FIFA AND THE FOOTBALL FAMILY: THE PERFECT OXYMORON

Published in Tribune magazine 11 June 2007
by Terry Moore in Brussels

Last week's news that the England 2018/2022 Football World Cup bid was being referred to the FIFA Ethics Committee encapsulates the way that utterly undemocratic international organisations such as FIFA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) etc., are way beyond satire and way beyond any known concept of legal oversight.

It should come as no surprise that only weeks before the World Cup 2010 is die to start the gutter politics of the FIFA Executive Committee are being brought to bear. After all, there are many in FIFA who would prefer future World Cups to be beyond the scrutiny of a semi-free press in the UK and other countries. Hence Russia may become the favoured bid. Even the Murdoch press may be interested as they are currently locked out of covering FIFA's premier competition.

What has given FIFA the excuse to intervene is merely the rather sad romantic interests of a late middle-age Labour Peer (with very poor personal judgement) and a young female assistant serve as an example to us all of the false moral indignation stoked up by the right-wing press in this country and gleefully given legs by self-serving international sporting fat cats in pursuit of their own nefarious ends.

The supposed private conversations that were secretly recorded and ended up being spread over the morals-free zone of Paul Dacreland had no resonance until put into the public domain by the Mail On Sunday. The recordings are the comments of a naive fool apparently more concerned with his love life than his professional life.

However, what is now in play is the award of a prize that will engender massive amounts of corruption and gross indulgence by FIFA personnel and national hangers-on as they jostle to see who will be awarded the FIFA World Cup for 2018 and 2022.

International Sporting bodies are the last redoubt of the junketeering, free-loading, morally repugnant, grasping individuals that should never be put any where near a budget that extends to more than three figures. These metaphorical pigs with their snouts deep in the trough of excess financed by Sports Media and Sports Goods barons are the worst role models to today's youth.

Although less nefarious than FIFA, the European Union of Football Associations (UEFA) has its own network of junketeers, dubious links with sponsors and a too-close relationship with TV rights-holders across the Continent. Many such as Murdoch's SKY TV see UEFA competitions such as the Champions League as one of the main drivers behind selling their Sports packages to subscribers to PAY TV channels.

Many Football fans would agree that the UEFA Champions League itself has distorted sporting competition and entrenched a system whereby the richest clubs in the richest leagues in Europe become part of an informal cartel that rewards its members to such a degree that it is very difficult, although not impossible, for outsiders to break-in.

However, to observe a UEFA organised football event is to see the quite incredible amount of junketeering that takes place. Junketeering that ultimately is paid for by the supporters of clubs and national teams and who pay for the season tickets of TV subscriptions that underpins everything.

Firstly wherever the event is hosted, all of the very best Hotel Rooms are reserved for EUFA and its guests. The number of guests will run into the high hundreds and doesn't include those guests of sponsors and associated partners. Every Head of any European sporting body (and their partner) will be invited. These will include such notables as the Head of the European Handball Federation, the Head of the European Swimming League etc etc.

All will be invited to partake in UEFA's hospitality with their home organisations paying for travel and 'pocket money' only. Of course, reciprocal invitations to other organisations official events are the order of the day in a self-serving circle of perpetual junketeering indulgence.

Not only will it be sporting administrators from other sports but it will also include the head of all the national affiliated partners of the sport and an extensive guest list of lackeys and hangers-on to complete the equation. Major football events are becoming so laden with VIP dross that up to 50% of the available tickets can be taken up by non-interested guests of sponsors and organisers.

Many of sport's governing bodies are based beyond international scrutiny in secretive Switzerland and these organisations claim they are above the law in individual countries and regularly suspend member organisations if a National Government attempts any form of real oversight on the nationally-based affiliates of e.g. FIFA.

Sepp Blatter's iron grip of FIFA has been the subject of countless articles on the financial degrading shenanigians of his organisation and of its senior members. The International Olympic Committee has been no better in the past, with a long history of venal corruption and nepotistic behaviour.

As Andrew Jennings has written (How FIFA corruption empowers global capital) in Chapter 4 of the admirable work, Player and Referee: Conflicting Interests and the 2010 World Cup, FIFA and other International sporting organisations such as the International Cricket Council (ICC) and the IOC have become the Trojan Horse of global capital over local culture partly depends on the battering ram of rights holders to International sporting competitions, especially the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics.

A full copy of Player and Referee: Conflicting Interests and the 2010 World Cup can be downloaded from the Institute of Security Studies website which can be found at :-

 http://www.iss.co.za/uploads/Mono169.pdf . NB Health Warning, the full document is a truly depressing expose of naked greed and avarice by those closely associated with FIFA and the organisers of the World Cup in South Africa, you will need a strong stomach to put up with the depths of venal corruption uncovered.

However, this is no tale of corruption being endemic in Africa, the biggest crooks, thieves and gougers are most definitely supposedly respectable white men in highly expensive suits hiding behind Swiss anonymity laws.

Tories' Treachery Over EU Allies

Terry Moore in Brussels
Published in Tribune Magazine 21 May 2010 www.tribunemagazine.co.uk

In a highly cynical manoeuvre, the Tories in the European Parliament are going to collapse their right-wing grouping before it falls apart. They then intend to present this as a sign of maturity in Government and as a devious signal to their new coalition allies the Lib Dems that the Tories can do compromise.

In reality, The Tories have spent an inordinate amount of political capital after Cameron took over the Tory party leadership, establishing a new right-wing group in the European Parliament called the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) . However as a leader of one of their strategic allies in the European Parliament (the Czech Civil Democrats, ODS party) points out they utterly failed to create a sustainable grouping that could have any influence in the EU Parliament.

Furthermore, the ODS leader, Miroslav Ouzký believes that the Tories are untrustworthy partners and are preparing to sabotage the group in pursuit of their own self-interest. Ouzky's distrust is telling as the ODS are the only sensible members of the ECR which is otherwise made up of Religious fundamentalists , far-right Baltic State MEPs both with a smattering of anti-semitism and blatant homophobia and maverick independents as well as the ODS and the Tories.

The Tories left the main centre-right grouping the European Peoples' Party (EPP) and incurred the wrath of mainstream centre-right leaders such as Merkel and Sarkozy. Cameron now looks like he is going to jump before he is pushed and apply to rejoin the EPP (allegedly from a position of strength when it is in fact from a position of great weakness).

The ECR group is so fragile that it only needs two members from their 54 member grouping to walk out and it will no longer be viable and would lose all funding from the European Parliament and its rump would be looked upon as renegade independents, not to be trusted.

The current leader of the Czech ODS party in the European Parliament,  Miroslav Ouzký, has outlined his fears about Tory treachery in a recent interview. “The faction is very fragile from the inside, since it only has the minimum number of required delegations, therefore the walkout of only 2 members can dissolve it. Sufficient would be that Cameron stops convincing some of its unsettled individuals to stay at ECR- which I could imagine he will do.”

“He also despairs at the commitment of his Tory allies., “When the topics come to the cars, Czech chemical industry, water, we always discuss with Germans, the Tories are not interested in our problems at all.” The full interview can be found (in Czech) at:-

 http://www.ods.cz/eu/prispevek.php?ID=12200&page=34 .

THE UK ELECTION: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

By Terry Moore, Brussels, Published in Tribune Magazine, 14 May 2010

Compared to the Anglo-centric UK media, the rest of the world's apparent indifference (except for one relatively minor faux pas) to the outcome of the UK general election is highly revealing at several levels. Firstly, global politics is much more concerned with the sovereign debt crisis than any political stasis in a middle-ranking country brought about by its own self-inflicted electoral system.

            An examination of the serious international press clearly undermines any Tory-inspired pressure for a quick decision to be made in the UK (in their favour) with the scare tactics being floated that otherwise the 'markets' will respond negatively. It appears to be the case that the unseen hand of the market in the UK is being influenced by the unseen machinations of Tory spin doctors.

            Secondly, the only meaningful coverage of the aftermath of the general election is the shambolic nature of the poll's organisation. With widespread coverage of the Returning officers' jobsworths locking doors, turning voters away and in some cases refusing to hand out ballot papers to people who were physically present in polling stations as the clock struck 10.00 p.m.

            Many third world countries gleeful coverage of the queues at polling stations and the protestations of those turned away was more a whimsical response to the patronising attitude the UK media has to the third world rather than a serious attempt to describe the election as undemocratic, nevertheless this was the main focus of coverage in many countries. The Mother of Parliaments organising the mother of all cock-ups?

            Thirdly, the idea that there must be a rush to form a coalition Government is an anathema to many and a bizarre political reaction to a significant few. Even in a profoundly modern and stable country like Germany, well-used to coalition Government, there is no rush to judgement amongst coalition partners as to how or when a Government will be formed

            Germany's last general election produced a majority for the Christian Democrats (the CDU, Angela Merkel's party) and the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP). Even though there had been clear signals before the election that there would be a coalition between the two in the expected event that the CDU would not win an outright majority, practical negotiations about how a coalition would work and how it would be structured did not take place until after the election.

             In fact the Germans took what appears to be a leisurely month to form a new Government made up of the CDU (and its Bavarian sister party the CSU) and the FDP with elections taking place on 27 September 2009 and the Government not being officially formed until the 28 October 2010.

            In the extreme case of Belgium, the idea that negotiations to form a new Government might take a few days is simply laughable. Belgium has been know to go for weeks and sometimes months without a formal Government as complex negotiations amongst a myriad of political special interests tale place. Britain's current electoral outcome would be seen as simple in the extreme.

            Serious analysis of the election by the continental press appears to focus more on the future of UK policies concerning the EU than any idea that the British ought to form a Government quickly. In fact, one clear outcome of the election is that there is an ant-eurosceptic majority in the House of Commons. Consequently, the Conservatives neo-con, pro-Atlantacist view of the EU (as exemplified by William Hague and Liam Fox and their cronies) is unlikely to be able to railroad any changes to how the UK's relationship is with the EU and therefore forestall any attempts to impose referenda for changes to EU treaties.

            Fourthly, the UK's propensity to become self-absorbed about itself has been accelerated by the advent of 24-hour news channel coverage more concerned with the minutia of politics and a focus on personalities rather than on processes and policies. The current political situation is being distorted and problems are being magnified by the demands of a voracious appetite by television news to demonstrate that something is happening even when quiet council may sometimes be more appropriate.

            Maybe it should be left to the perceptive analysis of the outcome by the Spanish paper El Pais that is seriously underwhelmed and points out that New Labour's defeat has not been the handmaiden of change and that the situation in the rest of the EU is remarkably similar.

            “The trouble is, nothing has been born as a result of the death of the previous era. David Cameron has been around for five years, and in his shadow, perhaps prematurely, there is Nick Clegg, but neither has paved the way towards anything that looks even remotely new. Nor has anything new happened on the continent.

            “The difficulty of trying to govern, the feeling of disorientation, the crisis of the electoral system, together with the distrust and disgruntlement of its citizens, is not exclusively symptomatic of Britain. The only positive thing you can say about it, however, is that the British, like it or not, are in the same boat as other Europeans, and hanging from the same tree.”

            The perennial British delusion prevalent ever present amongst right-wing circles that the British are a people apart will allow for a slew of continued media coverage of the election result focusing mainly on personality and its outcome will continue to be driven by internal obsession, external indifference and as ever base Tory self-interest.

Why the Election is too close to call

The interesting thing about Thursday night and Friday morning is that there are several new variables that makes any reliable prediction fraught with difficulty.

1. The expenses scandal is still fresh in the memory of the electorate. Public anger with the political class is still highly pertinent when it comes to voter choice. Whilst both Clegg and Cameron have tried to stake out their claim that they are the agents of change in response to public anger, Brown as the incumbent PM could not follow this strategy. Clegg as the Parliamentary outsider has benefitted from this but not significantly. Furthermore, there is a large increase in the number of independents standing in the election and this will draw some support away from the main parties in some seats and may actually increase the number of independent MPs elected (although not by much).

2. The three televised debates between the three main party leaders was a new phenomon in British electoral politics and became the central and defining factor in the election with all three party leaders being seen through the prism of the the televised debates. The Liberal Democrat leader was the undoubted beneficiary of theis innovation. From enjoying equal status with the two main party leaders to a confident and erudite series of performances this has enabled Clegg to be taken seriously by the public and media alike and increased the public perception that voting for the Lib Dems was no longer a wasted vote.

3. The number of incumbents standing is far far lower than any previous election in living memory. An active incumbent MP can buck the national trend by up to 10% of the vote if they have a good local reputation. In this election over 25% of the incumbent MPs are not standing.

4. The extremely well-funded long-term campaign in the key marginals by the Conservatives (funded by a tax exiled lord Ashcroft) will no doubt have some impact in these parliamentary seats although not necessarily as widespead as those who designed and implmented the startegy would have hoped.

5. Re-drawing of Parliamentary boundaries for 500 seats, although one can estimate the effects of this by comparing with local council elections in those areas, the much greater turnout at a general election 60-70% compared to 10-15% makes accurate extrapolation immensely difficult. However based on 2005 results the redrawing undoubtedly benefits the Conservatives with such a calculation resulting in the conservatives winning 12 more seats in 2005 and Labour losing 7 more seats. A benefit of about 2.5%.

6. Electoral Maths (1) - although the Conservatives appearv to have a healthy lead in the polls +/- 35% to the other parties +/- 26/27/28%, the electoral mathematics of the first-past-the -post sytem and the differing size of constituencies means that Labour could gain more seats with 30% of the national vote than the Conservatives with 35% of the national vote and that the Lib Dems with 28-30% of the vote would still mean that they would be the third party by a wide margin..

7. Electoral Maths (2), although Labour won the 2005 election with a majority of 66 seats agaoiansty the combined number of no Labour seats, the effect of the Conservatives campaign in 2005 has gone largely unreported. Where the Conservatives were succesful was in hollowing out support for Labour in a significant number of marginal seats which now have very small majorities

8. Regional differences - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although all three regions are electorally quite different, both Scotland and Wales may well see a resurgence in suppoprt for Labour (Labour is 10% ahead in the polls in Scotland) with the attraction of voting for nationalists far less appealing if that would help to let in a Conservative Government, whilst voting for the Scottish or Welsh Nationalists was seen as a risk-free strategy when there was a Labour Government in Westminster, the residual antipathy to the Conservatives (largely due to the Thatcher administration's perceived policies) remains highly significant and will serve as a bulwark to Labour votes and anti-Tory turnout generally.
In Northern Ireland the apparent hegemony of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has been severely undermined by the scandals associated with the DUP leader Peter Robinson. Hence the Official Unionist Party (in alliance with Cameron's conservatives) will realistically hope to increase their number of seats (currently one) at the expense of the DUP, althought the official Unionists look like losing the only seat they currently have because the popular incumbent resigned in protest at the alliance and will stand as an independent (and would vote with Labour ) with a good chance of re-election. The 5 seats held by the Republican party Sinn Fein should remain about the same (4-5) with no impact nationally as they have a policy of abstentionism from the UK Parliament as they see as illegitimate in respect of Northern Ireland.

9. The impact of the EU on voting intentions - although the EU generally has fallen down the list of voters' preoccupations and this would have favoured the Conservatives as previous UK Independence Party voters reverted to the right-wing mainstream, the issue of EU immigration became a highly volatile issue late in the campaign thanks to Duffygate and perversely may electorally damage the Conservatives more than Labour as UKIP's campaign was given an unintentional boost.
10. The impact of the media's campaign, although the majority of the UK print media by readership (Sun, Mail, Express, Times, Telegraph, Star) is supporting David Cameron's Conservatives, the viscous campign against Brown (generally) and Clegg (after the 1st televised debate) appears to have backfired with voters and seems to have marginilised the influence of the print media to a much greater extent than in previous elections. 11. The Iraq war effect, Labour suffered electorally from discontent over the Iraq war in 2005 which weakened its core support and encouraged some to switch to the Lib Dems in protest (e.g. Hornsey and Wood Green), it's impact may have been decisive in 5-10 seats (especially in London and the South-East). With Blair gone and the war mainly out of the headlines, many of those protest votes could reluctantly return.12. Many people have already voted (well over 10%) 2 weeks ago using their postal votes.

For what it's worth I think that Labour are already preparing for a spell in opposition and that the Conservatives will gain a very small outright majority or narrowly fail to achieve it (counting in the Ulster Unionists they are in alliance with). However, one cannot rule out a Lab-Lib Dem coalition (whether formal or informal) if the Conservatives underperform.
It is interesting that two Government Ministers (one being Gordon Borown's preferred succesor) have called for Labour voters to vote Lib Dem in key marginals where the Lib Dem candidate is closest to the Conservative. This is designed to have two outcomes, one it weakens the Conservatives in a small number of seats and may not actually be significant, but more importantly it would allow the Labour Party post-election to call into question the size of the Lib Dem national vote if a hung parliament is a result and the Lib Dems are trying to maximise their position and influence.

I can't see Brown staying if Lab finish third though, however, Labour could still end up as the biggest party and Brown could still be PM (especially as Labour have already formulated a policy position on PR i.e.the ATV).

As regards, a Labour leader other than Brown becoming PM I can't see a problem outside of the Westminster village. Constitutionally, voters elect a Parliament, MPs decide a Government and parties decide their leader, the fuss would be very short-lived and die down pretty quickly. Whoever is leader of the Labour party after the election will have a good chance of being PM if the Conservatives do not have a majority or are not pretty close to one.

Furthermore, if Milliband/Johnson/Balls were to become leader of the Labour party they would be 'the new show in town' and hqve the inevitable honeymoon period. If the coalition with the Lib Dems was shaky AND the Tories started eating themselves as a result of Cameron failing to deliver a viable Conservative Government (and there is a lot of pent-up anger amongst the Tory party as to the direction Cameron has taken the party) then the stage might be set for another election in the autumn in which the new leader of the Labour party might make them the largest party again (with a much stronger hand in coalition negotiations if they are needed).

THE QUESTION CAMERON MUST ANSWER – HOW BIG WAS THE MORTGAGE ON YOUR CONSTITUENCY HOME?

          It takes some gall and arrogance to claim, as David Cameron did in an interview with Alan Titchmarsh on ITV, that he is just a regular guy who understands ordinary peoples' concerns because he also has a mortgage. That's right; 'Dave' is just an ordinary guy with ordinary concerns who can supposedly emphasize with the man and woman in the street.

David Cameron and his wife are hugely rich people, with parents whose fortunes are eye-watering. Cameron's mortgage claim is utterly breathtaking in its manipulative arrogance. The only mortgage that Cameron has is on his declared constituency home in Oxfordshire. I would hesitate to say second home, as it actually could be the Cameron's third or fourth property.

His mortgage on his declared constituency home appears to have been structured solely for the purpose of claiming parliamentary expenses so as to gain a pecuniary advantage, at taxpayers' expense (i.e. the ordinary people he claims to understand), his purchase of a second home.

To avoid perfectly reasonable accusations of rank hypocrisy and gouging of taxpayers' money, David Cameron (and George Osborne) should reveal all the facts surrounding their financing of their constituency homes.

If Cameron's completely unnecessary mortgage on his constituency home is in the region of £300,000 to £350,000 then the only conclusion a reasonable person could make is that it was taken out purely to make some money at the expense of the taxpayer.

Between 2002 and 2007, Cameron claimed virtually the full second home allowance under Parliamentary expenses, i.e. in excess of £100,000. In fact he claimed so close to the maximum that it left very little for the reasonable expenses that most MPs honestly claimed for.

In 2001, after Cameron was elected, he and Samantha bought a second home in his new constituency for £650,000 Four months later they controversially paid off £75,000 of the mortgage on their London home (now worth £1.6 million and without any mortgage).

Experts reckon Cameron could have saved taxpayers at least £22,500 in interest payments between 2002 and 2007 if he had cut the loan on his second home in Oxford shire instead, which is now valued at up to £1million. That equates to a profit of £350,000, at least half of which was made on the basis of taxpayers' contributions in the form of parliamentary expenses.

In 2006, Samantha Cameron had a windfall of £300,000 when the stationary company she was creative director for was sold, did the Cameron's use this largesse to pay off the mortgage so as to save taxpayers' money? No, they did not; David Cameron continued to claim tlmost the maximum of the lucrative second home allowance despite his wife's bonus.

George Gideon Oliver Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, still has a lot of questions to answer about his sharp practice in 2009 when he received strong criticism for the way he had handled his expenses.

This after he was found to have 'flipped' his second home, changing which property he designated as his second home in order to pay less capital gains tax. The Lib Dems estimated he owes £55,000 to the public purse. Has Osborne offered to pay (as Hazel Blears did, and paid her liability in full)? The short answer is No.

Remember, Osborne, who is worth in excess of 4 million pounds, yes, 4,000,000 organised a totally spurious mortgage so he could get his snout in the second home trough for the sum of about £20,000 per annum. You would have to earn about £35,000 before tax and National Insurance and pension contributions to be able to devote your entire salary to the mortgage payment.

Put simply, George Osborne and David Cameron want to run the country and, if they win the general election they will be dictating to public sector workers to show pay restraint (i.e. cuts in real pay with below-inflation miniscule pay rises , this despite the fact that most public sector workers earn a lot less than £35,000. In fact the UK national average wage is £25,000 per annum

Cameron has the gall to accuse others of abusing the parliamentary expenses system, when it can be convincingly argued that he and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne have acted with the most mendacious avarice.

Cameron is increasingly resorting to gesture politics. His proposal to reduce ministers’ pay by 5 per cent is reminiscent of the calls Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair used to make for pay restraint from others. This was while they were anticipating the millions they were going to make once they quit British politics.

A 5 per cent reduction in the Prime Minister’s salary is nothing to a rich man such as Cameron. However, he will use the gesture to cut public service pay and jobs and impose worse jobs. It’s going to be very bad news for thousands of low-paid workers in public services.

Both Cameron and Osborne are independently hugely wealthy. The Camerons have in excess of £30 million. Osborne is worth £4 million and will inherit a great deal more. Yet they structured their personal affairs so that British taxpayers financed mortgages on their second homes of approximately £300,000 - £350,000 each.

Neither needed to have mortgages on their second properties. Neither needed to claim the lucrative second home allowance from the public purse, yet both did so. Both stuck their snouts in the trough of the public purse and fed voraciously.

Nothing they did was illegal, but the sheer hypocrisy exhibited by the 'holier than thou' act that Cameron would normally take the biscuit. However, to claim that 'Dave' is an ordinary guy because he has a mortgage is not just beyond the pale, it is rubbing salt in the wounds of working class people up and down the country who have nothing whatsoever in common with 'Dave'.

Come on, 'Dave' tell us the truth about the mortgage on your constituency home.

WHY CAMERON IS MUCH MORE CULPABLE THAN HAGUE OVER THE ASHCROFT MONIES AND STATUS

           David Cameron's judgement and political antenna is much more suspect than William Hague's is over the Lord Sleaze of Belize affair.

          Ashcroft was, as Tory sources claimed at the time 'a foul-weather friend' and was the only siginificant party donor in their dark days of 1997-2000. In other words William Hague had little chouce but to accommodate Ashcroft's aversion to scrutiny of his personal tax affairs. Once he made the decision to turn a blind eye (and he had very few options at the time), he was complicit in Ashcroft's tax cover-up, even if he wasn't aware of the precise details at the time.

          However, it is Cameron who has made the greater error. Cameron assumed the leadership of the Tory party at a time of much more financial stability for the party. Donations from class allies in the City and elsewhere were flooding in. The rea of almost total dependence on the Ashcroft millions had long gone and the funds raised by the Tories now came from a much broader base.

          Hence Cameron had the perfect opportunity to confront the issue of Ashcroft's 'unknown' tax status and take whatever remedies he wanted to, if Ashcroft either refused to tell him or revealed his non-dom status at the time. He would have been able to ring-fence the issue of Ashcroft 2 years ago and forestalled any electoral impact it would have had.

          But what did he choose to do? He stuck his head in the sand and hoped it would go away. He is a bottler who seems to avoid the hard decisions and instead continues to implement a PR strategy for his party almost wholly dependent on his own personality, when that said personality is so obviously flawed.

          Ashcroft, tax breaks for married couples, his own gouging of parliamentary expenses on a tozlly superfluous £350,000 on his constituency dwelling in Witney, Oxfordshire, his gross misjudgement in cosying up to the Ulster Unionist Party in his desparate attempt to try and ensure a Parliamentary majority for his party etc etc etc.

         David Cameron is temprementally, intellectually and morally unsuitable to become Prime Minister of the UK.

Taxpayers money bailed Ashcroft out?

In the furore surrounding Lord Sleaze of Belize, one genuinely hypocritical fact stands out, the non-taxpaying Tory peer benefited enourmously frm the taxpayers' bail-out of the banks, led by a Labour Government.

Ashcroft, who has substantial banking interests in Central and South America would have seen his fortune rapidly diminish if the bail-out of the bankers had not happened.

US and UK governmental intervention ensured that the big banks such as HSBC, RBS, Bank of America etc etc etc were protected from the consequences of their reckles behaviour.

However, what has not been focused on, is that because of the complex inter-relationships between banks and other beanks as well as with their depositers, is that Ashcroft's banking interests would have been worthless as banks would have defaulted on their debts.

Ashcroft's Bank of Belize and his other banking interests would have been swallowed up in the financial maelstrom and he would have lost a substantuial part of his fortune.

Yet this tax-dodger had for years claimed for years that his personal tax status was a private affair. Even though he sat in the House of Lords as a Tory peer and was able to speak on what the UK Treasury was up to without declaring an interest. He should be stripped of his peerage.

ASHCROFT AFFAIR JUST GOT A LOT SMELLIER

Today's Guardian alleges that Lord Ashcroft used one of his companies in Belize to pay for a massive opinion poll in the UK andavoided paying VAT in the process.

The ploy used by Ashcroft (invoice to company/person based abroad so as to be classified as an export of services and  attract zero rate VAT) actually makes no real commercial sense IF he had a legitimate business in the UK carrying on normal copommercial activities.
Let me explain, if a UK-based company (and registered for VAT in the normal way) had commissioned the survey, the invoice(s) would have been sent to them by Populus/YouGov and would have had VAT added to the bill (lets say £250,000 +15% Vat = +/- £37,500 VAT).
The £37,500 would have been classified as input tax and be able to be offset against any sales made by the registered company  which would have attracted VAT in the normal manner (also known as output tax). The difference between the two wouold be the net VAT payable or repayable by C&E.

So, purchase costs of 400,000 + 70,000 VAT   Sales of 600,000 + 105,000 VAT
VAT return would state 1005,000 -70,000 = 35,000 payable to C&E.

Now the interesting bit, even if the company was not doing too well and was trading at a loss, the company would still be able to claim VAT back on its purchases and be eligible for a refund of VAT

i.e. purchase costs of 400,000 + 70,000 VAT, sales of 200,000 + 35,000 VAT = £35,000 repayable by C&E.

Hence why 'export' the transaction when you can claim it back? Unless,  UK-based company controlled by Ashcroft was not engaging in normal commercial activities relating to the polling.

OR, that the UK based company (ies) controlled by Ashcroft were engaged in what could be VAT-exempt activities (such as finance etc) and therefore would not have been able to claim the VAT back. Even then, a lot of companies that engage in VAT exempt activity structure their tax affairs so that they can claim VAT back on their purchases/running costs etc

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Ashcroft's guilty secrets

It would be interesting to know how much tax Ashcroft has paid in the UK (both income tax and corporation tax on his UK companies).
After all if Ashcroft had donated millions to the Tories over the past 10 years, he should have made a healthy profit on his UK trading activities and thus paid a bucketload of corporation tax? NOT.

I also wonder exaxctly how much income tax he has actually paid in the UK? I expect it to be close to zero; the Belizian shyster.

MERKEL BLASTS BANKS

The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has strongly criticized the activities of merchant and investment banks yesterday. Saying it was "scandalous" that they could contribute to the deficit of Greece, then help to mask it and thus provoke a crisis in the entire euro area. And she recalled that Germany expected significant efforts from the Greeks to reduce their deficit.

"It is a scandal if it turns out that banks which have already led to the brink, has also participated in the falsification of statistics Greek budget," said Merkel in a speech in the political land (regional state) of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (East). And she stressed the need for all countries in the euro area to calculate their budget the same way to avoid destabilization of the common European currency.

 Several newspapers have accused the bank Goldman Sachs have enabled the Greek State to disguise the reality of its debt. Merkel also defended the euro, arguing that Germany would had "experienced more turbulence" during the economic crisis last year if it had not adopted the common currency. "Greece must now make substantial savings and I am glad that the Prime Minister of Greece, in agreement with the European Central Bank and the European Commission is working on," she added

GREEK CRISIS REVEALS HOW BANKS MAKE HUGE PROFITS BY HIDING DEBT

GREEK CRISIS REVEALS HOW BANKS MAKE HUGE PROFITS BY HIDING SOVEREIGN DEBT

Recent revelations about the role played by the supposedly prestigious U.S. bank Goldman Sachs in the Greek crisis showed some hints of financial chicanery, based on flaws in the regulatory process and opaque products which generate huge profits. The only purpose of such products is to deceive and conceal.

           According to American newspapers The New York Times and Risk Magazine, and the authoritative German magazine Der Spiegel, Goldman Sachs, has enabled the Greek State to disguise the reality of its debt by nefarious means. In 2002, on the advice of the bank, Athens has borrowed one billion euros by using a complex financial product that allowed them not to include this in their accounts. The bank had advised the Greek Government to have it disguised as a long-term debt.

           This device, then considered legal, allowed Athens not only to meet the requirements of the Stability Pact of the eurozone, but also to extend the deadlines for repayment of its debts. According to the Financial Times, the agreement between Goldman Sachs and Athens, this transaction must remain secret and only be reported in the accounts until the following year.

           "Goldman Sachs recommended that the Greek bank use derivatives to try to stagger the gaps", said Sophie van Straelen specialist Hedge Funds in Asterias, a company analysis on these hedge funds. She said the bank "has somewhat masked part of the Greek debt".

          "These devices are now highly prevalent. These transactions were not made to hide debt, but to postpone it until later," says Dusoulier Pierre Antoine, President France Saxo Bank. He said it is "normal to make the bride more beautiful before making a transaction.

           For the Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou, the operation was "legal at the time, even if it no longer is today". But according to the spokesman of the party of German Christian Democrat Angela Merkel, "Goldman Sachs has violated the spirit of the Maastricht Treaty, although it is unclear whether the law violated." Beyond Goldman Sachs are listed the various financial products designed by investment banks to draw juicy commissions which allow states to beautify their finances.

            Of course the ratings agencies, Moody's Fitch and Standard & Poor, unsurprisingly, remained ignorant of the manoeuvre and continued to issue ratings based on flawed information, although that has never stopped them before.

MANY COUNTRIES USE THE TRICK?

           Many countries in Europe have used various subterfuges, which do not violate European regulations, to finance their debt. The banks offer such States a method of using state assets to secure government bonds, which can not recognize them in the national accounts. A bank encourages such countries to e.g. securitise its obligations to future airport taxes to be levied.

GREECE HAS TWO DAYS TO EXPLAIN TRICKS TO HIDE DEBT

 Greece has only days to explain its use of complex financial deals that it used to mask debt and just a month to prove that its drastic budget cuts go far enough to reassure markets and EU governments. Olli Rehn said Tuesday that he wanted the Greek government to supply answers by Friday on how it used currency swaps and how that affected debt and deficit figures.

          EU finance ministers on Tuesday also gave Greece a deadline of March 16 to show that it can make big spending cuts to bring its deficit down from the EU's highest, 12.7 percent of economic output, to 8.7 percent this year. Greece says it isn't asking for financial help and won't need any _but it is facing a credibility crisis as a Feb. 1 report commissioned by the Greek finance ministry warns of «significant debt revisions» for 2009 statistics due to swaps, debt to suppliers and state-guaranteed loans that may default.

          The report said some swaps are now «being done in order to transfer interest from the current year to the future, with long-term loss to the Greek state.» Rehn said «it is clear that a profound investigation must be done on this matter,» promising that he would check to see if all rules were respected. «If it turns out that there is such kind of securitization of swaps that are not in line with the rules of the time, then of course we would need to take action,» he said.

          The EU can take Greece to court, under threat of daily fines, to change its statistics methods. It is already threatening legal action for Greece's failure to report accurate public finance figures last year. Papaconstantinou said Monday that such swaps were legal when Greece used them and that it is not using them now and will stick to EU statistics rules on new financing deals. Papaconstantinou also said Greece was not alone among EU nations in using such deals.

BANKS UP TO NEFARIOUS TRICKS

          Rehn said he was not aware of similar problems with other countries but that «this has still to be verified.» Rehn also took a shot at the investment banks that advised Greece to mask debt. Reports in The New York Times and Germany's Der Spiegel said that Greece used U.S. financial institution Goldman Sachs to engage in the swaps. «I think the banks themselves should also ask, not least after the financial crisis, if this has been in line with the code of ethics,» he said.

          Traders' fears that Greece might not make debt repayments increased Tuesday, with the spread of the Greek government bond widening to 3.35 percentage points against the benchmark German bond. The spread was below 3.00 points last week on hope of a detailed euro-zone bailout plan.

USA MAY HAVE A BIGGER DEBT PROBLEM THAN GREECE

           It's bad enough that Greece's debt problems have rattled global financial markets. In the world's largest economic and military power, there's a far more serious debt dilemma. For the U.S., the crushing weight of its debt threatens to overwhelm everything the federal government does, even in the short-term, best-case financial scenario _a full recovery and a return to prerecession employment levels.

         The government already has made so many promises to so many expanding «mandatory» programs. Just keeping these commitments, without major changes in taxing and spending, will lead to deficits that cannot be sustained. Take Social Security retirement benefits, Medicare health coverage for the elderly and other entitlements.

           Add in interest payments on a national debt that now exceeds $12.3 trillion. It all will gobble up 80 % of all federal revenues by 2020, government economists project. That doesn't leave room for much else. What's left is the entire rest of the government, including military and homeland security spending, which has been protected and nurtured by the White House and Congress, regardless of the party in power.

RATING DOWNGRADE COULD MAKE THINGS EVEN WORSE 

          The U.S. debt crisis also raises the question of how long the world's leading power can remain its largest borrower. Moody's Investors Service recently warned that Washington's credit rating could be in jeopardy if the nation's finances didn't improve. Despite election-year political pressure from voters for lawmakers to restrain spending, some recent votes suggests that Congress, left to its own devices, probably isn't up to the task of trimming deficits. 

          Both the Obama administration and Democratic leaders have put job creation ahead of deficit reduction for now. The Senate faces an important vote after it returns on Feb. 22 from its President's Day recess on a bill intended to stimulate job growth. The legislation offers a $13 billion payroll tax credit for companies that hire unemployed workers, including an additional $1,000 tax credit for workers retained for a full year.

1.3 TRILLION DEFICIT IS BEST-CASE OUTLOOK  

           Proposed belt-tightening steps by President Obama, including a freeze on some non_defence, non_entitlement spending, would make only a small dent in the mountain of debt. The budget he submitted to Congress this month proposes record spending of $3.8 trillion for 2011. Taxes in next year's budget will support only $2.5 trillion of that spending, leaving $1.3 trillion to be borrowed.

           The president's budget is a best-case outlook, from the administration's vantage point. It doesn't take into account future liabilities from the growth of entitlement benefits and is based on projected economic growth that depends on a solid recovery. It assumes Congress will pass all of Obama's initiatives, including spending cuts and tax increases previously rejected by Congress.

          Congress already has rejected a bipartisan deficit commission that could have forced Congress to take painful steps on tax increases and entitlements. The commission would have been modeled on one that makes military base-closing decisions, forcing Congress to take up or down votes.

WORDS, COMMITTEES AND OTHER FORMS OF INACTION 

            The Senate turned aside the legislation last month after some original Republican supporters jumped ship once Obama endorsed the plan. Proponents say this type of commission is the only way to make painful debt decisions. Obama says he'll create a bipartisan commission by presidential order instead. «In the end, solving our fiscal challenge _so many years in the making_ will take both parties coming together, putting politics aside, and making some hard choices about what we need to spend, and what we don't,» Obama said in his weekly Saturday radio and internet address. Still, his commission wouldn't have the power to force a congressional vote. Obama's call for fiscal austerity came at the same time he signed legislation lifting the cap on government debt from $12.4 trillion _which is close to being breached_ to $14.3 trillion to permit more borrowing.

            The same law puts in place new budget rules praised by deficit hawks that would require future spending increases or tax cuts to be paid for with higher taxes or other spending cuts. «After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility,» Obama said. It's not clear when the debt's day of reckoning will arrive. But the overall national debt over the next few years will rise to 100 percent of the gross domestic product _a level viewed as alarming by the IMF and international economists. The Social Security system, the biggest social spending program, has begun paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes.

           For the past quarter-century, Social Security had produced a surplus that helped finance the rest of the government. Medicare, the health care program that now covers 45 million elderly and disabled people, is in worse shape. It's been paying out more than it takes in since 2008 and its trust fund is projected to run out of money in 2017.

           Carmen Reinhart, an economics professor at the University of Maryland and a former IMF official, suggested the nation's fast-growing indebtedness may not have a visible impact at this point on ordinary Americans. But some day it will pounce. «One thing we can say with a fair amount of certainty,» she said. «We never know when the wolf will be at our door. The wolf is very fickle and markets can turn very quickly. And a high debt level makes us very vulnerable to shifts in sentiment that we cannot predict.»

WHAT ARE CAMERON AND UKIP UP TO?

          Whispers abound that David Cameron and UK Independence Party Leader Nigel Farage have made a highly dubious non-agression pact. The rest of UKIP are unaware that Farage intends to sell them down the river.

          Farage has agreed with Cameron that UKIP will withdraw their candidates from the Tories' top 40 target seats in exchange for 'assistance' in unseating John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in his Buckingham seat. Farage has also intimated to Cameron that if he does not win against Bercow he will abandon UKIP and join the Tories. Cameron is apparently mulling over how he can give Farage a peerage if he delivers on his deal.

          Despite a long-standing convention that the Speaker is outside of party politics, and not challenged for re-election, Farage has broken the convention and is standing against him. He will thus be the only 'credible' alternative candidate as Labour and the Tories won't be contesting the seat.

         It appears that Cameron is very happy to covertly back Farage so as to get at Bercow, who many Tories suspect of being a fellow-traveller of the Blairites. There are suggestions that Farage has got some financial information that may be embarasing for Bercow and could be used in a dirty-tricks campaing at the general election.

GREEDY BANKERS' SNOUTS STILL IN TROUGH

UK BANKER BONUSES AND  SALARIES SURGE

          Bankers in London have received average bonus increases of 40 percent this year and most have also received a jump in base salary, according to a survey, signalling that attempts to restrain payouts are failing. EFinancialCareers, a career website network for financial workers, said 57 percent of 694 UK banking and finance professionals quizzed about their 2009 payouts said bonuses had risen on average by more than 100 percent -- taking the industry rise to two-fifths of 2008 payouts.

          Nearly two-thirds of those asked said they had also received a base salary rise 26 percent on average last year. Employees in private banking, trading and debt/fixed income received the highest bonuses, while those working in risk management, equity capital markets and commodities saw the largest year-on-year increase in payouts, that more than double depressed 2008 levels, eFinancialCareers said.

           Britain has attempted to halt a bonus culture blamed for helping sow the seeds of the credit crisis by imposing a 50 percent tax on bank bonuses over 25,000 pounds, banning long-term guaranteed bonuses and urging banks to spread bonuses over three years to discourage short-term decision-making. But respondents noted little change in how bonuses had been structured. Almost 70 percent said they received all their bonus in cash, 19 percent said a part was deferred and 3 percent said some could be clawed back -- similar to 2008.

           Most people who did not receive a higher bonus put this down to the performance of their firm, according to the survey. Banks in Europe are in the process of informing staff of their bonuses for 2009 as politicians and the public call for restraint after many banks were bailed out by taxpayers.

          But despite the salary and bonus rises, the survey said almost half of those asked said they were dissatisfied with their award amid concerns over an increasingly harsh tax regime for high earners. Forty-one percent said they "intended to seek work outside the UK" because of mounting taxes, the survey said.

I'll volunteer to drive them to the airport.

WHY GREECE AND WHY NOW?

       THERE IS SOMETHING PROFOUNDLY SUSPECT IN THE ROLE OF CREDIT RATING AGENCIES ACTING AS THE SHOCK TROOPS OF TURBO-CAPITALISM

By TERRY MOORE

      Only a few short weeks after heavily defeating a right-wing incumbent government, Greek socialists find themselves staring into the political and economic abyss. How has it come to this? Why is it now that Greece is shown to be economically bankrupt with burgeoning deficits and with almost universal clarion calls from international organisations for Greece to savagely cut its public expenditure.

            How did US-based credit ratings agencies such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor, achieve the power to strike down sovereign Governments' economic policies simply by downgrading their ratings of a specific country's government bonds. What is it about central bankers that they appear incapable of standing up to the nefarious credit rating agencies' and their hold over market-makers in New York, London and Tokyo.

            Furthermore, why is that socialist governments are the primary victims of  the current negative speculation in the international bond markets which is costing them vast sums in extra credit costs. The very same funds which should be used to alleviate the economic crisis in countries such as Greece.

            One extremely perverse outcome of the current situation is the the self-same credit ratings are experiencing a crisis of confidence, with heavy criticism of their failure to spot (the private sector) problems that led to the global financial crisis, as well as suffering from falling revenues and rising compliance costs. Yet these self-same arbiters of international money markets are now brazenly undermining the public finances of several countries and risk a double-dip recession in Europe.

            The behaviour of the credit rating agencies over the past 20 years is one of an incestuous relationship with many dubious individuals and companies as well as well-founded criticisms of the methods they employ to maximise revenues. In addition there are numerous criticisms of sharp practice  and allegations of outright blackmail. For example, Moody's has been caught out continually downwardly negatively rating a massive German Re-imsurance company simply because the German company didn't see why it should pay Moody's seven-figure sums when it was already paying two other credit rating agencies for the same service.

            These are the ratings agencies that continued to give sub-prime mortgage aggregation vehicles a triple AAA rating even as the US property market went belly-up in 2007. The collapse of multi-billion dollar businesses such as Enron and World Comm happened completely under their radar. They even rated Japan as a bigger risk than Botswana for a short time at one stage.

            Is it just coincidence that Spain and Portugal are the latest targets of the ratings agencies and currency speculators as their economies and public expenditure levels are heavily criticised in international currency markets. The common threads that unite the three countries is that they are socialist governments, they are members of the euro-zone and all three have recently seen off attempts by the centre-right to win power.

            Whilst the centre-right have won power in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and most of the new Member States, Spain, Portugal, Greece and the UK are the socialist administrations that have bucked the trend. It is surely not coincidence that the three members of the eurozone and the UK are the countries that are in the speculators sights. Whilst the centre-right Government in Ireland escapes criticism despite having the worst public finances in the euro-zone.

            Italy under its centre-right coalition government has public sector debt at a level of 114% of    Gross Domestic Product (GDP) whilst Greece's is 112%. Spain at 56% and Portugal at 77% have public debt to GDP ratios lower than the Eurozone area average, yet why are the centre-left led governments suffering so much more at the hands of international capital.

            Let blame be cast where it should be in Greece, with the centre-right heavily responsible for deceiving international supervision. Whilst there has long been suspicion of the methodologies utilised by Greek economic statisticians, the national statistics produced under a Greek Conservative  Government have become as reliable as a Fleet Street journalists expenses claim.

            A budget deficit of 12.7% of Gross Domestic Product is clearly unsustainable. Whilst state pensions at a level of 96% of pre-retirement earnings are clearly unsustainable, especially with an ageing population.

            There has to be a day of reckoning in Greece and it appears that the public sector will pay a heavy price.  Not all of this is undeserved, the Greek public sector has become bloated with most appointments and promotions heavily dependent on party affiliations coinciding with the respective parties holding political power.

There is a long history of tax evaders not fairly contributing to the Greek Treasury.  However, freezing the wages of public servants is not necessarily a wise mood. For a recovery programme that is heavily dependent on ensuring that the State starts to maximise its revenues after years of massive tax-dodging levels, it is perverse that the Government will be freezing the pay of the very people who will be central to their plan, i.e. tax collectors.

            For many years Greece has also suffered at the hands of dynastic politics at the national level. The Papandreou family has controlled the leadership (through the PASOK party) of the centre-left for many years and the Conservative New Democracy movement the plaything of the Karamanlis family. The sins of the fathers really have verily been visited on their sons.in this instance.

            The unlikely external saviour of socialist principles in Greece may actually be its membership of the eurozone. Such membership is also shoring up the defences of Spain and Portugal in the face of avaricious currency speculators. Taking on the European Central Bank is a markedly different beast than Norman Lamont's Tory Treasury. When push comes to shove the European Union and the European Central Bank will simply not let its eurozone members be picked off one by one.

            Whilst Germany insistence on a 'no bale-out' clause for all eurozone members means that there will be no transfer of direct funds between e.g. Germany or France and Greece, the parallel membership of the European Union will mean that Greece will get the financial support it needs to ensure its economy does not collapse completely.

            Whilst, Greece will have to swallow a bitter pill and undertake a fundamental reform of its public sector (unfortunately long overdue), it's EU membership is likely to act as a partial salvation and  shield it from the worst consequences of the seedy activities of financial carpetbaggers skulking in the dark recesses of the global financial marketplace.

            It is also true that Greece almost certainly should not have been allowed to join the eurzone in the first place because of its utilisation of extremely moody national statistics, it will actually be the eurozone that will shield it from the worst excesses of free market ideologues that would have won out if Greece still had the drachma and would have had to have gone cap-in-hand to the International Monetary Fund.

            Finally the pernicious role of credit rating agencies in assessing sovereign debt should be the subject of investigation by the EU and the US Securities Exchange Commission. Their is emerging a great deal of evidence that they are abusing their dominant positions, they are acting as the shock troops of turbo-capitalism and that, true to the perennial role of capital in society, they are only motivated by their own bottom line at the expense of public welfare.