The Mail has an article this morning on Cherie Blair. In itself that's not news: the Mail is no fan of the Blairs. Nor am I, particularly. Maybe that's why they called me about it.
In essence, Cherie is setting up a private equity fund in Delaware and Cayman to invest in medical services centres to be located in Sainsbury's supermarkets. And yes, I would be pretty critical of that whoever did it. I'm quoted in the article saying:
The fundamental question is: why is the wife of a former Labour leader setting up something to challenge the NHS? If investment went into the health service instead of the government being forced to make cuts because people aren't paying tax, then we might have a proper healthcare system.
I think that's a pretty accurate quote from me, but I think this is an occassion when I have to correct what's attributed to me.
I didn't speak to the Mail "last night" as stated. It was at about 3 on Wednesday.
And although I did indeed explain the Delaware / Cayman combination combination was common I explained Delaware was for the secrecy and Cayman for the low tax, with a split of the management and fund between the two: that's got quite garbled on the way to print.
But I stick with this comment, which is I think pretty much what I said:
If Mrs Blair sets up a fund which is deliberately avoiding taxes due in the UK by locating to a tax-free haven such as the Caymans, she is doing something that is frankly contrary to all corporate and social responsibility.
These funds only use Cayman to avoid tax and they do so via gearing the UK operation, with management fees and by holding intellectual property offshore and by avoiding capital gains on exit. The question remains a valid one: what is the wife of a former Labour leader doing in all this? It's about as far from what Labour should be about as you can get.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I saw the article earlier this morning and sent a Tweet with a link and the comment ‘cynical b***h’.
Me, me, me Richard! I’ll have a stab at answering that question:
The Blairs (& co.) hi-jacked the word Labour. It used to be a well understood qualifying adjective, used for many decades to describe something or someone who was Socialist.
But the word has now turned into something quite different.
‘New Labour’ was the transition and said it all.Then after a while they reverted to just Labour again.
‘Labour’ now means something like ‘greedy, conniving and self-serving the same as the rest of them’.
The reality is not all Labour is like that
But I also have to agree, some is
and that’s a massive problem
I’m eternally grateful that they rebranded as New Labour. It could leave the real Labour largely untainted.
@Bradda – Have to agree with you on your anaysis of “New Labour” from which I turned away early in 1998, resigning my Labour Party membership in 2001
We should always suspect ANY manufacturer of a product – and “New” Labour was indeed a product, a piece of merchandise – who trumpets “new and improved”, as it almost always means “less good, and less of = bigger profit margin”.
However, THIS story is really the pits; I’ve called Blair a shyster, and nothing in the story contradicts that description, and I knew Cherie was heavily motivated by £ & $ signs. But this! Clearly, the Blairs have joined the ranks of Nye Bevan’s “lower vermin”, crocks of s***e, both of them.
This is, of course, a wonderful case study of how the Right operates: Neil Kinnock courageously took on Militant, the infiltrators from the Left, and won his battle. But we never noticed the threat from the Right, who not only inflitrated the Labour Party, but actually captured the castle, by getting Blair as Leader. Was Blair always a Tory mole? One has to wonder, given Thatcher’s swift endorsement of him in 1997, and his subsequent rentier capitalist behaviour.
It was ever thus, though: McCarthyite anti-Communist scares and witch-hunts, and alleged Marxist takeovers of the Labour Party (have we forgotten the numerous private armies that sprang up in the time of Harold WIlson’s 1974-76 administration?), when the real threat to this country has always been from the Right wing (which is often incipiently Fascist).
This time, of course, they learned that private militia were not the way: no, capture the bastions of protection against tyranny by taking over the Party supposed to defend the liberties of the marginalized, turning most of its members into parroting clones. And just to make sure, capture academia (corrupt the study of economics and society); the Civil Service (get rid of the idea of “the public good”, and replace it with “value for money” = commodification of democracy) etc. You get the picture.
As Richard says – it’s a massive problem. Often, it is necessasry to get someone who is mentally ill to recognize that he or she is ill, before treatment can begin to be effective. The Labour Party is in such a state – it still has not recognized that it was infected by neo-liberalism. A first step towards healing is for it to take cognizance of that, and then to take action to purge itself of that poison.
All so true Andrew
This story is so troubling that it really does begin to tickle one’s conspiracy bone. Blair seems to have had very little feeling for the labour movement despite recent statements to the contrary from Jon Cruddas. But what about the LibDems? Remember the caricature of the sandal-wearing, hemp-fondling, cool with canabis Liberal Party member? Then people like David Laws and Mark Littlewood suddenly appear, but of course we are told they are classic liberals, though they seem grown-up carbon-copies of the young Thatcherites of the 80s. Did anyone see Littlewood’s mealy-mouthed defence of a £1 per hour wage-rate on a recent political show…oh well if they “want” to work for that who are we to stop them…after all some people volunteer their time for nothing…Dr Pangloss twitched a little in his grave that day.
Then there was the charm offensive before the last election…Michael Gove on Late Review, Ed Vaizey on Matthew Wright, I’m sure there were others. IT’S ALL A MASSIVE CON.
If the Labour Party aren’t going to stand up for the little people, the sick, disabled and suicidal, the unemployed (even the unemployable), the working-poor who can never hope to have their own home, the small business-owner, our brilliant universities…then it really is over.
It will be time to start a People’s Party whose main aim will be to stamp out all rent-seeking wherever it finds it…big banks broken up, rent-controls or a national campaign to build the houses that are needed, a global campaign to bring all off-shore money back on-shore, no more subsidies for all those toffs hiding behind their walled estates…you all get the picture.
I don’t think progressives are fully waking up to the intensification of neo-liberalism that the right want. Everything, absolutely everything will be for sale. They want us to feel grateful just to be given a chance to live by working at McPoo-Burger. If what happens in the US eventually comes here, it is looking really, really bad.
It’s time to destroy that Atlantic Bridge Liam Fox and his special friend want to strengthen.
Doesn’t anyone else feel this desperate??!!!!
how does she avoid the transfer of assets abroad and S.13 attribution of gains rules then?
HMRC already have the power to challenge these structures – why dont they use them? I dont think she can claim she is not UK domiciled so how exactly is she going to avoid being taxed personally on the profits that are made?
You can be sure US connection can overcome that
How does a US connection prevent the application of section 13 for CGT?
You think a private equity fund will be closely controlled?
I doubt it
Did you see the Guardian article yesterday (‘Tory young bloods say Britons are idlers who need to emulate Asia’) featuring your MP Elizabeth Truss? It says that:
‘According to leaked extracts from the book, Britannia Unchained — Global Growth and Prosperity, five Tory MPs from the “class of 2010” call for a culture of “graft, risk and effort” to propel Britain into the “superleague” of nations. The book contains a blueprint of radical reforms. The MPs — Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Elizabeth Truss — say: “Once they enter the workplace, the British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor.” The MPs claim the UK workforce should model itself on the workers of South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong, rather those in European nations — or watch living standards fall away.’
I did indeed – Truss is my MP
Those comments say much more about the narrowness of the world view and experience of those MPs than it says about what’s really happening
Doesn’t this come down to the Right’s invariable homily ?
The best way to motivate well-off priveileged white people is to pay them more.
The best way to motivate working-class people is to threaten to take away their, few, meagre, belongings.
Then they wonder why we have riots ?
I think everything happens “last night” in the parlance of the Mail and Express.
Not being a reader of the Mail, I hadnt seen this story, but it is totally shocking. I dont have a problem with anyone – even the wife of the former Labour leader – earning money, but it should meet two tests – is it moral and in line with Labour values, and do they pay the correct amount of tax on it.
This fails both.
Quite so, on all counts
I beat them all to it last year, the post of 26 March 2011 in “Cherry Ripe”. Also, I declare an interest in family connections with Liverpool and a grandmother was manageress of the Yate Wine Lodge during WW1.
http://thecynicaltendency.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/cherry-ripe.html
However, it seems that reality is greater than the Arts.
Well, she aint no Polly Higgins, that’s fer sure. What can one expect when Windrush Ventures is an interesting enterprise of her husband’s.
And using the term Labour together with that former leader rankles somewhat.
Wasn’t one of the Blairs trying to claim foreign domicile a year or two back? If so then loads of planning opportunities arise.
Not that I heard of
Cherie & Tony. A match made in heaven. Each profoundly in love – with Gelt.
“Oh Tony” she breathed, “You earn so much”. “Oh Cherie” he answered with a fetching smile, “You’re as grasping as any human being I ever knew”. They fell into each other’s arms.
From a Roman viewpoint, they are, being so so far from grace, already in hell. They’ve chosen Gelt & material possessions & shunned all that is good.
Goodbye Tony & Cherie.
Carol Wilcox
“I’m eternally grateful that they rebranded as New Labour. It could leave the real Labour largely untainted.”
You might’ve noticed that Tony Bliar killed somewhat above 700,000 Iraquis. I don’t see how any form of “Labour” can be untainted by that.
I admit I do see how Labour can move on from that
I blame the parliament of the time, and those who lead it
Their heirs are not responsible for their forebears mistakes
Expect similar shenanigans from Cameron when he is (soon) booted out?
Come back Gordon. All is forgiven
I cannot even read the name Cherie Blair without a sensation of nausea. There is no-one connected to current UK politics who appears to me to be more nakedly avaricious (except perhaps her husband or Peter Mandleson).
She has shown the most appalling lack of judgment in many areas of private and public life, yet ironically finds herself promoted (well above her level of incompetence) to be a member of the judiciary in which position, she has, (surprise surprise) shown her customary appalling lack of judgment and lack of objectivity in dealing with some of the cases before her.