The mystery of Tony Blair's finances

[Peter Lemkin]

"Across all of his activities there are more than 120 people employed around the world. The Windrush accounts are prepared in accordance with relevant legal, accounting and regulatory guidance. Tony Blair continues to be a UK taxpayer on all of his income and all his companies are UK registered."

Orwellian doublespeak for :finger: Ah, what benefits fancy lawyers and financial tricksters can provide to the 'well connected'...a loophole here; a loophole there....

[Jan Klimkowski]

The hypocrite Blair has no shame and no sense of irony.

Blair's paid around £3million a year by the likes of JP Morgan (for what precisely?), he spends a "fortune" on lawyers and accountants, but doesn't "avoid" paying tax.

What's that?

:flypig::flypig::flypig:

Flying pigs?

Tone - are lawyers and accountants a better recipient of your filthy lucre than hospital patients and school children?

Tony Blair insists that he does not avoid paying tax

Ex-Labour leader says he spends 'a fortune' on lawyers and accountants to make sure his business affairs are within the law

Daniel Boffey
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 30 June 2012 23.27 BST


Tony Blair is paid in the region of £3m a year to advise investment bank JP Morgan and insurer Zurich International.

Tony Blair has admitted taking advice from accountants on establishing a company structure that keeps his business affairs confidential, but insists he does not avoid tax.

The former prime minister has revealed that he was advised by KPMG to establish a limited liability partnership for his commercial affairs. Blair's business, political and philanthropic interests are administered by a complex system of companies, operating out of offices in Mayfair, central London.

There are two parallel companies, Windrush Ventures and Firerush Ventures, comprising several limited companies, limited liability partnerships and limited partnerships. But talking to the Financial Times, Blair, who is paid around £3m a year to advise JP Morgan, the US investment bank, and Zurich International, the Swiss-based insurer, insisted that he does not avoid tax. He said: "We spend a fortune every year on lawyers and accountants in order to make sure everything is completely [compliant with the law]."

It also emerged that Jonathan Powell, Blair's former chief of staff in Downing Street, has had his name removed from the list of individuals authorised to act for Tony Blair Associates, his business consultancy which has recently struck a deal with the governments of Kazakhstan. Blair rejected criticism of the contract: "The purpose of this is not to make money, it's to make a difference."

The former Labour leader signalled last week an intention to come back into British politics, five years after resigning as prime minister. And he admitted to the FT that he misses Downing Street. "It is when there are big issues that you want to be there," he said.

Asked what his route back would be, Blair said: "I don't know exactly. Yes, I feel I have something to say. If people want to listen, that's great, and if they don't, that's their choice. I would want to emphasise how fast the world is changing and how incredibly dangerous it is for us to think we can stand still."

Blair also told the newspaper that, while Ed Miliband was "asking the right questions" and he understood why the legacy of New Labour was being questioned, the party would need to stay in the centre ground. "My point," he said, "is that there should not be an after the third way. It is absolutely right now, slap-bang where the world should be."

[Jan Klimkowski]

Hmmm....

A speculative but fascinating account of the amorality of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair can be found here.

[Jan Klimkowski]

I began this thread with the question: so who owns Tony Blair?

An analysis of Blair Inc and his political interventions provides some partial answers.

Blair's role as "Middle East Ambassador", constantly taking an anti-Palestinian and pro-neocon/right wing Israeli position is clear.

As is his £2 million pa as a "senior advisor" to JP Morgan.

Now, he's penned a piece outlining the policiies a future Labour government should adopt.

Blair argues that the Tory party is becoming the "nasty party", ie the party of Thatcher, once more and will do well electorally as a result.

Labour should not protest "Tory cuts", but - to deconstruct Blair's "progressive politics" guff - instead should position itself slightly to the left of the "nasty party". Ie very right wing as opposed to extremely right wing.

Both Blair and JP Morgan seem delighted that the financial crisis has not caused "a shift to the left" amongst ordinary people.

He'd love to be Prime Minister again, and help sell the same snake oil he imposed on the British people for year after year after year....

The paradox of the financial crisis is that, despite being widely held to have been caused by under-regulated markets, it has not brought a decisive shift to the left. But what might happen is that the left believes such a shift has occurred and behaves accordingly. The risk, which is highly visible here in Britain, is that the country returns to a familiar left/right battle. The familiarity is because such a contest dominated the 20th century. The risk is because in the 21st century such a contest debilitates rather than advances the nation.

This is at present crystallising around debates over austerity, welfare, immigration and Europe. Suddenly, parts of the political landscape that had been cast in shadow for some years, at least under New Labour and the first years of coalition government, are illuminated in sharp relief. The Conser*vative Party is back clothing itself in the mantle of fiscal responsibility, buttressed by moves against "benefit scroungers", immigrants squeezing out British workers and of course Labour profligacy.

The Labour Party is back as the party opposing "Tory cuts", highlighting the cruel consequences of the Conservative policies on welfare and representing the disadvantaged and vulnerable (the Lib Dems are in a bit of a fix, frankly).

For the Conservatives, this scenario is less menacing than it seems. They are now going to inspire loathing on the left. But they're used to that. They're back on the old territory of harsh reality, tough decisions, piercing the supposed veil of idealistic fantasy that prevents the left from governing sensibly. Compassionate Conservatism mat*tered when compassion was in vogue. But it isn't now. Getting the house in order is.

For Labour, the opposite is true. This scenario is more menacing than it seems. The ease with which it can settle back into its old territory of defending the status quo, allying itself, even anchoring itself, to the interests that will passionately and often justly oppose what the government is doing, is so apparently rewarding, that the exercise of political will lies not in going there, but in resisting the temptation to go there.

So where should progressive politics position itself, not just in Britain but in Europe as a whole? How do we oppose smartly and govern sensibly?

The guiding principle should be that we are the seekers after answers, not the repository for people's anger. In the first case, we have to be dispassionate even when the issues arouse great passion. In the second case, we are simple fellow-travellers in sympathy; we are not leaders. And in these times, above all, people want leadership.

So, for Britain, start with an analysis of where we stand as a country. The financial crisis has not created the need for change; it has merely exposed it. Demographics the age profile of our population technology and globalisation all mean that the systems we created post-1945 have to change radically. This is so, irrespective of the financial catastrophe of 2008 and its aftermath.

Labour should be very robust in knocking down the notion that it "created" the crisis. In 2007/2008 the cyclically adjusted current Budget balance was under 1 per cent of GDP. Public debt was significantly below 1997. Over the whole 13 years, the debt-to-GDP ratio was better than the Conservative record from 1979-97. Of course there is a case for saying a tightening around 2005 would have been more prudent. But the effect of this pales into insignificance compared to the financial tsunami that occurred globally, starting with the sub-prime mortgage debacle in the US.

However, the crisis has occurred and no one can get permission to govern unless they deal with its reality. The more profound point is: even if it hadn't happened, the case for fundamental reform of the postwar state is clear. For example:

What is driving the rise in housing benefit spending, and if it is the absence of housing, how do we build more?

How do we improve the skillset of those who are unemployed when the shortage of skills is the clearest barrier to employment?

How do we take the health and education reforms of the last Labour government to a new level, given the huge improvement in results they brought about?

What is the right balance between universal and means-tested help for pensioners?

How do we use technology to cut costs and drive change in our education, health, crime and immigration systems?

How do we focus on the really hard core of socially excluded families, separating them from those who are just temporarily down on their luck?

What could the developments around DNA do to cut crime?

There are another 20 such questions, but they all involve this approach: a root-and-branch inquiry, from first principles, into where we spend money, and why.

On the economy, we should have one simple test: what produces growth and jobs? There is roughly $1trn (£650bn) of UK corporate reserves. What would give companies the confidence to invest it? What does a modern industrial strategy look like? How do we rebuild the financial sector? There is no need to provide every bit of detail. People don't expect it. But they want to know where we're coming from because that is a clue as to where we would go, if elected.

Sketch out the answers to these questions and you have a vision of the future. For progressives, that is of the absolute essence. The issue isn't, and hasn't been for at least 50 years, whether we believe in social justice. The issue is how progressive politics fulfils that mission as times, conditions and objective realities change around us. Having such a modern vision elevates the debate. It helps avoid the danger of tactical victories that lead to strategic defeats.

It means, for example, that we don't tack right on immigration and Europe, and tack left on tax and spending. It keeps us out of our comfort zone but on a centre ground that is ultimately both more satisfying and more productive for party and country.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Power and hypocrisy.

How Tony Blair paved way for first visit by serving British PM to Kazakhstan

While Amnesty International denounces ex-PM's involvement with Kazakh regime, Blair says he wants to encourage reform

Nick Watt
Nicholas Watt in Atyrau
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 30 June 2013 14.43 BST
Jump to comments (6)

Tony Blair says his decision to advise Nursultan Nazarbayev is an example of how he can nudge controversial figures on a path of reform. Photograph: Demotix/Corbis

The path to the first visit by a serving British prime minister to Kazakhstan has been smoothed by the efforts of Tony Blair and his clan.

Tony Blair Associates, the company set up by the former prime minister and modelled on Henry Kissinger Associates, is advising the Kazakh government on a two-year contract. This funds a team of "high-calibre experts" in London and Kazakhstan, according to Blair's office.

Blair has not provided direct advice before the trip. But the Kazakh government has been advised on the handling of Cameron's visit by Portland, the PR consultancy founded by Tim Allan, Blair's former deputy communications director. Allan, who maintains a close eye on the business after selling a stake, is on friendly terms with Cameron.

To complete the circle, Allan's former direct boss, Alastair Campbell, was spotted in Kazakhstan last year.

Blair's involvement with a regime denounced by Amnesty International over its "disgraceful" record on human rights is a typical example of his approach on foreign affairs. This riles critics and leaves the former prime minister dismayed that his opponents do not accept he is a force for good.

Opponents believe Blair's decision to advise Kazakhstan's authoritarian ruler, Nursultan Nazarbayev, is yet another example of his lack of moral fibre as he clocks up millions of pounds in consultancy fees.

Blair says his decision to advise Nazarbayev is an example of how he can nudge controversial figures on a progressive path of reform. Blair also points out that his work in Kazakhstan benefits his company, whose profits mainly go towards supporting his work on faith, Africa and climate change.

The former prime minister advises Kazakhstan on its long journey towards creating what its foreign minister, Erlan Idrissov, calls a "Jeffersonian democracy". Blair offers advice on issues ranging from judicial reform to decentralisation. He told the Financial Times last year: "The purpose of this is not to make money, it's to make a difference."

A spokesperson for Blair said: "As is well known, we work to support the government of Kazakhstan on key areas of social, political and economic reform including rule of law.

"This work is entirely in line with the work of other international organisations (for example OECD and the EU) and western governments and follows the direction which the international community wants Kazakhstan to take.

"There are many incorrect figures about the value of our contract there. But it is a two-year contract, funds a team of high-calibre experts in London and Kazakhstan and Tony Blair does not take a personal profit from this."

[Tracy Riddle]

The fact that war criminals like Blair, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (and the Clintons, Obama, Kissinger, Brzezinski, GHWB, Oliver North, etc etc) are still walking around free, and making piles of money, just proves that we are living in a Post-Constitutional era in the US and UK.

[Magda Hassan]

The fact that war criminals like Blair, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (and the Clintons, Obama, Kissinger, Brzezinski, GHWB, Oliver North, etc etc) are still walking around free, and making piles of money, just proves that we are living in a Post-Constitutional era in the US and UK.

Only for them though. The rules still apply for us.

[Magda Hassan]

Doesn't Tony do a gig with JP Morgan?

JPMorgan Bribe Probe Said to Expand in Asia as Spreadsheet Is Found

By Dawn Kopecki - 2013-08-29T03:51:37Z


A probe of JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s (JPM) hiring practices in China has uncovered red flags across Asia, including an internal spreadsheet that linked appointments to specific deals pursued by the bank, people with knowledge of the matter said.
The Justice Department has joined the Securities and Exchange Commission in examining whether JPMorgan hired people so that their family members in government and elsewhere would steer business to the firm, possibly violating bribery laws, said one of the people, all of whom asked to not be named because the inquiry isn't public. The bank has opened an internal investigation that has flagged more than 200 hires for review, said two people with knowledge of the examination, results of which JPMorgan is sharing with regulators.
The scrutiny began in Hong Kong and has now expanded to countries across Asia, looking at interns as well as full-time workers, two people said. The employees include influential politicians' family members who worked in JPMorgan's investment bank, as well as relatives of asset-management clients, the people said. Wall Street firms have long enlisted people whose pedigree and connections can win business, a practice that doesn't necessarily violate the law.

Real Jobs'

The SEC will hunt for evidence showing "these weren't real jobs, that they were only there because their father or mother were important public officials," said Dan Hurson, a former U.S. prosecutor and SEC lawyer who runs his own Washington practice. "If the public official requested the job for the child, that would be a strong indication to the company that the official was seeking and receiving something of value."
The government hasn't accused JPMorgan or its executives of wrongdoing in connection with the hiring inquiry.
"We are fully cooperating with regulators," Mark Kornblau, a company spokesman, said in an interview. Michael Passman, a spokesman at the Justice Department, and John Nester at the SEC declined to comment.
"This is an example of the difficulties foreign firms face in doing business in China," David Marshall, a Singapore-based banking analyst at CreditSights Inc., wrote in an e-mailed response to questions today. "The problem for the foreign firms is that local practices may be different from -- and at times in conflict with -- the legal and ethical rules under which they are required to operate."

Linking Decisions

JPMorgan, which has been in the Asia-Pacific region for about 140 years, has a presence in 16 countries in the region including Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, Singapore, Thailand, Bangladesh and India.
The spreadsheet, which links some hiring decisions to specific transactions pursued by the bank, may be viewed by regulators as evidence that JPMorgan added people in exchange for business, according to one person with knowledge of the review.
The bank has hired law firm Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, one of the people said. It also has enlisted King & Wood Mallesons and Herbert Smith Freehills, The Lawyer reported last week, citing unidentified people close to the matter. Paul Weiss is handling the U.S. probe, according to the publication.

U.K. Laws

The company is also examining its hiring practices in Europe and elsewhere, two of the people said. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bars companies from making payments or providing anything of value to government officials to win business. The U.K.'s Bribery Act enacted in 2011 imposes a broader ban on payments that entice anyone to improperly carry out their duties.
The Serious Fraud Office, which enforces U.K. laws targeting fraud, bribery and corruption, isn't currently investigating JPMorgan's hiring practices for signs of bribery, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.
JPMorgan, led by Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, 57, is contending with criminal investigations of its energy-trading and mortgage-backed securities operations. The firm also faces U.S. probes of its anti-money-laundering safeguards, foreclosures, credit-card collections, and $6.2 billion in losses last year on botched derivatives bets by a U.K. trader known as the London Whale.

Dimon's Push

The company has made bolstering internal controls and regulatory compliance its priority this year, Dimon told investors in April. Shannon Warren was appointed in January to lead a new companywide oversight and control group.
"We've taken some of our best people and we've given them command-and-control authority, we've staffed them up, and we're going to fix every single last" problem, Dimon told investors at a June conference.
The bank made a reference to an SEC investigation of its personnel in a quarterly filing on Aug. 7, saying the regulator had asked for information about the "employment of certain former employees in Hong Kong and its business relationships with certain clients."
The SEC requests have focused on two people in China whose parents have leadership roles at a state-controlled financial company and a railway, the New York Times reported Aug. 17, citing a U.S. government document it had reviewed.
After each appointment, the bank got assignments from firms connected to the new hires' parents, according to the newspaper. The government document and public records don't indicate that the employees helped JPMorgan secure the business or that the workers were unqualified, the newspaper said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Dawn Kopecki in New York at dkopecki@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: David Scheer at dscheer@bloomberg.net; Christine Harper at charper@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29...found.html

[David Guyatt]

Shagging Mrs. Murdoch, bending over for George Bush, cottaging, murder... the mind boggles.

Not.

Before The Slog became The Slog, it was known as Not Born Yesterday.

assassinating a prime minister's reputation: ten ways to blackmail blairPart Two of the Blair/Brown Succession Story Like John F. Kennedy thirty-seven years earlier, Tony Blair came to power with a clean-cut, charismatic image that promised 'safe' change, more social justice, and a strong head on his shoulders. But also like JFK, the youthful leader of 'New' Labour had more than a few skeletons trailing behind him. True or not, they remain the subject of intense gossip - and a number of incontrovertible facts - to this day.
They cover not only his early years as a barrister and MP, but also key moments when he was at the height of his power and reputation as an international statesman and warlord.
The wayward lawyer
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair married Cherie Booth on 29th March 1980. Just four years out of University, Blair was trying to establish himself as a barrister - but not with much success.
"He wasn't very good" says a retired commercial lawyer who hired him at the time through Derry Irvine's Chambers. "Frankly he didn't listen to the brief, and he caved in to the Judge...to the fury of my clients. So I fired him. I told Derry, 'Don't ever send that twat to me again'".
The solicitor was appalled at the ease with which Blair betrayed his clients "for a quiet life". Betrayal (as we shall see) is an amoral spine running through Teflon Tony's life-story.
We interviewed the lawyer at some length. "When I watched him give in to the EU about the eight billion quid" he said, "I thought of that day in Court".
Close friends of the Blairs agree that Tony was a washout as a barrister....and that Cherie was without doubt the superstar. But in turn, while specialising in wealthy and commercial clients, for a young man supposedly interested in left-wing ideas Blair defended some odd people.
Famouspeople.com notes that

'In the case of Nethermere v. Gardiner, Blair acted for employers that had refused holiday pay to employees at a trouser factory. He unsuccessfully defended the employers.'

Election to Parliament in 1983 provided a more promising career path.
Ugly Rumours
While researching Blair's early Parliamentary career, The Slog (or Not Born Yesterday as it then was) received the following email content:

'In the autumn of 1983, a young well-dressed man presented himself to Bow St Magistrates' Court on a morals charge. He was given a conditional discharge and bound over to keep the peace. The young man gave his name as Charles Lynton. He is now among the highest in the land.'

Blair's middle names are Charles and Lynton. I have asked for the records of the period (the Court no longer exists) but failed to trace any mention there of the 'case' - if indeed it ever existed. Although I found the general attitude of information suppliers to be obstructive, there wasn't any strong feeling of hiding stuff; frankly, I'd be amazed anyway if something incriminating about Tony Blair hadn't been removed by now. Another source wrote to us as follows:

'He was caught importuning in a Westminster toilet. It was all covered up.'

Two things are, however, relevant. Gossip did abound about Blair's sexuality during his time in the rock band Ugly Rumours at Oxford. And while nobody has ever stood them up, it is widely accepted that Derry Irvine (Blair's boss in Chambers) regularly referred to him as "the star closest to Uranus".
Would an indiscretion relating to bisexuality have worried Blair enough to do anything to cover it up? Perhaps it would in 1983....but probably not by 2006. A great many people have teen-and-twenties doubts about the side for which they bat. Thankfully, in the Twenty-first century such things are rarely if ever a matter for blackmail.
Editor's Note: For those who find this far-fetched, it is worth noting that Edward Heath was saved from homosexual importuning charges no less than four times by MI6 in the late 1950s.
The Rising Star
Blair networked among Labour's soft-Left to get the Sedgefield seat that remained his throughout a long Parliamentary career. Using his father-in-law Tony Booth's Labour contacts (and Booth's girfriend Pat Phoenix as a star performer during the campaign) he was selected for and won it in 1983, after boundary changes had changed its makeup.
Once in the Commons, he rose quickly, giving himself a brief to depict City types as incompetent, overpaid and "morally dubious" - an ironic way to start, given what came later.
The stock market crash of October 1987 thus raised Blair to prominence. He got minor government posts, but then became the Shadow Employment spokesman. At the time, the EU's employment charter ran contrary to Labour's preference for 'closed shop' trade unionism. Seeing this instantly as a contradiction, Tony Blair promptly dropped the commitment - and enraged the Left. It was another betrayal - this time of those who had given him his chance.
From this point, the ambitious Blair didn't get on with his sister-in-law,who had by now spotted the opportunist in him. Lauren Booth (like her father, on the Labour Left) decided Tony was 'a prat', and is alleged to have made her dislike obvious at family gatherings.
"Lauren thinks Tony is a disloyal creep" one acquaintance told us, "Always on the make and out for himself. She gives him a hard time and sets out to embarrass him whenever she can". In 2008 - in direct opposition to the policy on Gaza established by her brother-in-law - Lauren went on a Human Rights mission to Gaza, and was photographed enjoying the company of Mahmoud Abbas. This didn't help Blair, who was by now a 'peacemaker' in the Middle East.
Political Allies
By 1988, Tony Blair had already formed his two strongest alliences: one with the Party's spin-doctor Peter Mandelson (just like him in many ways) and the other with Gordon Brown (unlike him in almost every way imaginable). Brown and Mandy disliked each other on sight.
John Smith's sudden death in 1994 should (given the gentleman's agreement between them) have led automatically to Brown's election as leader. But on seeing an opinion poll showing himself to be more popular, Blair dumped his close companion. Over dinner at the end of May that year, some kind of long-term promise was made to Brown. We will probably never be certain of its exact nature: the only certainty is that Blair has reneged on it.
A former Cabinet Minister told the Slog, "Both sides differ on what precisely was said, but by trying to shaft Brown during the Iraq War Tony broke it, period. And once he refused to announce a departure date, well...everyone thought 'nice'".
New Tony, New Labour
Now leader, Blair set about rapidly betraying almost everything Labour stood for. With the repositioning help of obscure adman Phil Gould, he basically gave Thatcherism a human smile and a soft edge - 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime', for example....although Brown continues to insist that he came up with the soundbite.
Once in power after 1997 (say both Party colleagues and civil servants) The Prime Minister and his Chancellor fought non-stop.
"They each had entourages" says one Mandarin from the period, "whose sole job was to leak, destabilise and generally rubbish the other. It was a disgraceful waste of time, and very unsettling for everyone".
But by this time, Tony Blair seems to have consciously settled on a way of working that took no notice whatsoever of the Party machine, the House of Commons - or indeed the Cabinet. He ran a 'knitting circle' consisting of Alistair Campbell, Peter Mandelson and various other cronies who entered the gatherings from time to time. One remark - from a Treasury official who had previously briefed Blair (quite properly) when in Opposition - is very significant:

"When I first met him, Blair oozed charm....he was decidedly full of himself - but very quick on the uptake. By 2000, when I next had to deal with him, he had a quiet reassurance that he could do what he wanted, without constraint. It was more than arrogance. He was drunk with power, loving the adulation and always looking for ways to become a Messiah. This was the first time I heard him talk about legacies and historic victories...."

The second victory came in 2001 - at which point 9/11 rapidly arrived to change not just the world in general, but the focus of Blair's attention. A colleague at the time explains:

"I think this is when Tony first lost it. It was partly his faith, and partly his desire to lead a crusade. Having persuaded Clinton to listen to him, Tony began to believe he could persuade anyone to do anything. He saw himself as a world leader - even more perhaps, a historical figure. It went to his head"

A prominent (now disillusioned) Blairite of the period goes further:

"Campbell and Mandelson were a terrible influence on Tony around this time - more so Campbell, because Peter was going through one of his disgraced periods. Alistair Campbell showed himself to be without ethics of any kind. I felt he was capable of anything. And Tony knew he could, as Prime Minister, literally do anything. There was no sign of them being likely to stop and think about their actions. They gave me the shivers."

All impressions like these of course come with a health warning. Both the above sources have some reason to feel bitter. But these plus the Mandarin's view tend to give a consistent picture of Blair showing signs of self-worship. And it is about this time that reports of the alleged skeletons in his cupboard begin to mount up.
Family problems
By 2000, there are signs that Tony Blair's family life is under great strain. His son Euan was detained by the police for being 'drunk and incapable'. Also by this time Blair was doing anything to avoid seeing his sister-in-law - again, a woman who is alleged by some to have 'had a go' about his personality several times in front of the children. One source claims that the father's 'emotional absence' from the home was especially resented by his teenage daughter Kathryn.
In mid-May 2004, Kathryn took an overdose and was rushed to hospital. Only sixteen at the time, she recovered quickly and is now a bright young woman who seems to have put that period well and truly behind her. We are now in no doubt that the event took place. A film-maker contacted us earlier this week to say that

'...we were due to film Blair for a PPB [party political broadcast] on the day it happened - I think the 13th May. We were set up and ready to go and then the shoot was cancelled. His daughter Kathryn had been rushed to hospital. We all knew about it...'

Her father clamped down on media reporting of the event; the only reason we raise the issue now is because of two related factors:
1. Several sources cite this as the period when Blair allegedly had a 'brief dalliance' with another person. And
2. Others allege that there were 'some unpleasant' aspects to the case....and that Gordon Brown knew of these.
To his credit, the Prime Minister accepted the cold slap across the face. Several people note that he began talking of spending more time with his family - even telling one colleague that 'all the other stuff' was secondary to his children. Either way, he didn't make any substantive moves to hand over the Leadership. (He had already decided that Gordon Brown would be a disaster in that role).
I think it unlikely that some incriminating aspect of the affair was used by Brown to heave Blair from office in September 2006. It was old news by then anyway; and why wait three years when you knew about it at the time - which Brown did, without doubt. As one Commons source told The Slog last week:

"We're pretty clear on the fact that whatever Brown used on Blair in 2006, the Chancellor had only recently found out about it. Brown is not a patient man. If he has dirt, he gets it out there, without hesitation".

Other ticking time bombs
Having already discounted two (perhaps three) alleged subjects for blackmail, it will be useful at this point to list the others bandied around by gossips, bloggers and genuine insiders. In no particular order they are:
* The Donorgate Scandal of March 2006
* Corrupt property dealings supposedly conducted by both Tony Blair and his wife Cherie
* A cast-iron 'deal' with President Bush (dating back to late 2001) to 'get Saddam'
* Bullying advisors and misleading both Cabinet and Parliament on war legality immediately prior to the Iraq invasion of 2003
* Corruption relating to the Saudis from which Blair is said to have benefited personally on a massive scale. ( The BaE arms-supply bribery scandal, dating back to a deal in the mid 1980s)
* The death of senior MoD civil servant David Kelly following leaks about the 'dodgy WMD dossier' to the BBC
* A new allegation of which The Slog was made aware last month.
This latest allegation has largely inspired The Slogger's consistent blogging on the subject in recent weeks.
Compiling a shortlist
As we wrote in yesterday's posting, Donorgate had already been the probable subject of Brown's March 2006 threat to 'bring down' Tony Blair...but it didn't. The Blair family property dealings were widely known about anyway: by 2006, those who had already decided that Tony Blair was a crooked phoney (whose wife had some decidedly dodgy advisors) were unlikely to be impressed by more of the same. And Blair's glib response to all attacks on his personal greed suggest, once again, that such revelations would not have made him beat the hasty retreat he did.
The Bush 'deal' (and there seems little doubt now that this did exist) and the bullying of advisors/misleading Parliament charges might have been known by Brown.....and known later than other people, because - as both he and Clare Short have asserted - he was 'sidelined' during the Iraq War. However, in recent weeks we have seen Blair brazen out both subjects effortlessly in front of a televised official inquiry. He was hardly likely to have believed Brown could nail him in such arcane areas (where there was no written evidence) in the Court of Public Opinion.
As for the rest, for all kinds of personal and 'legacy' reasons, they might have been more than enough to push the Prime Minister into a resignation corner. We shall examine each in turn.
Is this scenario believable anyway?
It's important before going any further to establish clearly that the 'blackmail' possibility is a real one, as opposed to just the product of a fertile imagination. There are three key reasons why the possibility is entirely credible:
i. Tony Blair has demonstrated dubious, unethical behaviour on several occasions - as well as a talent for serial betrayal and misleading claims. Whether one regards these as vital equipment for any Prime Minister or not, there seems little doubt that, as a man with 'a past', he was open to blackmail by a betrayed colleague obsessed with taking his job.
We have collected information from well-placed sources who all attest to the reality of Blair's growing megalomania after 2000. Many people in and around Westminster are (without a trace of drama queenery) convinced that he was 'capable of anything' during a period which ran roughly up to 2004.
There was still a trace of this last year, when Tony Blair uttered his astonishing "without WMD, I'd have to have found another reason" to invade. To all appearances, he is a man who believes he can rationalise any action....except one which was provably done for his own material gain.
Such people are, indeed, potentially capable of anything.
ii. Brown has form going back many years as a mudslinger. This has been more than amply demonstrated by Peter Watt's Inside Out account of Brown having his little exercise book and siphoning off Party funds with the sole objective of finding damaging material to use against his boss.
iii. Yesterday's Slog timeline analysis (strongly pointing to one two-hour period of Blair cave-in) is impossible to explain without something very big and deeply incriminating having landed on his head. We have received nothing so far - either from official or journalistic sources - ridiculing, contradicting or denying the nature of that analysis.
Remember: Peter Watt arrives at Number Ten in the early eveningof that day, and finds Blair 'grey and shell-shocked'.
What might Brown have discovered late on that horrified Blair?
A good many observers have their money on the Blair's interference in the BaE bribery scandal inquiry - something in the news again of late following the decision to fine BaE via an out-of-Court settlement.
Blair took this amazing step - one that even Lord Goldmith vigorously opposed as 'entirely unjustified and inappropriate' - with a degree of urgency because he had been personally and bluntly informed by the Saudis that they would arm terrorists sufficently to wreak havoc in Britain if Blair didn't stop the case proceeding. We understand Lord Goldsmith did not know this at the time .
All Blair has ever admitted to is a fear of 'security cooperation' being removed. But we have had the Saudi threat asserted and corroborated by three sources - none of whom, it seems to us, has an axe to grind.
There is a further reason for our confidence: Brown wouldn't have had access to the dirt, even if there was any. Tony Blair installed his loyal ally John Reid at the Home Office....and Reid delighted in foiling every attempt by the Brownshirts to dig something up on the case. (Needless to say, when Brown was 'crowned' Leader, Gnasher Reid resigned instantly).
We understand from sources close to senior Libdem figures that, although Nick Clegg's main concern was to establish Brown's role as a cheque-writer, others in the Party felt Brown's 'Iraq dirt' on Blair had more chance of success. (Events are suggesting they may well have been right).
The David Kelly affair remains one 'conspiracy' about which even the upright, respectable and doubting majority have severe doubts.
There are very good reasons for suspicion. Here was one man about to potentially screw up the whole Iraq operation; a credible expert with impeccable credentials, the BBC (as the national broadcaster) giving credence to his claims; and a chap who seemed completely unwilling - even when outed by those close to Campbell - to shut up.
A good man to silence, then. But a bad man to kill and make it look like suicide: he had no history of depression, had nowhere near enough pills in his body, and used the most unlikely instrument (a blunt garden fork) to 'commit suicide'.
Therefore an important case to cover up: hence the slapping of a seventy-year gagging order on the case....and a refusal so far to reopen the case.
There are some facts we can assemble with minimal doubt. Alistair Campbell seems to have orchestrated the smear campaign against Kelly. Further, he must have said some pretty disturbing things to the BBC hierarchy as to what was at stake. A central media figure in the drama told The Slog last week:

'You wouldn't have believed it could happen outside the pages of a bad novel. Campbell was like a Mafia don....raving and swearing. He scared the Governors shitless. We were left in no doubt, no doubt at all, that the BBC was, as he put it, "out of it's fucking depth". The chilling thing was that his threats were all totally believable.'

Following Campbell's insistence on the Marr show last weekend that Tony Blair's preparation of the dossier was 'meticulously careful', another senior media figure observing Blair at the time said:

'The idea is laughable. First off, Tony's not made that way. And more to the point, he was going through his I Walk on Water phase. Everything was being done at breakneck speed and with complete ruthlessness. Blair wasn't interested in the truth,he wanted a guilty verdict on Saddam and he didn't care a fig how he got it. I can fully believe that he really did beat up Goldsmith to get him to change his mind.'

This was obviously a pivotal life-moment for Blair. By all accounts, he believed in what he was doing: and like so many people who believe, he felt the ends justified the means. (See once again the Fern Brittan interview of 2009).
But on the other hand, doubts can be cast over this as a weapon Brown might use. In the last two weeks, the Government has shown itself quite willing to release the Kelly autopsy evidence to the 13-man group of doctors bringing a private case to overturn the suicide verdict. This would seem odd behaviour for an Establishment trying to cover up a murder plot.
Further, extensive Slog enquiries have failed to come up with the 'colleague' to whom Robin Cook is alleged to have confided about 'Cabinet involvement in Dr Kelly's death'. (Cook is also, conveniently, not alive to deny the claim).
But once more, we have to ask ourselves how Gordon Brown might come into possession of information linking any Government figure (let alone Tony Blair) to a murder which, we must surely assume, was carried out by the security services with no written orders or other evidence to prove it one way or the other.
And if you were an MI6 or MI5 maverick, why on earth would you tell Gordon Brown? Six months later, he might be your boss: surely it would've been leaked more discreetly and effectively to a security specialist in the media.
I retain an open mind about Kelly's death. I think at such a crucial time in British history, the security services would have carried out a hit without a second thought. But would a Prime Minister leave his prints on the garden fork - and could Gordon Brown have proved that? I think not.
The answer?
Perhaps the question at issue here is better expressed as 'Who might have helped Brown....and been in a position to know the truth about something damaging via a position of authority?" With the supplementary, "And who might have wanted revenge?"

Justice Minister Jack Straw

There can be no doubt that in both the UK and the US, a huge amount of corrupt armed-services supply deals were done - with and without the knowledge of government. Somehow though, it's hard to stick (even on Blair) a charge of doing it for the money - and remain credible. People (with the possible exception of Mark Thatcher) don't invade sovereign states for the money. Oil, yes - quite probably: but not for a personal 'bung'.
However, there remains one very odd BaE equipment deal that Tony Blair personally forced through. It didn't involve invading anyone, and it wasn't just before or during a war. But it was done by Blair with a Head of State who was corrupt....and whom he knew personally.
The case involved the sale of very expensive radar equipment to Tanzania - a fairly insignificant country with neither army nor air force to justify the purchase. Clare Short explains:

"Every way you looked at it, it was outrageous and disgraceful. And guess who absolutely insisted on it going through? My dear friend Tony Blair."It was an obviously corrupt project. Tanzania didn't need a new military air traffic control, it was out-of-date technology, they didn't have any military aircraft they needed a civilian air traffic control system and there was a modern, much cheaper one. Everyone talks about good governance in Africa as though it is an African problem. Often the root of the 'badness' is Europe."

Over many years of investigating graft in corporate life, I have discovered three things that are omnipresent: the flagrant avoidance of normal purchasing procedures; the lack of any real rationale for the purchase; and some 'fat 'in the price quoted....thus allowing for what US corporates sometimes call 'spreading around the goodwill'.
In the Middle East and Black Africa, a corporate or governmental supply deal without bribery and kick-backs is almost unheard-of. What makes this one interesting is Blair's personal - very personal - interest in it. Not as a man intervening for some 'higher' good: but as (seemingly) a facilitator actively involved.
Recently, The Slog has established the following:
1. The deal was vehemently opposed by senior cabinet members including Chancellor Gordon Brown.(My italics - source: Clare Short)
2. Jack Straw learned of the deal when he became Foreign Secretary after the 2001 election. According to two sources, he knows some startling details about it.
3. The police showed Clare Short documents showing conclusively that bribery had taken place.
4. When Tanzania's founding father Julius Nyerere died in 1999, Benjamin Mkapa paid tribute to Tony Blair and the British government for looking after the man who liked to be addressed as "Mwalimu", or "teacher". In 2001, Mkapa, by now president of Tanzania, was acknowledged throughout Africa as being 'even closer to Blair, after buying a British-made air traffic control system for Dar es Salaam airport'.
4. Mkapa later became one of the very few leaders to actively support the Blair/Bush Global War on Terrorism. By 2005, most of Tanzania's overseas debts had been mysteriously cancelled.
5. Jakaya Kikwete (Mkapa's successor) was voluble over many years on the subject of Mkapa's personal gain from the deal. As reported by The Guardian in 2007, British police flew out to investigate claims that as much as 30% of the radar's cost had been assigned for 'creaming off' by some of the key players.
6. Tanzania's Attorney General at the time, Andrew Chenge, resigned on April 20, 2008 after the Guardian reported that the minister had stashed away $1 million in an offshore account, and that the team investigating the sale of the military radar to Tanzania was tracing other accounts linked to the deal.
Earlier this year, a usually reliable Treasury source made this observation:

"There was talk that the (Tanzania) trail led back to Blair. Jack (Straw) was the one who knew some amazing stuff. Gordon (Brown) was genuinely appalled at the deal. The word is he picked up the trail and hit Blair between the eyes with it. I'm not sure about it. But that's what I heard".

Another interesting comment from a senior Labour backbencher late last year:

"Tony (Blair) has associated quite happily with some dreadful people - Bush for one, but also Berlusconi. Berlusconi is bent....but there's something about Tony, he loves these people - he's a bit like Peter (Mandelson) in that respect. There were rumours that Gordon was scrabbling around for dirt, and got lucky. The rumour put out was that it was the radar deal...with Tanzania. You should hear Clare (Short) on the subject...."

Several sources with whom we spoke confirmed that Jack Straw was 'quietly bitter' about being dumped by Tony Blair - allegedly following pressure from the Bush administration. The same backbencher:

"After Tony did the Yanks' bidding, Jack had both the weapon and the motive. I heard he struck a deal with Brown to get his preferred Cabinet post..."

The imputation was that Jack Straw had supplied Gordon Brown with his bombshell evidence. Another Westminster insider puts it like this:

"Jack is a chess player. He's cunning and he watches the wind direction. He definitely snuggled up to Gordon after he started pressurizing Blair in 2006.....the thing with Straw is that he knows where all the bodies are buried. I remember a Cabinet member said to me after Tony demoted him, 'that's a serious mistake'. Jack has always been a shadowy figure...."

Happy to sideline Brown during the Iraq war build-up, Jack Straw had done enough by the end of 2006 to gain Gordon's complete trust. The Chancellor handed him the job of running his campaign for the Leadership...but thanks to serious and widespread smear-briefings against any and all who expressed a desire to stand, Straw's help was never required.
Perhaps he'd helped enough already. Certainly, he got the job - Justice Minister - he wanted in a Brown Cabinet. And not many Commonsologists would've predicted that eventuality in 2003.
And there (if we're to avoid a criminal libel charge) the trail ends....for now. As a sequence of events, it makes eminent sense and hangs together on almost every basis. Further, it is - if not widely believed in Westminster - certainly a view firmly held by some influential people in government, politics and the media- none of whom one could describe as 'lunatic fringe'.
I don't see this as even the end of the beginning of the process of finding out whether or not a Prime Minister succeeded another one undeservedly as well as unelected. And I must be careful not to suggest the 'proof' which Left-wing media and New Labour's smear-brigade always seem to insist on for negative stories about them - but never for their wild allegations about others.
The fact is, I don't have the proof any more than anyone else does. But three mysteries remain, and deserve further investigation:
1. Why was Tony Blair's decision to let the worst man for the job get it so very sudden?
2. Why are so many people in and around the Westminster village prepared to believe that both Blair and Brown are corrupt and ruthless?
3. Why did Tony Blair push through a sale of radar to an obscure country at an inflated price in the teeth of widespread opposition?

Copyright The Slog, February 2010

I can't see that this is a repeat of an older post, but the fact that it is an old article means it could be, in which case apologies.

[Magda Hassan]

Who more appropriate than Blair to go to Sin City?

Hedge fund faithful and Tony Blair head to Vegas

Conference participants reportedly clamour for passes to the VIP areas backstage
Financial Times
May 11, 2014
London: Tony Blair, Francis Ford Coppola and Mary Schapiro are just a few of the many high-profile names descending on Salt this week, the Las Vegas conference billed as the must-attend hedge fund event of the year.
The gathering, which has been described as "Fund Forum on crack" in reference to the glitzy asset management summit held in Monaco every year, is the brainchild of SkyBridge Capital, a New York-based fund of hedge funds company.
The US boutique has been pulling together elite figures from political, hedge fund and Hollywood circles since 2009 and Troy Gayeski, the company's fresh-faced partner and senior portfolio manager, is quick to put SkyBridge's own rise in assets down to the success of Salt.
But the 40-year-old is tight-lipped about revealing what goes on after hours at the conference, which is expected to draw roughly 1,800 participants from the hedge fund industry.
"There is a really funny [anecdote] about the former premier of a European country, but it might be taken out of context," he says.
Wild nights appear mandatory unsurprising given Salt is held at the Bellagio, the showy hotel and casino on the Vegas strip famed for its dancing fountains. In an age of austerity, however, criticism has been levied at the organisers as a result.
"There is always the potential for someone to look at any gathering and spin it in a negative light, but anyone who takes five minutes to look at the content realises that it spans the gamut from charity activities to very balanced political dialogues," Gayeski says.
Surreal combination
Conference participants reportedly clamour for passes to the VIP areas backstage, which will this year give them the chance to rub shoulders with speakers including Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to Barack Obama, former NBA basketball star Earvin "Magic" Johnson and Hollywood veteran Kevin Spacey.
Last year the conference brought together another surreal combination of speakers when hedge fund mogul John Paulson spoke alongside former French president Nicholas Sarkozy and The Godfather star Al Pacino.
Gayeski casually describes sitting down to dinner with such an eclectic mix of personalities as an "interesting" experience, although he admits Pacino and his "very well-tanned, very attractive girlfriend" might have felt out of place.
"[Pacino] showed up late and he probably does not surround himself with 30 guys in suits too often, so you could tell he was partially uncomfortable," he says.
Gayeski, who joined SkyBridge when it acquired Citigroup's fund of hedge funds business in 2010, believes the event has helped improve the company's brand recognition among investors.
SkyBridge was previously "relatively unknown", he says, but the company's asset base has nearly doubled to $10.4 billion (Dh38.2 billion) over the past four years.
Salt's Las Vegas location is testimony to the fact that Anthony Scaramucci, the founder of SkyBridge, is unafraid to fly in the face of convention.
Government bailouts
Gayeski points out that Salt was set up at the same time President Obama was publicly condemning companies that had received government bailouts but continued to send employees to lavish events in Vegas, causing the number of corporate events in America's Sin City to drop.
He believes choosing to set up in Las Vegas at such a moment has paid dividends. "We recognise that there is a downside risk to being in the public eye but, ultimately, we think the conference is a strong benefit to our business."
It is perhaps unsurprising that Gayeski has ended up at a relatively contrarian shop, given his unconventional route into asset management.
The portfolio manager was raised in what he describes as a "blue collar" community in Scranton, the former coal-mining heartland of Pennsylvania. "Where I grew up, I had no idea what asset management or finance was. People had cheque books that was kind of it," he says.
After gaining a degree in chemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he spent three years working in engineering before deciding that the hedge fund industry had more appeal.
He says: "In a lot of engineering disciplines, you are very cloistered and you spend eight hours a day by yourself in a lab or on a computer. That can get frustrating over time. What attracted me to asset management is that it is an industry where, if you are very analytical but also like to deal with people, you can do well."
Despite his humble origins, Gayeski is at ease with the colossal earnings of many of the hedge fund chief executives his company invests in.
Challenging market
Two of the biggest contributors to SkyBridge's performance last year, for example, were John Paulson and Third Point's Dan Loeb, who earned $2.3 billion and $700 million respectively in 2013.
"At this stage of many of these managers' careers, they have been blessed with high IQs, a hard-work ethic, and they have been able to navigate very challenging market and business environments," Gayeski says.
"That does not make [these pay levels] right. That does not make it good. But in a capitalist economy, markets set prices, so there is no political axe to grind there for us. It is what it is, we try to get the best fees we can, and we don't begrudge other people's success."
SkyBridge is known among its competitors for taking punchier bets than most in terms of its strategy, having shifted 40 per cent of its investments towards event-driven hedge fund managers over the past 18 months.
This followed a concentrated bet on hedge fund managers with mortgage-backed securities expertise in 2012.
Gayeski believes his company's willingness to make bold investment choices is what sets it apart from other funds of hedge funds, many of which have suffered large outflows since the financial crisis amid lacklustre performance.
He says: "One of our biggest criticisms of the fund of funds industry is that if you take such a low level of risk, even if you get everything right, you are only going to make several per cent return.
"We are far more dynamic, in that we [change] 40 per cent of our portfolio per year. We don't always add value with those changes, but typically we get more right than wrong."

http://m.gulfnews.com/business/markets/h...-1.1331146