Tony Blair: Why I need £5m every year just to get by—Tory Win Brown Remains PM…

Tony Blair: Why I need £5m every year just to get by

By Jason Groves and Sam Greenhill

Last updated at 12:54 AM on 31st March 2010

Hefty sum: Tony Blair, who intervened in the election campaign yesterday, is thought to have a wage bill of over £5m

Tony Blair has told friends he needs to earn at least £5million a year just to break even.
The former prime minister has been heavily criticised for cashing in on his contacts for personal gain and is thought to have made around £20million since leaving office.
But last night his former election agent John Burton claimed Mr Blair needed the astonishing annual income – and possibly much more – to pay spiralling wage bills at his growing list of companies and charities.
The revelation about his finances came as the former premier returned to the political fray with a lukewarm televised endorsement of Gordon Brown.
Mr Burton, one of Mr Blair’s most loyal political friends, said: ‘What I asked him was, you know he gets this criticism about what he earns. I said how many people do you employ? And he said 130.
‘I mean it was 25 about two years ago and he said to me I have got to earn £5million a year to pay the wages, so God knows what he has got to earn now to pay the wages.’
Mr Burton’s extraordinary claims mean average wages could be as high as £200,000 a year. And his figures suggest Mr Blair now needs to make £20million a year.

The former prime minister was making a controversial intervention in the election campaign yesterday as he addressed the Labour Club in his old constituency.
It followed a warning from a former defence minister that his appearance could trigger a public backlash against Labour from those angry over the Iraq War as well as Mr Blair’s business dealings.
Sporting a bizarre orange tan, Mr Blair spoke in support of his long-time rival Gordon Brown and attacked the ‘ vacuous’ Tories – but stopped short of personally criticising David Cameron.
The Tories were relaxed about the appearance, with Mr Cameron taking a dig at the former premier’s lecture circuit earnings, joking: ‘It is nice to see him making a speech that no one is paying for.’
Security was tight as Iraq War protesters demonstrated outside the Trimdon Labour Club, in the Sedgefield constituency in County Durham.

More…Labour’s elderly care plans called a ‘shambles’ after small print reveals they leave out lodging costs
Look who’s back! Tony Blair savages the Tories and hails Brown’s ‘boldness’ as he returns to election trail
QUENTIN LETTS on the return of the messiah: He glowed caramel, like a ripening pumpkin
PETER OBORNE: Spare us election sermons from the man who corrupted and degraded British politics
Alistair Darling admits Labour’s National Insurance rise WILL hit jobs
Boost for Darling as Britain emerges from recession stronger than expected
We’ll ALL cut more than Maggie: Darling, Osborne and Cable go head to head in TV’s Battle of the Chancellors

Only a handful of local journalists were allowed to join a hand-picked audience of Labour activists, and they were banned from asking questions.
Labour strategists believe Mr Blair, who made only a passing reference to Iraq yesterday, could help reassure floating voters that New Labour has not lost its way.
He is expected to make around half a dozen interventions during the election campaign.
But many senior Labour figures fear his involvement could harm the party. Chief among critics was former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle, who warned that Mr Blair was now a ‘negative factor’.
He said: ‘He evokes a strong antagonism, particularly because of the Iraq War, but not only that.
‘Also the kind of things going on with allegedly Blairite former ministers and their apparently venal approach to life. He epitomises everything people think is wrong about New Labour.
‘It is a mistake by the so-called strategists. It may seem a good idea to them, but to many people at the grassroots level it is not.’
But Labour’s election coordinator Douglas Alexander insisted the former prime minister was still ‘one of our two biggest assets’.
However, Mr Blair appeared to offer only a lukewarm endorsement of Mr Brown. He said Labour had a ‘solid’ programme for a fourth term in office and praised Mr Brown’s handling of the economic crisis.

But he had little to say about the Prime Minister’s personal qualities.
Instead he focused on attacking the Tories. He contrasted Mr Brown’s ‘certain leadership’ with the ‘confusion at the heart of Conservative policy-making’.
And he described the Tories’ ‘it’s time for a change’ campaign as ‘the most vacuous slogan in politics’.
Mr Blair also tried to suggest Mr Brown had a better grasp of the future than Mr Cameron. ‘The central point of the election (is) who “gets” the future? This is not a matter of age or personality. It is a matter of comprehension,’ he said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262405/Tony-Blair-Why-I-need-5m-year-just-by.html#ixzz0jk2jD5l3

Will the Queen stop a second election? Brown could cling on as premier even if Tories win

By James Chapman
Last updated at 8:53 AM on 31st March 2010

Comments (45)

The Queen’s involvement is allowed under ancient conventions NOT AFTER SHE BROKE HER OATH- IT ISN’T!!
The Queen could step in and block a second General Election this year in the event of a hung Parliament, to prevent Britain spiralling into an economic crisis.
Her action would force parties to work towards a coalition government – rather than having to fight another election campaign.

The Queen’s potential involvement, which is allowed under ancient conventions, has emerged in extraordinary behind-the-scenes preparations in Whitehall.
There are serious fears that Britain faces its first hung Parliament since the 1970s.

Economists say a prolonged period of turmoil after an unclear election result could result in a devastating collapse in confidence in Britain’s ability to repay its vast national debt.
To prepare, the Civil Service has drawn up a blueprint for action.

For the first time they will give opposition parties access to advice from officials in an attempt to speed up a coalition deal.
The period between polling day and the point at which a minority administration would face a potentially terminal vote of no confidence is to be extended by six days, giving more time for a power-sharing agreement.
And conventions allow the Sovereign to decline a request from a prime minister heading a minority government for a dissolution of Parliament and a quick second election.
If the Queen is advised that a general election would be ‘detrimental to the national economy’, she can refuse to allow one.
More…PETER OBORNE: Spare us election sermons from the man who corrupted and degraded British politics
Tony Blair: Why I need £5m every year just to get by
MPs want legal aid for expenses fight: Court case expected to cost public £3m
Darling admits NI rise WILL hit jobs
‘Asbo queen’ Louise Casey given £100,000 job to support victims

‘The monarch is not bound to accept such a request, especially when such a request is made soon after a previous dissolution,’ says guidance drawn up by Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell.

Because of the bias against them in the electoral system, the Conservatives need a poll lead of around ten points to be sure of defeating Labour with an overall majority.
Enlarge Polls pointing to a narrower result have prompted mandarins to produce the first set of guidelines for senior civil servants on what happens in the event of a hung Parliament.
Even if the Tories are the largest party, but fail to secure a Commons majority, Gordon Brown will remain Prime Minister until he resigns, Whitehall sources say.
Officials who have held detailed discussions with the Queen’s private secretary, Christopher Geidt, say it will be up to Mr Brown to decide when to resign.
He will have the right to make the first attempt to soldier on as head of a minority government by coming to an arrangement with smaller parties, including the Liberal Democrats.
Ted Heath remained in office over the weekend after the general election on February 28, 1974, despite winning four seats fewer than Labour, as he made unsuccessful attempts to form a coalition with the Liberals.
Mr Brown would be barred from making major policy announcements until a stable administration could be formed.

If he fails to reach an agreement with smaller parties, David Cameron would then be allowed to make similar overtures to the Liberal Democrats and others to try to form a viable minority government.
Parliament need not reconvene for as long as 18 days following the general election if there is no clear winner, it was also reported today.

Only after almost three weeks would MPs have to gather at Westminster for a motion of no confidence from the Conservatives, The Guardian said.
Mr Brown could request a second dissolution of Parliament if he is unable to form a workable coalition, but the Queen is not obliged to grant it, especially when the request is made soon after the election.

She would ‘normally wish the parties to ascertain that there was no potential government that could command the confidence of the House of Commons’ before granting a second dissolution and triggering a new poll.

It is understood she would take into account the national interest and the prospect of a second election producing a clear-cut result.

At more than 12 per cent of national income, the UK’s deficit is on a par with that of Greece, which has been plunged into a deep financial crisis and social unrest.
A similar loss of confidence in Britain, experts fear, would trigger a run on the pound, drive up interest rates and undermine the recovery.
In the worst-case scenario, our gold-standard AAA credit rating on the international markets would be downgraded, massively increasing the cost of financing our debt.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262424/Gordon-Brown-remain-PM-Queen-blocks-second-General-Election.html#ixzz0jk3UCu72

Someone tell the North not to vote Liebour. LBC Is London Radio- What i hear daily- are foreigners wailing on about how good Brownski and Labour are- thats the South East- not the NORTH!
- Me, UK, 31/3/2010 09:12

A hung parliament is the worst thing that could happen to UK plc! What I don’t understand is the polls! Surely there cannot be 31% of those polled that still want to vote back in this lame duck of a PM who has ran our great country into the ground! Wise up people! It’s time for CHANGE! David Cameron is offering us that change, we need to accept it and allow the country to move on from 13 years of socialist self-destruct mode!

That is all!
- Thud Hardbutt, Living in hope!, 31/3/2010 09:09

I don`t know much about swinging to the left swinging to the right, it is all rubbish, because what matters to me and everyony else in this country. Is local services, bins emptied,road gritting,pot holes filled in,easy access to a GP and Hospital,goods schools and criminals locked up and not let out.
All this talk about a hung parliment must mean that the policies of Labour and Conservatives are so alike that they are no longer two seperate parties, they are one party with two people fighting to be leader.
- Tony, Hornsea, 31/3/2010 09:02

On the day of reckoning I think it is almost certain that the proletariat’s vote will swing to the Conservatives. Who else have they got to vote for..?!

In reality it is all a bit of a farce because we all know nothing would significantly change whatever party you have. It is a proliferation of outside influence, self interest and inside dealings by non elected faceless individuals that run the country not elected governments.

Personally, I think it is time our Monarchy stood up, came back to life and got the country back on its feet.
- Stephen Griggs, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 31/3/2010 09:00

Someone should remind her Majesty that its labour that have and are floating ideas to get rid of her and replace her with a president.

Frankly it scares me as it should others that labour have trawled the statute book to find this. It shows how desperate GB is to cling to power. A vote for labour is not a vote for the democratic labour party I used to vote for but one for an autocratic party. There is a fine line between strong leadship and dictatorship one which all the signs show is about to be crossed.

It amusses me that when labour lost the election mid 90′s Prescott was blubbering about how unfair it was that a party with fewer votes from the public could be in power. Electoral promisse from Blair was that this would be changed so what have they done. Changed boundaries so that voting is in their favour, done nothing about the voting system and are looking for ways to stay even though they are likely to have fewer votes.

Bad signs there folks, vote for them at your peril
- the_old_cynic, disillusionedville, 31/3/2010 08:58

HER Majesty my arse- SHE’S A TRAITOR!!