxes?
    Cameron's not responsible for his father's tax affairs, so that's wholly irrelevant.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaronK)
    Cameron's not responsible for his father's tax affairs, so that's wholly irrelevant.
    you're saying he didn't benefit from it at all? as opposed to voluntarily oppose profiting from it?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    As much as I'd love to see him resign I hope he doesn't (and indeed I'm pretty sure he won't) because chances are he'll be replaced by someone even worse.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaronK)
    So if anything he's guilty of owning shares in a dodgy company before he was PM?
    People clearly just want blood
    (Original post by FarageCollage)
    I don't know, I have no idea
    I'm working from the assumption that cameron himself said he *did* gain from owning these shares in panama
    So for those who don't know what Cameron's father did was create a fund which invests in commodities. This firm was based in Ireland but registered in Panama (so it was actually avoiding the Irish tax system, not ours). This firm was a distributive fund which basically meant that all its profit was distributed each year to its investors which included Cameron. His shares when he sold in 2010 were worth £30k with a profit of about £20k of which he may or may not been liable for capital gains tax depending on the threshold.

    Basically, if either of you two have a workplace pension which invests in Twinings Tea (an Indian firm registered in Ireland for tax purposes) then your as guilty as Cameron was.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    They can no confidence themselves, but it would be damaging because it will be seen as underhand and not in the spirit of the rules which the Tories aren't in the best of positions with in the first place

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    True. The best plan would be a repeal but that would take months.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    So for those who don't know what Cameron's father did was create a fund which invests in commodities. This firm was based in Ireland but registered in Panama (so it was actually avoiding the Irish tax system, not ours). This firm was a distributive fund which basically meant that all its profit was distributed each year to its investors which included Cameron. His shares when he sold in 2010 were worth £30k with a profit of about £20k of which he may or may not been liable for capital gains tax depending on the threshold.

    Basically, if either of you two have a workplace pension which invests in Twinings Tea (an Indian firm registered in Ireland for tax purposes) then your as guilty as Cameron was.



    True. The best plan would be a repeal but that would take months.
    And probably wouldn't pass either.

    On the Twinings, might be worth also adding on that in all likelihood if a fund doesn't invest in Twinings in particular they will be investing in some company that does it.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.