Tony Blair and the £8million tax mystery

[JonRB]

Well this could get interesting...

"Former Prime Minister Tony Blair channelled millions of pounds through a complicated web of companies and paid just a fraction in tax, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal"
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blai...

Got to love the diplomacy of this quote:

Article said:

One City accountant, who did not wish to be named, said: "It is very difficult to see what these administrative costs could be. It is a very large amount for a business like this. I am sure it is legitimate but it is certainly surprising."

Edited by JonRB on Saturday 7th January 22:48

[JonRB]

johnfm said:

It is an £8m unexplained revenue mystery - which is a bit different.

It is an £8m unexplained potentially taxable revenue mystery that relates to the amount of tax that company will pay.
Or a mystery of £8m that influences the tax.

So not a huge leap to call it an £8million tax mystery. It is a tax issue relating to a mystery £8million. Or a tax mystery relating to £8m of revenue.

Edited by JonRB on Sunday 8th January 11:26

[JonRB]

turbobloke said:

On that point I would respectfully disagree, there are some qualms out there to be had. Punishing almost the entire country to punish a political party or individual is short-sighted in the extreme.

I think the Conservatives had got a little complacent in 1997 and also the country was ready for change, on the assumption that "new has to be better than old". There were all sorts of "scandals" about sleaze and the like, the irony being it would be nothing compared to the scandals that followed with the new lot. I guess that the old adage of "no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in" holds to some extent.

But people were sick of the Conservatives in 1997 and Tony Blair leapt on that with "Things can only get better" and "the end of Boom and Bust" (ok, that was Brown as Chancellor) and the sad thing is that people believed it and it was a pack of lies.

[JonRB]

Then a combination of gerrymandering, moving into the same political ground as the traditional Tory area, and paying the benefit class to breed and vote to retain their cushy lifestyle, all conspired to keep them in there for 13 years.

The irony is that if Labour had gained as many votes as the Conservatives did in the last election, they would have had a majority.

[JonRB]

Victor McDade said:

'Tax avoidence is good and tax evasion is bad'. Isn't that the usual PH mantra? So what's changed here. He may have been a scumbag of a politician but what exactly has he done here which warrants action?

Not sure what axe you have to grind here, but you honestly think that expenses of £10million on a £12million turnover doesn't smell a tiny bit fishier than the contents of Baldrick's Plum Duff?

[JonRB]

DonkeyApple said:

Don't think for one moment that his income last year was just £12m or anywhere near that figure.

I agree. Significantly more I would imagine, although I doubt it is an order of magnitude more.

[JonRB]

Countdown said:

It was because the Tories weren't what people wanted. To be honest they were lucky to hang on until 1997, they were pretty much despised throughout the 90's. cameron has done a lot to resolve that by moving them away from Thatcherite/Tebbit policies and closer to the centre.

A position sadly usurped by Nu Labour under Blair, which is another reason it was so hard to get the Champagne Socialists out of power. Quite apart from the aforementioned gerrymandering they had usurped the politics too. Instead of Left vs Right we had "Centre with a hint of left" vs "Centre with a hint of right". It's Dulux Politics.

[JonRB]

DonkeyApple said:

I would hazard that the answer to that conundrum is Kinnock.

Neither Foot nor Kinnock helped Labour be electable. Blair was just the greasy snake oil charlatan showman they needed to slime their way back into power.

Mind you, the Conservatives were virtually unelectable by then so it was kind of a Perfect Storm.

[JonRB]

NoNeed said:

I think it was Smith that made Labour electable and Blairs job easy

True, a succession of hopeless acts given a poison chalice for a divided party rife with in-fighting. An indication of a complacent incumbent party who don't feel they need to make the effort in order to stay in.

As an aside, I think it's a big shame Hague was leader when he was. I think his time is now and not then. But few get a second bite of the cherry.

[JonRB]

oyster said:

Countdown said:

And that's why the Tories have roared back with a massive majority.....oh wait, they haven't

Could you answer a simple question then.

How come the Tories don't have a majority when they received a much larger share of the vote in 2010 than Labour did in 2005?

Is it not because of biased electoral boundaries?

Indeed. And also don't forget that if Labour had gained as many votes as the Conservatives did in the 2010 election, they would have stayed in power with a majority.

---

gerrymander [ˈdʒɛrɪˌmændə]
vb
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to divide the constituencies of (a voting area) so as to give one party an unfair advantage
2. to manipulate or adapt to one's advantage

[JonRB]

otolith said:

That is assuming that there is some kind of smoke and mirrors and that he didn't actually manage to run his affairs so inefficiently that 11/12ths of income was wasted...

11/12ths of the turnover of that particular company which is one of a web of companies that he trades though.

[JonRB]

turbobloke said:

Kelvin Mackenzie on Tiny Bliar's weapons of tax deduction:

Click

Mostly drivel. Filing with Companies House is due by the end of December so it's not particularly unusual to file just before the deadline. And it's not as if you're hiding it as the stuff that is a matter of public record becomes a matter of public record permanently. Just because it was filed at a quiet time doesn't mean it disappears from sight.

I have no love for Blair at all - hell, I started this thread - but I have no love for sloppy journalism either.

[JonRB]

turbobloke said:

However:

• Tony Blair is such a creep - check
• as a former Prime Minister you might have thought he would act with total propriety - check
• don’t care that he minimises his tax payment - check

Not mostly drivel then

Ok, conceded; those are good points.

[JonRB]

turbobloke said:

One I can is this:

Countdown said:

If you could tell me any possible advantage that Blair would get (however remote) by requesting is Accounts are filed between Xmas and New Year I would be grateful.

The author of the article I originally linked to, did this for you already.

I'm at a loss to understand the rationale though. It's not a sort of "good day to bury bad news" scenario. When you file your company accounts they become a matter of public record. At any time from then till years and years after you can simply go to the Companies House website, pay a very nominal fee (I think it is £1) and have yourself a copy. I've done so on numerous occasions before doing business with a company.

So much as I don't want to agree with Countdown, because most of the rest of what he has written I don't agree with, on this occasion he does kind of have a point. Apart from filing the accounts at the last possible minute and meaning that they will be published at a time where the media might be distracted by Christmas, I really can't see any advantage. But it's not like their publication will be overlooked - it'll be there on the Companies House indefinitely (or whatever their retention period is, which will be measured decades - I can see stuff on my own company going back to its formation in 1999)

[JonRB]

Countdown said:

In any case this thread smacks of “lets throw enough mud and hope some of it sticks”, Its also hypocritical, plenty of politicians of all shades make money once they’ve left office, through their connections. Indeed many have second or third jobs whilst still in office. So I’m not sure why TB is entitled to any special criticism

As the instigator of this thread I can assure you that was not the intent. I just find it interesting that Tony Blair would seek to shroud his business affairs in a complex multitude of companies and LLPs (the latter of which do not have a legal obligation to publish accounts). I'd also be interested to hear how a company that has a turnover of £12million can justify "administrative expenses" of £11million. As an account surely you must be too?