David Cameron on BBC Radio 4 Today

The Prime Minister yesterday finally came clean about his own tax affairs, admitting that he had profited from an offshore trust set up by his late father.

But Political Scrapbook has also found that Cameron did not declare the income he received from selling those shares, potentially misleading the House of Commons.

Cameron revealed that he sold shares in just before he became Prime Minister in 2010 and had paid all UK taxes due on profits from the £30,000 sale.

We went through Cameron’s Register of Members’ Interests and found no entry for Blairmore Holdings.

We also found no entry for income earned from selling shares listed, in all of 2010.

The House of Commons website clearly states:

The main purpose of the Register is to provide information about any financial interest which a Member has, or any benefit which he or she receives, which others might reasonably consider to influence his or her actions or words as a Member of Parliament.

It would be reasonable to say that benefitting from an offshore trust may influence Cameron’s view on whether such trusts should be tightly regulated or not.

Update: Some have argued that MPs are only required to declare holdings above £70,000, but this isn’t the full story.

The ‘requirements for Regstrations‘ also states (Category 8):

a)  Any relevant financial interest or material benefit which does not clearly fall into one of the other categories, including any shareholding which falls below the relevant threshold, or any other financial asset, including an asset held in trust, if the Member nevertheless considers that it meets the test of relevance; in other words, that it might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions or words as a Member; and

b)   Any other interest, if the Member considers that it might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions or words as a Member in the same way as a financial interest. This might include an unpaid employment or directorship, or directorship of a company not currently trading, non-practising membership of a profession, or a fund established to defray legal costs arising out of the Member’s work, but from which no benefit has yet been received.


If everything was legitimate, why wasn’t it declared Prime Minister?

  1. Steve Howard says:

    Maybe he needed the past 4 days to attempt to conceal this or for legal reps to turn up some Parliamentary precedent that he can rely upon when calls for his head become a clamour?

  2. You know Cameraman is desperate when he keeps bringing up dead people, this week ‘Dad’ (who he probably called ‘Pater’ in real life but he’s still pretending to be middle class), last month, his poor son. Old trick, and despicable.

  3. Would he have to declare the profit as income if it was under the Capital Gain free threshold? I wouldn’t think he would have to.

  4. David Cameron has said he paid income tax on the dividends but there was no capital gains tax payable and he said he sold up before entering Downing Street “because I didn’t want anyone to say you have other agendas or vested interests”.

    The question is;

    Would he have changed his financial arrangements if he was not going to be PM?

  5. I think he missed quite a few 000000 on the amount he sold. His father hated paying TAX in Britain that is why he went to great lengths to hide it from Joe public.

  6. This man’s whole life …..his education. …his seat at the top table of society has been built on the foundation of thirty years of tax avoidance by his father. If David Cameron had not had the advantages that his wealth afforded him ……. would he be PM …….on talent and hard work alone ……I think not. The current government is made up of those whose independently weathy status guarantees they will only serve their own interests. If a claimant for benifits had given four different answers whilst being questioned. …..automatic sanctions without a doubt. He must go …..now

  7. If, as David Cameron claims, Blairmore Holdings was not set up to avoid paying, why throughout its existence has it never paid tax?

    Surely setting up a company in the Bahamas when the company had no logical link to the islands was a blatant device to avoid paying tax in Britain, where its founders lived?

  8. There is no question in my mind that Cameron had a direct beneficial interest resulting from his father’s off shore investment. There is evidence that Blairmore was set up specifically to avoid paying UK tax. Cameron inherited £300,000 when his father died, a sum which would have been greatly diminished had tax been paid on it. He presumably stands to inherit the rest when his mother dies, unless she spends it all first to pay for her own care, so his denial of a future beneficial interest is also disingenuous.

  9. Is this the same David Cameron who said that Jimmy Carr was ‘morally wrong’ to enter into a (legal) tax avoidance scheme?

  10. Legal loophole or not, going forward these rich and powerful people must pay their dues the world over. It isnt like they cant afford it, the lack of social Conscience is deplorable. As for Our PM and actually the chancellor they have no place representing the good honest british public, the lies, double standards, mismanagement for personal gain is downright criminal. These people have no integrity without integrity you are nothing, they are nothing. They certainly do not represent me or people like me, i am proud to be british and i want my representative to make me feel proud. All i feel is ashamed and angry.

  11. The President of Brazil is illegal the people of Brazil have been trying to impeach her she is building the Bello Monte dam which is going to flood the Amazon present Cameron from England did a deal with her to supply the tractors from England, thousands of JCB tractors are now pushing down the Amazon trees to build 60 illegal dams, and that is to get out the wealth of gold and diamonds and the special metal called Imodium,.

  12. The Code of Conduct, 2009 (under [73] Past and potential interests) also refers to declaring, “relevant indirect interests, for instance those of a spouse or partner”.
    However, this article about Samantha Cameron from February 2015 suggests the PM did not declare or still has not declared his wife’s employment with a company based in a tax haven in Guernsey: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/smythson-leather-goods-and-luxury-stationery-company-that-employs-samantha-cameron-is-based-in-a-tax-10017572.html
    This could be considered “relevant” under the MPs code of conduct?

  13. Captain Clive, I might be wrong but wrong but Cameron may well need Imodium soon if he isn’t going to s**t himself when it all hits the fan.

    PS; just in case people may not know, Imodium is a product designed to reduce the effects of diarrhea 😉

  14. Stop tradition, we need pigmen? In wigs,with no social conscience to look after our lives? We need someone better to aspire too??we need the ” joneses”?? We need monarchy??? We need a JUST UNCORRUPT way of life

  15. Just to put some perspective on this subject, it would be interesting to know how many of you who are claiming the moral high ground on this issue choose to pay your plumber/builder/electrician in cash in order to save money for yourself, and in so doing aid and abet that contractor in tax evasion.

  16. What bollocks, any tradesman I pay in cash will spend it in my community therefore benefiting local jobs, not squirreling it away to wank over while they count it

  17. I read the same document on registration of members interest. I was left rather disappointed in how much woolyness there is and how much is left to the scruples of the MPs. In your quote it says “if the member considers” several times.

    In particular I did not see any specific mention of spouse, let alone other close family. Having watched his confession he states that he and Samantha owned the shares – my money is on then having been under her name.

    Then we are left with him being able say he “considered” them to be not relevent as he didn’t personally own them.

    Clearly immoral, but I bet he thinks that it is all above board and he had kept to the rules.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


Comments are limited to 1000 characters.