Not just anyone drops $8 million in the middle of a housing slump but of course, Tony Blair works for JP Morgan, who we propped up with billions in taxpayer money so people like this could be paid to live luxurious lifestyles despite being costly screwups. Our tax dollars at work.
Tony and Cherie Blair have bought the £4m former home of legendary actor Sir John Gielgud, it was reported last night. The Grade I listed stately home near Chequers is the Blairs' sixth property in their growing portfolio.
South Pavilion in Wotton Underwood, Buckinghamshire, has seven bedrooms, a "magnificent" weather-vane tower and sprawling grounds, including ornamental gardens two paddocks and a converted outbuilding.
That's OK though, he really wanted to be the EU Foreign Minister which we all know is much more important, anyway. That's the Blair-spin, at least. If he is as successful with the EU Foreign Minister position as he is as the Middle East whatever-he's-supposed-to-be, the EU better brace for a step backwards. The bigger question though is whether he will quit his 'consulting' jobs where he makes millions or will he downgrade to £200,000 (roughly $400,000) per year?
Reuters really skirts around a few stories with this one. While promoting his role as Palestinian peace envoy - though after the announcement, when have we heard anything? - they fail to mention his more recent position at JP Morgan as a $5,000,000 per year consultant. So the man who helped bring war, destruction and more poverty to the Middle East through a war based on lies is going to teach Yale students about bringing religions together for world peace? Only a school that allows people like Bush to buy his way into school could possibly think this is a good idea. What frauds.
This also again raises the issue of former politicians and their lobbying jobs. It's tiring to see all of these politicians (of both parties and globally) cash in after they leave office. When Reagan left office and then ran to Japan to make millions - when Japan was the biggest economic worry for Americans - it just seemed wrong. They all do it and yet last year when the British sailors were taken captive by Iran, there was outrage when they sold their stories to the press for peanuts. Is it so difficult too see that these jobs are obvious conflicts of interest? Who knows what kind of special favors were passed on then (or now) in return for a comfy consultant position.
Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.
Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.
Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.
He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.
The threats halted the fraud inquiry, but triggered an international outcry, with allegations that Britain had broken international anti-bribery treaties.
Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.
Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.
Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.
Hence the alarmed reaction of M. Giscard and M. Balladur. M. Giscard, 81, told a committee of the French National Assembly he would not be a candidate but added that the job must go only to a politician from a country which "respected all Europe's commitments" and whose public opinion was whole-heartedly European. In other words, no Tony Blair and no Brits.
M. Balladur, who was prime minister from 2003 to 2005, said in the newspaper Le Monde: "To be accepted by all, the president of the Union must come from a country... determined to build European independence, especially in defence and foreign affairs.
"How could Mr Blair embody this ambition when, in the disastrous episode in Iraq, he always clung zealously to the views of the US or even incited them? Mr Blair is, for sure, a remarkable person but he cannot be the symbol of a Europe which wants to exist."
Obviously conflict of interest has no meaning in Brussels either. Blair has a new friend in Sarkozy, who will have considerable leverage in choosing the new EU president later this year. With his own share of problems at home (lack of direction, circus-like atmosphere, cabinet re-shuffle talk, soap opera/magazine cover personal lifestyle) Sarkozy may not even care if it helps distract people from domestic issues, which remain without direction. Anything that can take the political spotlight away would suit him just fine. As long as the magazine covers remain, it's fine.
Blair ought to be thrilled with the idea, since the position is questionable in terms of actual power, yet it provides him with a microphone and TV cameras to help promote himself even more. Perhaps he can even whip up a new $1m consulting gig while he's at it. Whether he will be as successful in this mission as he was with bringing peace to the Middle East doesn't even matter, because who really cares what the EU president or parliament does? No one even knows who they are, which is precisely the kind of system that the European ruling class prefers, Blair included. No questions asked, no democracy, no matter.
Cha-ching! Obviously the UK has an open policy on migrating from political power to lobbyist as well. The best democracies money can buy. So are we taking this model to the Middle East or is the Middle East bringing it to us?
The US investment bank JP Morgan has signed up Tony Blair as a part-time senior adviser, on a salary said to exceed $1m (£500,000) a year.
The former prime minister would provide "strategic advice and insight on global political issues and emerging trends", the company said last night.
Birds of a feather... Another phony who loved to talk about spreading freedom and democracy but couldn't stand the thought of it for his own country.
Government memos stamped "Secret" reveal that the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, twice tried in vain to stop Blair interfering in the criminal investigation.
His chief of staff told the cabinet secretary, Gus O'Donnell, on October 3 2006: "The attorney general is of the firm view that, if the case is in fact soundly based, it would not be right to discontinue it."
A housing bubble and government (over)spending is not just an American problem. The Blair legacy is now taking its toll and Gordon Brown is going to have more explaining to do.
The UK's current account deficit leapt by almost 50 per cent in the third quarter, hitting a record £20bn and raising fresh concerns about the stability of the country's economy.
The deficit was almost twice as large as expected, as the strong pound saw the level of imports far exceed exports, and the levels of investment fell. More troubling news on the UK economy, after the jump.
Public sector borrowing also hit a new high of £11.2bn last month, up from £9.1bn at the same time last year, while gross mortgage lending fell by 7.7 per cent during the month, confirming the slowdown in the housing market.
Jonathan Loynes of Capital Economics said the data showed the UK economy to be "dangerously unbalanced". "This morning's flurry of UK data paints a worrying picture of a dangerously unbalanced economy," he said. "The UK's external position now looks pretty much as bad as that in the US, suggesting the pound needs to fall sharply like the US dollar."
Peter Spencer, chief economic adviser to the Ernst & Young ITEM Club, added: "What is really shocking about these figures is that they reveal that the Exchequer was running a large current deficit before the credit crisis hit home, when the economy was doing very well and it should have been showing a large current surplus.
"Now, the economy is slowing sharply and the public finances will deteriorate equally rapidly. The first hit will come in February when the January tax receipts will be published. These will be well down on last January's figure, which was of course swollen by huge City bonuses and profits last year. We have revised our forecast of this year's current deficit up to £16bn, twice the Treasury pre-Budget report forecast of £8bn. As if the Chancellor had not got enough problems on his plate already."
While in London, I met with a friend who is an old time Labourite. He was never that keen on Blair and often expressed concerns about the direction of the Blair government as it pushed aside many of its traditional followers. He understood the benefits of actually being in power and modernizing the party but could never grasp the closeness of Blair and Bush.
We talked about the "special relationship" and what that has meant since Thatcher was around. My friend Tom raised the Falklands War and Reagan's offer to send support to help the UK. Thatcher, despite being friends with Reagan, refused any assistance. Heaven forbid British troops would need any help from Americans, so the story went. On the other side, if Reagan would have asked for Thatcher's support, her natural response would have been "what is in it for Britain? What will the UK receive in return?"
He is convinced that under no circumstances would Thatcher have agreed to the Iraq war involvement in its current state. Without the US paying for UK troops? Without the UK receiving a few lead positions in the juicy billion dollar contracts in Iraq? Looking at what Blair gave in return for his commitment to Iraq, Brits just scratch their heads and wonder, why? Without prompting, Tom also talked about Blair immediately cashing in on the American speaking circuit to the tune of £250,000 per speech. (I haven't seen those numbers, though they would not be surprising.) I hadn't thought of the "special relationship" in this way before though I found it all very interesting. It does seem to stay with the theme of Blair the poodle, though a rich poodle at the end of the day. It's unfortunate for the Brits who really did not see many (any?) benefits as a nation for their commitment to a policy that they never liked in the first place. Blair, on the other hand, is sitting back comfortably in his retirement.
Tony Blair turned down a last-minute offer from President George Bush for Britain to stay out of the Iraq war because he thought it would look "pathetic", according to a new book on Mr Blair's tenure.
Mr Bush was warned by the US embassy in London before the crucial Commons vote on the war that the Blair government could be brought down. He was so worried that he picked up the telephone and personally offered the then Prime Minister a surprise opt-out.
What a very macho and very manly kind of guy. Sticking to his guns, no matter how stupid or ill-planned the war may have been. He's not only "pathetic" but stupid enough to go along with a leader who is widely considered to be among the dumbest of the bunch. Brilliant.
It's more of a confirmation of the person we thought he really was and less of a shock, but still very interesting. A new biography about Blair is being published, revealing some of the inside discussions behind the scenes including interviews with Colin Powell.
But Mr Powell told Dr Seldon: "In the end Blair would always support the president. I found this very surprising. I never really understood why Blair seemed to be in such harmony with Bush. I thought, well, the Brits haven't been attacked on 9/11. How did he reach the point that he sees Saddam as such a threat? Jack and I would get him all pumped up about an issue. And he'd be ready to say, 'Look here, George'. But as soon as he saw the president he would lose all his steam."
In extracts from the book in The Mail on Sunday, Dr Seldon also disclosed that two of Mr Blair's most senior Downing Street advisers, Sir David Manning and Baroness Sally Morgan, argued against the war.
According to the book, Mr Blair resolved to write to Mr Bush in 2002 to spell out his fears that the momentum for war was growing too fast in America.
But he "faltered and pulled his punches" and in effect told the president: "You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I'll be with you."
Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to Washington was horrified, asking Sir David: "Why in God's name has he said that again?
"'Well, we tried to stop him ... but we didn't prevail', came the weary response."
I can only imagine how many more stories like this will be hitting the press. Labour really sold out to have Blair running the show. I would expect such anti-consumer/pro-business actions from a Tory (or a Republican in the US) but to have the Labour party acting so harshly against consumers is revolting. I think "revolting" pretty much sums up Tony Blair though.
Britain lobbied against European Union plans to impose price caps on mobile phone roaming rates which were put into place earlier this year, The Times reported on Thursday.
Citing government e-mails and minutes of meetings it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the newspaper said that the British negotiator regularly communicated with Britain's major mobile phone networks to keep them abreast of developments, and to discuss Britain's stance on the proposals.
Fortunately consumers won the battle and mobile roaming charges have plummeted since a new law kicked in, despite the efforts of the Blair government.
With Blair now out of power and unable to obstruct access, the UK Government has finally released interesting information under the UK's Freedom of Information Act. Considering the timing of the phone calls between Rupert Murdoch and the hit pieces that followed it is no wonder Blair wanted to keep the details away from the media. More than ever it appears as though Blair worked hand in hand with Rupert Murdoch and his right wing media empire to smear dissenters such as Jacques Chirac and anyone else who opposed the war in Iraq.
In Alastair Campbell's diaries, published last week, the former spin doctor described a Downing Street dinner for Mr Murdoch and his sons, James and Lachlan, in 2002. "Murdoch pointed out that his were the only papers that gave us support when the going got tough. 'I've noticed,' said TB," Mr Campbell wrote. Lance Price, Mr Campbell's deputy, called Mr Murdoch "the 24th member of the [Blair] Cabinet". He added: "His presence was always felt. No big decision could ever be made inside No10 without taking account of the likely reaction of three men, Gordon Brown, John Prescott and Rupert Murdoch. On all the really big decisions, anybody else could safely be ignored."
A few choice examples of the Murdoch media follow up after those calls:
Phone call:11 March 2003
The Sun says: 12 March 2003
"Like a cheap tart who puts price before principle, money before honour, Jacques Chirac struts the streets of shame. The French President's vow to veto the second resolution [on Iraq] at the United Nations - whatever it says - puts him right in the gutter."
Phone call: 13 March 2003
The Sun says: 14 March 2003
"Charlatan Jacques Chirac is basking in cheap applause for his 'Save Saddam' campaign - but his treachery will cost his people dear. This grandstanding egomaniac has inflicted irreparable damage on some of the most important yet fragile structures of international order."
Phone call: 19 March 2003
The Sun says: 20 March 2003
"Time has run out for Saddam Hussein. His day of reckoning is at hand. The war on Iraq has begun... The courage and resilience of Tony Blair and George Bush will now be put to the ultimate test."
So what has suddenly changed that makes people think Bush will actually be serious about it this time? Bush is not a man who likes change so besides being a courtesy to Blair, nothing in his past suggests that Bush will do anything beyond talk and pose for photos.
President Bush's announcement comes only days before Mr Blair attends his first meeting of the Quartet. The former prime minister has been pushing Mr Bush for the past five years to take an active role in trying to end the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. In his White House speech yesterday, Mr Bush gave his blessing to Mr Blair's new career as an unpaid Middle East envoy.
The president has adopted a mainly hands-off approach to the conflict over the past six years. His intervention now, with 18 months to go before his presidency ends, comes at an inauspicious point for a peace deal, with the Palestinians divided between the Fatah-controlled West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza. Hamas is unlikely to be invited: Mr Bush said it must first renounce violence and recognise Israel.
With the obstructionist Blair out of the picture now and the US Justice Department pressing for answers - after all, BAE won the bid and not a US company - some tense moments are ahead and the special relationship is bound to be tested as the US and other OECD countries press for answers.
The Saudis and BAE say the payments were all above board. But Mr Blair said the Saudi royals privately made threats to cut off intelligence links unless the investigations were halted. He claimed this might increase the risk of British citizens being murdered in al-Qaida terrorist attacks "on British streets".
The US justice department has sent its formal request for mutual legal assistance to the Home Office in London. This was confirmed by the SFO at the weekend. If ministers refuse to cooperate, they will face a fresh international crisis. The OECD, which polices international anti-bribery treaties, has already accused Britain of potentially breaching those treaties.
To the frequent observer of Blair (or Bush, for that matter) the red flags are raised when threats of "terrorists will come home and kill us" and "national security" are thrown around to casually. It's all too easy to drop threats of fear for these people without regard for the impact on a population or the impact on a democracy and rule of law.
Let the post-PM spin begin on shaping the Blair legacy. Alastair Campbell's new book is obviously kind to the man he helped position in the British media though there are a few interesting tidbits in there. While I'm not buying the "Bush really isn't as much of a thicko as everyone thinks" spin (haven't we heard that before?) I do find the prewar discussion interesting.
The Campbell book sheds light on a dispute at the highest levels of the Bush administration over whether it should back Britain's call for another UN resolution. Six months before the invasion, Karen Hughes, President George Bush's communications adviser, said "not too convincingly" that the US President was always going to go down the UN route, Mr Campbell writes. But Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, "looked very sour" throughout talks at Camp David because he favoured immediate action. "After dinner, when TB and Bush walked alone to the chopper, Bush was open with him that Cheney was in a different position," says Mr Campbell.
President Bush joked to Mr Campbell: "I suppose you can tell the story of how Tony flew in and pulled the crazed unilateralist back from the brink." Mr Campbell insists the President is "far more impressive close up" and believes he "comes over better than people might expect" in his book.
The good-cop-bad-cop method is time tested and considering Cheney's reputation, it could easily be pulled off. So was Bush playing this game or does it just provide more support to the talk about who really runs the White House? Either way is still sounds like basic spin to help Blair justify his own theory on how he softened the position of the Bush team. Looking over the past six years, he was never successful in showing any progress with softening the radical agenda of Bush-Cheney, right up until the very last G8 meeting when Bush rejected serious discussions on climate change. In the end, Blair was just a gullible fool.
The man who has struggled to win support among UK Muslims, who is now the Middle East peace envoy continued on his path to alienate the remaining Muslim supporters back home. Blair is ill equipped for this new role and is only complicating the situation. He manages to wrap nonsense and distortion around some valid points. The interview is chock full of classic Blair, with attacks on the big bad meanies who take exception to his half-truths.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room that Blair completely skips by is the racist tendencies in the UK that contribute to these problems. There's plenty of blame to spread around in all communities, but how can you fix a problem if you can't even admit a core factor in the problem? Admittedly the UK does a better job than most in Europe with integration but that's not saying much considering the racial strife and the "they should be happy with the two day old crust of bread that we give them" attitude across Europe. The strangest part of the interview is when Blair criticizes his own programs.
'The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, "It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."'
Hmm, so he was PM for 10 years yet he "didn't fight it properly"? Huh? Well, why not? If he botched all efforts so badly for 10 years as PM, how does he intend to be successful now when he has no firm position other than a coalition and consensus builder as peace envoy? Sheesh, I hope he stands down today so we can find someone who might actually have a clue because he's going in circles. Blair wants to remove the "peace" aspect of being a peace envoy.
Blair finishes the interview by pushing back on critics of the police state apparatus that he has launched during his term, linking those programs to deporting terrorists, which of course is not the issue that has infuriated people. The issue has been his trashing of civil liberties for an entire nation, policing their every move, law abiding citizen and terrorist alike.
The UK has a very difficult problem that needs to be addressed collectively so verbal attacks - shocking for a peace envoy, really - only encourages more division and more isolation from a community that is already feeling isolated. His frustration with the problem is understandable (though one might imagine a clearer understanding after 10 years as PM), but this tirade does nothing to help bring communities together and that is what everyone needs these days.
Tony Blair as special Middle East peace envoy. The strongest international friend that Bush has, who pro actively joined the invasion of Iraq, where his troops are being charged with torture and murder yet he has made every effort possible to safeguard the alleged criminals against EU laws, he's Bush's man for the job. If the world needed yappy little pup to roll over and speak for a dog biscuit and accept a condescending little pat on the head, of course he's the guy, but the problems the world faces in the region are serious.
The reality of the Middle East today is that Blair has been an active participant of so many problems and is not viewed as a neutral player. Besides being heavily tainted by the war in Iraq, Blair has shown no results in ten years as PM that give us any indication that he will be able to bring people together now that he is outside of real political power. Do we really need Bush's poodle tripping over every other team in the region who is trying to negotiate the peace process?
Blair has no more credibility than Karen Hughes had when she was supposed to be America's great answer to problems in the Middle East. Confirming Blair for this position only shows again the lack of seriousness on the part of the Bush administration who believes the answer to every problem is another crony who everyone else outside of the White House views as just another prop with zero legitimacy who is promoting the Bush agenda.
