BS: Thatcher expenses

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:28 AM

Pizel ~ Don't know why you address me specifically on this; or even assume that you know where I stand on the question. All I have contributed to this thread is some distaste at the tone and the terminology in which some of the Lefty-Consensus Boys elect to express their views.

For the rest, I am in one of those can-see-both-sides situations which increasingly bedevil me over so many issues as I age.

But I still don't see why the likes of some can't keep civil tongues in their heads most of the time.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:18 AM

Hands up all those that, if offered this sort of money, would turn it down..........ahhhhh that's what I thought...

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:58 AM

Whether people admire or despise Mrs Thatcher is not relevant. The question is, why any former Prime Minister should be entitled to this perk at our expense.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: GUEST,Pizel
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:52 AM

When politicians/celebrities agree to undertake any charitable work
the fee they charge is usually negotiated and agreed in writing by the charity with the addition of a first class clothing allowance,food, accommodation and travel.This is all off the top before the charity gains a penny.
Some celebrities appear to survive solely on this type of work.
Ex politicians, not content with such a munificent deal, have the taxpayer fork out expenses on top, this in anyones book is fraud,even yours, surely mthegm.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: GUEST,davemc
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:13 AM

Lady Thatcher deserves every penny. Our country needs her kind of leadership again but, sadly, we just get the same old third raters from each of the electable parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:00 AM

It occurs to me that in most cases these are not just former employees, they are former employees who have been dismissed because they were not felt not to be up to the job. (The bizarre exception to this is Tony Blair, who seems to unite most shades of public opinion in shared dislike. Which is not of course relevant to the immediate issue.)

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:54 AM

So can anybody suggest some plausible reason why taxpayers should be expected to pay these expenses to people whom they no longer employ, and who are already receiving very sizeable pensions?

Is there some view that they are still acting as representatives of the British public when they are invited on public speaking engagements? I suppose it might be argued that if they are not reimbursed for things like that to cover expenses - but any expenses or payments paid to the exPMs for such speaking engagements ought to be taken into account in estimating the expenses payable by us should be taken into account, and that doesn't appear to be the case.

What people think of Thatcher as an individual shouldn't be seen as relevant in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:22 AM

Have remarked before how strange is the behaviour of the Leftie·Of·The·Species ~~ the Postwar Marxist Consensus lot ···

~~ your Silases, Carrolls, Geoff-the-Ducks, McCormicks {cont p 94} ~~

~~ all so driven by such loving motives towards all humanity ~~

···and all so incapable of referring to those who fail to share their Love Of All Mankind except by such terms as "hatchet-faced bitch", "make me want to throw up", "share of the trough", "unprincipled self-seeking git"...

Such charmers all, the lot of them.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: GUEST,Pizel
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 09:43 AM

The £535000-00 paid out to Thatcher is just the tip of the iceberg.

Days before attending a lunch [private] at a well known hotel/restuarant situated on the banks of the Thames ten[10] plain
clothed S.B.men went over the premises with a fine toothcomb.On the
day of the lunch she appeared with a further ten S.B.[10] men in tow.
I have no doubt that the hard pressed taxpayers of this country are paying for this regal style of living by this freeloading parasite.

Is her blue-eyed boy Sir Mark still persona non grata in this country?

For obvious reasons I name no names.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 08:36 AM

John - I have already mentioned Tony Blair's share of the trough. Just because Blair is an unprincipled self-seeking git doesn't in any way give an excuse to Thatchers totally unjustifiable theft from the honest people of this nation.
Quack!
Geoff.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Silas
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 08:00 AM

It don't matter - the hatchet faced bitch has been suffering from dementia for years and has not attended the house for a long time - she is also a miulti-millionaire - why does she feel the need to claim expenses? She boasted that during her time as PM she never drew a salary - ??????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 07:51 AM

Just to restore the balance, and ameliorate the same old, same old, vilification of Thatcher.


"Sir John Major, who succeeded her in Downing Street, has received £490,000. He created the fund when he was in power in 1991.

Tony Blair, who beat Sir John in the 1997 election, has been given just under £273,000 from the public purse since 2007.

In 2008-9, he received more from the allowance than he earned from his official salary when he was prime minister the year before."

Why was I surprised to find that Richard didn't start this thread ? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Mayet
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 07:17 AM

AS Geoff described, following a recommendation from the Top Salaries Review Body in 1988, from 1991 all former Prime Ministers were entitled to a pension equal to half their ministerial salary, immediately on leaving office and however long they had served (worth £66,000 pa in 2009).
Since 1991 they have also received a special additional allowance- the 'Public Duties Cost Allowance' - to help fund an office, secretarial support and for work including answering letters and attending public events.
The maximum allowance for each former prime minister has steadily increased from £47,568 in 1997 to £100,205 in 2008, I couldn't find the information for the current rate but it would appear Thatcher is claiming the maximum available
A government car and driver for all ex-Prime Ministers was made available from 1975 so presumably id not included in these 'expenses'

Margaret Thatcher's ill health severely limits her engagements (in 2008 Carol Thatcher confirmed that her mother was suffering from dementia)
Her doctors advised that she should not make public speeches in the wake of some minor strokes six years ago Since then she has attended an address by the Pope in the UK and a party to mark former Defence Secretary Liam Fox's 50th birthday at his London apartment and claimed £535,000 of taxpayers' money from the public duties cost allowance available to ex-PMs.

That must be an awful lot of letters then!

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 06:22 AM

In the meanwhile any protests made about them all will be arbitrarily stamped on St. Paul's Protest Camp.

Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 06:17 AM

The blicky at top of thread doesn't display well on my computer/browser. Here's the same article elsewhere.
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/thatcher_claims_500k_expenses_in_five_years.

It seems the diverting of public money to ex-prime ministers was invented by John Major only ten years ago.
I would like to see full amounts for the full ten years and what happened previously.
Blair's total was about half that of Thatcher, but he still pocketed more in expenses that he did in a year as Prime Minister.

In the meantime their friends and cronies in big business are doing okay...

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/pay_rises_soar_by_49_for_uk_s_top_bosses.

Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 05:50 AM

Pigs with feet in troughs.
Apart from the fact that pigs smell a lot sweeter...
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 05:02 AM

Perhaps all of the grossly remunerated bankers and CEOs have lobbied (behind closed doors - natch!) to ensure that their chief benefactress is 'seen alright'.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 09:15 PM

Well Labour and Conservative seem united on one point. they have identified themselves as deserving causes.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 08:11 PM

isnt she supposed to be suffering from alzheimers? perhaps she had forgotten she had already claimed and claimed again

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 02:52 PM

Why should any of them get a penny over and above the extremely generous pensions which they ensured they receive?

That's not wholly a rhetorical question. Perhaps someone might be able to suggest some actual reason justifying these payments of expenses.

Expenses are generally seen as a way of ensuring that people can carry out the job they are employed to do. Once you retire from a job anything you do is either leisure or voluntary work, nothing to do with your previous employers.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 02:40 PM

Very interesting article. Here's a blicky for you.

Subject: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Silas
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 01:21 PM

I will just refer you to this article - I invite your comments

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/thatcher-claims-500k-expenses-five-years-075709097.html