A Victorian Englishman's Perambulations At The Beach ...

Just got back from the beach. This was the product of my arts and crafts. Enjoy ...

[UK LibCon Coalition Government 2010] -- Will The LibDems Be Able To Stop The Tory Arms Kickbacks?

Is this why Michael (Lord) Ashcroft is screaming blue murder? Because one of the reasons David Cameron did a deal with the LibDems was to spike Ashcroft’s plans to revive illicit arms dealing and kickbacks under a purely Tory Government?

In the Eighties and Nineties, a group of Tory politicians, City businessmen, Ministry of Defence officials and intelligence personnel instituted a scheme to make hundreds of millions of pounds from illicit kickbacks from legitimate arms deals and illegal profits from illegitimate arms deals. [http://tinyurl.com/y8bnpyd]

The public came to know this group as the “Savoy Mafia.” Margaret Thatcher’s son, Mark, was a member. As was her husband, Denis, and disgraced former Tory Cabinet Minister, Jonathan Aitken – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Aitken. But what the public learned through the mainstream media at the time wasn’t even the half of it – http://www.conservativecampaign.com/tory_arms_corruption.php.

My now deceased best mate, Hugh Simmonds CBE, a former rising star in the Conservative Party, was responsible for setting up the money-laundering pipeline (unbeknown to me, I hasten to add), which pipeline included the then Conservative Central Office – http://www.conservativecampaign.com/hugh_john_simmonds.php.

Hugh was able to do this since he was a member of the Conservative’s National Board of Finance, based in CCO. I only found out about Hugh’s involvement when I started asking questions after he turned up dead in the woods in suspicious circumstances in November 1988.

I’ve written a book about my little adventure of discovery. “Dead Men Don’t Eat Lunch” @ http://www.lulu.com/content/384105. In addition to giving my book a plug, the other reason for raising all of this now is that there is a good chance history may be about to repeat itself.

One of the prime behind-the-scenes brokers of the notorious ‘Al Yamamah’ arms deal with Saudi Arabia was Jonathan Aitken, who made his money by acting as an arms middleman for various senior members of the Saudi Royal Family - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Yamamah.

Aitken didn’t believe in giving up the day job when he joined the Conservative Government of John Major in the early Nineties. And so it was that, in September 1993, when Aitken secretly met with a representative of the Saudi Royal Family in the Ritz Hotel, Paris, to carve up ‘commissions’ (we call ‘em bribes up in the mountains) from ‘Al Yamamah II,’ he was also serving as Major’s Chief Secretary to the UK Treasury (a Cabinet Ministerial position). [http://tinyurl.com/26qxy32]

That meeting was exposed by the owner of the Ritz, none other than Mohammed Fayed. Aitken denied he was ever there. He went to Court to prove himself innocent. Lost. Went to jail for perjury. But. Business had to carry on.

Aitken’s business partner was Alan Duncan, MP, who took over as the new arms middleman with the Saudi Royals, on behalf of the Conservative contingent - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Duncan.

Thing is, New Labour then came to power (1997). They wanted a piece of the continuing action. Their arms middlemen were the Maxwell twins (sons of Cap’n Bob Maxwell: deceased billionaire Labour politician, publisher, Israeli agent and arms dealer in his own right).

Now, all sorts of introducing and handshaking took place, to get the new guard into position. I explain in detail in my book. But you get an idea of the connections from this blogger, Hopi Sen –http://tinyurl.com/23q326u

In addition to having middlemen in place to negotiate their interest in the arms action, both sides, Conservative and Labour, then needed overseers to look after and distribute the accumulating kickbacks.

In the case of the Conservatives, the Keeper of the Key (to bank accounts in Switzerland, reputed to hold a total of £200 million (plus interest)) was and is Michael (Lord) Ashcroft (an undisclosed but senior member of the “Savoy Mafia,” and a close buddy of Sir Denis Thatcher). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ashcroft,_Baron_Ashcroft]

The Labour money was and is being looked after by Geoffrey Robinson (Labour MP for Coventry North West, a former Cabinet Minister and bagman for Bob Maxwell – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Robinson) and Peter (Lord) Mandelson (who is a walking, talking scandal, thrice over, and good buddies with Wafic Said, another of the brokers for Saudi arms deals – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mandelson).

This explains why both Ashcroft and Mandelson wield such enormous influence in their respective Parties.

All arms deals need to be sanctioned by the Government. Although it’s not as simple as that. And let me just say, I’m not trying to encapsulate some 450 pages of my book into this brief Note. I’m using this Note to alert. If you want the whole picture…er…buy the book.

Anyways, Government and defence contractors work together to encourage folks to buy British arms. The Government effort is spearheaded by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Defence with special responsibility for Defence Procurement (which is deliciously-Orwellian doublespeak for ‘arms sales’).

Once the deals are agreed in principle, the private defence contractor has to apply to the Export Control Organisation (ECO) for an export license. This Organisation used to be in the Trade and Industry Department, but now finds itself under the supervision of the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Back in the Eighties, when the whole illicit arms-bribes-for-pols enterprise was getting underway (under the Thatcher Government), it was given huge assistance by Alan Clarke and Lord Trefgarne, who swapped Ministerial positions at Defense and Trade, where they respectively oversaw Defence Procurement and the ECO. (By the by, before he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Jonathan Aitken was a Minister of State for Defence Procurement.)

Fast forward to 2005, when David Cameron is miraculously elected Leader of the Conservative Party – with help from Ashcroft’s wife (http://tinyurl.com/2vqfus4). The first thing Dave does is to make Ashcroft Deputy Chairman of the Party, putting him in charge of spending millions of ‘his own’ money in those all-important 100 Labour marginals.

Dave then appointed Alan Duncan as his new Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. And Gerald Howarth and Julian Lewis as his two shadow Ministers at Defence.

Right. Who the heck are these Gerald and Julian characters? Gerald Howarth was an old right-wing (and I’m talking WTF loony right-wing) chum of Hugh’s from the Seventies, when the two frequented that choice playground for all aspiring Neanderthal Tories and sometime intelligence officers, The Monday Club. [http://tinyurl.com/2e2qslb – buried away in this wiki-biog, you’ll find mention of a libel action in 1986; it was my mate Hugh from whom Gerald first sought legal advice in this matter]

On the subject of Gerald Howarth and libel actions, Gerald is one of my FB Friends - I strive for an eclectic network; I want to know what folks are up to, and for them to know likewise. If you see what I mean. Anyway, let me just check...yup...he's still a FB Friend.

Which raises a point which I will allow to distract me for just a moment. It's important - especially for those of who who think I'm way out on a conspiratorial limb here, and are unaware of the 10 years of investigation behind my allegations.

Every single person, about whom I have made potentially libelous statements in my book (and those in this article are mere repetition of the book), has been informed of what I have said, and has been given a physical address in the country of their residence, where they may formally serve upon a representative of mine a Writ of Libel. The credibility of these allegations is a serious matter for me. To date, I have received not one notice of legal proceeding.

The only threat of one came from Michael (Lord) Heseltine, John Major's Deputy Prime Minister. Michael demanded I desist in saying he knew there was arms corruption in the Conservative Party in the Eighties and Nineties. I checked with my original source to make sure that source had been correct about the allegations concerning Michael. I then wrote back to Michael respectfully declining his 'request.'

I gave him two options: sue me, or I would feel justified in saying that he was not doing so because he knew the allegations to be true. And by the way, I wasn't alleging that he was a part of the corruption (he wasn't). I was only saying that he knew about it. I have heard no more from him.

So. One more time. Michael Heseltine knew there was arms corruption in the Conservative Party in the Eighties and Nineties. Right. Enough of that. Where was I? Oh yes...Gerald Howarth...

Gerald was a bit of a hanger-on with everyone and everything. But he became, over time, a favorite toady of intelligence, the military and Margaret Thatcher. A safe pair of hands to look the other way as serious crooks went about the business of…well...doing arms bribe business.

Julian is altogether a more substantive sleazebag - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lewis. Officially, he was Deputy Director of the Conservative Research Department in the early Nineties. But his unofficial work included negative research on the Opposition, and covering up all trace of the arms money moving through the Conservative Central Office (where, by the way, at that time, Ashcroft was a Joint Treasurer).

So. As the Tories headed into General Election 2010, they were all set to revive the pipeline funneling arms bribes into Tory coffers from both legitimate and illegitimate arms deals. The personnel were all in place to make this happen.

But why would squeaky-clean Dave go along with all of this? Again, you’re gonna have to read the book. But the bottom line is, Dave didn’t ‘go along’ – with anything. The same powers that smoothed the path for Dave’s rise to the Leadership were and are the same powers that wanted the Tories back in power, so that those Powers could start making money again from arms sales.

Dave had no choice. It was a take-it-or-f**k-off deal.

But, here’s the big ‘but.’ And this time, I am going way out on a limb. I don’t think Dave went along all that willingly. I believe Dave thought and thinks that he could jettison this corrupt element from his Party – an element which drew most of its strength from the right-wing of the Party. (I could be wrong. Dave did accept that money from Ashcroft's wife. And he also accepted some rather unusual money from a Lebanese arms-dealing chum of Jonathan Aitken - http://tinyurl.com/ycm749j)

But, to continue with the theme of Dave-as-the-Tooth-Fairy, if he could get rid of the right-wing, it would take care of much of the corruption. And so, he moved to the left. Now, I’m not saying the move was a sham. It’s a self-reinforcing circle. Dave’s better instincts make him progressive and non-corrupt. Which makes him opposed to the right-wing, and the corruption they have decided to clasp to their bosom – as it were.

It must be late at night. I’m talking about bosoms…

Along comes the Election Campaign, and lo and behold, Dave agrees to let Nick Clegg of the LibDems into the TV Debates. Nick does splendidly. And we now have a Liberal-Conservative Coalition Government.

Now, I’m not saying this was all a carefully thought out plan. C’mon. We’re talking about Tories here. I’m one of them. And the most planning we do is taking up a collection for a round of drinks after a Constituency Executive Meeting.

But. I do think there were some hopes and aspirations at play here. Which began with a young Leader seeing a Party totally in thrall to right-wing and corrupt elements, and ended with those corrupt and right-wing elements potentially held at bay by coalition with the LibDems.

Which is why I believe Ashcroft is screaming so loudly – http://tinyurl.com/2e86gyy. And why he is almost immediately working to undermine Dave – http://tinyurl.com/37hmlgz. Ashcroft didn’t spend £14 million getting Dave elected, just to see his (Ashcroft’s) chances of renewed arms kickbacks get…well, kicked into touch, by Dave’s new LibDem buddies.

Now, we’re not in the clear yet. Alan Duncan, notwithstanding his unfortunate comments about Miss California, has just been appointed a Minister of State at the Department for International Development.

So what? Well, there’s another important Department to be found under the auspices of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (for the love of all things holy, Dave, can we please shorten that bloody name!). It’s the Export Credit Guarantee Department.

The largest part of ECGD's activities involves underwriting long term loans to support the export of military equipment (about 50% to be precise). As part of its risk management process, ECGD has to make a judgment on the ability of a country to meet its debt obligations. The Department uses a ‘productive expenditure’ test, undertaken in consultation with the Department for International Development.

In other words, Alan’s going to be wandering around the world making sure countries are good, not only for repaying our Government’s loans to sell them arms, but also for coughing up the necessary kickbacks to the Tories.

Meanwhile, notwithstanding the fact that there will be a LibDem Minister of State in Defence (Nick Harvey), to keep an eye on shenanigans, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is still going to be Gerald Howarth.

And, although Ashcroft is no longer Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, he will still wield influence since he continues to be the one granting access to the bank accounts with the past arms millions. And who’s to say he’s not waiting with new deposit slips in hand…??

The bottom line is this: there was massive arms corruption under the last two Tory Governments (although, on an aside, John Major did try to stop it, but got shafted by Rupert Murdoch and Sir James Goldsmith for his troubles – both businessmen also being beneficiaries of the arms largesse; with Sir James Goldsmith’s son, Zac, now a Conservative MP and Cameron BFF). And this arms corruption continued under New Labour – http://tinyurl.com/2dp79tj.

I honestly believe that Dave is hoping he can prevent a repeat. But he hasn’t completely cleared out the Augean Stables. It will be up to non-corrupt and progressive Tories to keep a weather eye on their own mob. And to LibDems to keep their Coalition partners under close scrutiny. Either that, or follow the activities of the individuals mentioned above, and find yourself eye-witness to the next major political scandal, as it unfolds.

Personally, I would really rather not find myself having to write a sequel to “Dead Men” in ten years time...

UK General Election 2010: Will David Cameron Be Hung Out To 'Dry'?

Well, the British polls are going up and down like Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton’s EKG’s. Probably giving British Tory Party Leader, David Cameron, more than the occasional heart murmur (http://tinyurl.com/ybtc3vm).

But the fact remains this: the Tories are ahead in the 60 most marginal UK Parliamentary Constituencies, and Young Dave is more than likely to succeed Gordon Brown as Prime Minister later this year.

However, it is becoming increasingly clear either that Dave may have only a very small overall majority (we have a lot of minority Parties in the UK), or even that he will find that he has the largest number of MP’s in the newly-elected Parliament, but without an overall majority – what we charmingly and somewhat grotesquely call a ‘hung’ Parliament (http://tinyurl.com/ydhghmn). And yes, we’ve heard all the jokes…

Now, contrary to what most of the pundits in the UK are speculating, I think that, in such circumstances, Dave is going to have difficulty governing with any consistency. Not because of his inability to keep the opposing Parties at bay. But due to the newfound, frisky independence of his own MP’s.

Just to set this in context. We all know that the underlying theme of Obama’s first year in office, and his continuing travails with healthcare reform, is how to keep the ranks of Senate Democrats lined up behind his proposals, so that Republicans cannot filibuster their passage – the so-called Super Majority of 60 Senators.

British Prime Ministers normally do not have such problems. In the UK Parliament, our Party Whips are more than mere window-dressing. They do actually wield power. And the tactics they use to ensure that every last one of the Prime Minister’s MP’s vote ‘Yes’ would make even the most extreme political dominatrix blush.

My favorite is what we call the Three Line Whip - http://tinyurl.com/yc2mqqk - which is basically a penalty flag, red card and air raid siren, all rolled into one. You defy one of these babies, and you are declaring that you became an MP because you really, really wanted to spend the rest of your life reviewing pest control problems in the Outer Hebrides.

The problem is that Dave (who as a politician, makes a pretty good Eton-educated barrow boy; he is to public relations what Lucifer is to sin)…where was I?...oh yes…Dave, in his all-consuming drive to return the Tories to government, after 13 years in the wilderness, has made sure that he hasn’t missed a trick to convince the British electorate of his sincerity.

That includes establishing himself as the Alpha and Omega when it comes to responding to the public’s disgust with professional politicians. No more, exclaims Dave. The Tories are now the Party of political purity.

Last summer, he issued an invitation for folks, who were not Tories, to apply to be his Members of Parliament. Every chosen Parliamentary Candidate has to sign a form undertaking that, in the event of a conflict of conscience between an elected MP’s own views and the interests of his constituents on the one hand, versus what his own Party and Prime Minister are urging on the other hand, the Tory MP must choose his conscience and constituents. Which effectively consigns the Tory Parliamentary Whips Office to toilet detail.

Of course, you say, no Tory MP is actually going to defy his Prime Minister. I mean, he or she wants to curry favor in order to get a plum job. Right? Not so fast. After this next Election, it may not be as simple as that.

The Tories are likely to be hanging on to government by their fingertips (you’ll have noticed lots of hanging references in British Parliamentary jargon). In order to win, the Tories will have to capture about 150-200 Parliamentary Seats from the other Parties – the largest electoral swing to the Tories since 1930. This new intake of Tory MP’s will be the single largest influx of Tory MP’s in one Election in history.

It will be the clearest representation possible of the irrefutable volatility of the British electorate. A volatility which is daily being recorded in those rollercoaster polls. An electorate which can swing so wildly one way, one day can just as quickly and violently swing the other way, the next day. Your average newbie Tory MP is going to know that. And they’re going to know that the job they want to protect is the one they already have (MP), rather than holding out hope for a job they might never get (Minister).

Time was, even a few decades ago, we all knew which were the safe seats and which the unsafe, for any given Party. Yet, boundaries have changed so much in the past couple of decades, politics has been so uncertain, that no-one really knows what the new ‘safe’ is. Every single one of those 150-200 new Tory MP’s (out of a total of about 350-400 Tory MP’s) is going to be sitting on what they will still regard as a marginal seat. That’ll make them more likely to want to please their new constituents, rather than their new Prime Minister.

Add to this the fact that, again, in his never-ending campaign to return the Tories to power, Dave insisted that seats choose their Candidates as early as possible in this last Parliamentary cycle, and that chosen Candidates then move lock, stock and barrel into their seats. None of this commuting to the country from the London ‘burbs. Dave wanted each and every one of his Candidates to be able to say, after a couple of years, ‘hey, I’m local, too.’

In his newfound progressivism, Dave also ‘invited’ all of his Candidates to undertake a welter of ‘social action’ projects in their respective constituencies, the more to ingratiate themselves with their chosen ‘locals.’

The upshot of all this is, when push comes to shove, most of this new intake of Tory MP’s is likely to turn around and say, ‘er, Dave, I’m just as responsible as you for my getting elected; I’ve got to consider my constituents if I want to keep the seat; nothing is certain with my constituents; and, by the way, you told me to put my constituents before you…so…sod off.’

It gets worse. The Party attaining power after an Election has to find about 150-190 MP’s to form a Government and fill important associated Parliamentary positions. Dave is highly unlikely to form a Government made up of MP’s who’ve only just been elected. So, he’s going to have to use the boys and girls who are already there. Who are not necessarily the ones calling for the Great Dave Progressive Revolution.

So. There may be something of a lag in Dave being able to introduce all those wonderful, radical ideas that he is convinced will (a) reform GB; and (b) ensure his re-election. Rendering even more wobbly his powers of persuasion when it comes to those newly-independent MP’s. Who, as I’ve just said, will be on the backbenches, not in Government. As a general rule, the Headboy tends to have more sway with his fellow Prefects than with the guys having a quick smoke behind the cricket pavilion…

Those nervous MP’s might be better persuaded if the Headboy was having demonstrable success on the national stage, rather than having to negotiate every day with a bunch of go-slow, has-beens from a previous era. An era which was visibly more right-wing than Dave’s current precocious and fragile progressive perch.

In other words, in his first year, Dave could be getting it from both ends. A Government made up of old-timey MP’s, who yearn for the days of Iron Maggie [Thatcher], and who may be a little leery of Dave’s touchy-feely ‘hug-a-hoodie’ approach. And a whole flock of backbenchers too new to be in Government, anxious at any sign of a lack of public progress, and nervously glancing over their shoulders at their constituents’ ever-changing outlook (http://tinyurl.com/yata6ba).

Add to this the fact that whoever is elected is going to face a smorgasbord of intractable problems – runaway government debt; an economy that could deflate if public spending cuts are too severe; and two wars in lands where the British have a history of getting a bloody nose. The chances are that Dave could be facing an inevitable one-term administration (not unlike Obama) – and I’m pretty certain all of the new intake of Tory MP’s will be painfully aware of this possibility also.

AND. Yes, it never ends! There is one other entity to which a Tory MP must pay constant obeisance – his or her Constituency Association. It matters not if you are an MP who was ever so graciously and delicately ‘parachuted’ into a seat by Central Conservative Campaign HQ. The Association retains the right to deselect you and find another.

The Associations are, at least for the moment, somewhat to the right of Our Dave. Look, some of them (cf. Norfolk, Suffolk, et al - http://tinyurl.com/yzmbcnl) are to the right of Attila the Hun and Cardinal Richelieu. As a general rule, Associations will pretty much back anyone or anything that puts the Tories back in Government. But not necessarily this time.

In addition to being a tad unhappy about some of Dave’s ‘wetter’ policy initiatives, the goodly folk in Association Land are definitely up in arms about his attempts to impose his chosen Candidates on Associations, which fiercely protect their prerogative to choose their own Candidates and MP’s (http://tinyurl.com/ygz6k3d).

At the slightest sign of anything other than overwhelming success by Dave at the top, it may well be that these Associations will exact their revenge by replacing their ‘wet’ Flopsy Mopsy, MP with something a little more ‘dry’ – say, Sir Hunting Horsewhip, MP. [Er…’wet’ = progressive; ‘dry’ = Thatcherite…for my US Friends.]

Are you beginning to sense a potential trend here? Far from being a wave of New Tory progressivism, Dave’s election may well herald a return of old-style Thatcherism. First, with the old-timers he may have to call on to man his new Government. And then, with a new intake of MP’s nervous about failure and anxious of what their Associations might do to them (http://tinyurl.com/ya4c6tf).

Where it gets really interesting is how Dave decides he has to react to such a trend. Let’s back up a bit. If this coming Election leaves the UK with a hung Parliament, the word is that Dave will introduce the Budget he wants (regardless of old-timer MP’s, new intake, Associations or constituents), and then dare the opposing Parties to reject it.

Whether they do or not, it is highly likely that we will see another Election within the year. I do not think that that Election will have any more clear a result than the first. In which event, Dave has already indicated that he is not unwilling to make overtures to the middle-of-the-road Liberal Democrats (http://tinyurl.com/ybjyvgu).

Your average hot-blooded Tory Constituency activist would rather walk on hot coals, and then feed them to his progeny, than join forces with the Liberal Democrats. But Dave wants power. Or rather, his Notting Hill-set Tories want power that badly. And that’s his position now – he’d do a deal with the progressive Liberal Democrats to attain or stay in power.

Let’s say in this next Election, or a second, after the first leaves us with a hung Parliament, let’s say Dave ends up with a smallish overall majority or a second hung Parliament. Let’s say he finds it difficult, nigh on impossible, to negotiate a path through his now frisky and more right-wing old-timers/Associations/fearful new intake, et al, on the one hand, and Liberal Democrats on the other. Let’s say it all ends in yet another Vote of Confidence in Parliament (the convention being that, if you lose one of those, you have to call another Election). Throwing all of that into the pot, might Dave decide re-alignment is the answer?

I mean, I’ll give him a little credit. I think he may be a genuine progressive. Whether I’m right on that or not, Dave definitely understands politics and public relations, and feels as much fealty to old-style Thatcherism as a hermit crab feels to an old shell (http://tinyurl.com/yk7wmvs).

I think that Dave knows that a lurch to the right would spell doom for his Party in any ensuing Election. The future, at least for the moment resides in the middle.

I’m not sure how it would happen, but in the light of all my Sunday-morning meanderings above, I have an inkling that, within the next ten years, we might see a major re-alignment in British politics: Dave (and the likes of the Miliband Brothers (Labour) and Nick Clegg, Vince Cable (Liberal Democrats)) leading a new (what?) Liberal Conservative Party; the Tory right joining forces with UKIP; and a substantial rump of the old Labour Party (100 MP’s?) remaining, well, the old Labour Party.

And one final prediction? If that new Liberal Conservative combo doesn’t finally put the issues of Europe and immigration to rest, then, within twenty years, I’m guessing we’ll have a very reactionary Tory/UKIP Government in Great Britain – likely, with Daniel Hannan as Prime Minister…

Are We Impoverishing The US Anti-Poverty Effort?

My concern, now that we have earmarked multiple trillions of the public purse to bailing out banks and building bridges, is that we will have squeezed the money available to meet the goal established by Barack's new Domestic Policy Council Director, Melody Barnes, to cut poverty in the US in half within 10 years.

In my opinion, that goal will require not only new resources, but a totally new way of approaching the task, both of which may now be in jeopardy.

When Barack's economic stimulus package was first touted, my concern was that there would be so much money floating around that it would require a blunderbuss approach to distributing the money, and that blunderbuss approach would upset the delicate and intricate networks of support that are already doing such amazing work at the grassroots with at risk communities.

That was when I began talking about Offices of Direct Venture Development (http://geoffgilson.wordpress.com), to act as a buffer between well-meaning but over-powerful national and state government efforts and those well-balanced community initiatives.

I saw the Offices not only helping to target and distribute sensitively resources downwards, but also acting as focal points for translating upwards the actual needs of the troops on the ground and their successful experiences, so that policy-makers would be as much informed by community experience as by the input received from Washington think tanks.

Now my worry is that there may be too little money available from the Obama Administration to fund anti-poverty programs - new and existing. So it is that my focus has shifted to finding ways to use what little money there may be, whether from private or public sources, to fund both existing and new programs (government and non-profit), all of which suffer from their own paucity of funding. I have posted a couple of articles about this on the same blog.

Whatever may be the eventual outcome with the availability of resources for the anti-poverty effort, there are other issues which I see complicating any successful effort to achieve the Half in Ten goal.

First, the main emphasis of the mainstream anti-poverty movement has generally been about addressing the causes of poverty. I welcome all the initiatives that are proposed, whether it be improving education, affordable housing or the availability of union membership. But my personal emphasis is on addressing the immediate consequences of poverty.

I have a separate blog which deals with this in more detail: http://focusonpoverty.blogspot.com. The bottom line is that I want Barack, along with Half in Ten, to commit his Administration to the proposition that every man, woman and child in the US deserves access to adequate food, clothing, housing and healthcare.

By all means, let's do what we can about cause. It may take ten years, it may take thirty. But all it takes is willpower to commit to allowing everybody below the poverty line to have access to adequate food, clothing housing and healthcare - tomorrow.

And money. My four part radio series calculated about $200 billion a year. And that's why I'm worried that we have mortgaged so much of the public purse to bailing out banks and building bridges.

The next wrinkle is that many of the most at risk communities are located in rabidly conservative (both religious and political) parts of the country. It will require enormous delicacy and respect to go into those communities and negotiate with their pride and independence to help them be empowered to help themselves - under a liberal President, most of them despise.

And make no mistake, we let ourselves down as true progressives if we do not meet that challenge, and allow these neighbors of ours the same opportunity to help themselves - on their terms - as we would rabidly liberal communities.

It's precisely these sorts of challenges I relish having the opportunity to meet. I'll be honest. I am actively looking to find or create a role for myself that allows me to help in this fashion. If any reader has any suggestions, please do not be shy about contacting me or passing the message around your own networks.

But whether it is me or someone else, whether it is supported by Barack, his administration, a set of non-profits or private sources, I hope that we take the opportunity of this truly progressive administration to realize the vision of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and eradicate poverty once and for all in this, the richest country the world has ever known.

And I genuinely pray that I am proven wrong, and that the money we have allocated elsewhere does not impoverish the anti-poverty effort in the US.

Are We Over-Stimulating The US Economy?

I believe that we are where we are because governments around the world have been over-stimulating their economies since the late Eighties. Every time it has come time to pay the piper, we have put off the day of reckoning by literally printing more money.

I’m going to spend a quick moment wondering whether we in the US are about to do the same thing again, with this currently much over-stimulated economic stimulus package.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m tickled beyond pink that Obama is our President. But he’s one man, dealing with some 750 congress people. And no one man is always right – as even he has conceded.

But we have a couple of economic rescue packages (bank bail-out and economic stimulus) that, last year, were pegged at the low hundreds of billions, and are now edging multiple trillions.

It’s a sensible time to pause and double-check we’re doing the right thing. My doubts are both general and specific.

Generally speaking, as an avowed social economic libertarian, I believe that there is always a price to pay for artificially stimulating the economy.

Provided the price does not outweigh the short-term benefit, and provided those who are less able to fend for themselves do not get left behind, I’m not always closed to the concept.

So long as everyone sees it as a short-term bridge to getting back to the natural economy.

What bothers me is when we start talking about economic stimulus as being a long-term tool. For example, when we say that short-term tax-cuts (Bush) should be made permanent, or ‘government is creating jobs’ (Obama).

Government does not create jobs. What it can do is provide a temporary moment when the economy is in transition, when industry is in transition, and use that breathing space to help people re-locate, re-train – whatever it is that needs to be done to empower people to adjust to a new economic reality.

But when government pretends that there is no new economic reality, and simply encourages people to carry on as before, then government does its people a disservice. And governments, of all political persuasions, around the world, have been doing just that since the late Eighties.

Imagine the wealth of a country is a solid wooden table. That table represents all the products that its people create – their actual value. The actual value of property (not the speculative value).

You can’t drag the table around the world as you try to import goods and services. So, you have currency, with which to exchange.

If you don’t have enough money to buy those goods, you can be sensible and wait until you have created enough of your own products, so that you have enough actual wealth to be able to print more money. Or, you can be reckless, and just go ahead and print more money, and buy the bauble today.

We’ve been doing the latter since 1987. Every time there was an event which reduced the value of our property (Stock Market crashes, economic recessions), instead of waiting until the natural wealth of our economy got back on course, we’ve simply printed more money.

But, we’ve done worse that that. We’ve printed the money in a way that hides the fact that we’ve been doing it. We haven’t printed new dollar bills as such. We’ve increased the amount of digital money. By increasing the amount of electronic credit that is available.

We do that primarily by artificially reducing interest rates. And when that option is no longer available (because our interest rates are close to zero), we come up with other measures, which we grandly entitle ‘encouraging banks to lend’ – sound familiar?

What this does is reduce the value of our currency. We have the same amount of actual wealth, but we’re just telling the rest of the world that it is represented by more money.

Naturally, the rest of the world wants more money to sell its goods and services to us, and so the price of their goods and services goes up. That’s called inflation. And that’s what we had, in rampant version, back in the Seventies.

Nowadays we get around inflation by borrowing from the Chinese and the Arabs. We say to foreigners: here, we’ll give you more money for the same goods, but the extra won’t be coming from us, it will be covered by this nice Chinese gentleman instead.

That way, we Americans are not footing our bill with inflation, we’re getting the Chinese to foot the bill for us, instead. A little over-simplified, but it will do.

The problem is, there is still a price to pay. Interest payments. And the size of those payments had become so large that we don’t have enough money to do the things we want to do, like fix roads and build new schools.

So now we come up with that money by introducing an economic stimulus package. Which will be paid for with more borrowing. Which will put us deeper in debt.

And so the cycle continues. And so it is that I’m generally not in favor of artificial economic stimulus.

Instead, it’s time to get off the train as it hurtles towards the precipice, let the economy heal itself, and focus our efforts on empowering our people to meet the new realities properly prepared, and to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to engage in those new realities, and to set in place a genuinely respectful safety net which cares for those in our society, who are unable to care for themselves, in a truly dignified fashion.

It is time to stop acting like children, with a never-ending candy jar. Or better still, it’s time to stop treating our fragile economy like an over-stimulated child.

We wonder why the child will not go to bed, why it engages in behavior which is unhealthy for us, and we don’t realize it’s because we keep on stimulating the child.

Stop feeding Little Joe-Boy caffeine and sugar up the wazoo, and letting him watch action movies at 9.00pm at night, and you’ll find that Little Joe-Boy will simply return to normal child behavior. Same with our economy.

But leaving aside the nauseating metaphors, and my general doubts about economic stimulus, what about the specific packages before us?

Well, cast your mind back to the summer of last year, and the original chatter about bank bail-outs. We were talking then about a measured response in the financial sector, to stop the sector completely collapsing, and a package to help home-owners.

We are now a hiccup away from a slew of nationalized American banks, and the latest piece of candy is a proposal to give a $15,000 tax break to people who buy houses in 2009.

I’m not going to spend much time on banks. There are people out there who know more about banks than me. Besides, it’s no secret that we’re all sick and tired of executives paying themselves huge bonuses out of the bail-out money, and not making that money available to ordinary people. And Obama is doing something about that.

But let’s look at the $15,000 proposal as one which may not be necessary, or not necessary in its current form.

First thing. Why on earth are we encouraging anyone to spend money they do not naturally possess, when that is what caused this problem in the first place?

Ok. I might be persuaded by the argument that we’re in such a stagnant mess, if we don’t do something, it might all become a depression. And that is the only reason I support any kind of economic stimulus/bank bail-out at all.

But I’d be more persuaded by this latest measure if it was qualified by saying, for example, it is only available to buy a primary residence, and the tax break has to be repaid with interest if the house is sold within, say, five years, to prevent speculation.

It’s that same sort of reasonable restraint that I see lacking from the now burgeoning economic stimulus package.

In the early autumn, we were talking about a couple of hundred billion dollars, to put a bit of money in the hands of the hard-pressed middle class, and increasing entitlements to those in poverty, to help them through these particularly difficult times.

Now, we have a trillion dollar pork barrel that makes Sarah Palin and her Bridge to Nowhere look like Scrooge. Whoa. Time to put the brakes on.

The bottom line is that this package should not be, and never should have been, about designing a whole new pseudo-economic paradigm, where the state becomes owner, businessman and capitalist.

Governments do not make good business people. I know. I lived through it in the UK. And Brits have spent the last 30 years trying to wean themselves away from a nanny state, which cuts people off at the knees, rather than empowering or serving them. I do not want to see the same thing happen in the US.

In my opinion, this economic stimulus package will best serve Americans if it limits itself to what it should be – a one-off measure to put some money temporarily in peoples’ hands, to see them through the transition of this horrible recession, and prepare them for taking advantage of what will await us all on the other side.

So yes, let’s give the middle class a break. And I’m delighted we’re doing it by $20 a paycheck. It’s supposed to be a helping hand. Not another opportunity to buy something we don’t need.

I’m delighted that there are measures to increase entitlements to those who are not able currently to fend for themselves.

By all means, let’s create a limited number of temporary jobs, to help those in areas worst hit by the changes underway in our economy – for example, in Detroit.

And yes, let’s invest a measured amount in the future of our country and its economy. In green technology, in schools, in a certain amount of infrastructure.

But beyond that, let’s get back to reality. Let’s reduce this economic stimulus package to something in the order of maybe $600-$700 billion.

Government has no business promising to ‘create’ 3-4 million jobs. That’s the business of business.

This package should not be an excuse for state governments to balance their budgets, for congressmen to offload every pork barrel project they’re been hoarding the last couple of years, and it should stand for more than a dozen more Bridges to Nowhere.

Barack Obama promised us a new way to govern. To do that, he will need eventually to wield a full pen when it comes to executing line-item veto. He can begin with his own economic stimulus package. A package which Congress is merrily turning into next year’s overstuffed Christmas turkey.

I say all of this not to undermine Barack Obama, but to support him. Like him, I want a grassroots administration that listens to its people, and then serves them. I want policies that genuinely reflect the needs of those who are in receipt of the benefits. [see -http://geoffgilson.wordpress.com]

And I want a government that recognizes that there is no such thing as ‘government investment.’

What government invests is taxpayers’ dollars. It’s our money. The peoples’ money. And what I want, and I know that Barack wants it too, is for that tax money to be invested wisely, and on our behalf. Not on behalf of Congressman and their lobbyists. And not on behalf of company executives, financial speculators and foreign bankers.

I’m not sure this economic stimulus package, in its current form, is wise. I hope it will see many changes in the coming weeks. And I care not a fig that those changes may, initially, be proposed by Republicans or Red-Dog Democrats.

One of the most promising features of Barack Obama is that he has shown that he is not afraid to accept advice from any quarter, and he is equally then not afraid to change course if it ensures that the outcome is the one that best serves the American people. It is why I am so encouraged we have him at the helm in these challenging times.

It’s why I supported him last year, and it’s why I will continue to support him. Even when I don’t necessarily agree with every ‘i’ that he dots and ‘t’ that he crosses.

I hope that he will demonstrate that same courage and cool temperament with the bank bail-out and economic stimulus packages, and openly welcome honest debate and bi-partisan amendment. 

I hope he uses this unique opportunity to enable the passage of historic measures that truly break with Washington’s normal ways, and genuinely serve the ordinary people of our country.

The Great American Giveaway [by Paul Aaron]

[Paul Aaron is a well-known poet and progressive activist in Hillsborough, North Carolina. He is also my brother-in-law.

He, like me, believes that the work of resurrecting hope in this country only began with the Election of President Obama.

It will require each one of we citizen activists, through networks like Blogger, to continue to articulate what we want an Obama Presidency actually to do.

And almost more importantly, what sort of a 'feel' we want it to have, and to generate in our country, and around the world.

This is Paul's opening shot on the subject of taxes. I don't necessarily agree with all that he says.

But, he doesn't have a Blogger account with friends. I do. The most important defense of democracy is to be found in the constant dissemination of knowledge. I'm happy to help him disseminate his.]

Who paid for World War I?

“I did,” said John the baker. “I worked hard to feed soldiers and civilians. I didn’t make much money, but I did my part. I was a patriot and saved the world.”

Who paid for World War II?

“I did,” said GI Joe. “I fought to keep the United States of America free. While I was overseas, my wife, Jessica, ran her restaurant and paid her taxes. Kept our country out of debt. That war cost our country lots of money but everyone paid their taxes to keep our country’s economy strong.”

Who paid for the Korean war?

“I did,” said June the factory worker. “I built airplane wings for our fighter pilots. My pay was low but I was a patriot and paid my taxes to support my country.”

Who paid for the Viet Nam war?

“I did,” said GI Jane. “My husband, already disabled in the war, worked from his wheelchair. While I was in Nam he paid taxes to support our country and to make sure our country did not go into debt.”

Who paid for the Iraq war?

“Not me,” said Joe the plumber. “I needed a tax break while our soldiers fought.”

“Not me,” said Jill the stock broker. “I made lots of money here at home while the Armed Services did their work over there. I didn’t have to pay a cent, and now the bailout has covered my company’s losses.”

“And not me,” said Jim the banker. “I bought a second house and then a third. I like it when we fight these wars. I especially like the tax breaks.”

Then who is paying for this war?

“Not me,” said Jewell the political activist. “Our President said that we can be patriots, watching while the soldiers and the security contractors fight this war. Our national debt is huge and someone will have to pay it off.”

I’ve been thinking about the word “tax.” The word “tax” riles us. Yet, President James Madison believed that “taxes are what make a civilized society.” Similarly, the word “king” has a nice image but if we visualize the United States ruled by one, the word is suddenly not so attractive and romantic. Context always changes meaning.

Perhaps “tax” is actually good. We are not taxed to fund a king's dynasty; we are United States citizens and therefore, we the people are the government. By paying taxes, we provide crucial resources for ourselves. How can essential taxes be characterized so negatively?

“Tax cut” sounds so nice in some contexts. We must find a new word to replace “tax” so that we can feel good while we pay for our necessary services. Or we can create a context for Americans that links “tax” to “roads,” “schools,” “safety,” “democracy,” “freedom,” and “liberty.”

How did we get to this desperate economic place? We redistribute wealth by having tax breaks for the upper class—to the billionaire CEOs and corporations—to the hedge fund money managers and the oil magnates, and by increasing every day costs such as gasoline and food. Redistribution of wealth to the super wealthy is still redistribution of wealth.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle-class gets squeezed out. Joe the plumber and Jessica the restaurant owner will do just fine if we stop redistributing the wealth to the wealthy through corporate tax breaks.

So who is paying for the gasoline our military trucks use? Who is paying for the security contractors of Blackwater. Who is paying for the Halliburton meals for our troops?

“I am paying,” smiled the president of China. “America has borrowed all its money from me. For China, it is good that American citizens do not pay their taxes for this war. We make money hand over fist from every dollar borrowed to pay for the Iraq war. Then we can buy land in America. We bought a good piece of IBM, too. We own America.”

“No, I am the financier,” smiled North Korea. “America has borrowed its money from me. For North Korea, it is good that American citizens do not pay their taxes. We own America.”

“And I am,” smiled a European tourist on a shopping spree, buying up a piece of Manhattan. “In the last 18 months we tourists bought one-third of all new Manhattan condos that were for sale, while native New Yorkers remained worried about bonuses and the economic climate,” (paraphrase from Christine Haughney of the New York Times of December 21, 2007).

“And I am,” smiled the United Arab Emirates. “Abu Dhabi Media is flush with oil cash. We reached a $1 billion deal to make movies and video games with Warner Brothers, the big Hollywood studio owned by Time Warner,” (paraphrased from Tim Arango of the September 3, 2008 New York Times). “For the United Arab Emirates, it is very good that American citizens do not pay their taxes for this war. We, too, own America.”

“And I am,” smiled Saudi Arabia. “China pays us for oil from money they make investing in the Iraq war. We, too, own America.”

Wow! So you all get rich because of our tax breaks. Is that right?

“Oh, but we like your corporate tax breaks,” say China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (but not Europe, who is now suffering their own recession). “Your corporate tax breaks make us money.”

OK, so you’re saying corporate tax breaks come from thinking that if the rich get richer, money trickles down all the way to the poor, and we all share the wealth.

“Yup, but the only people who are sharing the wealth are us,” say China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the billionaire American CEOs and hedge fund managers. “And we like it...”

"Cash-from-Arms": Party-time 2007!

It has been a year since I wrote to David Cameron asking him to come clean on my book, Dead Men Don’t Eat Lunch, and its ground-breaking “Cash-from-Arms” allegations that both Conservative and New Labour Governments, in the past 25 years, have received huge kickbacks from UK arms sales.

And what a year it has been!

The mainstream media are, slowly but surely, playing catch up with the main thrust of Dead Men, right down to describing the same money channels through the Bank of England. All they need now are the hidden money trails into the two political parties themselves – the details of which are to be found only in Dead Men.

David Cameron himself acknowledged the veracity of the arms corruption claims in Dead Men by posting my letter to him on his new web-site, WebCameron. Well, that is until the BAe scandal promised to make a bad year even worse, and Cameron’s staff expunged it – oops!

Not to worry, former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, stepped to the crease, and confirmed the contents of Dead Men, in so far as they related to arms corruption in the Conservative Party.

Norman Baker, the Liberal M.P. who alleged in his book that government bio-scientist David Kelly did not commit suicide, has agreed to undertake his own investigation into the circumstances of Hugh Simmonds’ death. One major TV production company is in talks to create a documentary. And an American screenwriter is working on the movie.

Publication of Dead Men has caused others to come forward with verifiable information of their own – including the fact that Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, Liam Fox, signed Simmonds’ death certificate.

Meanwhile, a new source has opened up within MI6 itself. Which is bad news for both Gordon Brown and David Cameron, neither of whom have any immediate plans to stop the flow of illicit arms bribes into their parties’ coffers.

So, stay tuned as the noose tightens this coming year on the “Cash-from-Arms” sales scandal. Have a Happy Conference Season!

A Tale of Two Hills

England has David Cameron and Notting Hill. Here in America, we have John Edwards and Chapel Hill - currently my home town in North Carolina.

Both politicians affect a concern for the less fortunate. David talks of Compassionate Conservatism; John of Two Americas - the one rich, the other poor.

John Edwards will shortly be announcing his candidacy for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 2008. He will be doing so from the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, the area worst affected by Hurricane Katrina. He tells all and sundry that this is reflective of his genuine concern for the poor in society.

However, what might be more reflective is where he has situated his new Campaign Headquarters: a suburban village (Southern Village) in Chapel Hill, which I have lovingly christened the Upper Ninth. As in the houses you can buy there reach into the Upper $900K's; or the average income is in the Upper Ninth percentile of all Americans...

The HQ itself occupies the upper floor of what can only be described as a luxurious faux rendition of the sort of Mediterranean villa you might find in the smarter parts of Palm Beach, Florida.

The moral, I guess, is: beware politicians who affect concern for an issue, but then have a lifestyle that belies that affected concern.

We have an abundance of that in Chapel Hill, where the 'progressives' tend to be what we call Merlot Democrats. There used to be an equivalent in England - the Glenda Jackson, Hampstead set of Champagne Socialists. Have they been overtaken by the Cameron, Notting Hill set of Beaujolais Tories?

Arms Corruption, BAe and New Labour

I'm not surprised that Tony Blair halted the investigation of the Serious Fraud Office into BAe bribes associated with Al Yamamah, the $150 billion arms deal between Great Britain and Saudi Arabia.

The only thing that surprises me is that no-one asked if it might have been because the SFO were about to discover that New Labour, like the Tories before them, were benefiting from BAe's largesse.

What do we all think Tony's right-hand man, Peter Mandelson, was doing when he spent those weekends with Saudi arms middleman, Wafic Said, at his country home in Surrey?

Why, the same thing that Jonathan Aitken, on behalf of the Tories, was doing in 1993, when he met with Wafic and Said Ayas, in Mohammed al-Fayed's Ritz Hotel, in Paris - namely, carving up the Al Yamamah bribes.

(l. to r. - Wafic Said, Sir Denis Thatcher, Rosemary Said, Lady Thatcher - Dallas, 1994)

Arms Corruption, and the death of Diana

In December 2006, Lord Stevens published the whitewash...I'm sorry...the Report on his investigation into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

No-one, not even Inspector Knacker, will ever know what happened in that Paris tunnel in August 1997. However, if it was not an accident, why do we all assume Diana was the target?

Barely a month before, Dodi's father, billionaire former arms dealer, Mohammed al-Fayed, had promised to name all of the Arab middlemen who had done dirty arms deals with the Tories in the Eighties - deals which included huge political arms bribes.

We now know, from Saudi reaction to the SFO investigation into Al Yamamah bribery, that Arabs get really sensitive when someone tries to wash their dirty arms laundry in public.

The Saudi Royal Family responded by threatening to break off diplomatic relations with Great Britain. Arms middlemen can't do that. But to what other lengths might they have gone to shut down Mohammed...?

There is an old saying in the Middle East: if you want to hurt someone, hurt the one they love. And if you want to underline the threat, send an exclamation point.

There could have been no more poignant an exclamation point to the threat to Mohammed from those ruthless arms middlemen than that the collateral damage included the death of Diana.

Mohammed will, of course, point the finger at anyone else - I mean, what would the great British public have to say of a man who allowed the "Peoples' Princess" to die because of his sleazy arms past?

Now, do I personally think the crash was a set-up, rather than an accident? All I will say is this: I have a problem believing that a billionaire would hire a drunk to drive his meal-ticket to the British aristocracy...

David Cameron knows...

If you've been to my web-site about arms corruption in Great Britain, you will know that I wrote to David Cameron, leader of the British Conservative Party, before their annual conference in October 2006, challenging him to come clean about arms corruption in the Conservative Party.

My concern is not limited to the actions of past Conservative Governments. I am troubled that David has made important appointments, to sensitive positions in both the Party and his Shadow Cabinet, which suggest that he will allow arms corruption to flourish once again, when he becomes Prime Minister.

Not surprisingly, David did not respond to me directly. But he did acknowledge my concerns - in a roundabout sort of a way. He agreed to post to his new videoblog, Webcameron, the entirety of the open letter that I sent to him. Frankly, I was so gobsmacked, you could knocked me over with an English batsman...

Well. David. Now that you've had a while to think about it some more, want to come onto the blog and answer the challenges? Take responsibility? Step up to the plate? Er...I've run out of batting analogies...

Ian Gilmour knows...

Ian (Lord) Gilmour, a former Secretary of State for Defence under Margaret Thatcher, and a former Member of Parliament for Amersham (the Parliamentary constituency immediately to the north of Beaconsfield), has already admitted on BBC Newsnight that Britain's arms sales to Saudi Arabia were founded on bribery.

Ian told the BBC: "You either got the business and bribed or you didn't bribe and didn't get the business."

Ian knew Simmonds well. Hated him, because they had different views on Europe. But knew him nevertheless. Knew me too. But I don't know what he thought of me. Notwithstanding the fact that I received national press attention when I opposed his appointment as President of the National Young Conservatives.

The important question is, along with knowing about arms corruption in general, did Ian know about Simmonds' role? Another port of call when I return to England. Unless, Ian, you'd like to save us all the trouble...?

Michael Heseltine knows...

A journalistic source confimed to me that Michael Heseltine knows all about arms corruption in the Conservative Party. I pushed the issue in Dead Men Don't Eat Lunch. And then in correspondence with Michael, after Dead Men was self-published.

We played some verbal gymnastics. Suffice it to say, that as of writing, Michael has agreed that what I have said about him may stand, and that the allegations in Dead Men are true. Bless him.

Of course, Michael not only knows all about arms corruption. He also knows all about trees - having one of the best-stocked private arboretums in England. The Tories know a bit about trees too, having just chosen one to be their new logo.

In fact, what is it with Tories and trees at the moment? It's all a bit creepy. Wasn't it one of the late Spike Milligan's comic characters who sang, "I talk to the trees; that's why they locked me away..."?

Worrying...

Does Liam Fox know the truth?

You know Liam. Current Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Defence (the Government Department which oversees the D-Notice program). Came within a whisper of being Cameron's sole opponent in the run-off for the Conservative leadership in 2005.

What you may not know is that Liam spent some time in the Beaconsfield Parliamentary Constituency, playing politics, before he got his own safe Conservative seat in Woodspring. He was on the Beaconsfield Town Conservative Committee, and still lists his membership of the Beaconsfield Conservative Political Discussion Group in his bio details.

Well. He did. Until I brought it to his attention. And then he removed mention of it. So why would Liam be embarrassed about his Beaconsfield Conservative connection?

Unless it was because Hugh Simmonds served on the same Committees as him. Because Liam was Hugh's personal doctor. And perhaps most damning of all - Liam was the doctor who signed Hugh's death certificate in November 1988...

New Labour in denial?

One of my next ports of call was the New Labour government in 1997. I wrote to Tony Blair asking if he had anything he'd like to add about this alleged deal involving GEC (UK) engines.

Among a number of interesting responses, the most amusing was from one 'D. Walters,' in the Foreign Office. You've got to love the remnants of the British Empire. While the rest of us have moved on, and generally refer to each other by our first names, the old public school boys still affect the last name and initial salutation. Bless them!

Anyway, 'D.' responded by saying that as far as the New Labour government was concerned, there never had been any sales of dual-use technology to Iraq.

I creased up. And then got onto the UK Parliament web-site, to start counting the left-wing Labour MPs who would probably have had seven kinds of conniption if they knew what was being claimed as their government's standing policy on the subject. I got as far as 171 before I lost interest...!

Jim Prior's Double-Speak

One of the first high-profile protagonists in this saga from whom I sought comment was Jim (Lord) Prior, back in 1996. He was at that time Chairman of GEC (UK). Jim had been Margaret Thatcher's first Secretary of Employment, and a leading 'wet' - if any of you out there remember that phrase from the grave!

My odyssey through the back-corridors of arms corruption in Westminster and Whitehall brought me, of all places, to a strange Italian bank, with a branch in Atlanta, Georgia - the Banco Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL).

In 1993, the manager of that branch, one Christopher Drogoul, was convicted of running a fraudulent scheme, under which he had illegally loaned some $5 billion to both US and UK companies, allowing them to export dual-use technology to Iraq, for the latter to use for military purposes - in both of the Gulf Wars in which US and UK military personnel lost their lives.

I spoke with Chris in 1996. He confirmed that he knew the name 'Simmonds,' and recalled it in connection with a deal in 1986 to sell GEC (UK) engines to Iraq - which deal BNL had financed with a Letter of Credit, issued to the Central Bank of Iraq, in the sum of $28 million.

My source in Israeli Intelligence confirmed that same deal to me. He stated that the engines were to be used to extend the range of Iraq's Scud-B missiles. And that it was his understanding that, once Simmonds had laundered the proceeds, the ultimate beneficiary of the deal would be the Thatcher family. He would be no more specific than that.

I wrote to Jim Prior asking for his comments. His reply was a model of the dissemble which helped both to build the largest Empire the world had ever known - and then to lose it (along with the Ashes...).

It was a very short letter. The first paragraph stated that Jim thought it highly unlikely that there would be such a deal involving GEC (UK) engines. Mind you, he didn't outright deny it.

But bless him, he then went on to conclude by saying that he could remember meeting Simmonds on a couple of occasions...

I still can not help but wonder if we're talking about meeting at the Henley-on-Thames Annual Ladies Knit 'n Bar-B-Que - or when Jim, Hugh and the boys from dispatch were loading the warheads onto the back of the flatbed...?