CAMERON'S USEFUL IDIOTS (cover story, Tribune magazine 13/08 issue)

By Marjorie Smith

            As Parliament rises for the summer recess one or two important highly negative pointers are already emerging about our new Government and we have also learned that the Labour Party has made little impact since the election.

            The savagery of the proposed cuts is startling and the lies about ring-fencing the NHS and Education are already exposed as deceitful untruths that spilled so easily from Cameron's mouth during the general election campaign.

            However, there is one vital but simple political lesson to learn already and that is that the Lib Dems are a strategic irrelevance. We have a blatant Tory-led administration in which Clegg and his cohorts are willing supplicants to Cameron's Conservatives.

            Direct attacks on the Lib Dems are becoming pointless, a waste of political capital and self-defeating. If they continue they will make the Labour party and its leaders look small and bitter in the future and play completely into the hands of the Conservatives. It will also help to define the Lib Dems as a political party of substance that should be taken more seriously than they are now, or previously have been.

            The scorn of many Labour activists was quite rightly directed at the Lib Dems in the days after the last election and in the first few weeks of the coalition. There did appear to be a chance that a sufficient number of supposed 'left-leaning' Lib Dems might be shamed into refusing to work closely with the Tories and therefore help to undermine the coalition or at least significantly weaken it. That is clearly no longer the case they have made their own bed, let them lie in it.

            It doesn't need the Labour leadership to undermine the Lib Dems they are doing it to themselves. It is quite clear that they are already seen by the electorate as Tory lackeys. Nick Clegg needs no help from Labour in portraying himself as 'Cameron Lite', in fact he is doing a sterling job in portraying himself as just another public school 'Tory boy' .

            The latest poll results in a YouGov tracking poll taken last week gave the Lid Dems a paltry 13% of the national vote, which would only give them 18 seats in Parliament. The converse of this is of course the continuation of the political honeymoon for the Conservatives, still riding high in the polls at 44%, nearly three months after the general election.

            The central political lesson to be learnt from the past three months is that the Lib Dems are a convenient lightning conductor for the public's dissatisfaction. They are and will increasingly become the scapegoats for this administrations savaging of the public sector. Cameron's has so far got off very lightly due to the political attention the Lib Dems have received.

            The long Cameron honeymoon is also partly due to Labour's dismal reaction to the general election defeat. An incoherent front bench and demoralised parliamentary party has understandably, but mistakenly, still reserves its greatest ire for the Lib Dems. Whilst the seemingly interminable Labour leadership election campaign lazily meanders its way to a conclusion, the Tories are making massive cuts in public expenditure and Labour is hardly landing a glove on them.

            Absenteeism from the front bench in Parliament by much of the shadow cabinet and former senior ministers (due to memoiritis?) only aggravates a rapidly worsening position for the public sector. The Tory lie that the NHS and Education would be ring-fenced from cuts is already exposed as the Big Lie it always was going to be. This is no Big Society it will be a Rigged Society.

            All of the Lib Dems in Parliament have adopted a siege mentality, most Lib Dems are currently in deep denial, accepting the conceit that they are making a real difference as to how Britain is governed. Accusations of careerism and selfishness will have no traction, these are the brickbats that all politicians get (even from within their own party/faction)

            Labour needs to adopt a fresh approach to this Government, one that places the Tories at the heart of it (which they are) and portrays the Lib Dems as an irrelevance (which they are increasingly becoming). The party needs to understand that we are living under a Conservative Government and should not only be treated as such but reffered to as such at every turn. Every time somebody refers to the coalition allows the Tories to hide themselves behind a vacuous political construct that only serves to disguise what this Government is really about.

            Every Labour MP, activist and member should only refer to this Government as a Conservative Government. The Lib Dems should be denied any recognition that they are making any positive difference. At every turn Labour should patronise the LibDems and merely ask them what will the Tories will decide.

            Make Cameron the architect of the cuts – Cameron has managed to construct two line of defence around his political appeal – one the fall guy Lib Dems and the fallback from that is Osborne and the right of his party. If Cameron is not nailed to the mast of this Government then he could disown the lot of them and win a second term for the Tories, campaigning on a neo-liberal economic platform.

            The Tories are already thinking of ways to raise the profile of the Lib Dems, in order to try and continue the usefulness of Clegg's idiocy in the furtherance of the Conservative party's base self-interests. Tory strategists know that a badly wounded and enfeebled Liberal Democrat party is of no use to the Conservatives until at the most six to twelve months from a general election.

            As the deserved backlash hits the Lib Dems, they will cling ever closer to the notion that coalition with the Tories was the right thing to do. The current Lib Dem leadership has nowhere else to go but remaining as junior partners to the Tories. The rest of the Lib Dem Parliamentary party have already demonstrated their weak and craven attitude and although there will be defections from the coalition in the future, it is now quite apparent that they will become increasingly insignificant.

            In dealing with the Lib Dems the party's mantra should be "I want to speak with the organ grinder, not the monkey". Diminish them with disdain.

THIS BUDGET IS LABOUR'S GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO START TO SPLIT THE COALITION

Why examining the coalition's DNA reveals the seeds of its own destruction

Marjorie Smith

One of Labour's main strategic pre-occupations has to be how to unpick this coalition of parties (if not of interests).  Any hope of returning to Government has to be dependant on the Tories and the Lib Dems either hanging separately or being hung together. Either the coalition splits, or it becomes overwhelmingly unpopular at the next election.

Whilst an extended marriage of convenience, at first glance, may well be in Labour's interest, with the probable deep unpopularity of this coalition becoming a political fact. It would also mean five long years in opposition and having to fight the next general election with a new 'reformed' electoral system stacked against the party.

The budget of Gideon Oliver 'George' Osborne (heir to the baronetcy of Ballentaylor), presents a golden opportunity for Labour to point out the massive internal contradictions that are presently submerged in this coalition of self-interest, exemplified by how so-called 'progressive' politicians are being mealy-mouthed in the face of a Tory ideological drive to reduce the power of the State.

Make no mistake, the sheep's clothing of a small rise in personal allowances for a few, does not disguise the devious impact of the 2.5% rise in VAT for all, the massive cuts to the public sector (both in terms of financial and personnel resources), slashing housing benefits and cutting future pension rights. This is a budget of deceit, sophistry, obfuscation and political fraud. Already, those on low incomes, benefits and state pensions will be hammered by the rise in VAT with no compensatory action to increase their incomes.

Nick Clegg may spuriously claim that these cuts are 'progressive' but the truth will be radically different for the many millions, both directly and indirectly, who depend on the public sector for their livelihoods. For example, a one year freeze in council tax allied to a 25% cut in central Government grants to Councils will guarantee massive cuts in jobs and services by local councils.

Since Tories like Cameron and Osborne can afford to opt out of Council provision (e.g. free education) so do not have to avail themselves of Council Services (beyond having their bins emptied and the odd PC to wander past their Special Branch-guarded residences), they like most of the rich in this country, will be able to remain completely unscathed by the cuts to come.

Furthermore, the claim that the coalition will be able to ring-fence budgets relating to health and education is mere window dressing, more designed to appease Liberal Democrats in Parliament than to convince the population as a whole.

Vince Cable's claim that the Lib Dems have tempered Tory policies by persuading them to raise tax allowances for some of the low paid in the country is a deceit. Like Lenin's 'useful idiots', the Lib Dems are being drawn into a glaring trap. Not only has it allowed Osborne the political cover to freeze child benefits for 3 years but it has also allowed the numerate Tories in the Cameron leadership clique to be happy to go along with the Lib Dems aspiration of a move to a minimum income tax allowance of £10,000 for a particular reason.

That is because both Osborne and Cameron are committed to the ideological prize of introducing a flat tax (in the region of 22% for all tax payers, including the mega-rich). Right-wingers see this as the holy grail of tax reform, whereby the rich and high-earners are able to insulate themselves from the needs of the population as a whole. Make no mistake Cameron and Osborne are committed to a flat income tax rate for all.

The introduction of either a Flat Tax or large rises in the threshold for Inheritance Tax (or both) will represent the greatest example of self-serving class interest at Governmental level since Robert Peel's 1845 administration, when the landed gentry fought tooth and nail to keep the pernicious Corn Laws in the teeth of evidence that it was the poor who paid the highest price for such iniquities.

Osborne's token gesture of a net rise of income for lower paid people is £170 per year, this will be completely wiped out by the rise in VAT. To put £170 into context it is the equivalent of two days tuition fees at Eton College, we are manifestly not in this together. The changes to the budget will not affect, by one iota, the family trust funds of the Camerons or the Osbornes, but millions of ordinary people will lose out.

Whilst most of the Mainstream media in the UK seems to have meekly accepted that the recent compact between the (what is now quite apparent) two UK parties of the centre-right is a sustainable concoction. The DNA of the two parties is still radically different, as any perfunctory analysis of the make-up of either party reveals.

The coalition's leadership may well sit (and fit) comfortably with each other, after all they share common backgrounds, common schools, common universities, all very different from the experiences of the common man. There is very little political capital to be made out of trying to divine differences between Clegg and Cameron (paternalistic 'One Nation' Tories in all but name). However, there are also significant elements in both parties, presently marginalised, that are as different as chalk and cheese. 

For simplistic (but pertinent) purposes, it is highly revealing to examine the two extremes of the coalition. If one accepts that there are still some well-meaning centrist, or even some who would claim they are of the centre-left, then they are to be found in the Beveridge Group of Liberal Democrat MPs. Whilst many of those on the right of the Tory party are members of the Bruges Group, a radically eurosceptic group that also appears to share a deep and abiding belief in free market fundamentalism with libertarian tendencies.

It is into these obvious fissures that Labour has to drive home the opportunities presented by this budget, at every opportunity, by exposing the crass hypocrisy that is so blatantly obvious in the make-up of the coalition. The idea that Lib Dem figures such as Simon Hughes and Don Foster can sit comfortably on the government benches with the likes of Bill Cash, John Redwood and the odious David Heathcoat-Amory is a vacuous illusion that deserves to be shattered.

The social market values that the Beveridge group used to share is a total anathema to most Tory MPs (including most Ministers) and that is why most of the Lib Dem MPs belonging to the group have been deliberately ignored for Ministerial posts (even at junior level). This faction of the Lib Dems should be a rich source of discontent and internal unhappiness with the direction of the centre-right coalition.

In Prime Minister's Questions, Deputy PMQs, Ministerial Questions, speeches in the chamber, Select Committee meetings, appearances on TV, radio etc, i.e. at each and ever opportunity, Labour has to focussing on exposing and magnifying the discomfiture of Beveridge group Liberal Democrat MPs. The idea that there is a permanent air to this coalition needs to be exposed as a lie as soon as possible. It is beset with strange bedfellows and internal contradictions.

Most Tories are virulently anti-statist and instinctively opposed to nearly all aspects of public expenditure (except for the Ministry of Defence obviously). The Conservative Parliamentary party is the most eurosceptic it has ever been and the most Atlanticist (in a neo-con sense) ever. This exposes a rich seam of discord that Labour must exploit mercilessly.

Every Labour party member and supporter has an opportunity to contribute to undermining this real threat to labour's interests by foreshortening the lifetime of the coalition by helping to spread a growing discord amongst its supporters and members, thereby establishing an irresistible momentum that will destroy this iniquitous government.

FROM BRUGES TO BEVERIDGE

Why examining the coalition's DNA reveals the seeds of its own destruction

Marjorie Smith

One of Labour's main strategic pre-occupations has to be how to unpick this coalition of parties (if not of interests).  Any hope of returning to government has to be dependant on the Tories and the Lib Dems either hanging separately or being hung together. Either the coalition splits, or it becomes overwhelmingly unpopular at the next election.

Whilst an extended marriage of convenience, at first glance, may well be in Labour's interest, with the probable deep unpopularity of this coalition becoming a political fact. It would also mean five long years in opposition and having to fight the next general election with a new 'reformed' electoral system stacked against the party.

Make no mistake, the early indications of this coalition's instincts concerning electoral reform do not presage well for Labour. Cameron's proposals to cut 100 plus MPs combined with significant changes to constituency boundaries is a direct threat to Labour's medium and long-term interests. Both the Tories and the Lib Dems will become increasingly desperate to hold on to power in a mutual embrace as electoral unpopularity will surely hit them in the medium-term.

The coalition's pre-nuptial agreement already includes proposals to shore-up the coalition in the face of real threats to its existence. The proposed 55% threshold of MPs needed to call a new general election before a government has completed its five years term of office is a naked attempt start building the first steps into locking Labour out of power for at least one to two generations.

The coalition's proposals to stack the House of Lords with well over a hundred new Tory and Lib Dem peers is a blatant attempt to gerrymander the constitution in favour of the coalition's political interests. A gerrymandering, it should be noted, that was completely absent from either of the coalition's manifestoes. It is also clearly in the interests of the Tories and the Lib Dems as separate parties, as they can reward their financial benefactors and influential supporters with the prizes of patronage.

Whilst most of the Mainstream media in the UK seems to have meekly accepted that the recent compact between the (what is now quite apparent) two UK parties of the centre-right is a sustainable concoction. The DNA of the two parties is still radically different, as any perfunctory analysis of the make-up of either party reveals.

The coalition's leadership may well sit (and fit) comfortably with each other, after all they share common backgrounds, common schools, common universities, all very different from the experiences of the common man. There is very little political capital to be made out of trying to divine differences between Clegg and Cameron (One Nation Tories in all but name) or, for example, between Osborne and Laws (Thatcherite free-marketeers). These are However, there are also significant elements in both parties, presently marginalised, that are as different as chalk and cheese. 

For simplistic (but pertinent) purposes, it is highly revealing to examine the two extremes of the coalition. If one accepts that there are still some well-meaning centrist, or even some who would claim they are of the centre-left, then they are to be found in the Beveridge Group of Liberal Democrat MPs. Whilst many of those on the right of the Tory party are members of the Bruges Group, a radically eurosceptic group that also appears to share a deep and abiding belief in free market fundamentalism with libertarian tendencies.

It is quite apparent that the fault lines between the Tory's Bruges group and the Lib Dems' Beveridge group are very deep and, in the main, irreconcilable on most social and international issues.

It is into these obvious fissures that Labour has to drive home, at every opportunity, exposing the crass hypocrisy that is so blatantly obvious in the make-up of the coalition. The idea that Lib Dem figures such as Simon Hughes and Don Foster can sit comfortably on the government benches with the likes of Bill Cash, John Redwood and the odious David Heathcoat-Amory is an illusion that deserves to be shattered.

The social market values that the Beveridge group purports to share is a total anathema to most Tory MPs (including most Ministers) and that is why most of the Lib Dem MPs belonging to the group have been deliberately ignored for Ministerial posts (even at junior level). This faction of the Lib Dems could be a rich source of discontent and internal unhappiness with the direction of the centre-right coalition.

In Prime Minister's Questions, Deputy PMQs, Ministerial Questions, speeches in the chamber, Select Committee meetings, appearances on TV, radio etc, i.e. at each and ever opportunity, Labour has to focussing on exposing and magnifying the discomfiture of Beveridge group Liberal Democrat MPs. The idea that there is a permanent air to this coalition needs to be exposed as a lie as soon as possible, before the commentariat in the UK media persuade everybody that this is an established fact.

What should also be exploited is the deep, but presently underlying, anger on the Tory backbenchers about Cameron's acceptance about the status quo in the European Union. There are a host of Tory eurosceptics, both inside and outside of Parliament, who viscerally hate the EU and deeply resent having to make accommodations with Clegg over the European issue.

These very same people are ant-statist and instinctively opposed to nearly all aspects of public expenditure (except for the Ministry of Defence obviously). Again, this exposes a rich seam of discord for Labour to exploit mercilessly.

This campaign against this contradictory coalition should also be extended to local government and with party activists. At every turn the Labour leadership, MPs, Councillors, party membership and the wider Labour movement should be exploiting the discomfiture that is already there about this posh alliance and the growing discomfiture that is to come.

Every Labour party member and supporter has an opportunity to contribute to undermining this real threat to labour's interests by foreshortening the lifetime of the coalition by helping to spread a growing discord amongst its supporters and members, thereby establishing an irresistible momentum that will destroy this iniquitous government.

WHAT IS IAIN DUNCAN SMITH UP TO?

Did Iain Duncan Slith really say on the BBC this morning that "work helps to make you free"?
Doen't this sound rather too similiar to the wording on German concentration and death camps , as in, "ARBEIT MACHT FRIE"? Just a thought.

LET'S TALK ABOUT EMMIGRATION

Why should we expect to be able to move anywhere if….

Marjorie Smith

Imagine the posters and leaflets calling for a halt to unbridled EU immigration, use of the words 'flocking' and 'floods' and 'hordes' widespread in the media. Imagine the references to distorting the housing market, to causing overstretch in public services such as hospitals, whose budgets are said to be struggling to cope with the influx.

Imagine a large and significant group of foreigners refusing to learn the native tongue. Shops such as ALDI and LIDL a metaphor for the Tower of Babel as customers speak in a multitude of tongues and are served by low-paid immigrants desperate for any work.

Imagine the drip, drip, drip, of continual antipathy to the immigrant community as parties of all points of the political spectrum acknowledge that immigration is a big political issue and has to be curbed.  As ever hiding behind the application of EU laws and saying "it's all that Brussels' fault" as political camouflage for their own inability to present a balanced case for immigration.

How would it feel to be part of that immigrant community accused of being a net drain on the public finances, when in fact the opposite was the case. That the taxes the immigrant community paid were in excess of any cost of the public services received and that this lie was a central plank of the political opposition to EU immigration.

Now imagine the plethora of political propaganda was in Spanish not in English, that the opposition to unbridled EU immigration was orchestrated by extremist Spanish parties. That the Spanish mainstream parties believed that using anti-immigrant sentiments as part of a populist electoral tool was acceptable.

How would the more than seven hundred thousand (yes, over 700,000) Britons who have made their home in Spain feel? Why is it that it is perfectly acceptable for the British to believe that they have the right of residency in any other EU country, yet it is apparent that people believe that the same right should not be reciprocated to citizens from other EU countries.

This seems to be the current political atmosphere that is pervading the country and seemingly has infected the Labour party.  It now appears that leadership candidates such as Balls and Burnham believe that playing the immigration card is way of selling their candidacy as an attractive option. They should hang their heads in shame, sacrificing decades of Labour party morals, for a squalid short-term fix in order to further their own political ends believing that an ill-thought out populist approach to immigration is either politically attractive or morally right.

There are currently one million, six hundred and fifty thousand (1,650,000)  Britons who live in the rest of the EU full time (less than 15% of them of pensionable age), if one includes those who live part-time in the UK and part-time in the rest of the EU that takes the figure up to over two million (2,000,000). We seem to believe we should be able to flock abroad at will but deeply resent the quid pro quo.

However, the deepest resentment appears to be amongst those who do not have the financial resources to choose. There is a case to be argued that unbridled immigration from the new Member States of the EU has had an impact on the lower end of the jobs market in the UK. However the economic growth under the Labour Government from 1997 onwards created large numbers of jobs that could not be filled locally.

It does seem to be the case that those who have been impacted on the most are the unskilled poor where competition for jobs may have suppressed wage levels below their normal historical relationship with more skilled pay levels. However, the role of family tax credits compensates for what may have been a suppression factor in domestic pay rates at the lowest level.

The case has to be argued that EU immigration to this country has had a positive effect on the pubic finances. That most of the immigrants from Eastern Europe have been relatively young and keen to work, that the tax take from such immigrants has led to a net contribution to the UK Treasury. Furthermore, many of the immigrants from the EU have already returned to their home countries and the arrival of newcomers slows down dramatically as the economy suffers under the Posh Alliances planned savage cuts in public expenditure.

It is also undoubtedly true that those whose quality of life has improved the most are those people who are the +/- 350,000 who live part-time in the UK and part-time in the rest of the EU. This group almost certainly contains a significant number of the rich middle-classes who delight in their second-homes on the Mediterranean or in Tuscanny or the Dordogne.

However, 'that's life', those with sufficient disposable income to buy holiday homes will spend the money on such homes. It can be argued that the freedom of movement in the EU has had a welcomed negative effect on house prices in the UK, with the South Coast, South West, Wales etc seeing house prices moderating as the attractions of second homes abroad compete with domestic options.

The Labour Party does itself no favours when it espouses policies based on anti-immigrant sentiment, when it employs phrases such as combating/halting/ fighting 'the  tide' of immigration. It is ill-served by leadership candidates who rather than campaign about the issue on the doorstep instead reach for the knee-jerk response in a tawdry display of triangulation, with the BNP being, imperceptibly, one of the angles.

Right-Wing Entryism and the Neo-Liberals

This article will be published in Tribune Magazine on 28 May 2007 -  http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/

The new Con-Dem coalition should come as no surprise to those who have studied the development of a free market philosophy at the core of current Lib Dem thinking. What we have witnessed since the election is the culmination of a right-wing grab for power in what was formerly (albeit loosely) perceived as a progressive centre-left party.

The actual final nail in the coffin for a progressive alliance of the centre-left was marked by the leadership contest between Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne in 2007. Both firmly on the centre-right of their party, the contest was between two free market fundamentalists far more interested in individual rights (by itself commendable) than in state intervention to address manifest injustices.

The party of Grimond, Steele, Ashdown and Kennedy has had its progressive heart completely hollowed out by neo-economic liberal activism in the party and replaced by a right-wing cabal of Clegg, Huhne, Davey, Laws and Cable amongst others. It should come as no surprise that a coalition with the Tories was no ideological barrier to their personal ambitions. Supposed left-leaning Liberal MPs such as Simon Hughes are either now Tory lackeys or simple hypocrites.

The only faction within the Liberal Democrats that would have been able to oppose the relentless drive to the right in their party, the Beveridge Group, made up of social liberals who are convinced that the role of the state should be a force to increase social welfare by state intervention, has been completely emasculated by the leadership cabal. It should be noted that only 2 out of their 28 members in the House of Commons have been given ministerial posts and inconsequential ones at that, one as deputy chief whip and one as a junior transport minister.

The Beveridge group (whose inspiration includes Keynes as well as Beveridge) would have been the core of any progressive alliance with Labour. Even if it was a loose arrangement in this Parliament, it would almost certainly have been able to help Labour block the worst excesses of George Gideon ‘Gus’ Osborne’s savage cuts to come. Instead they have meekly accepted the triumphant entryism from the right and allowed Clegg and his followers to lurch the party rightwards.

Chris Huhne, unsurprisingly, has tried to straddle both factions, being a member of the Beveridge group and former highly successful economist in the City, but crucially a contributor to the Orange Book. Of course, the ex-Labour party supporter has obviously been on a personal political journey, ‘rightward, ever rightward’, However, Huhne, owns seven houses (five of which are rented) and is independently wealthy.

In fact it can be argued that the current Lib Dems have reverted to being a party more akin to a historical Whig position, with its main concern being the defence of the merchant class with their interest in protecting property rights, laissez-faire economics and a penchant for free trade rather than any real or feigned concern for the working class.

What many term as a Blue-Yellow coalition is in reality a Blue-Orange coalition with the little-known Orange Book forming the core of current Lib Dem political thinking. To understand how this disreputable coalition has come to pass is to forensically examine the political thinking laid out in The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism edited by David Laws (yes that Laws) and Paul Marshall. Particularly interesting are the contributions of the Lib Dems' current leadership.

The Orange Book published in 2004 marked the start of the decline of progressive values in the Lib Dems and the gradual abandonment of commitment to a social market system. It also provided the ideological pole for the party's right wing to coalesce around and start the march to seizing power in the Lib Dems. What is also remarkable is the complete failure of the former SDP (and originally Labour) element in their party to sound the warning bell as to the direction the party was going. Ex-Labour people like Shirley Williams and Tom McNally should be thoroughly ashamed about their inaction.

Clegg et al are a mirror image of Cameron's philosophical approach with its social liberal solutions to society's perceived ills. At the core of the Orange Book is an abiding belief in the role of the free market's ability to address most of societal issues, such as public healthcare, pensions, environment, globalisation, social and agricultural policy, local government and prisons. Laws even advocated replacing the National Health Service with an insurance-based scheme.

What is also remarkable is how easy the Lib Dem leadership sits within the Tory-led coalition. This is an arranged marriage between partners of a very similar social class. Even the historical Tory-Whig coalition of early 1780s, whilst similar in class, at least it had fundamental political differences. In many respects we are seeing a Government being formed made up of a single ruling elite that has previously manifested itself as two separate political parties whose leading figures can now be seen to have been divided more by subtle shades of opinion rather than any single ideological difference.

The Orange Book contributors of David Laws, Vincent Cable, Nicholas Clegg and Chris Huhne, Edward Davey are all Oxbridge-educated (as was the remaining member of the cabal, Danny Alexander) and four out of the five went to private schools with Cable an ex-Grammar schoolboy.

These are not people who know how it is to struggle financially, socially or academically. Its leader Nicholas William Peter Clegg was educated at the exclusive and highly expensive Westminster school (as was Huhne). He was also educated at his family's expense in the USA and at the very exclusive and super-elitist, College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium. He was a member of the Conservative Association at Cambridge University and was an integral part of Tory European Commissioner Leon Brittan's private office in Brussels. It should come as no surprise which party and which party leader he feels most comfortable with.

The idea that the current Lib Dem leadership clique could have easily sat with the Labour party; either in Government or in opposition was always fanciful and a forlorn hope to those on the right of the Labour party who thought that an accommodation could have been reached.  The electoral mathematics gave the perfect excuse to the Lib Dem's right-wing cabal (or more accurately neo-Liberals) to refuse to deal with Labour at a strategic level. Whilst hints of a deal with Labour were useful in dealing with the Conservatives tactically, Clegg was quite obviously never interested in a deal.

One salutary lesson to be learned from this squalid deal amongst the country’s forces of conservatism is that the Tories real intentions are plain to see. The Lib Dem Ministers have, to use the vernacular, got ‘the shitty end of the stick’. Appointed to Cabinet Posts with little power (i.e. Clegg and Alexander) or little room to manoeuvre as the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds the purse string (Laws, Huhne and Cable), the Tories’ disdain is manifest.

Finally, the main justification for this squalid coalition agreement being that the country needs strong and stable Government ((i.e. absolute power for a guaranteed five years and a signaled gerrymandering of national elections, Parliamentary procedure and a short to medium-term stitch up of the House of Lords) is vacuous in the extreme.

The basis for the Con-Dem coalition is nothing more than naked class interest that will cost the working class of this country dear and may well endure far beyond the initial five-year proposal, if their naked attempts to gerrymander Parliament bear fruit.

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.