This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/10/david-cameron-prime-minister-tax-tories-wealth

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
David Cameron’s unease is rooted in the Tories’ shifting attitude to money David Cameron’s unease is rooted in the Tories’ shifting attitude to money
(about 13 hours later)
By the standards of historical financial sleaze, the Blairmore holdings affair barely holds a candle to the Liberator Building Society scandal of the 1890s. The charismatic Liberal Jabez Balfour invented fraudulent companies to conceal financial losses. When they collapsed, leaving investors penniless, the rogue MP fled to Argentina, whence he was forcibly returned to face trial by Frank Froest of Scotland Yard. The old Liberals had a fatal attraction for money and ill-judgment about it, from the Marconi scandal (the insider trading of 1912) to Lloyd George’s sale of peerages.By the standards of historical financial sleaze, the Blairmore holdings affair barely holds a candle to the Liberator Building Society scandal of the 1890s. The charismatic Liberal Jabez Balfour invented fraudulent companies to conceal financial losses. When they collapsed, leaving investors penniless, the rogue MP fled to Argentina, whence he was forcibly returned to face trial by Frank Froest of Scotland Yard. The old Liberals had a fatal attraction for money and ill-judgment about it, from the Marconi scandal (the insider trading of 1912) to Lloyd George’s sale of peerages.
But associations, as well as facts, matter in politics. More recently, the connection of senior Conservatives and unfortunate financial dealings has turned out to have a peculiarly sticky quality. Fair’s fair: all the main parties have had trouble with money. The Blair era saw donors such as Lord Levy tread the questionable path from patronage (via dosh) to political roles and mounting distaste at the inner circle’s “intensely relaxed” attitude to the “filthy rich”. Alas for the heirs of Croesus, the mood is considerably less relaxed about the wealthy since the financial crash of 2007-8 turned a gimlet eye on the ways of the rich. But associations, as well as facts, matter in politics. More recently, the connection of senior Conservatives and unfortunate financial dealings has turned out to have a peculiarly sticky quality. Fair’s fair: all the main parties have had trouble with money. The Blair era saw donors such as Lord Levy tread the questionable path from patronage (via dosh) to political roles and mounting distaste at the inner circle’s “intensely relaxed” attitude to the “filthy rich”. Alas, for the heirs of Croesus, the mood is considerably less relaxed about the wealthy since the financial crash of 2007-8 turned a gimlet eye on the ways of the rich.
This gut awareness accounts for David Cameron’s laggardly admission that he profited from his father’s holding in a Panama-based company. Legally and morally, he is convinced that he is in the right, having paid tax on his gains. Culturally however, he is anxious that whatever the precise status or motivation of his father’s trusts and the trickle-down of wealth, he would be seen to be in the wrong. So it has proved after a week of prime ministerial squirming and a major public relations disaster from the Number 10 team.This gut awareness accounts for David Cameron’s laggardly admission that he profited from his father’s holding in a Panama-based company. Legally and morally, he is convinced that he is in the right, having paid tax on his gains. Culturally however, he is anxious that whatever the precise status or motivation of his father’s trusts and the trickle-down of wealth, he would be seen to be in the wrong. So it has proved after a week of prime ministerial squirming and a major public relations disaster from the Number 10 team.
Winning big arguments has come relatively easy to Cameron; quashing a vague but insistent negative perception attached to lucre is far harder. The PM knows this as a child of three big shifts in perception of wealth and its status in Conservative circles. The first came in the aftermath of the Big Bang in 1983. City deregulation sharpened up the Square Mile’s practices. Nigel Farage, in those days a wheeler-dealer, told me that he rejoiced in the new opportunities, while his stockbroker dad bewailed that they would “never have time for a decent lunch again”.Winning big arguments has come relatively easy to Cameron; quashing a vague but insistent negative perception attached to lucre is far harder. The PM knows this as a child of three big shifts in perception of wealth and its status in Conservative circles. The first came in the aftermath of the Big Bang in 1983. City deregulation sharpened up the Square Mile’s practices. Nigel Farage, in those days a wheeler-dealer, told me that he rejoiced in the new opportunities, while his stockbroker dad bewailed that they would “never have time for a decent lunch again”.
The end of the long lunch opened up a world of globalised finance to the likes of Cameron’s father, also an old-school stockbroker. It enabled those with a knowledge of investment to move money more easily around the world in search of better returns. But it also created a generation who graduated in the late 1980s. Armed with confidence and nous, they were able to make large amounts of dosh. Notting Hill is full of them to this day and the diaspora is widely spread – throughout banking, private equity, City PR and consultancy. Spiritually, they tend to be Cameronian.The end of the long lunch opened up a world of globalised finance to the likes of Cameron’s father, also an old-school stockbroker. It enabled those with a knowledge of investment to move money more easily around the world in search of better returns. But it also created a generation who graduated in the late 1980s. Armed with confidence and nous, they were able to make large amounts of dosh. Notting Hill is full of them to this day and the diaspora is widely spread – throughout banking, private equity, City PR and consultancy. Spiritually, they tend to be Cameronian.
This group forms an important part of Britain plc and how it has positioned itself in the global economy, which is to say, rather successfully. Politically, it represents a schism in Tory thinking that began in the Thatcher era. She tended to trust meritocrats. Her closest adviser was Charles (Lord) Powell – an airforce son; her favoured journalist Charles Moore was son of a political Liberal who had attended Eton on a scholarship. Norman Tebbit, her beloved rottweiler, was unlikely to be asked to join White’s.This group forms an important part of Britain plc and how it has positioned itself in the global economy, which is to say, rather successfully. Politically, it represents a schism in Tory thinking that began in the Thatcher era. She tended to trust meritocrats. Her closest adviser was Charles (Lord) Powell – an airforce son; her favoured journalist Charles Moore was son of a political Liberal who had attended Eton on a scholarship. Norman Tebbit, her beloved rottweiler, was unlikely to be asked to join White’s.
But Caryl Churchill was on to something in that quintessential 1980s drama Top Girls : something did change in the perception of money. Asset prices started to rise (the Cameron family wealth and foreign investments are a textbook example of Thomas Piketty’s graph showing the value of assets eclipsing the value of labour). That presented an opportunity for the Tory party to reflect its historic identity as the political channel of land ownership, investment and continuity .But Caryl Churchill was on to something in that quintessential 1980s drama Top Girls : something did change in the perception of money. Asset prices started to rise (the Cameron family wealth and foreign investments are a textbook example of Thomas Piketty’s graph showing the value of assets eclipsing the value of labour). That presented an opportunity for the Tory party to reflect its historic identity as the political channel of land ownership, investment and continuity .
Association with wealth and success has not been disadvantageous for British Conservatism since the 1980s. Because many people associated it with money through the globalisation of finance, moneyed Tories tended to end up at the liberal end of the ideological scale, which helped bring about the party’s long-delayed modernisation. A more outward looking free-market liberalism created a centre of gravity, distinct from the small-mindedness that had dogged the years of Section 28 and reputation for Little Englanderism.Association with wealth and success has not been disadvantageous for British Conservatism since the 1980s. Because many people associated it with money through the globalisation of finance, moneyed Tories tended to end up at the liberal end of the ideological scale, which helped bring about the party’s long-delayed modernisation. A more outward looking free-market liberalism created a centre of gravity, distinct from the small-mindedness that had dogged the years of Section 28 and reputation for Little Englanderism.
At the same time, perceptions of individual conduct began to matter more than declared positions. Far more than earlier generations, we expect politicians to remain immune from earthly temptations. So the second formative period for Cameron and co was the Major years. They started as a blessed relief from stringent Thatcherism but soon slid into the impression of a dubious caste, embedded in “Tory sleaze”. Major told me that he never quite understood how a range of largely unconnected behaviours, from adulterous affairs to cash for questions gobbled up his image as a self-made man of the people. But it did.At the same time, perceptions of individual conduct began to matter more than declared positions. Far more than earlier generations, we expect politicians to remain immune from earthly temptations. So the second formative period for Cameron and co was the Major years. They started as a blessed relief from stringent Thatcherism but soon slid into the impression of a dubious caste, embedded in “Tory sleaze”. Major told me that he never quite understood how a range of largely unconnected behaviours, from adulterous affairs to cash for questions gobbled up his image as a self-made man of the people. But it did.
The generation of Cameron, Osborne and Gove observed this and gained an early lesson in the way that personal behaviour would be magnified and used against politicians. But they were also more cosmopolitan and risk-taking. Money for them meant having fun, not just counting unit trusts. Hence the set of parties, wine-fuelled political discourses and social networking. “I have one bit of advice for you,” said Cameron’s mum to a fellow parent on hearing that Dave and his mates were coming to stay, “stock it up or lock it up.” The generation of Cameron, Osborne and Gove observed this and gained an early lesson in the way that personal behaviour would be magnified and used against politicians. But they were also more cosmopolitan and risk-taking. Money for them meant having fun, not just counting unit trusts. Hence the set of parties, wine-fuelled political discourses and social networking. “I have one bit of advice for you,” said Cameron’s mum to a fellow parent on hearing that Dave and his mates were coming to stay, “stock it up or lock it up”.
Millennial Tories dwelt between two worlds. They were not born into old Tory dynasties – the Churchills and Salisburys retreated, post-Major, to the fringes of party life. But the new powers in the Tory land rubbed shoulders with big wealth. Cameron’s first boss was the commercial TV mogul Michael Green. A new generation worked out that City support could bring money to their campaign to shake off the image of the Crusty party. An early (still loyal) supporter was the affable venture capitalist Sir Michael Spencer, who championed modernisation. Sir Michael served Petrus, “the king of wines”, to fellow donors to celebrate the arrival of his protege in Number 10. Later, he would make Camp Cameron fretful when the early austerity period after 2010 led to an edict that parties feature no public consumption of champagne.Millennial Tories dwelt between two worlds. They were not born into old Tory dynasties – the Churchills and Salisburys retreated, post-Major, to the fringes of party life. But the new powers in the Tory land rubbed shoulders with big wealth. Cameron’s first boss was the commercial TV mogul Michael Green. A new generation worked out that City support could bring money to their campaign to shake off the image of the Crusty party. An early (still loyal) supporter was the affable venture capitalist Sir Michael Spencer, who championed modernisation. Sir Michael served Petrus, “the king of wines”, to fellow donors to celebrate the arrival of his protege in Number 10. Later, he would make Camp Cameron fretful when the early austerity period after 2010 led to an edict that parties feature no public consumption of champagne.
Excessive display of wealthy has since been frowned on, as “necessary austerity” became the message. Cameron’s relationship with Lord Ashcroft, another early backer, became toxic, at least in part because the peer became embittered at a perceived cold shoulder after his generosity. Nowadays, stealth wealth has replaced the bling variety. I bumped into Cameron at a country party. It was not an event where he expected to find a stray feral beast of the media. Consternation crossed his features at being rumbled at the kind of evening do where the men still wear velvet slippers. “What are you doing here?” he inquired, the implication being that a social world remains for the Tory inner core that excludes the uninitiated. Excessive display of wealth has since been frowned upon, as “necessary austerity” became the message. Cameron’s relationship with Lord Ashcroft, another early backer, came to be toxic, at least in part because the peer became embittered at a perceived cold shoulder after his generosity. Nowadays, stealth wealth has replaced the bling variety. I bumped into Cameron at a country party. It was not an event where he expected to find a stray feral beast of the media. Consternation crossed his features at being rumbled at the kind of evening do where the men still wear velvet slippers. “What are you doing here?” he inquired, the implication being that a social world remains for the Tory inner core that excludes the uninitiated.
This defensiveness is a sign of weakness. Michael Gove, who does not hail from a gilded background, reflected that awareness in a speech before the election, calling for the Tories to re-emerge as champions of working-class opportunity. It would be a stretch to say that this has resonated.This defensiveness is a sign of weakness. Michael Gove, who does not hail from a gilded background, reflected that awareness in a speech before the election, calling for the Tories to re-emerge as champions of working-class opportunity. It would be a stretch to say that this has resonated.
At the roots of the prime minister’s present woes is an important ambiguity about how people view tax. The suggestion has been that the Cameron family should have striven to pay as much tax as possible – whereas legal tax avoidance is enshrined in life for many of the more prosperous. There is something very British in newspapers doing over Cameron because of offshore funds and yet also having avidly read “money” sections, recommending ways to maximise our paltry ISAs.At the roots of the prime minister’s present woes is an important ambiguity about how people view tax. The suggestion has been that the Cameron family should have striven to pay as much tax as possible – whereas legal tax avoidance is enshrined in life for many of the more prosperous. There is something very British in newspapers doing over Cameron because of offshore funds and yet also having avidly read “money” sections, recommending ways to maximise our paltry ISAs.
The better off a party’s natural supporters are, the more they are likely to feel that at some point, they have paid “enough” tax and seek means to reduce the burden, while being publicly coy about it. That is an attitude that can be pilloried, but it is not as uncommon as the outcry might suggest.The better off a party’s natural supporters are, the more they are likely to feel that at some point, they have paid “enough” tax and seek means to reduce the burden, while being publicly coy about it. That is an attitude that can be pilloried, but it is not as uncommon as the outcry might suggest.
If the Tory party still has a problem with money, it is not because people have only just woken up to the fact that Dave, George and the gang are well off. The damage lies in the perception that they have had a relationship with money that was secret and deliberately kept so. That is why we find ourselves ogling at the PM’s tax returns, in a belated outbreak of transparency. There’s a ghoulish comedy in this saga; when thousands march on Downing Street, the admission that he has “handled this badly” looks a tad superfluous. It’s true the vast majority of those demanding his head yesterday would do so on any pretext. The risk to the Conservatives is that a corrosive unease about the mores of Conservatives is reawakened among moderate voters If the Tory party still has a problem with money, it is not because people have only just woken up to the fact that Dave, George and the gang are well off. The damage lies in the perception that they have had a relationship with money that was secret and deliberately kept so. That is why we find ourselves ogling at the PM’s tax returns, in a belated outbreak of transparency. There’s a ghoulish comedy in this saga; when thousands march on Downing Street, the admission that he has “handled this badly” looks a tad superfluous. It’s true the vast majority of those demanding his head yesterday would do so on any pretext. The risk to the Conservatives is that a corrosive unease about the mores of Conservatives is reawakened among moderate voters.
Having money is OK in politics. Keeping clandestine money is a problem and revelation of intrigue often more damaging than the substance. Such has been the interplay of capital and politics for over a century. Like most eternal truths, it is often forgotten. Having money is OK in politics. Keeping clandestine money is a problem and revelation of intrigue is often more damaging than the substance. Such has been the interplay of capital and politics for more than a century. Like most eternal truths, it is often forgotten.