Meh.
It's part of the job description.
US presidents get a generous salary for life after they finish and they don't make a fuss about that.
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Four former Prime Ministers, four Bilderbergers, four money-grabbers and four EU-loving fanatics.
Published time: 6 Nov, 2018 13:33
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has claimed more than £1m in public funds since leaving office in 2007, as part of a previous confidential arrangement , it has been revealed.
A freedom of information tribunal last month, as first reported by The Sunday Times, revealed that Tony Blair has received £1,077,888 ($1.4m) over the last 10 years. The release of the information also showed former PMs John Major, Gordon Brown and David Cameron all claiming the allowance.
All past prime ministers since Major, who established the arrangement in 1991, have been entitled to claim the public duty cost allowance (PDCA) of up to £115,000 a year, to cover costs of ongoing public arrangements when they step down from office.
The most recent figures show that in period 2016-17, Blair and Major both claimed the maximum possible of £115,000, while Brown claimed £114,838 and Cameron £50,227.
Tony Blair was said to be worth £60m in 2015. His property empire was worth an estimated £27m in 2016 and he reportedly earns up to £229,000 ($300,000) per speech as part of his public speaking arrangement. It begs the question, does an individual who has amassed such huge wealth really need taxpayers’ money?
More: https://www.rt.com/uk/443210-blair-c...ampaign=chrome
Meh.
It's part of the job description.
US presidents get a generous salary for life after they finish and they don't make a fuss about that.
In addition to this earner, once someone becomes PM they pocket the same as the sitting PM does until the day they die. I'm unsure whether they also collect an MP pension too. Public service? Seems as though self-enrichment is a more apposite description. I must say I'm intrigued as to why Bonk Eye Brown claimed £162 less than the maximum.
If it was previously secret how come anyone has been able to access the details on Gov.UK for over a year?
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ce.csv/preview
Like I wrote in my previous post it was previously secret. Every single media outlet has reported this as being “previously confidential”.
Here are some examples:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8616731.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-office.html
https://www.rt.com/uk/443210-blair-claims-public-money/
Are you saying that you knew about these payments prior to last weekend’s revelations? If so, bravo. But the question remains: why didn’t you get yourself a big fat wad of cash for your scoop?
And here is one from 2011.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...expenses-claim
The overall amounts claimed have not been secret, rather their itemisation. The news reports make it sound like the former.
No need to apologise though I think it was you that first focused on the secretive nature of the payments in your comments. Googling something that clearly shows the figures on the government's official website from 14 months ago hardly qualifies me as a mystic, more someone a little sceptical of Russia Today's journalism and motives.
To answer your question I think it is right that former Prime Ministers have the opportunity to continue to represent the country and legitimate expenses are covered. Presumably the Freedom of Information request identifies the itemised expenditure. I have seen no scathing comment about what was claimed as being illigitimate but happy to be corrected on that score.
The original point was rather crassly presented with its Bilderberger, anti-EU tone. The four in question are the UK's surviving Prime Ministers. Whether they supported EU membership or not seems irrelevant to me on whether the UK government should pay them expenses and the fact that the euro-sceptical Thatcher received over £0.5m further dilutes the argument but I guess it plays into a narrative.
I don't understand why Nick Clegg is a beneficiary. We have had a number of Deputy Prime Ministers and Cameron singling him out seems a bit of a bung.
No it wasn’t me that focused on the secretive nature of the payments. That was mentioned in the first sentence of the quote in the OP.
If you are taking issue with “four Bilderbergers, four money-grabbers and four EU-loving fanatics“ could you provide some evidence or at least an argument that OM’s opinion isn’t true?
Bilderberg is a touchy subject for Cyril. Back in the summer he couldn't think of a reason for why the BBC, his beloved state propaganda outlet, once again failed to inform its viewers and listeners that 130 of the world's most influential people were having their annual four-day meeting for arch-globalists. Incidentally, Dominic Raab is one of only two current MPs who's a Bilderberger. He was appointed Brexit Secretary one month after June's pow wow, which must be comforting for Cyril and his fellow Remainers.
I guess I should have been clearer and said your first contribution to the thread focused upon the secretive nature of the payments before you suggested that that nature of the thread was some kind of sidetrack..
It does seem the way of things that the modus operandi is to throw out a hyped statement and then ask others to disprove it. I don't know what the definition of a Bilderberger is (once attended a meeting, season ticket, discount card for George Soros marketed investments).
Throwing it back to the original statement something along the lines of Gordon Brown is a Bilderberg, money-loving, EU fanatic because....... might shine some more light. I don't think Bonk-Eye Brown is the best response but given previous contributions by the OP I would be unsurprised if that criticism of a physical impediment formed part of it.
You had no response to one of your posts in the summer you say? Must have been during that month I had with the Rothchilds in The Hamptons. I didn't realise you were so needy but if you think of something worthy in the future put something like "URGENT" or "Please Please Reply" and I will make sure I ignore it!
I believe what you are referencing is the appearance of The Resolution Foundation on Radio 4s Today Programme as analysed here in an opinion piece for the right leaning magazine The Spectator.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/1...t-spin-battle/
Given your use of the plural and the inclusion of advisors I would presume you have other examples of this bias on the budget.
Similarly, given the nature of the post you used to make your point you seem to be alluding that the BBC was bowing to the Bilderberg Group (members that seem to include Dominic Raab) and the arch globalists in deciding to profer the invite to The Resolution Foundation. Presumably the same BBC who invited Aaron Banks onto Marr on Sunday to much left wing angst. Interesting theory though!
What amuses me is the anti left and right bias accusations, leveled at the BBC over many generations ,its a fine institution and one to be proud of , when you look at other countries and there media outlets ,there,s a lot to be proud of , the anti government/establishment and rapper, Drillminister was given prime air time today on Five Live ,so hey thats a worthy balance of voice , we now have a debate on national debt and youngsters, all very anti government and establishment .