Gordon Brown burnished his reputation for austerity – and took a swipe at his predecessor – by announcing yesterday that he is to give up the grace-and-favour pension, worth more than £64,000 a year, payable to former prime ministers.
Mr Brown sought to set a personal example as he rejected an above-infla-tion pay rise for MPs, insisting instead that they receive 1.9 per cent in line with other public sector pay deals.
After frantic last-minute haggling, however, the Government kicked into touch a series of recommendations to tighten allowances and postponed changes to MPs’ pensions.
Harriet Harman, the Leader of the House, confirmed that a new review would look at taking Commons salaries out of MPs’ hands altogether, as she published the report by the Senior Salaries Review Body, which had recommended a 2.56 per cent hike.
Urging restraint, she said: “We have to ensure that, in the public sector, awards remain consistent with the inflation target of 2 per cent.” MPs will be given a free vote on the proposed rise next Wednesday but, with David Cameron ordering the Conservative front bench to support the Government, there is little chance of a successful backbench revolt.
Mr Brown’s sacrifice will throw into stark relief the personal finances of Tony Blair, who announced last week that he has taken a part-time job with the US bank JP Morgan Chase worth a reported £1 million. In its report the SSRB said that the pension, worth half the prime ministerial salary, was set up so that those leaving No 10 “should not need to seek further employment” and was “no longer justified”. “We consider that former office holders are most unlikely to suffer financial hardship,” the independent body notes. Michael Martin, the Speaker, has won a battle with Mr Brown to keep his grace-and-favour pension, however.
The report admits that some MPs’ expenses, such as the Additional Costs Allowance, which allows MPs to pay rent or a mortgage on a second home and to buy furniture, are open to abuse. It says: “The ACA may have been seen by MPs as a means of supplementing their pay, and although it is now properly treated as a reimbursement of costs, it is still regarded by some as ambiguous.”
For the first time in I don't know how long, I'm genuinely impressed with Gord. Good on him!
"what huge and loathsome abnormality was the Sphinx originally carven to represent? Accursed is the sight, be it in dream or not, that revealed to me the supreme horror - the Unknown God of the Dead, which licks its colossal chops in the unsuspected abyss, fed hideous morsels by soulless absurdities that should not exist" - Harry Houdini "Under the Pyramids"
"The goal of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions" - John Ruskin, "Stones of Venice"
Not really that impressive considering an ex prime minister can make huge amounts simply off making speeches. If you've been PM of the UK then you really won't need a pension.
First of all, Blair manages to do that. None of his predecessors did - Major gets about £25,000 a speech IIRC - good money, but nothing like TB makes. It's also due to a great extent with his personal charisma, brilliant delivery, and shameless resort to lobbying and contacts. None of which Gordon is particularly known for.
Secondly, its still £64,000 a year, index linked and all - and I think that's after tax. Giving up such an income as a gesture of principle is still an impressive thing to do. I don't see any other national leaders offering to do likewise.
"what huge and loathsome abnormality was the Sphinx originally carven to represent? Accursed is the sight, be it in dream or not, that revealed to me the supreme horror - the Unknown God of the Dead, which licks its colossal chops in the unsuspected abyss, fed hideous morsels by soulless absurdities that should not exist" - Harry Houdini "Under the Pyramids"
"The goal of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions" - John Ruskin, "Stones of Venice"
Major was a failure as a politician really though. Brown, even if he ends up with a terrible reputation as a prime minister still has the iron chancellor thing going for him, I'd be surprised if he didn't earn more than Major.
Anyway, 25,000 a speech is still over a million a year if you give a speech a week - hardly strenuous stuff.
Teebs wrote:Ghetto edit:
You're also forgetting all the non-executive directorships ex-politicians seem to gather up, those don't pay badly either.
I'm not forgetting anything. He's giving up a lot of money which he's perfectly entitled to as an act of principle. Credit where it's due.
"what huge and loathsome abnormality was the Sphinx originally carven to represent? Accursed is the sight, be it in dream or not, that revealed to me the supreme horror - the Unknown God of the Dead, which licks its colossal chops in the unsuspected abyss, fed hideous morsels by soulless absurdities that should not exist" - Harry Houdini "Under the Pyramids"
"The goal of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions" - John Ruskin, "Stones of Venice"
It doesn't matter if he can make more money elsewhere. Because he would actually be earning that money, here's an example of a guy who doesn't feel entitled to free money from the taxpayers once his tenure is over.
Of course if it were me i'd just plunge the entire amount into some charity of my choice annually.
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little." -George Carlin (1937-2008)
"Have some of you Americans actually seen Football? Of course there are 0-0 draws but that doesn't make them any less exciting." -Dr Roberts, with quite possibly the dumbest thing ever said in 10 years of SDNet.
For the first time in I don't know how long, I'm genuinely impressed with Gord. Good on him!
Yep, I'm sure that £64,000 a year will more than make up for the billions he's wasted on private finance initiatives.
He's still keeping his MP pension though right?
I don't really understand why he's doing this. He loses £64,000 a year and sends out the message that getting that pension is wrong but doesn’t abolish the pension for the next man or do anything to reform MP expenses. Is he hoping the media coverage of this will simply block out the lack of progress in dealing with anything else?
I don't see any other national leaders offering to do likewise.
Should they? Obviously no one likes to see tax payers money being spent but a pension is a pension, just one man giving up theirs for apparently media related causes is hardly note worthy or to be commended.
Get busy living or get busy dying... unless there’s cake.
