I have argued over the years on this Forum that Tony Blair is a corrupt politician and needs to be removed from power. Recently events suggest that we might be on the verge of discovering the exact scale of his crimes. I suspect this is not the case and will end up as Britain’s Watergate. In the sense that Nixon was forced to resign but the full account of his crimes were never revealed to the public.

Let me outline my case against Tony Blair. The story begins before Blair became leader of the Labour Party. In the past, attempts to undermine the Labour Party took place either just before or during a Labour Government. Kier Hardy was incorruptible but the ruling elite got rid of Labour’s first government, led by Ramsay MacDonald, with the Zinoviev Letter in 1924. More sophisticated methods were then used on MacDonald after that and by 1931 he was willing to completely sell-out the Labour Party.

It took many years to overcome this treachery but by 1945 the Labour Party was able to win control again. Clement Atlee was also fairly incorruptible but fellow leaders of the party were willing to accept the money of the CIA via Tom Braden and the International Organizations Division to move to the right. This created internal division in the Labour government was by 1951 it had lost its majority.

Harold Wilson was the next Labour prime minister. We now know that MI5 and the CIA began a long drawn out campaign to undermine his government. Edward Heath suffered from the same forces as he was considered by the establishment to be far too left wing. James Callaghan and Denis Healey (one of the original targets of CIA money in the late 1940s) successfully moved Labour to the right after Wilson was finally removed in 1976. Callaghan and Healey introduced monetarism that was developed by Margaret Thatcher’s period in office.

In 1986, the newly elected Tony Blair took a “freebie” tour of the United States. At the time he was a member of CND. While in Washington he announced he had changed his mind and that that the “visit had persuaded him of the value of nuclear weapons”. The intelligence services always prefer their placements to have been a former “left-winger” because they rarely move back again after they have been “converted”.

In March, 1994, Blair was introduced to Michael Levy at a dinner party at the Israeli embassy in London. Levy was a retired businessman who now spent his time raising money for Jewish pressure-groups. After this meeting, Levy acquired a new job, raising money for Tony Blair. According to Robin Ramsay (The Rise of New Labour, page 64), Levy raised over £7 million for Blair).

In an article by John Lloyd published in the New Statesman on 27th February, 1998, the main suppliers of this money included Sir Emmanuel Kaye (Kaye Enterprises), Sir Trevor Chin (Lex Garages), Maurice Hatter (IMO Precision Group) and Maurice Hatter (Sage Software).

In April, 1994, John Smith died and Blair won the leadership contest. With Levy’s money, Blair appointed Jonathan Powell as his Chief of Staff. A retired diplomat, Powell was not a member of the Labour Party. In fact, his brother, Charles Powell, was Margaret Thatcher's right hand man.

Alastair Campbell was the other man brought into his private office with Levy’s money. Powell and Campbell were later to become key figures in the later invasion of Iraq. It is of course a pure coincidence that this decision reflected the thinking of Israel’s government.

Another important figure in the corruption of Tony Blair was the media baron, Rupert Murdoch. It was widely believed that Labour Party lost the 1992 General Election because of the anti-Labour campaigns of Murdock’s newspapers.

In 1995 Tony Blair flew to Australia to “pledge his allegiance at a meeting of News International’s executives… an extraordinary act of fealty”. (Peter Oborne, Alastair Campbell: New Labour and the Rise of the Media Class” page 141)

As a result of this meeting Murdoch’s papers were, at worst, neutral towards Labour. Alastair Campbell began writing articles to go under Blair’s name in the Murdoch papers. (Robin Ramsay, The Rise of New Labour, page 67)

It was later announced that Blair had signed a book contract with Harper Collins (a company owned by Rupert Murdoch). The deal was worth £3.5 million to Blair. This information only came out when Blair used the contract as security when he purchased his house in London. Margaret Thatcher and John Major got similar book deals with Harper Collins. Of course, the royalties near reach the multi-million advances paid for them. However, it is a great way of bribing a prime minister.

To create “New Labour”, Blair had to start removing the links with the trade union movement. Traditionally, the trade unions had been the main providers of money to the Labour Party. However, if Blair was going to this he had to find other financial backers. This became Sir Michael Levy’s job. However, the problem with obtaining large donations is that they always expect something back in return. Businessmen have always seen donations to political parties as an “investment”. Recently, there has been much speculation about this money being used to buy “honours”.

For example, all but one of Labour’s top donors who have given over £1m has received a peerage. The exception is Lakshmi Mittal, the steel magnate. He was rewarded in other ways - the Romanian steel contract. This is the reality of large political donations. The granting of honours is just a sideshow. It is the granting of other political favours that is the real scandal.

For example, soon after he was elected as prime minister, Blair announced that sport was being exempted from the ban on tobacco advertising. Everyone was surprised by this broken election promise until it was revealed that Bernie Ecclestone had given the Labour Party £1 million a few weeks previously.

Another example of Blair’s corruption concerns his relationship with the businessman, Paul Drayson. Blair had a meeting with Drayson on 6th December, 2001. Soon afterwards two things happened: (1) Drayson donated £100,000 to the Labour Party; (2) Drayson’s company, PowerJect, won a £32 million contract to produce a smallpox vaccine. The most surprising aspect of this contract was that it was not put out to open tender. If it had of been the contract would have gone to a German-Danish company called Bavarian Nordic. It is this company that Drayson has purchased the smallpox vaccine from. It is believed that Drayson paid Bavarian Nordic £12m for the vaccine. In other words his £100,000 investment has resulted in a £20m profit. In all, Drayson has given £1.1m to New Labour. This was a good deal for Drayson, he was also given a peerage as a result of this donation.

Another company that has a strange relationship with Blair is Jarvis Engineering. The chairman of this company is Steven Norris. He was formerly a Conservative MP and served as Minister of Transport (1992-1996). However, he decided to leave the House of Commons to become chairman of Jarvis Engineering. Although still a member of the Conservative Party, Norris decided it would be a good idea to make large donations of money to the Labour Party.

This was followed by a change of Labour Party policy. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had in opposition been strong opponents of the Public Finance Initiative (PFI). A scheme brought in by the Conservative government that enabled private companies to obtain government contracts to provide public sector services. Jarvis Engineering had done extremely well out of this scheme. Blair and Brown decided that this scheme was now a good one. It was not very surprising that Jarvis Engineering soon began winning PFI contracts given out by the Labour Government. Jarvis was not the only company that found it very beneficial to give money to “New Labour”. History shows that it seems a very good way to get PFI contracts.

When Tony Blair was elected he promised to reform the House of Lords in order to make it acceptable in a democratic society. However, he has failed to do this and Robin Cook disclosed in his diaries that Blair was never keen to reform the second chamber. The reasons are clear. Selecting who should be in the House of Lords gives tremendous power to the prime minister. It is also a source of income as Blair has been selling honours for the last nine years.

Giving money to New Labour is good business. In 2001 Richard Desmond gave £100,000 to New Labour. Within days the DTI gave permission for Desmond to buy Express newspapers for £125m. Afterwards he admitted it was a good deal as New Labour spent £114,000 advertising in his newspapers “so I actually made money on the deal.”

Over the last five years, 17 out of the 22 donors who have donated more than £100,000 have been given some kind of honour.

The publicity over links between donations, honours, and government contracts (PFI was always going to lead to government corruption) has resulted in Blair developing a new tactic. This involves businessmen in providing loans rather than gifts. Loans do not have to be declared. The idea is that several years after the contract has been given or the honour awarded, the loan is turned into a gift.

Chai Patel (1.5m), Sir David Garrard (1m) and Barry Townsley (1m) all gave this money to Lord Levy (Blair’s bagman). It has now been revealed that over £14 million in loans was raised by Levy before the 2005 election. As a businessman myself, I find it difficult to understand why Labour has been willing to sell honours in exchange for loans. How are they ever going to be paid back? Since 1997 the membership of the Labour Party has fallen by over 50%. Trade union contributions to the party have also nearly dried up. Therefore, the only way they will be able to pay this money back is by raising this money in donations. It is financial madness? Or is it? Remember, leading Labour Party officials are claiming that they knew nothing about these loans. Is it possible that some members of the party have received money for arranging these loan deals? The Labour Party is in danger of going bankrupt. One of the reasons the Labour Party sought out these loans is that its bankers refused to provide the necessary overdraft to fight the election.

Even this is not the great scandal waiting to be exposed. This involves the relationship between Tony Blair, Jonathan Powell, Alastair Campbell, Michael Levy, Rubert Murdoch, etc. and the funding of the Labour Party and the Iraq War. Is it possible that some of these loans came from companies who have benefited from the Iraq War? This is of course what has happened in the United States (Halliburton & Bechtel). Is this the reason that Tony Blair is reluctant to reveal who gave such large loans in 2005?

We now know that Lyndon Johnson manipulated Congress in order to start the Vietnam War. We also know that the greatest beneficiaries of the war was three companies based in Texas, Brown & Root, General Dynamics and Bell Corporation. All three companies had been long-term financial backers of LBJ. Will we find out the same thing about Blair and his backers? The fact that the man who arranged these loans was Sir Michael Levy.

Tony Blair has just released the list of the businessmen who provided the loans.

Rod Aldridge - £1m
Richard Caring - £2m
Gordon Crawford - £500,000
Prof Sir Christopher Evans - £1m
Nigel Morris - £1m
Sir Gulam Noon - £250,000
Dr Chai Patel - £1.5m
Andrew Rosenfeld - £1m
Lord David Sainsbury - £2m
Barry Townsley - £1m
Derek Tullett - £400,000

Total: £13,950,000

The list includes some interesting names.

Andrew Rosenfeld established the Minerva property group with Sir David Garrard in 1996. Rosenfeld stake is worth £49m. He has £30m in other assets. Garrard is also a major supplier of cash to Tony Blair. There is no evidence that they are socialists. However, they do depend on the government to give planning permission for their various property ventures. For example, in January the government gave permission for them to build Minerva Building, a 217-metre office tower in London. Just a coincidence of course, I am sure the reason they supported the government because they wanted Blair to increase the minimum wage.

Tony Blair has just released the list of the businessmen who provided the loans.

Rod Aldridge - £1m
Richard Caring - £2m
Gordon Crawford - £500,000
Prof Sir Christopher Evans - £1m
Nigel Morris - £1m
Sir Gulam Noon - £250,000
Dr Chai Patel - £1.5m
Andrew Rosenfeld - £1m
Lord David Sainsbury - £2m
Barry Townsley - £1m
Derek Tullett - £400,000

Total: £13,950,000

The list includes some interesting names.

Andrew Rosenfeld established the Minerva property group with Sir David Garrard in 1996. Rosenfeld stake is worth £49m. He has £30m in other assets. Garrard is also a major supplier of cash to Tony Blair. There is no evidence that they are socialists. However, they do depend on the government to give planning permission for their various property ventures. For example, in January the government gave permission for them to build Minerva Building, a 217-metre office tower in London. Just a coincidence of course, I am sure the reason they supported the government because they wanted Blair to increase the minimum wage.

Rod Aldridge is Chief Executive of Capita. He has been called the 'privatisation tycoon'. Capita has a 10-year, £400 million contract to run the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). This was the agency that failed to provide adequate security checks for staff working with children and the elderly. Capita also runs seven contracts out of the Darlington office that used to be the Teachers' Pension Bureau. Another contract given to Capita was the London Congestion Charging scheme. Aldridge has a £44m stake in the Capita Group. Other assets add £8m to his wealth. Aldridge's wealth is based on obtaining PFI contracts. However, he probably gives money to Blair because he supports Labour's war on poverty.

Hi John

Interesting information. I have a question for you, out of general interest and I hope I don't come off sounding smart-alecky in asking it. Are you against Blair more for his betrayal of the Socialist principles of the Labour Party (as with your illustration of Ramsay MacDonald) or for his business contacts? Or both?

All my best

Chris

John:

Is it possible to find a list of peerages thus "sold" by Blair? And would we know if, in fact, that list was complete?

My reason for asking is something that has always troubled me about the elevation of Lord Conrad Black of Crossharbour, another media baron in the Beaverbrook tradition. A number of Canadians like Beaverbrook have been made Lords over the decades. However, when it became apparent that Black was about to be likewise honoured, the then-Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, denied Black the privilege by citing an obscure Canadian law that forbids citizens from accepting such honours. Few people, if any, could recall the last time that particular arcane law was enforced, leaving the distinct impression that Chretien was directing a petty and highly mean-spirited vendetta against Black. Given that Black had started a right wing national newspaper here, one that regularly excoriated the Liberal party Chretien government, it was viewed as just so much tit-for-tat.

Rather than forego the honours, Black renounced his Canadian citizenship [which may prove to have been an egregious error, depending on how his current legal woes play out Stateside.] This seemed a rather drastic step in order to accept a Lordship. Yes, Black has always been a shameless social climber, and yes, Black has always considered himself upper-crust, even while building his current empire upon the fleecing of a pair of elderly widows some decades ago. No doubt, he considered himself deserving of the ermine robes and other quaint affectations that came with the Lordship. But renouncing one's citizenship is a dramatic act.

I am wondering if Black paid Blair for the Lordship, and, having parted with good money in a subrosa deal, was determined to obtain his full money's worth, even if it meant relinquishing his Canadian passport. [If not a "cash" transaction, did Black's UK media holdings tilt noticeably toward Labour during Blair's tenure?] Any light you can shed on this would be appreciated.

Both. However, I consider corruption is the most important factor in this story. I believe if we had a truly democratic system we would now be living in a harmonious egalitarian society. The main reason that we do not have such a society is that the system has always allowed the rich to corrupt our politicians. The same thing has happened all over the world. The only way it is going to stop is if this corruption is fully exposed. The media is part of this corrupt system and is therefore reluctant to expose it (see my postings on Murdoch). The most dangerous aspect of this corrupt political system concerns the large profits made by the arms manufacturers. Not only does this corruption cause the deaths of millions of people, it poses a threat to the survival of the planet.

See:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6116

Most of the named businessmen are involved in property development. If I was an investigative journalist I would take a close look at recent planning applications involving these people: Richard Carling, Gordon Crawford, David Gerrard and Andrew Rosenfield. Lord Sainsbury is another who is very interested in planning permission when it involves his great rival Tesco.

Several of these characters are also involved in bidding for government contracts: Ron Aldridge, Gordon Crawford and Chai Patel. Sir Christopher Evans (biotechnology entrepreneur) has been having some legal problems and probably has been in need of some government help.

Barry Townsley has been very useful as a financial sponsor of Blair’s city academy scheme.

I need to do more research into Nigel Morris (credit cards), Sir Gulam Noon (Indian food products) and Derek Tullett (stockbroker).

Not that I believe this is an accurate list. Lord Sainsbury denied he was on the list of secret donors when this story was first published in the newspapers. Was he lying then or now? Why would he give a commercial loan to the Labour Party? He has already given £6.5m since becoming science minister in 2001 (an expensive job to buy). I suspect he was telling the truth the first time and is now being used as a cover for someone who is linked to the arms industry.

Nor does the idea of commercial loans make any sense. Where is the Labour Party going to get the money to pay off these loans? The money has already been spent on the last election.

The real scandal is not about the Labour Party selling honours or government contracts. It is about individual members of this government taking money from these businessmen.

I have recently been studying the corrupt activities of Lyndon Baines Johnson. He used several methods of laundering corrupt money. His main strategy was to get his businessmen to pay money into his wife’s television station. This took the form of overcharged advertising payments. Mrs Blair does not own a television station. However, she does make ridiculous sums of money from the “lecture circuit”. Is this how the Blair’s do it?

Some extra information on the secret list. Richard Aldridge, the chairman of Capita, has so far made over £1bn from government contracts.

Sir Christopher Evans, the head of a bioscience firm, is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

Derek Tullett, is a director of an online betting exchange with an interest in government plans for super-casinos.

I actually worked for Conrad Black in the late 1990s. I was advising the Telegraph newspaper group on their internet strategy. I proposed a scheme where they would provide free educational materials for English speaking students all over the world. I even gave him a good promotion slogan: “A millennium gift to the world.” I calculated that we could organize it for 2.6 million a year. I thought this was cheap considering the good will it would create. The Telegraph Board actually agreed the plan but Conrad Black overruled them. His thinking is quite interesting. His newspapers had spent many years criticizing the teaching profession. Black argued that teachers felt so hostile to the Telegraph they would never recommend their students to use the service. The real reason was probably that he was already having financial problems.

No, the Telegraph newspapers have never supported New Labour. However, Blair’s policies are very close to those of Conrad Black. It would have probably damaged Blair if the Telegraph began supporting him during elections. It would then be clear to everyone just how right-wing Blair had become.

All political parties are allowed to nominate people for honours. That is why the Conservatives are unwilling to name those who have been giving them loans.

I thought this posting on the web was funny:

MERGERS AND AQUISITIONS FEVER HITS WESTMINSTER

(from City correspondent Peter Pigeon)

The M&A fever that took the FTSE-100 index above 6000 last week is about to spread to Westminster. Rumours are circulating that private equity groups have built up significant stakes in both the Conservative and Labour Parties.

Now insiders suggest that these groups will seek to realise their investments (provided in the form of secret loans) and take control of the boards of each Party. They then propose to push through a merger.

City Analyst Vince Cable has told the BBC that Labour is suffering from negative equity - with assets of just nine million, and debts of more than eleven million.

The private equity groups are being advised by prominent City bankers Levy and Marland. Sources here told the SunGod "A deal like this makes good commercial sense. The two businesses have substantially the same objectives and there is massive overlap in their business operations. The merged company could realise significant synergies. Essentially we are looking at scrapping one London Headquarters and up to 600 high street branches."

http://sun-god.blogspot.com/2006/03/merger...fever-hits.html

I would argue that Rod Aldridge and Capita are to Tony Blair what Herman Brown and Brown & Root (Halliburton) was to Lyndon Johnson.

Until Tony Blair came to power Capita was a little-known IT firm with a £112 million turnover relying heavily on contracts with local authorities. This included Brighton Council. The council leader, Steve Bassam, was given a peerage by Blair soon after he was elected in 1997. The following year Lord Bassam joined Capita as a consultant.

This was a shrewd move as Bassam introduced Aldridge to Blair. Aldridge, who went to school in Brighton, got on very well with Blair and soon began donating money to New Labour (he had been a supporter of the Conservative Party before 1997).

Over the last ten years Aldridge has won contracts to administer the following:

Supplying BBC licences (£500m)

Child Trusts Funds (£430m)

Criminal Records Bureau (£400m)

London Congestion Charge Scheme (£280m)

Department of Education Literacy and Numeracy Strategies (£177m)

Miners’ Liability Claims (£145m)

Online Services for Department of Work and Pensions (£118m)

Connexions Discount Card (£100m)

BBC jobs in Northern Ireland (£100m)

Department of Work and Pensions Records Management (£70m)

Teachers’ Pensions (£62m)

Individual Learning Account Scheme (£55m)

Department of Education Maintenance Allowance (£49m)

TFL Congestion Charge Scheme (£31m)

Driving Standards Agency (£22m)

Healthcare for Civil Servants (£12m)

Management Support for LEAs (£0.4m)

Recruitment for Customs and Excise (£0.3m)

Despite being fined for a string of high-profile blunders, Capita (nicknamed Crapita) has been chosen to provide virtually every public sector contract it bids for.

In return Aldridge has given £2m to support City Academies and given a £1m loan to New Labour (he is now demanding it back because he has not been given a peerage).

That is not bad for a man who has obtained £2.6bn in government contracts and has a personal fortune of £73m.

Just posted on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4836024.stm

The chairman of outsourcing firm Capita has quit over "spurious" claims his £1m loan to the Labour Party resulted in the group getting government contracts.

Rod Aldridge, one of 12 donors who lent the party almost £14m in total before the last election, said he did "not want this misconception to continue".

The loan had been "my own decision as an individual, made in good faith".

Chancellor Gordon Brown told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the system had to be reformed to ensure "transparency".

He said people were free to give money to political parties "in good faith", in the same way as charities, if they "want to help the cause they believe in".

Tony Blair has denied accusations of nominating supporters for honours in returns for loans.

Meanwhile, the Electoral Commission is expected to finalise its guidelines on political loans at a meeting in London.

Mr Aldridge, who has run Capita since its foundation in 1984, said: "At present, the group's reputation is being questioned because of my personal decision to lend money to the Labour Party.

"As I have made clear, this was entirely my own decision as an individual, made in good faith as a long-standing supporter of the party.

"There have been suggestions that this loan has resulted in the group being awarded government contracts. This is entirely spurious.

"Whilst anyone who is associated with the public procurement process would understand that this view has no credibility, I do not want this misconception to continue, as I remain passionate about the group's wellbeing."

The Electoral Commission is expected to finalise its guidelines on political loans at a meeting in London.

These are expected to be introduced in the Electoral Administration Bill, which is currently going through parliament.

At prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Mr Blair said Labour had been "a little more open on the issue of loans" than the Tories, after it named 12 major lenders.

On Tuesday Scotland Yard said it was examining three complaints that Labour had breached the honours system - something it denies.

The investigation will focus on whether the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 was upheld and whether honours were given by Labour in return for loans or donations.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke had questioned the competence of Labour treasurer Jack Dromey, who claimed he and other elected party officials had not been told about £14m loans arranged by Mr Blair's chief fundraiser, Lord Levy.

That accusation prompted National Executive Committee chairman Sir Jeremy Beecham to say he did not think Mr Clarke had "read the situation correctly".

He said it was "absolutely clear that the reasons that NEC officers, including the elected party treasurer, did not know about the loans had nothing to do with any failings on their part".

Rod Aldridge states: "There have been suggestions that this loan has resulted in the group being awarded government contracts. This is entirely spurious. Whilst anyone who is associated with the public procurement process would understand that this view has no credibility, I do not want this misconception to continue, as I remain passionate about the group's wellbeing."

It seems the stockmarket does not agree with him. There has been a sharp drop in Capita's share price since Aldridge's loan has been made public. They are aware it will be much more difficult for Capita to bribe Blair in the future.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/fds/hi/...28/intraday.stm

Although written by a former Tory MP I think this article by Matthew Parris in The Times gets close to explaining Tony Blair (18th March)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-2091566,00.html

I believe Tony Blair is an out-and-out rascal, terminally untrustworthy and close to being unhinged. I said from the start that there was something wrong in his head, and each passing year convinces me more strongly that this man is a pathological confidence-trickster. To the extent that he ever believes what he says, he is delusional. To the extent that he does not, he is an actor whose first invention — himself — has been his only interesting role.

Books could be written on which of Mr Blair’s assertions were ever wholly sincere, which of his claimed philosophies are genuine, and how far he temporarily persuades himself that each passing passion is real. But deconstructing Mr Blair’s mind is hopeless.

Suffice it to say that I used to believe that, at the moment of saying anything, our Prime Minister probably thought that what he said was true — that there was no secret, internal wink. Today I have lost confidence even in that.

Small things as much as large have formed my view. What kind of a man would walk out of the Chamber as his former ally, Frank Field, rose to offer a patently heartfelt explanation of his reasons for standing down? Knowing what we do today about Mr Blair, would he still get the benefit of our doubt over the Bernie Ecclestone affair? What kind of a man would employ Alastair Campbell as his mouthpiece to history? What kind of a man would have given journalists on a plane to China the clear and false impression that he had had nothing to do with the outing of Dr David Kelly?

What kind of a man makes Silvio Berlusconi his friend and incurs a personal debt of gratitude to that bad, bad man? What kind of a Prime Minister neglects the courtesy and gratitude owed to his man in Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, quitting early after heart trouble? What kind of a man leaves friends as different as the late Roy Jenkins, Paddy Ashdown, and his own Chancellor privately despairing that they can ever rely on the Prime Minister’s word again?

And what kind of a man dispatches his “personal envoy to the Middle East”, Lord Levy, to drill vast sums of money from little-known tycoons with hopes of taking life peerages, and hushes it up? We may never discover what so discreet an operator as Lord Levy has said to these people but we know something they wanted from Tony Blair, and we know something Tony Blair wanted from them. Did more need to be said?

Another thing we know is that the Prime Minister recognised that if a gift were declared then the chain of events would be judged disgraceful. So the money was hidden: hidden even from his own party treasurer. Now his treasurer has blown the whistle, and his treasurer’s wife, the Solicitor-General, has arranged a separation not from her husband, but from much of her ministerial portfolio. Love, then, is not dead; but if Ms Harman’s Chinese wall is appropriate now, why not when the PM appointed her? And if Mr Blair believes now that the funding of parties needs reform, why not earlier — in his recent manifesto, for instance? You know why. He never meant to put matters right. He has been caught out.

The genius Mr Blair showed this week in extricating himself from this latest corner was breathtaking. If a burglar, caught red-handed, should by effrontery and oratory make from the dock so stirring a call for the fundamental reform of the Theft Acts that the whole court were distracted from the charge and persuaded to “move on” . . . then the tour de force would hardly be more impressive.

Our PM has the magician’s knack of drawing the eye away from the trick. Should a fraction of his talent for getting himself out of trouble be deployed in some wider national purpose, Britain would probably have conquered the universe by now. He reminds me of those schoolboys whose form masters report that if they devoted to their homework half the dedication they devote to getting out of doing it, they would be the envy of the school.

But he already is. Tony Blair has lived before. Dickens has recorded the life in David Copperfield. The character is Copperfield’s one-time school-friend and (until he betrays him) hero: the engaging, handsome and popular James Steerforth. Read the book.

It is occasionally reported that some poor woman falls in love with a professional fraud and remains his wife for years without realising what she has married. The British electorate are such a woman. Mr Blair’s misdeeds are persistently overlooked, and his excuses credited. By the time we wake up he may have torn his party and its programme apart.

Close colleagues and Labour MPs mostly know already what he is. Forget the bleatings of the hard Left, the Tories and the likes of me: it is Tony Blair’s political allies who should now act. They must accept that he is no longer an asset to the new Labour cause and that, if they do not cut him loose soon, he may drag a whole brave political project down with him. There is not much time to lose.

This scandal has encouraged political commentators to start questioning Blair’s relationship with people like Silvio Berlusconi. Many people have found it strange that a leader of a left of centre political party should develop such a close friendship with two right-wing political leaders such as Berlusconi and Bush. Of course, it makes sense if Blair is indeed a right-wing leader (as I believe he is). It also makes sense if the three men are also involved in a corrupt relationship.

It has been recently revealed that David Mills, the husband of the Cabinet Minister, Tessa Jowell, provides advice on how millionaires can avoid paying tax. It is alleged in the Italian courts that Mills accepted a £350,000 bribe from the Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. This money was then used to pay off part of a £480,000 mortgage taken out by Mills and Jowell on their home.

The route of this money is very interesting. In December, 1999, Mills received a £350,000 cheque from Berlusconi. After ping-ponging through at least seven accounts in the Caribbean, Gibraltar and Switzerland, it ended up in a hedge fund in New York. In November, 2000, Mills and Jowell take the money from the hedge fund to pay off their Kentish Town mortgage.

Mills denies the money was from Berlusconi and was in fact a gift from another Italian businessmen, Diego Attanasio. The problem for Mills is that Attanasio denies this and was in fact in prison at the time this gift of money was given (Mills has never explained why Attanasio should have given him £350,000).

The other problem for Mills is that he has already told the truth to his accountant, Bob Drennan. In February, 2004, Mills wrote to his accountant and told him that Mr B (Berlusconi) had given him a gift of “$600,000” as a result of evidence he had given in court on behalf of Berlusconi: “I had been able to give my evidence (I told no lies, but I turned some very tricky corners, to put it mildly) had kept Mr. B out of a great deal of trouble that I would have landed him in if I had said all I knew.” Bob Drennan reported Mills to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, as he suspected his client of being involved in illegal activities. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, Drennan would have been breaking the law if he had not done this.

This information was eventually passed to Fabio de Pasquale, the chief prosecutor in the Silvio Berlusconi case. He then asked for Mills to be extradited to Italy. Instead of that happening, the Home Office passed this “extremely sensitive information” to Berlusconi.

It also has to be remembered that Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi take holidays together in Italy. These take place in Berlusconi’s villas. I assume the Blairs are not charged rent for these holidays. Anyway, I am sure they are working holidays.

Mills was behind the Bernie Ecclestone donation. Soon after he was elected as prime minister, Blair announced that sport was being exempted from the ban on tobacco advertising. Everyone was surprised by this broken election promise until it was revealed that Bernie Ecclestone had given the Labour Party £1 million a few weeks previously. Mills also lobbied for “super-casinos” and against the smoking ban in pubs. Blair’s strange policy shifts now make much more sense. As Max Hastings pointed out in a recent article: “Why should any British voter feel respect for a political party led by a man who exists in a moral vacumm? Why should we not be bitterly cross with a prime minister whose concept of right and wrong is determined by what he himself did yesterday, and plans to do tomorrow?”

Hastings goes on to argue that the Blair scandal is very different from almost all previous political scandals. It has nothing to do with sex. “It is almost paradoxical that Blair retains an unblemished reputation as a family man, but as almost nothing else.”

Information emerged over the weekend that suggested there was a link between political contributions and the Iraq War. Apparently, the Tory Party has found a good way to hide political contributions from armed dealers.

This is done via “Party Auctions”. For example, David Cameron organized an auction to raise money for the Tory Party. This included an eight-person dinner that was to be provided by the well-known chef, Albert Roux. Rosemary Said, the wife of the Saudi arms dealer, Wafic Said, won the meal with a bid of £100,000. Over the last two years Wafic Said has given £550,000 to the Tories at auctions but none of it has been declared. Not only is Said an arms dealer, he is a foreigner, and legally he is not allowed to fund political parties in the UK. Auctions are a good way of hiding contributions from dubious characters. If the Tories are up to this, I suspect New Labour is also doing this.

It was reported in the Sunday Times yesterday that John Prescott has twice approved planning permission for controversial Minerva property projects. Six months after Rosenfeld gave Labour a £1m loan, Prescott gave permission for the building of the £600m Park Place in Croydon. This involved killing a rival bid by a consortium called Whitgift. Before this decision, Minerva had suffered heavy losses. Prescott’s decision resulted in a boost to Rosenfeld’s personal shareholding by £4m. The £1m loan was obviously a shrewd piece of business.

Prescott also gave permission for the building of the 50-story Minerva tower. This will become the tallest building in the City of London. At the same time, Prescott intervened in two similar developments by other companies. Six months previous to this decision (June, 2003), Gerrard, the chairman of Minerva, gave a £2.3m loan to Labour.

Prescott of course has denied knowledge of these loans and therefore claims it did not influence his decisions.

About £1.46 a vote.

Any labour voters want to donate £2.00 for a socialist alternative?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell

In 2002 the MP for Hemel Hempstead, Tony McWalter, asked Tony Blair a question in the House of Commons: "Since my honourable friend is sometimes subjected to unflattering and even malevolent descriptions of his motivations, will he now provide the House with a brief characterisation of the political philosophy he expouses and which underlines his policies?"

As one political commentator who witnessed this event later said: "Mr Blair paused for what seemed a hideous eternity to many in the chamber, before mumbling some waffle about bringing in foreign consultants to fill NHS vacancies."

Lord David Sainsbury has been the one who has given the most money to New Labour over the last ten years (£15m). What has he got for this money? Well he has been given a peerage and the post as minister of science. It is the other things he has got that is more important and the real scandal.

Since being elected in 1997 the Blair government has continually backed down on attempts to protect the health of the UK population by regulating the food industry. In the last week we have seen the government climbdown on its promise to force food manufacturers to cut salt levels in our food. The plan was to reduce personal daily intake by 10gm to 6gm to 2010. This target has now been changed to 8gm. According to health experts, this will result in around an extra 14,000 people dying a year.

The Food & Drink Federation that represents supermarkets like Sainsbury have welcomed the relaxed targets. Other members of this organization, such as Asda, Marks & Spencer, Tesco and Waitrose can be expected to donate money to Blair over the following months.

Yesterday it was announced that celebrities are to be stopped from advertising junk food during television programmes designed to appeal to the under-10s. However, as health campaigners have pointed out, there are to be no changes in advertising during other programmes that children watch. The new proposals are just delaying tactics. TV has three years to be put into effect the proposals that will not become law until next year.

Can we really be surprised that companies like Sainsbury are willing to donate large sums of money to New Labour? It is not only over Iraq that Blair has “blood on his hands”.

Political parties have never been very keen on loans. As one official pointed out: Loans are a pain in the arse. Frankly, if you are a fundraiser you want to get the money. And either the bugger wants it back so you’ve only bought time, or you have to go cap in hand and see if they’re prepared to convert it and go through all that.”

Yet Dr Chai Patel, who has never voted for the party, originally offered to give New Labour a donation of £1.5m. However, he got a phone call from Sir Michael Levy and asked to turn it into a loan. How do you explain this?

Although Levy is keen for millionaires to give gifts and donations to New Labour, he is very much against paying income tax. In 2000 the Sunday Times revealed that multimillionaire only paid £5,000 income tax the previous year. It seems that Gordon Brown had told him all about the tax loopholes in the system (in opposition Brown promised that these loopholes would be closed).

The Jerusalem Post has described him as “undoubtedly the leader of British Jewry”. A leading international Zionist, Levy is Blair’s special envoy to the Middle East (that seems a wise choice).

Levy was also a fundraiser for the Conservative Party before the arrival of Tony Blair. He then created a series of “blind trusts” that channeled funds into Blair’s private office without the identities of rich benefactors being disclosed. In 1997 Levy raised £12m for the New Labour election campaign. Blair used Levy to cut Labour’s dependence on the trade union movement so the party’s reliance has declined from two-thirds in 1992 to about a quarter now.

Scotland Yard confirmed yesterday that the Conservatives are also to be investigated over the " loans for lordships" scandal.

Nearly half of the benefactors who gave loans to the Tories have already emerged. The biggest known loan so far is £3.5m from Lord Ashcroft, the party's chairman. Others include Michael Hintze (£2.5m), Robert Edmiston (£2m), Henri Angest (£2m) and Johan Eliasch (£1m). Most of these are foreigners who are not legally allowed to give donations to British political parties. It raises the question, why would foreign businessmen be keen to give secret loans to British political parties?

The important issue is whether Scotland Yard will widen its investigation into the arena of corruption such as the granting of government contracts in exchange for gifts and loans.

Deputy assistant commissioner John Yates met the Commons public administration committee this week to ask MPs to postpone their hearings on the loans furore to avoid prejudicing possible police action. One fear is this is a tactic to stop MPs being questioned in public. That the real role of the police investigation by Yates is to enable a cover-up to take place. One thing is clear, John Yates will not get the top job in Scotland Yard unless he goes along with the cover-up. Nor will he get a peerage.

This now appears to be the case. Yesterday Lord Sainsbury confessed that he did not after all tell his permanent secretary that he had made a £2m loan to the party. Of course, he did not loan the money at the time he said he did. The money was used to pay off those shady businessmen who provided the initial £2m loan.

It has emerged that the same thing has happened with the Tory Party. Lord Laidlaw and Jonas Eliasch last week gave David Cameron £5m to pay off those who did not want to be identified as loaning money to the Tory Party.

Lord David Sainsbury has given £15m to New Labour since 1997. He also recently gave a secret £2m loan that he lied about before he was finally exposed in the press. Yet Tony Blair still refuses to sack him as Science Minister. This is not surprising as if he did, Sainsbury is likely to say I want my £2m back and I will refuse to give you any more money in the future.

As I have pointed out in earlier postings. It is clearly a conflict of interest to have a minister of the government giving such large sums of money to a political party who controls legislation that has a marked influence of the profitability of the company owned by his family.

Another reason that the current Blair scandal is like Watergate is that it involves people trying to blackmail others into silence. Blair hopes that a private meeting with Cameron will result in a truce. However, there are other political parties (especially the Scottish Nationalists) doing their best to keep the story in the headlines.

One of the most interesting stories to emerge over the weekend concerns the property tycoons, Roy and Don Richardson. Before the election of Blair the 76-year-old twins, provided considerable sums to the Conservative Party. The two men who are worth around £309m, found it helped their business if they gave regular donations.

The Richardsons were shocked by Tony Blair’s victory in 1997. However, business is business and so they thought it might be a good idea if they began making donations to New Labour. They therefore sought a meeting with the new prime minister. The Richardsons were told that this had to be arranged via Lord Levy.

At a meeting with Levy at the House of Lords, the Richardsons were told that they would have to make £1m donation to New Labour before they would be given access to government ministers. According to Roy Richardson: “Lord Levy said, at that time, any approach to ministers would have to go through him. We didn’t really agree with that. In the past, when the Conservatives were in, we used to write direct and make appointments with ministers.”

Roy and Don Richardson refused to donate money to New Labour. However, those who did donate large sums of money to New Labour, did get what they wanted from Blair. I will explain what this was in my next posting.

Honours and government contracts are two of the reasons why rich people are willing to donate money to political parties. However, the main reason concerns tax policy.

The Thatcher government openly redistributed wealth to the very rich with her policy of reducing the top rate of income tax to 40%. For example, by the late 1980s, the top 1% owned 17% of the wealth. In contrast, the bottom 50% owned only 10%.

When the Labour Party gained power in 1997 Blair and Brown obeyed their orders from Rupert Murdoch and left the top rate of tax unchanged. Today the top 1% own 23% of the wealth while the bottom 50% now own 6%. It is hard to believe that a Labour government would ever redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich, but that is what they have done.

Although Blair and Brown warned us they did not intend to raise taxes on the rich (Murdoch demanded they made that commitment) they did promise to end the tax loopholes that enabled Murdoch and his fellow billionaires, to avoid paying tax in this country. This they have failed to do.

Take the example of Philip Green, the owner of BHS and Arcadia. According to Stewart Lansley, the author of Rich Britain, The Rise and Rise of the New Super-Wealthy, Green has saved himself “hundreds of millions in personal tax in the past three years because the ownership of his companies is vested in the hands of his wife, Tina, who is resident of Monaco.” Over 5,000 British multimillionaires officially live in Monaco to avoid paying tax in this country.

Other supporters of New Labour such as Richard Branson, Lakshmi Mittal and Hans Rausing all use offshore tax havens to reduce their tax liabilities. This is all legal because Brown has refused to tackle this major scandal.

As you can see, it pays all rich people to donate the odd million to New Labour in order to ensure that the top rate of income-tax and the various tax loopholes are kept in place.

The consequence of this policy is to allow the rich to keep more of their wealth. Things like education and health-care still has to be paid for so those earning less than £100,000 have to pay more than they did in the past. This includes university fees, etc.

It has been announced that BAE Systems, the British military contractor is in talks with the European Aeronautic, Defence & Space consortium to sell its 20 percent stake in Airbus. This will bring to an end a nearly 30 year partnership that spawned the world’s largest passenger plane. It is estimated that the stake is worth 6 billion.

According to the International Herald Tribune (8th April) the decision to sell is linked to Blair’s foreign policy. The newspaper quotes Andy Lynch, a fund manager with Schroder Investment Management, as saying that Blair willingness to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan has made the arms industry a more predicable business than the aircraft industry. Especially as Blair has been very keen to give BAE long-term government contracts (the company specializes in land-based artillery). BAE is also a major supplier to the Pentagon. In fact, in the past two years it has bought six military contracting companies in the United States.

The Herald Tribune claims that BAE is in the process of transforming itself into a quasi-American company (in the same way that Blair is a quasi-American prime minister). Apparently it is currently trying to takeover L3 Communications Systems (surveillance systems) and Raytheon (missile maker). BAE Systems is now the world's 4th largest arms company. Each year it sells arms worth around £11bn across the globe.

Is it possible that Blair is involved in a corrupt relationship with BAE and Boeing? For example, Airbus booked record orders for 1,055 passenger planes last year, versus 1,002 for Boeing. With the success of the A380 Airbus is in a good position to become the world’s leading aircraft production company in the world. Business analysts are saying that BAE’s decision to sell is undermining confidence in the A380 and will help its main rival, Boeing.

Is it possible that BAE is to Tony Blair what General Dynamics, Brown & Root, Halliburton and Bell Corporation were to Lyndon Baines Johnson?

Is it possible that it was really the agents of BAE that has been loaning money to Blair and New Labour (covered up by the claims of Lord Sainsbury)? Here is an account of Blair’s relationship with BAE that appeared on the Campaign Against Arms Trade website:

http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/companies/baes.php

BAE Systems has a turbulent relationship with the MoD and has faced accusations of heavy-handed lobbying tactics and poor project management. However, whatever its problem with the Ministry and its civil servants, BAE Systems can always rely on Tony Blair.

Ever since Blair arrived in government in 1997 it has been apparent that he has supported BAE Systems against all comers and all rational argument. He pushed through controversial sales to Zimbabwe and Tanzania and lobbied, amongst others, the South Korean and South African Presidents on behalf of BAE Systems.

Striking confirmation of the relationship was provided by Robin Cook in his book 'The Point of Departure'. He states 'In my time I came to learn that the Chairman of British Aerospace appeared to have the key to the garden door to Number 10. Certainly I never once knew Number 10 to come up with any decision that would be incommoding to British Aerospace'.

The extent to which Blair's love of BAE Systems permeates the UK government isn't entirely clear, but it is clear that BAE Systems receives 5-star treatment from a wide variety of official sources:

• minister after minister trooped out to promote the sale of the Hawk aircraft to India, regardless of the level of conflict over Kashmir.

• corruption allegations, reported to the government, have not been fully investigated.

• changes to guidelines have weakened arms export controls in areas relevant to BAE Systems, most obviously those announced in July 2002 which facilitated the transfer of the company's equipment to Israel via the US.

• the DSEi and Farnborough arms fairs receive financial assistance and ministerial support.

• the Defence Export Services Organisation continues to dedicate 600 civil servants to the arms trade under the leadership of an arms industry boss, currently seconded from BAE Systems.

• there is a proliferation of 'advisory bodies' which give the major arms companies preferential access to civil servants and ministers.

• a new Missile Defence Centre has appeared for no apparent reason other than to help UK companies win US 'Son of Star Wars' contracts, with BAE Systems as the lead contractor.

• and to bring things right up to date, just last month Prince Andrew and the UK's Ambassador to Bahrain opened BAE Systems' first office in Bahrain.

The reason for Blair's affection for BAE Systems isn't immediately obvious. It's often assumed that UK jobs lie at the heart of his interest but BAE Systems' record on that score is poor. In 2003 it stated that it would make 470 workers at its Hull Brough plant redundant if it didn't receive a contract from the MoD for Hawk jets. BAE Systems was duly given the contract even though the Treasury said an open competition would save the taxpayer £1 billion (£2 million for each of the 470 jobs!). In April 2004, less than a year on, BAE Systems announced the loss of 760 jobs and the following week a further 1,000 jobs. There has been little outcry. Jobs appear only to be important when BAE Systems wants to win a contract.

Tony Blair is fully aware of this so we need to look elsewhere to understand his enthusiasm for the company. The most likely explanation revolves around Blair's fondness for big business generally and his zeal for the grand foreign policy/military statement. BAE Systems brings these together in one entity and seems to hit all the right buttons.

BAE Systems continues to receive more than its fair share of corruption allegations. And, despite the unwillingness of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the MoD to investigate, they won't go away.
In September 2003, the Guardian published details of its investigation into allegations of a £20m 'slush fund' set up by BAE Systems to bribe Saudi officials. It reported that a confidential letter from the head of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to the MoD alleged a possible fraud operation involving BAE Systems in relation to the massive Al Yamamah arms deals with Saudi Arabia. Neither the SFO nor MoD pursued the allegations despite being provided with a box of relevant invoices and other documents by a former employee of BAE Systems' front company.

Earlier allegations that BAE paid £7m commission into a Jersey trust for Qatar's foreign minister also ended with a failure to investigate. This, despite the SFO being asked for help by the Jersey authorities, and the UK Government admitting that it had a report of this commission payment in 1998.

Other allegations have been met with an alternative official response, if a similar end result. In June 2003 the Guardian alleged that 'BAE Systems paid millions of pounds in secret commissions' to win a South African Hawk jet contract. Astonishingly, it stated that the UK government had confirmed the payment but refused to reveal the amount paid. The DTI did, however, say it was 'within acceptable limits'!

There have been other allegations relating to the Czech Republic and India, but none of the allegations draw much of a reaction from BAE Systems. The company has a standard response of ignoring specific allegations and offering a variation on the theme, 'BAE operates rigorously within the laws of both the UK and countries in which it operates.' BAE Systems is certainly careful regarding corrupt practices, but the suspicion must be that it is careful to hide them rather than shun them. The Guardian recently reported that in 1997 BAE moved 'filing cabinets full of evidence of corrupt payments to foreign politicians to a vault in Switzerland' using a subsidiary registered in the Virgin Islands.

Downing Street has announced the new list of life peers. Four men originally put forward by Tony Blair withdrew after it emerged the independent body which scrutinises nominations had concerns about them. None of those behind loans to Labour or the Tories is on the new list. However, five of the seven on the Tory list have donated money to the party. This includes Jonathan Marland, the Tory Party treasurer and the man who arranged these loans and donations has been given a peerage. Marland is a former director of Jardine Lloyd Thompson. This is part of the Jardine Matheson Holdings group. This an Asian-based conglomerate. Its business interests include Jardine Pacific, Jardine Motors Group, Hongkong Land, Dairy Farm, Mandarin Oriental, Jardine Cycle & Carriage and Jardine Lloyd Thompson. These companies are involved in engineering and construction, transport services, property, financial services and insurance broking.

According to its website: "The Group's strategy is to build its operations into market leaders across Asia, each with the support of Jardine Matheson's extensive knowledge of the region and its long-standing relationships. Through a balance of cash producing activities and investment in new businesses, the Group aims to produce sustained growth in shareholder value."

Although based in Asia it is incorporated in Bermuda. However, as the money is given by individuals who were born in England it is not counted as foreign money (political parties in the UK are not allowed to be funded by foreign companies). Charles Leach, director, Jardine Matheson Holdings also appears on the Tory list of peerages. I wonder why an Asian based company is so keen to give money to the Tory Party?

John Lee of Emerson Developments (Holding) Ltd is another interesting name on the Tory list. Emerson Developments is a construction company that is after PFI contracts. I suspect his money has been wasted on getting these and he has to be satisfied with a peerage instead.

Report on the BBC News website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4906504.stm

A head teacher who helped find sponsors for the government's flagship city academies programme has been arrested as part of a cash for honours probe.

Des Smith sparked a row earlier this year when he suggested donors would be given honours in exchange for funding.

He quit his post with the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, which helps find sponsors, after the story.

Mr Smith, 60, was arrested in east London under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act.

He is currently in custody at a London police station.

The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust helps the government recruit education sponsors. Set up in September 2005, its president is Lord Levy, Tony Blair's chief political fundraiser and close friend.

Mr Smith quit his post on the SATT council in January after admitting he had been "naive" when talking to a reporter posing as a potential donor's PR assistant.

He reportedly told the Sunday Times that "the prime minister's office would recommend someone like [the donor] for an OBE, a CBE or a knighthood".

After his resignation he told the Guardian he had "been shattered by the experience. I was naive, I shouldn't have said what I did. I'm desperately sorry".

Downing Street said at the time it was "nonsense to suggest that honours are awarded for giving money to an academy".

Mr Smith remains headmaster of the All Saints Catholic School and Technology College, Barking and Dagenham.

Local Labour MP Jon Cruddas told the BBC Mr Smith had greatly improved results at the school and should be judged on his "21 years as a significant local public servant".

"He is a fantastic head teacher," he added.

In a separate development, elections watchdog the Electoral Commission publishes a new draft code of conduct on reporting loans in the wake of discussions with the main political parties.

It says the parties agree to report any loan more than £5,000 - or more than £1,000 if the donor has given another amount that needed to be reported in that year.

The draft code says "this would apply whether or not the party regards the loan as having been made on commercial terms".

The cash-for-honours inquiry was originally launched in response to a complaint by Scottish and Welsh nationalist MPs that Labour had broken the law preventing the sale of honours such as peerages and knighthoods.

It has since been widened to cover the activities of other parties.

The investigation is being led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who has said he is prepared to widen the investigation to consider more general allegations of corruption.

It followed reports that the House of Lords Appointments Commission had blocked the appointment of four of Prime Minister Tony Blair's nominations for peerages - all wealthy businessmen who had made loans to Labour.

None was on the list of new working life peers when it was published on Monday. One Tory nominee - who had loaned the party £2m - also missed out on a seat in the upper house.

Mr Yates has already told MPs that he is prepared to widen the investigation to consider more general allegations of corruption.

The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust describes itself as the "leading national body for secondary education in England, part funded by the DfES (Education Department), delivering the government's Specialist Schools and Academies programme.

Anyone found guilty under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act - designed to deal with those who both give and accept honours under inducement - could face imprisonment for up to two years or fined an unlimited amount.

The Act was introduced after the scandal of the early 1920s when David Lloyd George was offering peerages and lesser honours at a price.

This is very interesting in the light of Blair's woes but also begs questions as to the role, remit and funding of the Specialist Schools Trust.

I believe this story goes to the heart of Blair’s corrupt administration. The main intention of Blair’s specialist schools (and the recent city academies) is to bring in money from the private sector to help fund education. On the surface it sounds a great idea. However, as Thatcher discovered, wealthy businessmen are unwilling to give money to help state education unless there is something in it for them. You will get the odd religious nutcase to put money into a city academy as long as they are allowed to teach creationism (as with the Middlesbrough City Academy). However, most will only entertain the idea if they can be given something in return. So far the concern has been the granting of honours. This is clearly part of the deal. Since 1997 city academy sponsors have received five knighthoods (Frank Lowe, David Garrard, Clive Bourne, Martin Arbib and Euan Harper) one CBE (Roger de Haan) and one OBE (Jack Petchey).

However, peerages, knighthoods, etc. have never been the main aspect of this corruption scandal. Rich businessmen don’t mind the odd title but what they are really interested in is government contracts. It is this aspect of city academy funding that journalists should be really investigating.

It was the Sunday Times that first broke the Des Smith story. They published more details of their covert taping yesterday.

It raises the question why this new material did not appear in the original article that led to the resignation of Des Smith. Is it because that this provides more evidence that Blair was linked closely to Smith and that it is not in the interests of Murdoch to bring the prime minister down. The story has grown so big that Murdoch can no longer protect Blair. Murdoch has probably decided that Blair can be abandoned and replaced by Brown (he has already made the necessary policy commitments to Murdoch). Murdoch is a republican who has always been opposed to our absurd hereditary system and is no lover of the House of Lords.

In yesterday’s article it is claimed that Smith told the undercover reporter that it would be necessary to introduce this willing investor in the city academies to David Miliband. Smith claimed that this was important as “Miliband is going to be the next leader after Blair.” This is an interesting statement. Some shrewd political commentators with good inside contacts have been saying for some time that Miliband is Blair preferred successor. The problem for Blair is that Miliband has no real support from within the party.

On the tape Smith explained the tariff system, in which a benefactor who gave to “one or two” academies might receive an OBE or a knighthood while a donor who funded five of them would be “a certainty” for a peerage.

So far over eight sponsors of the 27 academies have received knighthoods, OBE’s or CBEs whereas several have had their peerages blocked by the Lords Appointments Commission. Others like Sir Peter Vardy have been allowed to force schools in Doncaster and Middlesbrough to teach creationism. I wonder if a businessman offered enough cash he would have been allowed to introduce “black magic” into the curriculum?

All this is on tape and so as it stands Smith is certain to be convicted under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. However, Blair is in trouble. New plea bargaining rules allows the authorities to offer leniency if a person agrees to provide evidence against others. As I said at the beginning of this thread, this is Blair’s Watergate. Des Smith is Nixon’s John Dean. How far up will Smith be willing to go? Sir Cyril Taylor, Lord Levy, David Miliband or Blair himself.

This was the original story that appeared in the Sunday Times on January 15, 2006


Revealed: cash for honours scandal
By the Insight team


PRIVATE donors to Tony Blair’s controversial city academies can obtain honours and peerages by sponsoring the schools, a senior adviser to the programme has revealed.

Des Smith, a council member of the trust that helps recruit sponsors for academies, disclosed that if a donor gave sufficient money, he could be nominated for an OBE, CBE or even a knighthood.

He described what appeared to be a tariff system, in which a benefactor who gave to “one or two” academies might receive such an honour while a donor who gave to five would be “a certainty” for a peerage.

Smith’s comments came during an undercover investigation by The Sunday Times. Suspicions of a link between honours and donations to academies — Blair’s scheme for new privately backed schools — have existed since the ambitious programme of establishing up to 200 academies began in 2001. Six of the biggest academy sponsors have already been honoured after pledging their money.

Smith is an adviser to Sir Cyril Taylor, chairman of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT), and says he has been a regular visitor to Downing Street. Smith is a council member of the SSAT, and Taylor personally recommended him as a potential “project director” to an undercover reporter who approached the trust posing as a would-be donor.

On Friday, Smith told a reporter posing as a donor’s PR assistant that “the prime minister’s office would recommend someone like (the donor) for an OBE, a CBE or a knighthood”.

“Really?” replied the reporter. “Just for getting involved with the academies?”

“Just for, yes, they call them ‘services to education’,” replied Smith. He went on: “I would say to Cyril’s office that we’ve now got to start writing to the prime minister’s office.”

Smith was even more confident about the prospect of securing an honour if the donor was willing to give as much as £10m.

“You could go to the House of Lords and get a lord . . . become a lord,” he said.

“So, if you invested in five city academies over, say, a 10-year period, it would be . . .” said the reporter.

“A certainty,” said Smith.

Yesterday David Willetts, the shadow education secretary, said the honours system should not be used to buy support for a policy in this way: “There is a fine line here between recognising public-spirited people who wish to support education and blatantly rewarding people for propping up one of the prime minister’s pet projects.”

Taylor yesterday called Smith’s claims “outrageous.” He said: “In no way is giving money to the academy linked to the award of an honour.”

He admitted recommending people for honours in the past but not because they had given money to an academy: “I have never said to any prospective or existing sponsor that if they sponsor an academy, that I would recommend them for an honour.”

Smith himself backtracked when confronted by The Sunday Times. “It is not possible (to acquire an honour by a donation),” he said.

Now this is beginning to feel like a real scandal. There are police inquiries, the first arrest, talk of leads that go "all the way to the top". When you hear that detectives are mulling an interview with the prime minister himself, you know it's big.

Every scandal worthy of the name has the involvement of the police. Otherwise it's merely a gaffe, an embarrassment or a row. David Mellor's infidelity was embarrassing; Jeffrey Archer's perjury was a scandal. Ronald Reagan's joke about bombing Russia was a gaffe; sending arms to the contras was a scandal. The allegation that a crime has been committed is the crucial ingredient. Now that the honours affair has it, it's become serious business.

There's another important distinction in the taxonomy of scandal. Some are accidental: the revelation of a human lapse that could happen to anybody at any time. Such episodes carry no larger freight of meaning and, as such, tend to have little or no political impact. The former Welsh secretary, Ron Davies, and his "moment of madness" on Clapham Common in 1998 is the textbook example.

But some scandals are no accident. These arise directly, almost organically, from the political milieu they strike. They bite because they reveal or, more often, confirm the true nature of the regime that gave them life.

Watergate is the exemplar. The 1972 break-in at Democratic party headquarters and subsequent cover-up was only the most visible manifestation of Richard Nixon's long-established willingness both to crush his political enemies by brutal means and to trample on the law. Watergate was no accident. It grew organically out of the soil that was Nixonism.

The swirl around loans, academies and honours is similarly no mere stumble, no lapse that might have occurred under any administration. This affair is the logical, even natural outgrowth of the style of government and political outlook that is Blairism.

What is the origin of this mess? The simple answer is that Labour - along with the other political parties - has, in the last decade, found itself short of money: the cost of fighting elections has risen, just as party membership has fallen. That's left a funding gap, which Tony Blair filled by turning to "high-value donors", very rich individuals able to write a seven-figure cheque.

Now, some Blair defenders describe this sequence of events as if it were a matter of pure, inevitable logic. No alternative course of action was possible: if you're short of cash, you get it from mega-bucks businessmen. But that was not the only option available. Blair could have turned, for one, to the trade unions and sought more money from them. Oh no, say the PM's allies: no Labour leader likes to be dependent on the unions.

OK, he could have tried something else. He might have done what 2004 presidential candidate Howard Dean did in the US, raising funds not a million at a time, but through thousands of small donations - $10 or $20 apiece - from individual supporters. That might have been a tall order in 2005, when fury over Iraq stood between plenty of Labourites and their chequebooks. But it could have been a runner in the first, heady days of New Labour. Yet it was hardly tried: Blair preferred to dip into the deep pockets of big businessmen.

That's not a coincidence; it was encoded deep in the creed of Blairism. From the very beginning, from the day he became leader in 1994 if not before, Tony Blair made it clear that he accepted the Labour party on sufferance; he had no enthusiasm for it, let alone affection. He saw it as a problem to be got around, not part of any solution. One former aide candidly admits that "he's never seen the party or its members as a resource that might be valuable", the way John Prescott or Gordon Brown have. The Labour party was, at best, "an electoral machine, useful for knocking on doors".

Of course Blair's first instinct was to look outside Labour for help, even keeping the party's own treasurer in the dark. He has dedicated much of his career either to fighting the Labour party or bypassing it, whether by neutering the annual conference or attempting to overrule members' democratic decisions and impose his own: remember Alun Michael in Wales and Frank Dobson in London. Seeking to win elections without Labour money was the logical destination of a road he had taken long ago.

The same is true of his choice of benefactors. No one who followed Blair in the 1990s can be surprised that he chased the favours of plutocrats. The stories are legion of Blair's personal admiration, even awe, for men who have made serious money. Nearly 10 years have passed since I was first told that Blair tended to go "dewy-eyed" and starstruck when in the company of wealth. Ideologically, too, the fit was natural: Blairism holds that market mechanisms contain a solution for almost every problem. When he demands that a public service reform itself, it usually means he wants it to behave more like a private company.

Which brings us to the latest wave of the honours affair: the charge that donations to city academies were lured by the promise of gongs and ermine. This too feels more organic than accidental.

Once again, there is the enduring Blairite faith in the magic of the private sector. If a man has made a mint selling cars or carpets, he will automatically, says Blairism, be better at running a school than a local education authority. So much better, in fact, that in return for less than one thirteenth of the capital budget - a mere £2m compared to the £25m invested by the government - this business wizard gets control over the curriculum, the ethos and even the name of his chosen academy.

Now, I'm all for philanthropists doing their bit for public institutions like schools. I also like the idea that not every common good has to be provided the same way: academies run by, say, a university or a charity have some appeal. But that's not, predominantly, what the government has in mind. When it says it wants to look beyond the traditional providers, it means business.

The same logic applies in both the party funding and city academy cases. The Labour party, the public sector and the civic worthies of local education authorities are, in the eyes of Blairism, all of a piece. They are members of a single tribe, best pushed out of the way, since their various roles - whether funding election campaigns or running schools - are bound to be performed better by the geniuses of private enterprise.

As for paying these benefactors in the currency of honours, that makes Blairite sense too. Unlike John Smith, or now Gordon Brown, Blair has never strongly seen the need to reform the constitution: he is not affronted by the undemocratic nature of the House of Lords. Instead he has seen it as a pool of patronage from which he can usefully draw.

Now we can see that the elements were all there long ago: impatience with the Labour party, an awe for business, a readiness to abuse the deformations of our political system for his own ends. That they have come together now is no accident. The last few years have been the chronicle of a scandal foretold.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1756376,00.html

I believe it is wrong to suggest that this corruption scandal is based on “Blair’s personal admiration, even awe, for men who have made serious money.” It might be reassuring for political commentators to convince themselves that some sort of psychological trait is the cause of this scandal. The real problem is the corrupt nature of the political system that we live in. It is a system that was used by the Tories under Thatcher and Major. For a variety of reasons journalists failed to dig too deep into these corrupt activities and Tories were therefore more likely to be exposed for sexual infidelity rather than taking backhanders from arms manufacturers. Therefore full details came out about David Mellor’s sexual antics but not about Margaret and Mark Thatcher’s involvement in arms deals. See the following article on this scandal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/freedom/Story/0,,1699314,00.html

The real scandal is not “cash for honours” but “cash for government policies”. The Labour Party used to be funded by the trade union movement and individual members. It was clear why this money was given to the Labour Party. Once in power, the government was expected to follow policies that would help the less well off in society.

Tony Blair knew that wealthy businessmen expected something in return for giving money to the party. That was revealed soon after Blair was elected when it was announced that sport was being exempted from the ban on tobacco advertising. Everyone was surprised by this broken election promise until it was revealed that Bernie Ecclestone had given the Labour Party £1 million a few weeks previously.

Investigative journalists should be looking much more closely at the links between donations and loans and government policy. A starting point should be the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Does it not seem strange to journalists that companies bidding for PFI contracts, who used to make large donations to the Conservative Party when in power, have now switched their support to the Labour Party?

Even this is not the largest scandal. The granting of corrupt PFI contracts has not resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. (I am aware of course of the deaths caused by the granting of some contracts in the rail industry.) I am talking about the Iraq War. Why was Tony Blair so keen to get involved in this conflict? Has it anything to do with the meeting that took place in March, 1994, when Blair was introduced to Michael Levy at a dinner party at the Israeli embassy in London. After this meeting, Levy acquired a new job, raising money for Tony Blair. According to Robin Ramsay (The Rise of New Labour, page 64), Levy raised over £7 million for Blair).

In an article by John Lloyd published in the New Statesman on 27th February, 1998, the main suppliers of this money were Jewish businessmen who were strong supporters of Israel’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

It was recently announced that BAE Systems, the British military contractor is in talks with the European Aeronautic, Defence & Space consortium to sell its 20 percent stake in Airbus. This will bring to an end a nearly 30 year partnership that spawned the world’s largest passenger plane. It is estimated that the stake is worth 6 billion.

According to the International Herald Tribune (8th April) the decision to sell is linked to Blair’s foreign policy. The newspaper quotes Andy Lynch, a fund manager with Schroder Investment Management, as saying that Blair willingness to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan has made the arms industry a more predicable business than the aircraft industry. Especially as Blair has been very keen to give BAE long-term government contracts (the company specializes in land-based artillery). BAE is also a major supplier to the Pentagon. In fact, in the past two years it has bought six military contracting companies in the United States. It might be worthwhile for journalists to investigate the possible movement of money between BAE and the Labour Party.

Honours and government contracts are two of the reasons why rich people are willing to donate money to the Labour Party. However, the main reason concerns tax policy.

The Thatcher government openly redistributed wealth to the very rich with her policy of reducing the top rate of income tax to 40%. For example, by the late 1980s, the top 1% owned 17% of the wealth. In contrast, the bottom 50% owned only 10%.

When the Labour Party gained power in 1997 Blair and Brown obeyed their orders from Rupert Murdoch and left the top rate of tax unchanged. Today the top 1% own 23% of the wealth while the bottom 50% only have 6%. It is hard to believe that a Labour government would ever redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich, but that is what they have done.

Although Blair and Brown warned us they did not intend to raise taxes on the rich (Murdoch demanded they made that commitment) they did promise to end the tax loopholes that enabled Murdoch and his fellow billionaires, to avoid paying tax in this country. This they have failed to do.

Take the example of Philip Green, the owner of BHS and Arcadia. According to Stewart Lansley, the author of Rich Britain, The Rise and Rise of the New Super-Wealthy, Green has saved himself “hundreds of millions in personal tax in the past three years because the ownership of his companies is vested in the hands of his wife, Tina, who is resident of Monaco.” Over 5,000 British multimillionaires officially live in Monaco to avoid paying tax in this country.

Other supporters of New Labour such as Richard Branson, Lakshmi Mittal and Hans Rausing all use offshore tax havens to reduce their tax liabilities. This is all legal because Brown has refused to tackle this major scandal.

As you can see, it pays all rich people to donate the odd million to New Labour in order to ensure that the top rate of income-tax and the various tax loopholes are kept in place.

The consequence of this policy is to allow the rich to keep more of their wealth. Things like education and health-care still has to be paid for so those earning less than £100,000 have to pay more than they did in the past. This includes university fees, etc.

In your article you write that there is a useful comparison to be made between Blair and Nixon: “Watergate was no accident. It grew organically out of the soil that was Nixonism. If Des Smith does a John Dean, this might well appear to be another Watergate. In fact it might even be known as Iraqgate.

However, it has much more in common with a scandal that was never exposed at the time and has had very little publicity over the years. It involves Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Vietnam War. David Kaiser’s brilliant book, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War (2000). Kaiser’s book shows how desperate Johnson was to commit the United States to a long drawn out war. What he does not do is explore Johnson’s motivation for this behaviour. Could it have something to do with the people who financed his political career? Is it just a coincidence that the three corporations based in Texas that provided him with so much money before the war: Brown & Root (Halliburton), General Dynamics and the Bell Corporation, made billions from the conflict?

Investigative journalists also need to look at Blair’s personal financial gains from his activities. What for example happened to all that money raised by Sir Michael Levy before Blair was elected as leader of the Labour Party.

What about Blair’s book contract with HarperCollins (a company owned by Rupert Murdoch). It is said the deal is worth £3.5 million to Blair. This information only came out when Blair used the contract as security when he purchased his house in London. Margaret Thatcher and John Major got similar book deals with HarperCollins. Of course, the royalties near reach the multi-million advances paid for them. However, it is a great way of bribing a prime minister.

We now know why the Labour Party had to borrow so much money for the last election. Cherie Blair spent £275 a day getting her hair done during the General Election campaign – and sent the bill to the Labour Party.

The Prime Minister's wife has her hair done by stylist Andre Suard, from a top London salon, and she got him to invoice his services for the duration of the month-long campaign to the party – a cost of £7,700.
Details of the cost of grooming Mrs Blair were revealed after the Labour party submitted its accounts for the campaign to the Electoral Commission.

A spokesman said: "So what?" This reflects the fact that the leadership of the Labour Party is now totally out of touch with its members and voters.

Backbencher Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool Walton) said that Cherie's hair bill was twice the amount spent on the campaign in his constituency.

A public opinion poll published by ICM today shows a dramatic fall in the support for Labour. It is the lowest rating since 1987. The figures are Conservatives (34%), Labour (32%) and Liberal Democrats (24%).

It is not good news for the Tories either. It is the Lib Dems who are taking the votes from Labour. This is not surprising as both Labour and the Tories have been caught selling honours for loans.

The public opinion poll shows that it is the perceived corruption of the two main political parties that is losing them votes. The electorate also do not like the solution being put forward by Blair and Cameron. Only 20% are in favour of taxpayers’ money being used to fund political parties.

It would seem that Blair might be brought down by incompetence rather than corruption. The current scandal about the failure to deport foreign criminals is clearly important and does suggest a high level of incompetence. It also highlights Tony Blair’s incompetence. It is clear that until Clarke resigns, there will be daily stories about crimes committed by the released criminals. Blair was a fool not to accept Clarke’s resignation. He now will have the story right up to the local elections on Thursday.

He should have asked for John Prescott’s resignation last week as well. (In fact he should have sacked him several months ago when it was disclosed that he had not paid his council tax on his second (or was it his third of fourth) home. Blair was completely wrong to say that it was a “private matter”. Blair must have been aware of Prescott’s long history of using his position to obtain sexual favours. This is another scandal that will badly damage Labour with women voters.

You may have noticed that there has been little press coverage in the media about the Blair corruption scandal. This is because the police have agreed not to arrest and question witnesses until after the local elections take place on Thursday.

However, an aspect of this story will appear before next Thursday. I have it on good authority that an MP will name one government minister as someone who offered Peter Law a peerage in return for him not standing in Blaenau Gwent at the last election. Law refused the bribe and won the seat as an independent (he was a long standing member of the Labour Party). Law died last week and his wife told the story about the government bribe but most newspapers did not publish the story because of the forthcoming local elections. Nor did the media publish the accounts of others close to Peter Law (including his parish priest) who knew about the attempt to bribe him.

I suspect the MP will name Peter Hain, the Welsh secretary, as being the government minister who offered Law the peerage.

Report just published on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4972344.stm

Plaid Cymru have named Welsh Secretary Peter Hain as offering the late MP and assembly member Peter Law a peerage.

Mr Law was offered a peerage not to stand against Labour in Blaenau Gwent at the last general election, Plaid's Commons leader Elfyn Llwyd claimed.

He made the allegation in the Commons on the day of Mr Law's funeral and while Mr Hain was at a family funeral.

Mr Hain categorically denied the allegation, accused Mr Llwyd of "cowardice" and demanded an apology.

Mr Llwyd's allegation was made during Commons business questions. He said Mr Hain was acting on the authority of the prime minister.

Neath MP Mr Hain had been attending a family funeral.

Commons Leader Geoff Hoon criticised Mr Llwyd for making the claim when Mr Hain was not in the chamber to answer it.

Mr Hain said afterwards: "I regard it as an act of cowardice that when Elfyn Llwyd had the opportunity to put this lie to me directly in the House of Commons yesterday he instead raised it when I was absent at a family funeral and unable to rebut this false accusation."

In a statement, he added: "I am at a loss to understand why it is now being alleged that Peter Law would have made such an accusation about me, when he himself never made that allegation public, even when he was standing in the general election.

"The suggestion that I offered a peerage to Peter Law is utterly without substance. And indeed the Labour Party have made it absolutely clear that no such offer was made."

Mr Llwyd told MPs: "New Labour, in an effort to prevent him from standing for Parliament, offered him a peerage.

"The man named as being responsible is the secretary of state for Wales who made the offer on the specific authority of the prime minister."

Mr Llwyd demanded a debate on the "corrupt practice".

The Tories called for an investigation into the claims.

Shadow Welsh secretary Cheryl Gillan said: "I have written to the Prime Minster asking for a full and independent investigation into this allegation."

Mr Hain later wrote to the Speaker of the Commons, demanding an apology from the MP, saying he found it hard to express "just how angry" he was with Mr Llwyd.

He said he was "astonished" Mr Llwyd had claimed he gave him prior notice of his plan to raise the matter, saying he had not.

"I find it appalling that Mr Llwyd has behaved in this manner and believe that he should make a full apology to you, to me and to the House," he wrote.

Mr Law, 58, died last week after suffering from a brain tumour.

He caused a political storm at the general election in May 2005, overturning a 19,000 Labour majority to be elected as an independent.

There is a theory that the reason that Blair has not sacked Clarke and Prescott is that it will give him an alibi for today’s inevitable disaster. That the people have voted against Clarke and Prescott rather than Blair. He will then attempt to sort out the problem by sacking the two men next week.

Blair is still in denial. He has ignored requests to stay away from the local election campaign. In London officials have asked that all members of the government not to campaign in the capital. Pollsters suggest that Labour will lose six or seven London boroughs. They will also probably lose Barnsley, Hartlepool, Warrington and Wigan.

Personally, I believe they will have their worst night for over 20 years. Membership has fallen dramatically over the last few years. There are very few foot soldiers left. A bad night will make this even worse in the future. After all, how can you expect people to give up their time to fight for New Labour?

Only if they share his Thatcherite ideology and only then if they are not also supporters of the other 2 mainstream Thatcherite parties.
There has to be a realignment of the Left in this country. Maybe tonight we will see some gains for Respect?

It will be interesting to see how Respect does in comparison to the BNP. With all the fuss about immigrants not being deported I expect them to do well.

A depressingly accurate prediction.
I have been dismayed by the xenophobia whipped up by the media over foreign criminals.
It clearly has had the effect of improving the electoral prospects for the racist BNP.

On a more positive note the gains of Respect are reported below
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8785

This is what happened. Except that Prescott was allowed to keep his pay and perks without having to do the job. This will only make matters worse and according to reports, senior Labour MPs will be sending an open letter to Blair calling on him to resign.

Blair is clearly not willing to go. He has promoted the last few Blairites left. This includes Hazel Blears as chair of the party. This was an important move as the chair was expected to negotiate the succession.

Des Browne is another interesting promotion. His job will be to arrange the massive privatization of military support services. No doubt the luck companies will become the major funders of the Labour Party at the next election.

The most interesting move was the demotion of Jack Straw. The reason for that is that Straw has made it clear that he would resign if Blair supported the bombing of Iran. Blair has taken Bush’s advice and sacked Straw. It is possible that Blair also wanted to punish Straw, who has got very close to Brown recently.

There is another explanation for this move. Most political commentators are suggesting that Blair will be ousted over the next few months. The only thing that would stop this happening is if the UK is involved in a serious international crisis. If Bush bombs Iran it will probably lead to a war in the Middle East. With troops in Iraq, there would be no way that the UK could withdraw from the region. At the same time, it would be difficult to remove Blair during this crisis. Is it possible that Blair would resort to such a tactic to hold onto office?

Two years before the Iraq War in 2003, Tony Blair moved the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook, to the post of leader of the commons. Cook was known to be against US expansionism (he claimed he wanted to follow an ethical foreign policy).

History has been repeated by Blair’s decision to move the foreign secretary Jack Straw to the post of the leader of the commons.

It wouldn't be the first time that the Bush administration has played an important role in persuading Tony Blair to sack his foreign secretary. It was little discussed at the time, but Robin Cook's demotion in 2001 also followed hostile representations from Washington and private expre