Margaret Thatcher claims £535,000 for ex-PM duties

But it would appear to consist mostly, if not entirely, of an allowance at a fixed rate - not expenses claimed as incurred. So to be fair to the Iron Lady, she doesn't need to prove she's done £500k of work. It's just a payment she's entitled to.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

But it would appear to consist mostly, if not entirely, of an allowance at a fixed rate - not expenses claimed as incurred. So to be fair to the Iron Lady, she doesn't need to prove she's done £500k of work. It's just a payment she's entitled to.

Fixed payment, I thought most pensioners receiving state cash were means tested these days....

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

But it would appear to consist mostly, if not entirely, of an allowance at a fixed rate - not expenses claimed as incurred. So to be fair to the Iron Lady, she doesn't need to prove she's done £500k of work. It's just a payment she's entitled to.

Erm no. If it was an allowance, no evidence would be required.

From Hugh's quote:

The public duties cost allowance which is administered by the Cabinet Office, is paid in respect of office and secretarial expenses incurred by former Prime Ministers in connection with their public duties. All claims must be supported by documentary evidence. The allowance is not payable if the former Prime Minister is occupying the position of Leader of the Opposition. The allowance is linked to the ceiling of the centralised arrangements for payment of staff and secretarial support for MPs with London constituencies.

I doubt that the documentary evidence is to show the person in question was an MP. It's expenses...

As a side note: Is there any reason why these expenses (reasonable or not) could not be met by the party involved?

I'm quite willing to accept that an outgoing PM still has job-related expenses, but it would seem just that the party decides the level and duration. Let them pay what they feel appropriate given the standing of the person involved.

Oh, and seeing the're expenses, and not an allowance: no tax is due (presumably)

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Excuse me lets not just concentrate on Mrs T as Blair hasn't exactly shy about using it.

I wonder if Brown has any intention of applying?

No, lets concentrate on all of them. They earn a huge sum of money for just public speaking, they have a huge pension, so why on earth do they need to spend more of the tax payers money?

"They" don't - "some of them" do.....

If it is in line with the guidelines above, they should get paid - or do you think that, when you retire, and you are asked to do something on behalf of your previous employer, you should do it for free?

Originally Posted by Hugh

"They" don't - "some of them" do.....

If it is in line with the guidelines above, they should get paid - or do you think that, when you retire, and you are asked to do something on behalf of your previous employer, you should do it for free?

I don't think that but I do think that this amounts to a second pension scheme in that the amounts being paid are too high for attending the occasional dinner or meeting.

The atttending occasional dinner or meeting is, IMHO, speculation.

As posted above, it is paid in respect of office and secretarial expenses incurred by former Prime Ministers in connection with their public duties.

[Ignitionnet]

Ahh the Iron Lady, she still really upsets people even after all this time.

[Welshchris]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Blair definitely, Major perhaps, Thatcher, erm no.....

I wonder if that money includes security costs?

i read somewhere that for blair alone it costs the taxpayer around £2million a year in security as the same post posed the question should the tax payer be paying when he had earned around £15 million in the same year.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

"They" don't - "some of them" do.....

If it is in line with the guidelines above, they should get paid - or do you think that, when you retire, and you are asked to do something on behalf of your previous employer, you should do it for free?

I'm talking about ex-prime ministers, who will all get appearance money, and will all get a full pension after just 12 years as an MP.

When they have retired, then it is up to them if they do public speaking or not. They aren't obliged to do it, they choose to do it either for money, for the love of it, or for their ego. But either way, why should the tax payer foot the bill for someone who is no longer in office to talk to a group of people?

We have to remember that they are no longer in office because the country didn't want them there.

---------- Post added at 13:13 ---------- Previous post was at 13:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

The atttending occasional dinner or meeting is, IMHO, speculation.

As posted above, it is paid in respect of office and secretarial expenses incurred by former Prime Ministers in connection with their public duties.

They don't have any public duties once they have retired.

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Welshchris

i read somewhere that for blair alone it costs the taxpayer around £2million a year in security as the same post posed the question should the tax payer be paying when he had earned around £15 million in the same year.

Exactly. If they want to continue earning money through public speaking etc, then they can do it as a business, and pay for their own security.

Thatcher doesn't, because she can't, do public speaking, and hasn't since 2002 (hence the "some of them" qualifier).

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Thatcher doesn't, because she can't, do public speaking, and hasn't since 2002 (hence the "some of them" qualifier).

But she did, and she still claimed the money off the tax payer. So she is still included.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

This totally disgraceful, when you leave public office such as these politicians, it should not be up to the tax payer to keep paying them money.

They have earn't enough through us, that they should pay there own way, its like us, when we leave a job, its up to us to pay our own way.

These politicians earn a get deal through 'after dinner speeches' and with that old lady, she probably speaks at old peoples homes on how to save money on the old age pension.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

But she did, and she still claimed the money off the tax payer. So she is still included.

There is a difference between Public Duties and public appearances - you appear to be conflating them.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

There is a difference between Public Duties and public appearances - you appear to be conflating them.

No I'm not. As someone who is retired they aren't obliged to carry out any public duties or appearances. They do it out of choice, and usually to make money. They have an excellent pension, and can earn their own money as a business. The tax payer shouldn't have to foot the bill.