Why Didn’t Cameron Declare Blairmore in 2009 Register of Interests

Today brings some of the worst front pages for David Cameron since be became PM, as Labour MPs hysterically call for him to resign. Could Dave’s £30,000 in an offshore trust be fatal?

Cameron is responsible for the situation, not his father, because he bought the Blairmore shares himself in 2007. Though it is worth remembering there is nothing wrong with investing in a foreign fund. Crucially – and wisely – he sold the shares in 2010. If he still owned shares in a Panama trust while PM he would be under a lot more pressure…

Did Cameron actually avoid any tax? He insists he didn’t, and several top journalists and tax experts agree Blairmore was not a tax avoidance scheme. There is currently no dispute that Cameron paid all the UK taxes on his income from his shares. If Cameron had avoided tax by hiding assets offshore, the situation would be very different…

And what about the attack line Labour MPs are clamouring around, that Dave did not declare his Blairmore shares in his 2009 Register of Members Interests? MPs are not required to declare shareholdings in unit trusts, holdings below £70,000 or 15% of a partnership:

So this is a blind alley for Labour. Cameron was not the beneficiary of an offshore trust while PM, he appears not to have avoided any tax, and he did not breach parliamentary rules. If any of these points change, then his position becomes a lot less tenable…




Tip offs: 0709 284 0531
team@Order-order.com

Quote of the Day

One Tory MP remarked yesterday…

“How many are in four Bakers’ dozens? About 35…”

Sponsors

Guidogram: Sign up

Subscribe to the most succinct 7 days a week daily email read by thousands of Westminster insiders.