to think that Tony Blair should fund his own overseas security?

[MollieO]

Article here states that it costs taxpayers £6 million per year to provide his security, more than Gordon Brown. The amount is so high because of the extensive foreign travel TB undertakes (and is very well remunerated for).

I have no objection to paying for protection for former prime minsters but the fact that we are funding his foreign junkets seems wrong to me.

he is wrong to me

end of

YANBU, if he is going somewhere to do a private talk that he will earn a private income for, then he should take private security, it's a no brainer IMO.

yanbu and will leave it at that or i'll say something unreasonable.

foxy, I think I am with you there

I can see the reasons for funding ex-PMs security and wouldn't mind if it was just say 2 weeks abroad a year for a holiday, but when he is going abroad to WORK and getting handsomely PAID for it then he should fund his own security for those trips IMHO

We also pay for John Major's overseas security as well. And no doubt many other former prime ministers etc. And don't get me started on what security for a royal overseas visit costs us!

Not excusing it, but the reason these people (eg Blair, Major etc) need the security is because they were our prime ministers, not because of what they are doing now.

Actually we don't and the article is extremely misleading if not completely inaccurate.

I can state this categorically because of my own personal experience and work with TB, our royalty and ministers both at home and abroad, most particularly when they travel to the Middle East.

They travel (in the UK and elsewhere) with 2 close protection officers. The close protection officers accompany them EVERYWHERE. When overseas, whether on official business or not, the host nation then ensures that they are adequately protected by providing armed guards, armoured vehicles - or whatever is deemed necessary according to the individual. It makes not a jot of difference whether TB is travelling to give a speech or any other kind of work for which he is paid. Because he is our former PM, he needs close protection as do other former PMs - and believe me, the majority of other countries also provide the same.

YANBU

I have no objection to paying for former PMs' security detail, as stated in my OP. What I do object to is paying for TB to make trips that generate huge amounts of personal income. His lectures in the US earn him USD 100,000 a time. Why should I be paying for that? Surely he should be contributing above the usual expenses incurred to protect ex PMs.

Cant are you saying that there are no advance trips to assess security risks? Are you saying that TB's travel is the same as other ex PMs? Are you saying that he doesn't deliberately target money making opportunities?

I think its essential we cover allformer PMs because making decisions that will affect peoples anger for years tocome is part of it.Taking aside war there are still a great many activists who can turn nasty-everyone from hunt / anti hunt types to individuals with psychotic personalities fixated on public personalities.

Where I grew up our MP was a Sec of State for NI; I can't stand hispolitics in any way and indeed he was a very rude man when I met him, but I wouldn't begrudge his security needs because accrueing enemies is inevitable in the job. If we hadn't gone to war (not saying we were right btw) then the enemies would be the other side perhaps,peoplewhose famillies were at risk from an Iraqi regime they felt the country could ahve ousted, or who beleived that the Taliban were linked to Iraq and hadbeen affected by teroprism- but the enemies would still be there.

It will be a matter of public record how much is spent on TB's detail and GB's, if not the actual type of detail. Usually the Telegraph does check its facts.

Totally agree with you!

According to the Daily Fail TB has earnings estimated at £18m since June 2007. It would be interesting to know what other PMs have earned in the 2.5years immediately after leaving office.

YANBU.

He is a grasping twat.

Exactly MollieO, it's the extra expense I object to, as he's earning mega-bucks for his speeches etc then he should be funding the additional security costs in relation to this work himself - flights & hotel costs of security personnel etc.

I have no problem with the concept of providing leading politicians with security in principle, just don't like to see the taxpayer forking out for this when he is making millions from it.

YANBU, and echo what foxy said. Any talk of TB makes me and I am pg so must keep BP down!

MollieO - in my experience there are typically NO advance trips to assess security risks. I guess in exceptional circumstances they may be conducted though.

Security assessment is typically conducted in cooperation (electronically) with host nation staff already in situ ie Ministry of Foreign Affairs in case of ministers, presidential affairs in case of Heads of State/Presidents, royal court in case of royalty etc.

As for TB's travel being the same as other PMs - no, I would not dream of saying that - he has a very active role overseas and I am sure that he does target money making opportunities. He is now a private businessman and operates in a similar manner to Bill Clinton.

I do not know about his travel costs when travelling as Middle East Peace Envoy - but for his private engagements, all travel costs, hotelling costs, local security etc are borne by the party inviting him (usually a conference organiser).

Just to clarify, these arrangements don't just apply to TB - it is the same for our royalty and serving ministers too.

PS - I'm not attempting to defend TB in any manner or saying I approve of his politics , just trying to get the facts right on this debate.

Not sure I understand what you mean Riven? Shouldn't exPMs contribute towards what?

I would agree with the principle of means-tested security.

After all, TB is profiting from the mere fact that he was ex-PM and he gets security paid for from the mere fact that he was ex-PM.

He cannot take the benefit without the burden.

6million a year - think of the social housing that could have been built with that money year on year, and a few jobs to boot in the building world

how many years has this been going on?

If he wants to travel and have protection then he needs to cough up for it, not drain the coffers

taking this country into war on false pretenses has its disadvantages and Tony Blair should be living closely with some of those disadvantages seeing he helped light the fuse. odds are he knows that a few people would like to have him pay for his role in it without taking him to the Hague.

fucking war criminal.

no wonder he wants his ass covered.