Off Topic Political Debate

George Osborne has given the adviser responsible for his new image a promotion and a pay rise of more than 40%, and boosted the number of his political aides by three while asking public-sector workers to accept a pay freeze.

Thea Rogers, a close associate of Osborne, received the biggest rise among all the political special advisers across government, an increase of 42% since the figures were released last November, giving her £98,000. She is now his chief of staff.

A former BBC producer who once worked with the corporation’s former political editor Nick Robinson, she is said to have been responsible for Osborne’s Caesar-style haircut and for placing him on the 5:2 diet. A year ago, she acted as a special adviser, handling his image and events.

please log in to view this image

Thea Rogers, a close associate of Osborne, has received the biggest pay increase of 42%. Photograph: Andrew Parsons/Rex/Shutterstock
A year ago Osborne employed three special advisers and had four more political appointees sitting on his council of advisers. Since then, advisers hired by the chancellor include James Chapman, the Daily Mail’s political editor until the election, who is now paid £125,000; and Sue Beeby, who previously worked for Jeremy Hunt and is being paid £73,000 to be part of the Treasury team.

Osborne has three other people employed in his office whose pay levels are not registered. Another special adviser to Osborne, Eleanor Wolfson, is currently on maternity leave, a footnote adds.

The footnote to the data also shows that the chancellor has taken on three other politically employed advisers who sit on the council of economic advisers – Richard Davies, who is paid £98,000; Neil O’Brien, who is paid £93,450; and Jennifer Donne, whose pay is not registered.

please log in to view this image

James Chapman was employed this year by Osborne for £125,000. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock
The disclosure comes in data that shows the bill for special advisers across the government rose to £9.2m in 2014-15, up from £8.4m the previous financial year.

The report was one of a deluge released by the government on subjects ranging from the bedroom tax to fracking on the last day of Commons business before Christmas. Ministers released more 424 documents online by 5pm on Thursday, including 36 written ministerial statements on subjects of national importance.

Amongst the information was a report on the bedroom tax, described by Labour as “damning”, that revealed three-quarters of those affected were cutting back on food, and a local government spending settlement that involves billions of pounds in cuts and potential council tax rises.

Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, said: “David Cameron can’t bury the fact that he’s broken a direct promise he made to reduce the cost of politicsand curb the number of special advisers in government.”

In July, the chancellor told thousands of teachers, nurses, police, firefighters and civil servants that they would face another four years of having pay rises limited to 1% a year, effectively a freeze, as part of planned savings worth £17bn. Many more jobs are also set to be lost across the public sector.

The increase in money spent on special advisers is particularly embarrassing for David Cameron because of previous pledges to cut the cost of government and the number of special advisers.

The data shows that Cameron has 32 advisers – six more than in November last year. Twenty-three are paid more than £63,000 a year. Topping the list are his head of communications, Craig Oliver, and chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, who both earn £140,000.

A string of special advisers across all government departments have had above-inflation pay increases over the last year. They include Ameet Gill, an adviser to Cameron, who is now being paid £98,000 – an increase of 22%; Nick Seddon, another Cameron adviser, who is being paid £88,000 – an increase of 12%; and Graham Hook, an adviser to the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, who is paid £70,000 – an increase of 7.7%.

The number of “spads” in the highest pay grade of PB4 has jumped from four to 10. The number in the next highest paygrade, PB3, has grown from 15 to 26.

Last November the government announced that the cost of its special advisers had passed £8m – a rise of more than £1m over a 12-month period.

At the beginning of this year there were just over 100 spads. During the last months of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, a total of 26 special advisers worked for Cameron in Downing Street, with 20 working for the former Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg.

Although the number of advisers necessary for the two-party coalition was expected to fall after the Conservatives’ return to government as a majority single party, there had been no financial information given out until now.

Under Gordon Brown in 2009-10, the cost of special advisers was said to be £6.8m, with 71 on the government payroll.

A Whitehall source said: “Osborne may have 10 Spads, but that is
still one less than Gordon had in the Treasury.”

A Downing Street spokesman said he was not aware of any plans to reduce the number of special advisers.

“Special advisers provide an important role and it is important that they are there,” the spokesman said. “By providing political advice to ministers, they allow the important distinction to remain between impartial civil servants and special advisers who provide political advice.”

Asked whether Cameron was happy that his government employed more than 25% more special advisers than Gordon Brown’s administration, the spokesman would say only that the number and overall cost of special advisers was lower than in the last year of the coalition government.

Another document released on Thursday showed that the chancellor spent £11,000 taking Royal Air Force planes to meetings in Europe and Turkey between July and September, and a further £10,000 chartering a plane to China.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-pay-rises-while-freezing-public-sector-wages

 

I have sympathy for these unfortunate people but I would imagine my views are more in tune with most of Europe.

 

That's where you're wrong

 

In my world all Govt servants would have the same fair terms and conditions re pay increases, expenses, holiday entitlements be they hospital porters or MPs.

If a Govt is to represent the people then it must live by the limitations it sets on its employees.

I have no issue with differentials.. although it could be argued a hospital porter does more good than many MPs or some of their special advisers...

 

My issue with it is that they stand for a 'smaller state', just not when it comes to helping their mates out...

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but you should try to avoid petty insults, it spoils the basis of your argument.

 

I didn't insult anyone

 

Apparently the UK is the joint 14th best country in the world in which to live (with Sweden). This is according to the UN Human Development Index. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr_2015_statistical_annex.pdf
What is interesting is that the countries that are classed as having "very high human development" are so varied.
(However, Australia is 2nd so the whole index is suspect )

 

Did you read Frenchies rsponse? He was not talking about the PLP but the membership. So 30,000 leaving from the rank and file is the party being controlled from below? I don't think so. It's a common tactic of extremists to get elected on moderate policies and then radicalise and mis represent those who actually voted for the party at the ballot box but then tto those obsessed with party politics rather than people politics they discount the electorate as "they are not interested, if they were they'd join the party".....

 

Just been reading the French news on the EU dinner/talks. Very different to what you might read in the UK. People are saying that it is a shame that we do not have a President like Cameron. They believe he is someone who sticks up for his country and is doing the right thing in asking for changes. Some agree that what he would like to see is correct, others disagree, but the general tone is that he should ask the questions.

Having seen the menu for the dinner last night it was not very exciting. Is the EU cutting back on the expenses?

 

Where's NZ? 1st? It'd certainly be my choice if I could bear to pull away from the old world...

 

Refugees cease to become refugees beyond the first country of refuge, it's logical. Once they are in Europe they are "safe" from the oppression they were fleeing be it political or religious or just racial. As such we do not accept refugees from France or Germany because as a rulr those countries offer no different treatment regarding human rights. We control economic migration on all borders and once inside the EU these people are without exception economic migrants. Any cross border movement of these people needs to be accommodated through specific treaty with firm control.

 

If I went to Calais I could only report my personal observations but you have declared personal points null and void.
The law is not stupid -but is correct and should be upheld 100%. Otherwise you have people going round Europe with no lawful reason. I do not argue that once registered people have to reside in the country of entry. It ought to be possible for the countries in Europe to agree how to "share" their obligations if any to immigrants. However all countries need to have rules on who they allow in. I am not interested in arbitrary statistics on which countries take how many. Do the British not have the right to decide who is allowed entry? Some people want to help others while others do not. However all have their own reasons: be it humanitarian charity on the one hand or a political ideology that says everybody have rights everywhere; or an argument that people need to contribute to a society in order to gain benefits or that excessive crowding and poor social planning can destroy a community - and I am sure there are hundreds of other arguments that can be made on both sides. But please can we stop having it said that one side or the other are on the moral high ground. There is no absolute right or wrong -we just differ in our approach.

 

Of those you list Turkey as it is a safe haven with similar culture and borders the conflict area.

 

people are people and there are all sorts in the world... I am sure many many refugees are decent good people who just want to live... let us not fall for the stereotype of young delinquent males....

Having said all that.... there need to be controls IMO......

Of course by bombing the hell out of Syria we are creating more refugees....

Facebook is filled with images of good decent people suffering terribly from the bombing on all sides

 

Absolutely, the solution is to make people safe and happy in their own homes not allow them to move to an environment that is alien in culture, climate etc. which they do not realize until they get there does not meet their cultural expectations and only brings misery and conflict. Simple eh?

 

Turkey has a big problem with its own citizens in the SE there are many thousands of Kurds who were called Turks after the great powers carved up the area.... and split the kurds into three countries ... oh how wise we were...... It does not want to register 10s of thousands of refugees.... Look at what has happened in lebanon...... barely surviving as a country.... with hundreds of thousands of refugees...

The western and european powers have some responsibility... .at the very least based on our previous actions

The fighting needs to be stopped ASAP

 

The kurd issue in Turkey is a good point. It's another issue that contributes to the lack of unity against the syrian regime as Turkey is more worried about an independent Kurdish state rising out of all this which in my mind is both inevitable and the correct thing. Those who cannot safely lodge in Turkey due to this prejudice by all means should be allowed on to the next safe state to claim asylum. If we consider Turkey to be unsafe for human rights issues then it should in no way be allowed to be part of either NATO or the EU.

 

Aberdeen i have just seen your gun

 

Yep - the biggest priority. Unfortunately, as always, the great and the good can't even decide the best way to sort that out...