Europe South Asia Asia Pacific Americas Middle East Africa BBC Homepage World Service Education
BBC Homepagelow graphics version | feedback | help
BBC News Online
 You are in: Talking Point
Front Page 
World 
UK 
UK Politics 
Business 
Sci/Tech 
Health 
Education 
Entertainment 
Talking Point 
Forum 
In Depth 
AudioVideo 

Tuesday, 19 June, 2001, 10:36 GMT 11:36 UK
Does Blair deserve his salary?

Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided to take his full pay for the first time - boosting his salary by 40% - and allow his cabinet increased entitlements.

The move, which bumps up Mr Blair's earnings by £47,000 to £163,000, has been branded "hypocritical" by unions and some opposition politicians.

They say that the government has acted against its own stance on restraint in public sector pay.

And as PM, Mr Blair is entitled to free accommodation, chauffeured cars and other perks. But many company executives are paid much more than he is and they don't have to run the country.

So does Tony Blair deserve his salary? Are opposition politicians right to call him a hypocrite?

This Talking Point has now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.


We have a pretty good man doing a generally good job. Many who begrudge him a level of pay commensurate with his status (assessed not by him but independently) don't flinch at the levels of pay of footballers, media stars and others doing far less onerous jobs. We have become such a whining, whingeing nation.
John Bligh, UK


The UK prime minister's salary is well below those of his European counterparts

Robert, Germany
Certainly the UK prime minister's salary is well below those of his European counterparts, and it doesn't strike me as extravagant considering the importance of the job. But whenever I think about Tony Blair and his pay rise, the Millennium Dome looms up on the horizon. That catastrophe, very much of Blair's making, cost my country untold millions of pounds and he should not be allowed to forget it.
Robert, Germany

What's wrong with increasing your salary by 40%? Maybe he did it because he couldn't stand the fact that his wife gets paid more, maybe his election campaign cost him out of his pocket or maybe he needs a bit of motivation to keep on doing his job. I sure wish I could increase MY salary like that!
Raza, Pakistan/Kuwait


I don't begrudge awarding a performance related pay increase for any suitable candidate

David M, UK
I don't begrudge awarding a performance related pay increase for any suitable candidate, whatever walk of life he may come from, but what puzzles me is just how Tony Blair has demonstrated to us that he is worthy of this pay rise? Could it be with the thousands of farmers who have had their livelihoods wiped out by government mismanagement? Or the hundreds of ordinary families who struggle to make ends meet in "rip off" Britain. Maybe it's by fleecing the innocent motorist every time he fills up his tank? Sorry Tony, but I for one don't think you deserve it and just for the record, THANKS for rubbing our noses in it. Besides that.. ask yourself how a TRUE leader would reward himself by being allowed to lead the nation.
David M, UK

My God, the UK has just discovered that Blair is a politician after all.
Peter Haslett, Australia

Of course he has to raise his income. After he has put up taxes so much he needs the extra just to be where he was when he came in to office,
Peter Blackburn, UK

If Mr Blair is going to increase his own and most, if not all other ministers' salaries by a reported 40% and then insist on pointing out the pay freeze he has imposed since 1997, isn't such a fact rather meaningless given that most British citizens would not have had more than a 15% increase in the same time? This is typical of the Labour government in that they manage to defend the negative points with "red herring" positive ones. An even sadder fact in my mind is that most of Britain accepts such comments as valid responses.
RC, Austria

Let's not forget that the 'independent body' which recommended the pay rise for our magnificent MPs was very similar to the one which was scrapped by the Government a few years ago for suggesting that public sector workers (at the sharp end of course) were underpaid. The hypocrisy of Government never ceases to amaze me.
Phil Miller, UK


I don't know what the fuss is all about

K.C. Khoo, Singapore
I don't know what the fuss is all about - Blair must be the lowest paid Head of State in the First World even with the reinstatement of his full pay. Even our Junior Ministers are paid far more than him and we don't complain, as you have to pay to get the right quality people to run the Government.
K.C. Khoo, Singapore

Why should we struggle to make a living with a measly pay increase of around 3.5% when people like him can give themselves a 40% increase?; when tax increases and tax on tax kills our income before we have even managed to pay our bills? It's young people like myself that are looking to buy property and they are pushing our resources to the limit before we start.
Darren Leong, England

He still gets much less than many company directors and was voted back in with a large majority so it was probably the best time for him to catch up.
John Ley, London, England


Government ministers should have an element of their pay performance linked

Allan Rankine, Beds, UK
Government ministers should have an element of their pay performance linked, depending on how much they deliver. The public could vote electronically at the end of each term to determine the level of bonus for each minister from a range of options. After all, we are their employers, aren't we?
Allan Rankine, Beds

I still don't understand how a man can justify awarding himself a 40% pay rise when he is already on a huge salary, the like of which those of us in the public sector will never see, especially with a 3% annual pay rise.
Geraldine, UK


Blair's huge pay rise merely adds insult to injury

Mike Rose, UK
Many older people who are trying to survive on a fixed income have been hit very hard by tax rises in the last 4 years. Blair's huge pay rise merely adds insult to injury.
Mike Rose, UK

It's not a matter of whether he deserves the pay rise, its the moral precedent. Politics must not be a profitable enterprise, it should be based on the desire to change society for the better. I think Mr Blair should look at his underlying reasons for wanting to become Prime Minister. To earn such a considerable amount of money diminishes the post and would encourage corrupt politicians.
Aled, Wales

Mr Blair runs the country. How does his salary compare to newsreaders and breakfast TV presenters I wonder?
Linda Pereira, England.

Many people have commented that Tony Blair's salary is low compared to some company bosses. Very true, however any company boss who had presided over the Dome, Wembley and London Underground fiascos (to name but three) would have been out of a job a long time ago.
Mick, UK

I have no problem with someone drawing their full pay. Comparing the worth of the job, to other fields is very difficult to determine. What I would like to see here in the USA, would be a constitutional amendment that basically would state that no government officials could give themselves a pay raise, specifically, that only the people (whole nation) would have to approve any and all pay raises and other perks of the job. Especially for the upper echelons of government.
Christopher Cilley, USA

The point is not that MPs and Ministers require high salaries in order to attract talented people (anyone recall the notion of public service), it is that to hike the salaries immediately after an election campaign that included no mention of pay rises for Ministers is an example of breath-taking arrogance and a disgraceful disregard for honesty and clarity.
David Bachan, UK

Instead of comparing Tony Blair to heads of large corporations let's compare him to other people in the public sector, nurses, teachers, civil servants, even doctors. Most have had to settle for somewhere between 3% and 5% and even if the PM has had a pay freeze for the last four years it still equates to over 10% a year, when was the last time staff in the public sector were given this as a rise?
Dan, UK

I am no fan of Tony Blair, but I think people ought to realise that he is actually very good value for money. Think about how tough being PM must be - 24hour media attention, very little free time, threat of terrorism, strain on family life - can anyone therefore think that it's unreasonable to pay him annually what some sportsmen earn in a fortnight?
John, Cambridge, UK


There are hypocrites in this debate but they are not in the Cabinet

Neil Halliday, UK
All he is doing is taking the salary he was entitled to take since 1997. Tony Blair and the Cabinet denied themselves their full share for four years, and by all accounts saved between 2-3 million of taxpayers money. Now they've decided to take the salary that they are allowed and that John Major and Maggie Thatcher drew in full from day one. In short, there are hypocrites in this debate but they are not in the Cabinet.
Neil Halliday, UK

How else is he to pay the transport costs to send his kids to school outside of his local education authority?
Gareth, UK

If I smile a lot, spout a lot of waffle and break all my promises can I get £150,000 or more courtesy of the taxpayer?
John B, UK

Does he pay his 40% tax on this? Does his wife pay her tax? Or are they both exempt? This is the main issue here as Blair has raised taxes so much since coming to power.....
Rick, UK


Tony Blair should practice what he preaches

LP, UK
In my view Tony Blair should practice what he preaches. He wants everyone in the UK to work for the minimum wage but not him or his Cabinet. That is just typical of this Government. Mr Blair probably has more 'benefits in kind' than any other employee in the UK. Therefore, based on that I wonder what Mr Blair's 'real' salary is......unless of course he doesn't have to declare 10 Downing Street and his cars as benefit in kind.
LP, UK

This whole attack has been staged by spiteful Tory die-hards who aren't gentlemen enough to accept defeat. Mr Hague would have had the same salary, had the people been stupid enough to vote him in, and nobody would have protested. The only hypocrisy is theirs. The plan is to fan the flames of discontent among the underpaid, as if all these teachers and trainee nurses would benefit if the PM decided not to get his entire salary. Most of them should stop and think who got them into this position in the first place.
Ralph, UK

Politicians knew the terms and conditions of their employment well before they were elected and to vote themselves massive increases when they are paid well over the national average wage already is simply hypocritical. At the end of a successful political career they are well rewarded with peerages, book deals and a place on the after dinner circuit. You don't see many teachers or nurses or other underpaid hard working employees in the private and public sector spending their twilight years in this lucrative pursuit. Someone needs to let these people know what it's like out here in the REAL world.
Spudhead, UK


The value of their salary has been slipping over the past decade

Charles Smith, England
Like most public servants, the value of their salary has been slipping over the past decade. As a result the talented people are not attracted to the public service. It has been the same with politicians. The gaps are filled by large numbers of untalented people - witness the current government. Stop messing around and double their salaries.
Charles Smith, England

Those who think that what Tony Blair gets by way of salary is excessive should see how much the PM and the cabinet in Singapore get by way of salary (about US$1,2 million for the PM and about US$600,000 for a Cabinet Minister)! Yes, more than the President of the US or PM of the UK! The argument is that it takes the best to run this tiny state with US$140 billion in reserves and therefore you need to pay for the best!
Lim Boon Jin, Singapore

The President of United States makes about E290,000. The Prime Minister of Britain makes about E160,000. That's a big difference in money. I don't understand why people are making a big deal about it. People in United States don't care how much the President makes. We have better things to debate about rather than debate about the salary of the President or Prime Minister.
Donxay, USA

Yes he deserves to be paid, but the rise in pay is obscene.
Robert, UK


If we want quality, we have got to pay for it

Roy Haynes, UK
Tony Blair could easily earn double his PM salary as a lawyer. He chooses to serve his country instead. He's worth every penny he's paid. The whingers about his salary are probably the same people who want a first class health service, railway system etc but don't want to pay extra taxes. If we want quality, we have got to pay for it.
Roy Haynes, UK

How many other people would defer taking full pay for as long as these ministers already have? Would You? I think not. The pay was deemed fair by an independent body - if we didn't think the findings correct this debate should have happened a long time ago. Move on, people. Focus on the real issues instead of falling for red herrings such as these. It's a dead subject. Don't kid yourself that this money would cover better pensions or public service. That's a bigger issue and one worth the trouble of your energy. I hope you are all as vigorous in the campaign to improve pensions and public services.
Sarah Pilkington, UK


40% is far too much

Neil Jones, West Midlands, UK
While I don't have a problem with pay rises for Mr. Blair, 40% is far too much, particularly in comparison to the 3% expected for backbench MPs. He gets £47,000 extra a year to £163,000. Lots of people don't get this much over five years and any increase they get in wages is dictated only by rises in the minimum wage and the discretion of the companies in question.
Neil Jones, West Midlands, UK

The Prime Minister and ministers choose their vocation. Teachers choose their vocation. Neither vocation can be equated to industry but a significant difference between the two vocations is that the teachers cannot increase their salary at will or use their position as a springboard to much higher paid jobs. I find arguments that equate the Prime Minister's job with that of his industry counterparts spurious. The Prime Minister has made a mistake in increasing his salary just after winning an election. His increase serves to compound the lack of morale in so many other "vocational" professions!
DVA, UK


He deserves the money

Richard Barker, England
Oh for goodness sake! I voted Conservative but at least I can see the efforts he has made in refusing a pay rise until now. Give the guy a break. His family is slaughtered in the press and his personal life is always under the spotlight. He deserves the money. (The same amount that Mr Beckham earns in TWO WEEKS!)
Richard Barker, England

Our business went bust because of foot-and-mouth and the collapse in tourism. I'm lucky to earn £100pw at the moment. As if between him and his wife they really needed it. What a greedy, insensitive thing to do. He has shown himself in his true colours, and the people who put him there should be ashamed of themselves. I won't forget come next election.
Dave, Wales, UK

Ladies and Gents. Remember this pay increase as the public sector pay awards come around as you're likely to receive 4% not 40%. If you want 10% then you're going to have to fight for it. The Labour Government had no policies for increased pay awards in its manifesto, so please ask Mr Blair how he expects to encourage more new nurses, teachers and police when the salaries are so low. My only thoughts are, the Government looks after themselves but who will look after you?
Matthew Jaques, Herts, UK


The pay he gets is relatively low

Jan, England
The pay he gets is relatively low - a chief executive of a local authority is normally on more than £100K for managing a tiny part of the country. However, I would like to see some element of performance related pay as an incentive to deliver what has been promised in the election.
Jan, England

Tony Blair works for the public. We pay his salary. We also paid for his very expensive advertising during the election. And as you can see from this Talking Point - the public is not happy. Why the British public didn't vote against Labour is beyond me. Why the vast majority which gave the signal that all his failings were "fine"? You voted for him, now live with his mediocrity.
Henry G, London, UK

The timing may be inappropriate and perhaps the increase should have been brought in gradually over a number of years. Having said this however, the PM is still paid a lot less than company directors whilst having much more responsibility
Mark H, Barnsley, S. Yorks


Everyone else in the country gets paid as little as their employers can get away with

Craig, England
Why should the Cabinet get paid what they deserve? Everyone else in the country gets paid as little as their employers can get away with. The recent election shows that if we sack an MP there are ten equally qualified people queuing up to do the job. In any other profession they'd get less than £15,000 regardless of qualifications. If he was willing to do the job for £100,000 why should he get more?
Craig, England

Tony Blair is the PM of the 4th largest economy in the world. Considering we pay Ken Barlow from Coronation Street £160,000, whose job is more important??
Peter Turnbull, UK

He does deserve his salary - no question. But since when does everyone in the UK get the salary they deserve? As an already wealthy public sector figure, he should be last in line to get what he deserves, behind all the teachers and nurses and other under-paid public sector workers who are doing vital work and struggling to get by.
Lee, UK


Believe me, you would NOT want those people on your charter flight to Milan

Lisa, London, UK
Huffing and puffing about the salaries of Cabinet Ministers is just as daft as the moaning and groaning that goes on whenever we hear that the PM and his family are using the Royal flight to go on holiday. Believe me, you would NOT want those people on your charter flight to Milan - departure would be delayed by hours to allow for the sniffer dogs, security checks and so on. Far better that we should concentrate our energies on making sure Ministers are doing their jobs properly and delivering on their promises than whinging about what they're paid.
Lisa, London, UK

I suggest his salary be performance related. Voluntary workers would earn more!
Chris, NW London

People don't seem to realise how hard the Prime Minister actually has to work, the length of the hours, and the incredible responsibility he has. Every single decision he makes is important, and he definitely deserves every penny he gets.
Jim, UK

Hands up anyone who thinks his job is easy. I didn't vote for Tony Blair, because I wanted someone else to do the job. That doesn't mean I don't think he should be paid appropriately. He is entitled to his pay - so give it to him and don't be petty.
Will, GB

They'll have fun negotiating public sector pay rises this year
Mark Heighway, UK


Blair has to beat the record for not wasting time!

K, Canada
It seems to be a favourite ploy of politicians, this side of the Atlantic and there, to give themselves hefty raises in their first months into office, (so that by the end of their term, the constituents will have had plenty of time to forget it) but Blair has to beat the record for not wasting time! The Canadian Prime Minister John Chretian at least waited 6 months before giving himself a 40 per cent pension increase and 22 per cent rise in pay, whilst civil servants are having a hard time trying to get a measly two per cent rise! Does Blair deserve it? Of course not! He hasn't even started work yet! It's incredible, the amount of gall these politicians have and if I was a British taxpayer I would raise hell over this latest stab in the back!
K, Canada

For losing all trace of a private life, for exposing your family to the glare of publicity, for having to be on call twenty-four hours a day, for being responsible for a nation, for all that and MUCH more the salary is far too low. However, how about making it a bit more interesting? Why not pay half of that amount as a salary, and half as a bonus IF the general public are happy with the PM's performance in a given year? Difficult to judge accurately, but surely an incentive to please the majority of people in the UK and perhaps it may even see an end to the inevitable tax cuts granted just before an election (might get them every year!!). Then again, in our fickle world, who on earth would accept that challenge?
Christopher Laird, Japan

How many of us would take less than that on offer for *any* job? Get real. A PM and cabinet ministers deserve something for the hours of effort and activity. No one is criticising David Beckham or Sol Campbell for £120,000 A WEEK?!
Mark Davey,UK

Of course he deserves his pay - in fact its not a raise - the pay rates have been frozen for 4 years - lets give him credit for that. I didn't hear many of the unions saying they were going to follow his example and suggest a four year pay freeze for their members - so lets use equal standards before we judge.
Greg Reeve,UK


We should pay our politicians a going rate for the job.

Peter Claydon, UK
We need the brightest, most talented people in politics. Tony Blair could earn far more in another job, but thankfully he's no purely motivated by money. We should pay our politicians a going rate for the job, which is more than Tony Blair currently earns by some margin.
Peter Claydon, UK

Mr Blair claims to be a Christian Socialist! It seems more like champagne socialism to me with the emphasis on the champagne. How much more hypocrisy can the country bear from Mr Blair?
Chris Gillibrand, UK

Tony Blair is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Tony Blair deliberately froze his own pay to set an example to public service workers - a move welcomed by them four years ago. Now the same group of people are using the media to criticise him for getting what reward he should have got in the first place. I am not saying that teachers and public service workers are also paid adequately, however it is unfair for them to draw a direct comparison with the Prime Minister's salary, and I don't want to hear this kind of unjustified moaning in the media.
Eddie Talbot, UK


People should step back and look at what Tony Blair does for a living.

John Buyers, UK
US President George W. Bush is entitled to an annual salary of $400,000 (£290,000), which makes our Prime Minister, seem like good value! People should step back and look at what Tony Blair does for a living. Maybe then we can all get a sense of perspective.
John Buyers, UK

Perhaps it's worth bearing in mind that Mr Blair isn't running the country single-handed. The hard work is done by a multitude of civil servants. He may take the credit (or the blame) but it is them who do the work and recommend the appropriate policies and decisions. What about paying them for running the country, rather than giving the 'figure-head' a large increase in his pocket money (after all the perks of the job mean he doesn't have to pay for housing, transport and probably many other items the civil servants need to cover).
C Brown, Somerset

Before judging his decision, look at it this way - how many people would voluntarily NOT take the full pay offered when starting a new job. That's what he's done for the past 4 years. Give the guy a break - one of the hardest jobs in the world (i.e. pleasing the British public) deserves the remuneration.
Dave, UK

Whether he deserves it will only come clear later. Should he be paid it? Sure. It's his salary, agreed by the independent advisory body, which he's denied himself for 4 years. In charge of a country, 24 hours a day, what should he receive? Congratulations? And as for the timing, when would be appropriate? At least he's proved himself over the last 4 years. And what about William Hague's salary as leader of the opposition: Doesn't look as if he deserves a penny of it!!
Randy, UK


The privilege of the job itself should be its own reward.

Lachlan, UK
Tony Blair has broken another new record - the shortest honeymoon period in British political history ever! May I point out that he has no need whatsoever of his salary, considering that his wife alone earns £250,000 a year as a barrister! Margaret Thatcher did not need to draw her salary either, and went unpaid for 11 years. The privilege of the job itself should be its own reward. Explain this hypocrisy to trainee nurses working 60 hours a week for the minimum wage.
Lachlan McLean, UK

If Tony Blair was running any major UK company he'd be earning far more. So let him have his money, at the end of the day £163,000 only costs each of us 0.03pence per year. Get over it. And anyone who says that he shouldn't earn because Cherie already gets enough money, get real. Everyone has the right to earn from his/her job; lets see you work for free because the honour of doing your job is worth it alone.
Paul Robertson, UK

If I was the PM, I wouldn't get out of bed for £163,000. There are people far less talented and qualified earning twice that and then some in the private sector. Good luck to him - and this is coming from a Tory voter.
Rob King, UK

I cannot see what the fuss is about. The PM has decided to accept the agreed rate for the job. He has not awarded himself an 'extra'. Rather than criticism he should get a bit of praise for refusing to take his increase for so long.
J. Peebles, Scotland, UK

I think the PM's salary is well justified and it wouldn't matter what party the PM belonged to. The job is stressful enough and you also have to drag your family along with it. It is a well deserved pay rise.
Ellen, UK


I am very disappointed, only five days after helping return them to power.

Chris Green, UK
Has he undermined the moral high ground his stance previously afforded him? Personally, I would say emphatically YES, because the public sector, to whom he was supposed to be setting such a shining example, have not received an equivalent rise over the past 4 years. So the example Blair set was one more of manipulation and expedience, rather than integrity. I am very disappointed, only five days after helping return them to power.
Chris Green, Bristol, UK

Although perhaps he could have picked a slightly better time to do this, it is justified. A) He hasn't been collecting the full salary up to now, so it isn't really a pay rise, more just getting what he's entitled too. B) For the job of running the UK you only get £163,000? I imagine being PM involved a little more stress than some of those big businesses with wages in the multi-millions for their directors.
Jon Ellison, UK

£116,000 was probably underpaid for the top job, but then so are doctors and nurses underpaid. Let's give them 40% as well. This is disappointing for all those who voted for him, but unsurprising for all those who didn't. It's the dishonesty of the timing that depresses me the most.
Graham, UK

Good quality people should get paid well. If you peg MP's salaries, you end up with either talentless people, or millionaires who don't need the money anyway.
James Boye, UK


His new salary would appear meagre compared with what many investment bankers rake in...

Emma Clark, UK
Tony Blair is entitled to his pay rise, as are the cabinet ministers. The criticism he has received is unwarranted. He is merely reinstating a pay increase that he chose to forego during his last term in office. Plus, his new salary would appear meagre compared with what many investment bankers rake in on a regular basis. The way this issue has been covered in the press illustrates how the media is pandering to populist sentiments.
Emma Clark, UK

Somebody wake me up when this is over. All the old clichés about "underpaid compared to heads of business." Then go into the private sector and leave the job of Prime Minister to someone who will make a real difference to people's lives. The opposition, unions, teachers and nurses are up in arms - well what are they supposed to say? Congratulations? Do they expect Blair to lose any sleep over an issue that will be forgotten as soon as the next fat cat awards himself a huge salary increase, together with preferential share options on the back of making hundreds of staff redundant?
Phil, UK

It is petty minded to say this is "wrong". Although a dyed in the wool Tory myself, the fact of the matter is that we lost and Mr. Blair is now our Prime Minister! As such, he deserves to be compensated appropriately.
Mark M. Newdick, USA/UK

Maybe he is worth that amount of money for a very stressful and demanding job, but its just typical in a week when I learn I'm not getting any pay rise this year.
V, Scotland


You could argue he is underpaid.

Jon Chick, UK
Of course he deserves this sort of salary. It's not the personality but the position he holds which is important. For the level of responsibility he holds you could argue he is underpaid. Oh, I'm also a Conservative voter!
Jon Chick, UK

Maybe now there might be some incentive to get some real talent into the government.
Matthew Baines, UK

What a shame; I thought I had voted for a Prime Minister that was going to be more radical! The timing and the percentage rise are of course beyond words. And the implication is that now his job is safe for four years he's awarded himself a juicy £200,000 bonus. The Prime Minister of the people? I don't think so!
Wendy, UK

What does Paxman earn? What does the BBC Director-General get in bonus alone? It's time to grow up and recognise - if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Let's pay the rate for the job.
Mark Flannagan, London, UK


This is yet another example of the current government's self-absorption and indifference to the electorate

Van Martin, England
This is yet another example of the current government's self-absorption and indifference to the electorate. Blair knew full well that if he had so much as mentioned this in a manifesto, many voters would have felt obliged to register the discontent. So what does he do? He casually forgets to mention that while 'stringent spending plans are needed for other public services, front bench politicians can decide when and how much more money they pay themselves. This is the government we have voted for. A dishonest, deliberately misleading bunch of careerist sycophants and unprincipled megalomaniacs who do not have the interests of those that vote for them at the heart of their politics.
Van Martin, England

The timing of the pay award couldn't have been worse, following a worryingly low turnout at the election signalling public apathy and disillusionment. People feel increasingly alienated from politics and this gives them yet another reason to abstain at the ballot box, perhaps with good reason.
Rob, UK

Whether his new salary is 'too much' according to people's opinion is a red herring. He is accepting the salary that comes with the job, just as it did with Major or Thatcher. That, for the last five years he has refused to take all of that salary is something to be praised. On the other hand, quite why he now decides on the full amount is anyone's guess, and while not morally wrong, it is really bad PR.
Toby Jones, UK


He is entitled to the pay increase

Rob Court, UK
He is entitled to the pay increase. After all it is what he is entitled to and is only such a large increase because he chose to earn much less in the previous Parliament. How many people would work for a lower salary than their job entitled them to.
Rob Court, UK

This man runs the country. He makes decisions that affect millions of lives and he is ultimately responsible. The buck stops with him. I would not be willing to do his job for only £163,000.
Janet, UK

There are a hell of a lot of other people getting paid an awful lot more to do far less stressful, and far less worthy jobs. I think the people that run the country should be paid in line with those that drive the wheels of industry. How else are we going to attract get the best candidates for the job.
Jules, UK

First fat cats of industry now fat cats of Government.
A. N. Gripes, UK


He is paid too much

Tom, UK
He is paid too much. Teachers and other public sector workers have appalling pay and conditions, the money should go to them.
Tom, UK

Just think for an extra £50,000 a year we could have got Rory Bremner. Not only would he have been a better Tony Blair than Tony himself, but he would have been the entire Labour cabinet and opposition for no additional cost. Missed a bargain there I think.
Malcolm, Scotland

Mr Blair's new salary is basically minuscule compared to those of top industrial managers. Good prime ministers tend to deserve a good remuneration and unpopular prime ministers don't! Personally, a man who can diminish the Tories into a spent unelectable force deserves every penny he gets!
James Price, UK

Ministerial pay has not been frozen for the last four years: it has risen in line with inflation. People criticise business leaders' pay, but at least they have to earn it, through selling more, or better products. The Government merely has to collect more taxes. In this, they have been very successful.
Ben Broadbent, England

In my view the Prime Minister's salary even with the pay rise is almost insignificant for managing UK plc. Well deserved and easily justified.
Stephen Hewins, UK

Search BBC News Online

Advanced search options
Launch console
BBC RADIO NEWS
BBC ONE TV NEWS
WORLD NEWS SUMMARY
PROGRAMMES GUIDE
See also:

12 Jun 01 | UK Politics
Blair under fire over pay


Links to more Talking Point stories