Is It Balls Or Not?

uncertain

All this week it’s been rumoured in UK political blogdom that the known troughers and married Cabinet Ministers Education Secretary Ed “So what” Balls and Treasury Secretary Yvette Cooper were so worried about public reaction to that greed being exposed that they’d obtained an injunction to stop the publication of their expenses; the implication being that despite the dishonesty that had already been exposed to public disgust, there was an even worse crime Labour’s golden couple were trying to hide. Which of course leads one to ask the inevitable question, “What! Worse than this?”

So have they or haven’t they got an injunction? The press have been remarkably quiet on Balls and Cooper this week, considering their past history, so reports that they’d obtained an injunction haven’t seemed at all unlikely, though impossible to confirm.

Now it’s rumoured they have applied but they haven’t succeeded:

Balls Fails to Prevent Expenses Revelations

News reaches me that Brown protégé Ed Balls has been fighting a rear-guard action to prevent publication of the expenses he and his wife Yvette Cooper have been claiming over the last few years. Rumours have abounded for a while that the Daily Telegraph had a devastating story on the couple but I have been informed that Balls sought a High Court injunction to prevent the Telegraph publishing what it knows.

This morning the High Court rejected Balls’ pleas to cover up his expenses record and I am told that therefore there will be a very damaging story published shortly. Balls has been suggested by some to be Gordon Brown’s preferred successor and if he is damaged goods it will further reflect badly on the Prime Minister’s judgement.

‘News reaches’ him from where? How does a Reading conservative have an inside track on Labour? Has the Councillor a mole in Downing St, or is his source in the High Court, or one of the chambers acting for the couple? If not where are these rumours coming from? Of course it could just be a deep Labour plot, an attempt to nobble Brown’s anointed successor Balls ahead of any leadership battle – hence the propagation of the story in Tory-leaning blogs. You can say virtually anything in a comment thread.

I don’t expect source-revealing. I’m not just nosy (well, I am, OK I admit it), merely trying to pin down whether the injunction story’s true or not. Obviously if the source is a court official, Councillor Willis can’t name names – contempt and all that -but ‘news reaches me’ is just a little fuzzy.

So I reluctantly have to conclude – because I do loathe Cooper and Balls, who personify everything vile about New Labour in one easy to hate package – that at the moment the whole injunction story’s still just a rumour.

Damn. It could have done for them politically for once and all. One can only live in hope.

What, Me Worried?

neumandollar

Pity the rich, tossing and turning on their Porthault sheets. How they suffer.

Forbes Magazine is so worried about a backlash that they’ve published an allegedly tongue in cheek guide on how to avoid the pitchforks and flaming torches by not flaunting, but hiding your wealth. While still keeping up your lifestyle, obviously.

It’s tough out there when everyone hates you–or at least suspects you had a hand in the collapse of the global financial system, the shredding of trillions of dollars of assets and the issuance of 5 million pink slips since January 2008. Have you hired a security firm yet? At least get a lawyer: The feds may be coming after you, combing through the wreckage of your business, looking for evidence to send you up the river. If Barack Obama doesn’t raise your taxes, your populist state legislators will.

What’s a strapped hectomillionaire (to say nothing of a billionaire) to do? First off, relax. Don’t do anything crazy, like build a bomb shelter or open a Channel Islands trust with a dummy trustee to hide from taxes (it’s illegal). Like the recession, the angry mob clamoring for your head will pass on. It’s still good to be rich.

Yes, I expect it is.How can the poor suffering oligarchs hide their money?

– “Trusts for children are nearly impossible to crack…”

So nice to see tradition still counts for something.

And how can one avoid taxes when the oiks in the revenue come knocking?

“Store all the diamonds or gold bullion (but not gold certificates) you want in a Swiss bank without reporting it to the irs, since the investments don’t pay interest. (Another option: raw land, which doesn’t require reporting until it generates income.)

Ahh, the old ways, always the best. The authors go on to advise their readers to keep their chins up, stay upbeat and think of uncertain times as an opportunity, not a threat:

….the recession provides a good smoke screen for disposing of a servant you don’t like anyway.

That’s what’s most telling about this cover piece; the tone. It tries hard for charming insouciance but the real worry still shows through, because it’s it’s studded with nuggets of thoroughly specific advice, like

If your worry is creditors, not tax collectors, buy a flat in London and go there if things get too hot. “As long as it’s not criminal, you won’t get extradited,”

Haha. So very droll. Though a commenter didn’t find it all amusing:

Forgive me for sounding like a member of the “POPULIST MOB,” but this article strikes me as being in profoundly bad taste. People are losing their homes and lining up at food banks, and you’re offering instructions on how to evade taxes?? And offering condolences to people whose yacht builders went out of business? Is it really okay to even joke about this?

Bad taste it may be but it’s not a joke, it’s whistling in the dark. The rich are worried and are right to be worried – the climate change exodus has begun already, food and water riots loom and because of an unprecedented access to information which has exposed their leaders’ corruption, electorates worldwide have lost faith in democracy. The world is in a dangerous place and it’s mostly the rich’s fault.

But hey, stay upbeat, oligarchs. Why not make hay while the sun shines? The authors forgot the best advice to the rich who want to keep activities quiet while still making shedloads of untaxed cash: put your money in pitchfork production.

There’s A Surprise

Quick, while they’re still shouting at about the expenses!

… quietly, via Labourhome:

Brown and Watson cleared from McBride/Draper fallout
alexhilton Tue May 12, 2009 at 11:23:00 AM GMT

The Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell has investigated emails at No10 and written to Conservative MP Francis Maude reassuring him that no ministers or employees other than McBride were involved in the “dirty” email exchanged that led to his downfall.

Well he would, wouldn’t he?

Blears marched to cashpoint?

Well, at least she is waving a big cheque around of taxes she owns on the sale of her second home:

Hazel Blears benefit cheat

Hazel Blears has said she will pay £13,332 in capital gains tax on the sale of her “second home” after criticism about her expenses claims.

The communities secretary told Commons staff her London flat was her “second home” on which she claimed expenses.

But when she sold it she did not pay CGT, due on homes the Inland Revenue does not consider a “main residence”.

She said she had acted within the rules but knew people were “really angry” and paying it was “the right thing to do”.

[…]

She was accused of changing the property she designated as her “second home” twice in one year – first claiming her Salford home was her second home, then changing it to a London flat which she sold before buying another London flat and claiming expenses on that.

Getting Very Silly II

Temper, temper, Lord Foulkes:

Looks like government nerves are getting a little frayed.

This would be the same Lord Foulkes who claimed £54,000 in expenses from the House of Lords, including overnight subsistence of £21,014 and a day subsidy (meals and extra travel) of £7,626, despite concurrently sitting as a Scottish member of Parliament.

What did his lordship’s party colleagues think of his performance? Not a lot. Labourhome:

Lord Foulkes disgraces himself on the BBC

In response to being pressed about what the public might think of all these expenses claims when they are having to tighten their belts, Foulkes says “No!”, showing his ignorance. He then starts spouting the party line on funding for health and education and prisons etc. He refuses to answer whether they should be made to pay back the money, then attacks the BBC for “sneering at democracy”. Yes, that’s right: a member of the House of Lords accused the BBC of undermining democracy when they try and hold people like him to account.”

Do they actually have to be strung up from lampposts before they get it?