Topic: Ex-PMs still costing Britain hundreds of thousands a year

[Fambo Number Mive]

It's the Telegraph reporting on a group of Remain politicians, but still:

Public money spent on supporting the offices of Britain's five surviving former leaders has jumped by nearly 80 per cent in six years - despite the fact that many of them have gone on to become independently wealthy after leaving 10 Downing Street.

New figures show the costs of supporting the offices of ex-PMs Sir John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, as well as the former deputy PM Sir Nick Clegg, increased from £331,000 a year in 2013/14 - the first figures that are available - to £589,000 last year.

The costs of the Public Duty Cost Allowance work out at around £1,200 a day. The allowance was extended to Mr Clegg for five years from May 2015...

Is there any reason why ex-PMs, or any former politicians, should get the Public Duty Cost Allowance? If it wasn't for Cameron we wouldn't have Brexit, and if not for Blair we wouldn't be in Iraq. And Major gave us Black Wednesday and the first Iraq War. Yet the British taxpayer is rewarding them for helping screw Britain.

Whilst the Telegraph is probably using this story to deflect from any criticism of their favourite PM it does seem problematic that we are funding all these wealthy people for no real reason.

[bgmnts]

It's all part of the big con.

[Jasha]

Didn't former NI ministers get it in case they got blown up, not sure if it still applies

[Sebastian Cobb]

They should be allowed it if they don't get paid via speaking roles/being put on the board of companies they helped privatise, otherwise they can get to fuck.

In fact, fuck it, any ill that becomes of those who acted poorly should serve as a warning to others.

[idunnosomename]

i mean just by being named prime minister you get that legacy? so even johnson will even he got knocked out in an election tomorrow? fuckin hell

[Astronaut Omens]

As with the high salaries pf politicians, people used to defend this kind of thing on anti-corruption grounds: if they're well provided for, they won't be attempted to abuse their position. If this ever sounded plausible, it lost it's credibility with Blair, who seems to be bent on joining the mega-rich.

Talking about this reminded me of the weird moment where John Sweeney suddenly recognised a familiar figure:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/15/comment.labour1

[Suki Bapswent]

In fact, fuck it, any ill that becomes of those who acted poorly should serve as a warning to others.

What on earth does that mean in practice?

[Absorb the anus burn]

What on earth does that mean in practice?

Accountability, I'd say. People who are shit at their jobs should not be unduly rewarded for their shitness.... Even if they are PM.

Illegal wars, ideologically-imposed austerity and a disastrous referendum are indicators of poor performance... Basically fuck these duplicitous gatekeeping cunts who can easily afford their own security, secretaries and motors.

[Suki Bapswent]

Accountability, I'd say. People who are shit at their jobs should not be unduly rewarded for their shitness.... Even if they are PM.

Well yeah, but who decides? By what metric?

[Absorb the anus burn]

Well yeah, but who decides? By what metric?

Look at their fucking bank accounts... If they can afford it themselves, then bye bye excessive benefits - you know, like real people in the real world.

[Jasha]

Well yeah, but who decides? By what metric?

Means testing has always been a popular tool