You are reading a single comment by @hugo7 and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
That's a weak argument.
Even if he still had the shareholding, what about that might reasonably by him or others to influence his actions as an MP or PM?
hugo7-
That's a weak retort considering that Cameron himself explained that this was the reason he sold the shares.
he said he sold up before entering Downing Street “because I didn’t want anyone to say you have other agendas or vested interests”.
Owning bearer shares in an off-shore trust run by his father could be benign. But the requirement isn't that they "possibly be benign" but "that it might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions or words as a Member."
Read 55.
It was relevant enough that he sold it when he became PM, but not relevant enough that he declared it while an MP.