Talk about a waste of money
From the Telegraph:
Tony Blair is costing British taxpayers £6 million a year to protect – more than the current Prime Minister. The former Prime Minister is understood to be the most expensive person in the country for the police to guard because of his regular foreign excursions. More than 20 officers are now understood to be assigned to protecting Mr Blair at a cost of more than £115,000 a week. It is feared that Mr Blair’s security will become even more costly next year following his appearance before the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war which could make him more of a terrorist target.
Mr Blair is typically abroad most weeks and the average bill for his close protection team of bodyguards is more than £16,000 a day, according to Whitehall sources. The protection bill is three times higher than previous public estimates. Every time he travels abroad, Scotland Yard has to send an “advance team” to scrutinise the security risks. When he travels for longer periods, several teams of police officers have to accompany Mr Blair. The former Prime Minister is now under pressure to make a contribution to the costs as he is estimated to have earnt more than £18 million since leaving office in June 2007. Some of his most lucrative contracts are in the Middle East, including Kuwait, which also present some of the biggest security challenges. He earns about £100,000 for speeches around the world, including an appearance to open an energy plant in Kazakhstan last month. He also regularly travels to former war zones in Africa, such as Rwanda, to conduct charitable work.
A senior Whitehall source said: “No-one has a problem with funding his security when he is travelling on behalf of Britain or while he is at home in this country. But it does seem fair that he should make a contribution to the costs of his protection while he is on well-paid private assignments.” It is understood that Scotland Yard are prevented from advising Mr Blair not to travel on the basis of the cost of his security detail. They can only prevent him from travelling if the risk is calculated to be too high. This is believed to have occurred only twice during 2009. Mr Blair’s security is handled by Scotland Yard’s SO1 protection unit which also guards Gordon Brown and other non-Royal VIPs. The former Prime Minister’s £4 million London home is guarded 24 hours a day by four officers. He also has a 16-strong team of close protection officers who travel around the world with him. Other members of the Blair family also receive protection. It is thought that Gordon Brown only has a team of about ten close-protection officers. The cost of Mr Blair’s protection is met by Scotland Yard with a contribution from the Home Office. It was reported earlier this year that the police are seeking an increase in central Government funding for the protection costs.
Earlier this year, it emerged that the Blairs were facing a backlash from members of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), which oversees Scotland Yard, and from former senior police officers. Jenny Jones, a member of the MPA, said: “They are both earning plenty of money and should be paying themselves – I think it’s outrageous. It’s very important that the Met commissioner has tried to cut the cost, but it seems he’s been overruled, which is setting a very bad precedent.” Dai Davies, a former head of Scotland Yard’s Royalty Protection Squad, said: “Because of his role in talking Britain into conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, the potential threat he faces is very real. “However, if he is benefiting from Scotland Yard protection for commercial reasons, then consideration should be given to charging him commercial rates for protection.”
As if I needed another reason to really despise Tony Blair. He wanders around the world (apart from visiting the Middle East, which is actually his job) earning hundreds of thousands of pounds, but still expects the British taxpayer to pick up the bill. We already knew that he couldn’t care in the slightest about the British public, but his brazen attitude towards lucrative private trips around the globe is just appalling.
Witanagemot Blogs
If he needs the security because of his former position, then what else can we do? It would set a dangerous precedent to deny it to a former PM simply because he was hated, wouldn’t it?
Well spotted, I’d agree with that.
@ Julia M, there is a difference between paying for his security if he lives a fairly normal life in the UK, and paying for bodyguards to accompany him round the world while he earns money for himself. I suppose we can’t begrudge him having to pay for the former but I don’t see why he shouldn’t pay for extra stuff himself.
It also provides an argument against those who oppose the monarchy on cost grounds. Just imagine what an ex-president would cost to provide with a suitable home and the necessary security. And how many ex-presidents would be around at one time – if my count is correct, USA has three to protect.
Incidentally, does anyone know how much a wek it costs to protect the Queen?
What a shame our Protection Squad are so good at their jobs. If they weren’t we’d save a lot of money protecting someone I’d rather wasn’t protected and had to face up to the consequences of his decisions.
Escort him to jail he is a war criminal
@billgav -
There’s never a terrorist around when you need one!
Just how much of his total income etc. is taxable in the UK? If most of his takings are being banked in some tax haven or another (my betting is on The Cayman Islands) then the UK should have some reasonable pay back for all this.
This is one job that should be given to the private sector.
I was / am a pistol-shooter, and while in the military did protection for government officials, I could be making good money doing this when policemen should be doing criminal work. Blair banned pistols in the U.K. so he should be paying for his security.
Going by the logic of Blairs argument he does not need guards, as he has banned the weapons that would be used against him?
I know it’s not the same thing but I can see a loose cost/benefit parallel if you take the NHS and the decision to approve or not the use of certain new drugs. It would not be unusual if a drug were not to be approved because it was deemed too expensive, even though it was understood and accepted that some people would die.
I’ve seen John Major plenty of times at Heathrow in his very nice car being driven to the steps of BA aircraft w/ bodyguards in tow. I don’t begrudge him it at all. He’s a former PM and he and Norma deserve peace of mind after his service to the country.
But is your argument that, because John Major is less in demand as a speaker and/or can’t command very high fees, all of his travel security is fine? Is it a matter of principle which applies to all former PMs or are we just talking level of payment they get?
And presumably you don’t feel it’s Blair’s fault that he would a reasonably good candidate for offing by Al Qaida if he had less (or no) security?
And presumably, also, noone is second-guessing the professional assessment of the potential threat facing Blair or the level of security needed to deter it?
I worry that if we can’t develop answers to these points any criticism risks being seen as a bit glib.
John Major should not be allowed protection with the use of fulbore pistols, as it was his government that banned them in the U.K.
Why should he be afforded such when he took it away from the rest of the people in this country?
Hypocrisy springs to mind.
In fact those in government that ban things should not be able to use such in their capacity in government.
We are all equal under the law, or as we are told.
Never mind a change of government in the spring, a revolution is in order, to sweep away all this left wing elitism.
‘A senior Whitehall source said: “No-one has a problem with funding his security when he is travelling on behalf of Britain or while he is at home in this country.”‘
I do. He earns enough to pay for his own security, and id his security is at risk, then that is his fault. He knows why.