OneGuyFromBarlick

Can't help thinking that the £30,000 he (at first) declared is about a term's fees for Eton if you include the Fortnum and Mason tuck box, and was probably what he had put aside from his weekly pocket money. His father was a millionaire - times over, and there are three other similar comanies larger than the Panamanian one. Go figure.

I never imagined I would ever use that expression.

I expect he felt obliged to show a bit of support for his father's fund at the time and popped in the odd bit of dosh simply to stop him complaining. Apparently Cameron could have made just as much on his investment if he'd put it in an `onshore' UK fund. I'll bet the people who've really been dodging the taxman by using the naughtier aspects of the offshore funds are splitting their sides laughing at Cameron's predicament - while Cameron is the centre of attention they can get on with moving their money to another hiding place. In fact, they are probably investing some money right now in helping to stir up the Cameron issue and keeping it hot for a while.

DC a tory toff with pots of money, oh I am so surprised. Given that he is married, with children, it would be prudent under present tax rules that shed loads of 'wealth' is held by, or transferred to, his missus, and the kids, possibly by a beneficial trust too from his mother. It is all legal, but as said earlier the problem of wealth creation in this manner is that it does exclude those whom don't have a starting point to invest.

I like 'go figure' David. Very useful, brief and exact.
Tiz is right, to use an old Ian Flaming metaphor, we have only been given a glimpse through the furnace door, Cameron's accounts aren't even the tip of an iceberg. I see the chairman of the European Central Bank is advocating a register of all off-shore banks and their beneficial owners. Can't you imagine the whizz kids at the various service companies finding a way round this. Anyone who reads Private Eye is aware of the major public figures cynically and legally using off-shore status to protect their wealth. When you see one of these figures being gaoled you'll know that something effective is being done, until that happy day don't hold your breath! I don't normally agree with the Noble Lord Lawson but he suggested that gross profits made in this country should be the basis of taxation, not the spurious figures for net profit used by the magicians. That sounds simple and effective to me. The bottom line is that there is no appetite for any change in the shadowy hinterland of government where the big beasts who influence policies roam at will.
See THIS report for the tip of another iceberg. We have detailed the negative aspects of PFI many times in the past but this morning a serious flaw in the scheme has come to light. 17 schools built under the same PFI contract ten years ago are deemed to be unsafe unless they pass a rigorous inspection and will be closed immediately and indefinitely. The flaws came to light after a wall in one of the schools collapsed in a high wind and it was found that essential wall ties were absent. It's bad enough having to pay exorbitant fees for thirty years without the buildings collapsing. Of course, despite assurances to the contrary PFI is still being used as a Cunning Wheeze to get capital expenditure off the books. A classic 'kick the can down the road and avoid responsibility' ploy. Such is the calibre of modern governance and it is of course not restricted to the Tories.

Listening to the debate about `tax havens' I was struck by the fact that nobody is mentioning the place that gets the biggest benefit from attracting financiers and their cash due to its low level of regulation....the City of London. Then shortly before 9.00am today a chap from the Isle of Man was being interviewed on the Today programme and he said just that. The first mention I've heard of it so far.

I heard him as well, London scores higher than many 'tax havens' on the scale of opportunity for fraud.
I heard another interview about PFI and the MP who was speaking said that George Osborne's PFI2 has less safeguards in it than the original Gordon Brown model. The firm in Edinburgh has said it accepts responsibility and will pay costs. Not certain the new contract has this safeguard.
Much hot air yesterday in Parliament about tax havens but nobody proposing any meaningful changes to the tax system.

I'd been wondering who built the schools? Most of the news media coverage seemed to ignore that aspect, so I did a search...
`Holyrood' magazine gives information on the businesses involved in building and designing the affected Edinburgh schools: "...all 17 schools rebuilt or refurbished by the consortium, which includes Miller Construction, Amey, American financiers Barchan and the Bank of Scotland." LINK Amey claims to offer `total facilities management' so you'd think they would have known the state of the schools: Amey The schools were built by Miller Construction which has since been taken over by Galliford Try.

Construction Enquirer reported two weeks ago that: "Schools built across Scotland by Miller Construction are facing safety inspections. The move follows the collapse of a wall at the Oxgangs Primary School in Edinburgh in January. Three other schools have been temporarily closed across the city following the incident. Galliford Try – who bought Miller in 2014 – has started remedial work at Oxgangs and is currently assessing the other three buildings"...."Galliford Try has also contacted councils who worked with Miller on school jobs in Glasgow, Fife and Inverclyde under the PPP initiative."

As with so many cases like this, an initial failing, in this case the collapse of a wall at Oxgangs School has triggered a closer look at similar buildings and the more they inspect the more faults they are finding. This raises questions about the supervision of the contracts during the build and a possible reason surfaced in an interview with an architect on R4 yesterday. Now I know that he was undoubtedly putting in a plug for greater use of his profession but speaking as a bloke who has worked with a good architect, using him as Clerk of Works as well as designer his evidence rang true. He said that in general PFI contractors relied on internal services instead of using independent architects because of the expense. He said that apart from construction standards, this has resulted in buildings with design flaws as regards standards of daylight and access. One of the reasons why architects are expensive is that they are responsible in perpetuity for their work and in consequence have high insurance costs. It looks as though corners have been cut in the pursuit of profit, no surprise there!
This raises the question of the quality of the contracts. Surely it would be better if there was a stipulation that qualified independent architects must be used and clear clauses as regards future liabilities? There is also the question of why some MPs are questioning the standards of Ossie's 'PFI 2' contracts.
If you want a good read, seek out two books, 'The Honeywood File and Settlement' by H B Cresswell and the later 'Rubicon File' by A J Elder. They are fictional (and very amusing!) accounts of a private build and a commercial one which raise all the problems that are commonly encountered in such projects. For many years they were required reading on courses run by RIBA for young aspirants to the profession. Peter Dawson, my architect at Ellenroad, gave me copies and I read them and took notice. I never regretted employing him and we only ever had one problem, not related to the contract, which was nipped in the bud early on by immediate action. Perhaps those setting up these complicated contracts should be required to do a bit of reading first.....
[I've looked the books up on Bookfinder. Still sought after evidently, prices range from £20 to almost £400 depending on quality.]
I'm keeping a close eye on Port Talbot. Lots of fine words but the outcome is not yet clear. There are signs that even Javid is beginning to recognise how fundamental this matter is.

Dodgy Dave seems to have got his bottle back. I think he spent most of last week wondering what else 'they' had on him, hence the flood of clarifications. . The Sunday press came and went, with no new revelations, so it's back to normal.

Mr Corbyn seems to have taken Dave's mum's advice, and actually looks quite presentable these days. Good quality jacket, and a well knotted tie, and he actually smiled at one of Dave's jokes against him. He's probably practising the National Anthem.

Speaking of jackets wasn't Dennis Skinner's once described as a 'National Health' jacket. It seems to be the same one he has always worn. Is he really 84?

Tripps wrote:
Speaking of jackets wasn't Dennis Skinner's once described as a 'National Health' jacket. It seems to be the same one he has always worn. Is he really 84?

He is indeed and has one of the best attendance records for any MP. He also claims very few expenses, probably why he sticks to his perfectly serviceable tweed jacket which he prefers to the suit type uniform of the house. I have met him and he is a very nice man although branded as the "Beast of Bolsover". He certainly adds a bit of colour to the house.

And usually puts his finger right on the nub of the problem. That's why he was chucked out the other day, Dave is Dodgy and he refused to back down.

Fifth time he’s been chucked out apparently. Which means it’s the fifth time his constituents have unilaterally been denied their voice in Parliament. It’s an odd punishment that punishes the innocent. But when has our Parliament ever been anything other than an anachronism? Call someone dodgy and you get chucked out. Call someone a liar (or euphemism) and you’re out. Indeed calling someone a liar is seen as worse that actually lying, the reasoning being that as ‘honourable’ members their ‘honesty’ is an absolute given and only an blessed scoundrel would suggest otherwise. I’m not making this up. But what you can do is bray like a demented, incarcerated donkey; make the most appalling gestures towards women members when they are speaking, or otherwise behave as moronic, barely potty-trained imbeciles. I don’t know how the sensible members of the Commons cope with it to be frank. It would drive me mad.

I note the Hon Member for Pendle Mr Stephenson had a question at PMQs yesterday. An important topic, provision of women’s refuge’s for abused wife’s etc., but he couldn’t resist making a political point. Sadly, an opposition MP in her question sought to refer back to this and even the ‘politics’ up. I can’t speak for the family who prompted the case, but personally there are some issues which really don’t split down party lines.

Richard Broughton

I received a letter from our useless MP yesterday in response to my signing of an online petition against the automatic academisation of all schools. Well I say I received it from him (I actually think it was sent by Mr Copifax). First paragraph opens with "I welcome the move to full academisation". Second the caveat that it was all Labour's idea in the first place so the Tories are just making it better. Third paragraph looks like it's copied directly from the Tory manifesto (and probably is). He thanks me for contacting him and then magically signs it with a pre-printed signature.

I will expect further correspondence regarding closure of our steel industry, moving the gateposts on womens pension age, austerity as opposed to investment, and why as a supposed sentient being he is incapable of uttering anything other than the party line.

Bruff wrote:...But what you can do is bray like a demented, incarcerated donkey; make the most appalling gestures towards women members when they are speaking, or otherwise behave as moronic, barely potty-trained imbeciles.

And then they wonder why the public don't respect them!

PanBiker wrote:"I welcome the move to full academisation"

Actually this move isn't in the Conservative Manifesto.Manifesto. This is what it actually says. " So we will continue to expand academies, free schools, studio schools and University Technical Colleges." (Doggy words?). It goes on to say " We will continue to allow all good schools to expand, whether they are maintained schools, academies, free
schools or grammar schools." . Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to include good Council run schools. One shouldn't need to be lawyer to unravel words and hidden meanings in a manifesto. But as we have seen with Mr Cameron's performance on his tax affairs it appears to be par for the course.

Interestingly, if you look at the countries with the very best educational outcomes and which this Government wants to emulate, you find that there is no phrase in the Finnish and other the Scandanavian countries educational lexicon for ‘forced academisation’. Or indeed as someone else pointed out, ‘commercial education provider’. Mention this to a chump like Stephenson and he’d stand there with his head wobbling……..

We all know where the Tories want to end up: ‘welcome to double English Lit, brought to you by News Corp’. Remember: where there is money to be spent, someone must get rich.

Richard Broughton

plaques wrote:

PanBiker wrote:"I welcome the move to full academisation"

I did but it's Stephenson's quote if you please, not mine.

Sorry PanBiker, I was only using it as a pointer to the words being used. Again there is some ambiguity of ' a move towards' as against imposing full academisation on everyone in one fell swoop is typical word play.

Agreed, say one thing in the manifesto with weasely words and then do another.

It doesn't surprise me to hear that our MP is obsessed by politics and not the real issues. I long ago gave up any hope of him mentioning Infant Mortality, poverty, homelessness etc. His weekly notes in the paper are vacuous exercises in following the Party Line. I think the only thing he has in his head is preferment in his chosen field, being a 'safe pair of hands'. He has never come clean about the Ashcroft funding and never kept the promise I teased out of him on the only occasion to me knowledge he ever responded in the letters column of the BET when he promised to be 'open and transparent if elected'.
I see that the latest warnings from the IMF on the fragility of the global economy are being attacked as 'too pessimistic'. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't, it isn't long since they were being criticised for being too optimistic. I believe their report and take notice of their opinion because they are chronicling exactly what Thomas Piketty predicted, stagnation in global growth for at least fifty years. His opinion was based on the most exacting and far ranging research into the hard economic facts revealed in historical statistics. Unfortunately the IMF opinion is not shared by our Chancellor. According to him we are doing well and on track to remain a healthy economy. This despite the fact that he is alone in his position, even the Governor of the Bank of England goes as far as he dare towards rubbishing this view. The one thing that the majority of the informed commentators agree on is that we are making the same mistakes and pursuing the same course that historically has always led to a crisis. This was true in 1920, the 1930s and pre-2008. The only question is how long until the storm hits.....
THIS Guardian article is worth reading. It details how Edward Troup, the new head of HMRC has a history of acting against honest tax paying. He once described taxation as legalised extortion and spent much of his career advising wealthy people how to evade tax. If you read Private Eye you will find many examples of this 'poachers to gamekeepers' syndrome particularly in the fields of PFI regulation and the management of the NHS. One has to ask oneself why?
I'll repeat my strong belief. The unspoken agenda of this government is to drag society back to the worst days of laisser faire, 19th century style. The 'Good Old Days'.

Ten weeks to the vote.... I am so depressed by the concentration on the politics of fear, the endless arguments based on 'economics and the complete lack of any serious political thought about the moral and philosophical questions associated with the question. What we are considering is the equivalent of the South seceding from the Union in the States and look where that took them. There is a serious lack of principle and honesty at the moment.

Hands up those who believe that Hinkley Point is on the brink of being set in motion.... See THIS BBC report and have a ponder. If you read Old Sparky in PE he has a much more down to earth view of the situation and he reckons it's bleak. The dash for gas is stalled, we will see the closure of old 'dirty' power stations in the next four months and the 'Dash for Gas' is no longer stalled, it's non-existent. Buy candles....
UK 'energy policy has gone beyond a joke, it has become a farce.
Meanwhile, self-serving buffoons like Boris tour the North (!) telling us why we should vote 'leave'. We have almost another ten weeks of this.... They are already arguing about whether Cameron can survive as Leader. I think the glory days of his and Ossie's charmed life are fast fading, reality is going to gatecrash the party. The trigger for this is going to be Harold's famous 'events dear boy'. I think we are in for a chaotic six months. Meanwhile, nobody is talking about increasing austerity or the Economic Miracle.

See THIS for breaking news that Jeremy Hunt is wavering in his attempt to impose a contract on the junior doctors. Some commentators have gone as far as to say it is dead in the water. We shall see, one thing is certain, the financial pressure on the service is immense and there are no signs of it easing.

The bulk of the 'news' coming out of Parliament is, you've guessed it, more referendum 'facts'. The Treasury paper forecasting a 6% decrease in GDP after 15 years compared to what could be expected is based entirely on guesswork..... I'm not sure how much credence we can give blue sky thinking like this.

We've just had two excellent episodes of Radio 4's In Business programme. I strongly recommend listening to them. Both are here for download to your PC etc: In Business podcasts

`Why is there so much dissatisfaction about how economics is taught at universities?'
Why is there so much dissatisfaction about how economics is taught at universities? Since the financial crash, many students have been in revolt in the UK and overseas, determined to change the content of their courses. They are not alone. Employers and some economists share many of their concerns. Peter Day explores why the subject has changed over a generation and why that might matter.

`In Business: Tax transparency - Norway's model'
Jonty Bloom goes to Norway to find out what happens when salaries and tax are made public
The Panama papers reveal tax evasion is a huge international problem. But how can governments clean things up? One way might be by opening things up. In the UK, it is a criminal offence to reveal someone else's tax affairs, but in some countries you can easily discover how much anyone earns and how much they pay in tax, from the prime minister and the richest business leader to the poorest pensioner. It can have a profound effect on business practice and wider society, as business correspondent Jonty Bloom discovers, travelling to Norway.