I believe EC did make some reference along those lines but I would have to resort to Google or my record collection in the attic to be certain. So you have won !
Let us say that Mr X does an ordinary but fairly responsible job for an ordinary salary of £50k per year. A journalist wanting to write a tendentious article might add together the salaries received over a 40 year career and report that X 'has been paid £2 million'. X might be entitled to be paid a pension of £25K per year, an entitlement earned over a long career. The same journalist might say that if X lives collect that pension for 40 years, that means X 'gets a £1 million pension'. Then he could add together the salary and the pension for a headline figure of X 'getting £3million'. Why would the journalist write such twaddle? In order to try and concoct a story implying that X has been paid too much, or is excessively wealthy, or is somehow corrupt, simply on the basis that X has been paid a salary and gets a retirement pension. The basic figures may be accurate enough, given that they are simply a matter of public record - it is the calculations based on them which are preposterous and made-up. A similar set of ridiculous calculations could be made for anyone who has ever worked for a salary or who receives a pension, whether as a manager, a doctor, an engineer, a lawyer, or whatever ... newspaper editors and journalists, for example. And newspaper proprietors (like Murdoch and the Barclays) get paid vastly more than any of the politicians they snipe at. Why pick on Neil Kinnock? Simply because the gutter press has come to believe that in his case they can get away with vicious smears and distortions, and that there are still some readers out there willing to swallow this guff whole. Looks like they're right.
What are 'modest means' you ask? Well, let's start with what really are grossly excessive means: the Billions paid to the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Russian oligarchs, the tens of millions paid to failed bankers like Fred Goodwin and football players, and the millions paid (each year, not just in total) to many thousands of financiers. Then we come down to the level of substantial means, as earned by successful actors, top barristers, bestselling authors, top surgeons, CEOs of medium sized companies, and the like - £1million per year or so. Well below that are the well-paid, the likes of ordinary General Practitioners in the NHS (all of whom get over £100K per year), chartered surveyors, solicitors, headteachers, judges, high-level managers in every field - and there are hundreds of thousands of those in the UK. Far below even that level, UK MPs currently receive £66K per year, and MEPs Euros84K (i.e. roughly the same). Those are the kinds of salaries the Kinnocks (and every other MP and MEP) have been paid during their service. It suits media moguls (who are paid vastly more money for vastly less responsible work) to describe this, idiotically, as a "gravy train". Their motives are not at all obscure.
Rupert Murdcoch isn't paid billions Pete, he has seen the value of the businesses he started increase by billions over his lifetime, and just think how many people he has employed and the taxes they have paid. He is at the pinnacle of the capitalist system that has increased the standard of living of all of us to levels only dreamt of just a few decades ago. He has earned every penny he has by working hard all his life, keeping the people informed and alerted to the excesses of those in government is no easy task.
very easy, put a snoop on a drain pipe with a camera, blackmail. to strong a word? or am i just being cynical.
That's exactly what I said - he is indeed paid billions, and he is paid by means of the increases in the value of the businesses he owns. When you say he "isn't paid billions", that is just utter nonsense - as you well know.
Some capitalists have certainly done a lot to increase the standard of living of all of us, but Rupert Murdoch is not one of them. He makes his money by peddling lies to the people, corrupting public life, abusing power to secure impunity, and perpetrating grotesque excesses of his own. You fond of calling people "unelected" - well Murdoch is a good example of truly unelected power.
You object to people aggregating Kinnocks lifetime earnings, money that has come directly from the taxpayer, yet you are happy to describe an increase in the value of Murdoch's shareholding as 'pay' despite the fact that the value of those shares can drop in the future. But then you obviously don't like Murdoch yet hold the likes of Kinnock and Blair in high regard. Double standards I think Pete.
Pete I am not a fan of the man nor his business model nor the excesses his staff get up to, I throw others in there as well. However Pete we could easily insert another name a relatively recent former prime minister who wishes to be 'president' of Europe could we not?
I feel that Pete is rather glossing over the fact that, even if we disregard the argument over the "aggregated earnings" over a lifetime of dedicated and invaluable service to the British/European taxpayers, we are not just talking of "modest" salaries of £50K here. Unless the press has published complete lies, Glenys has a PENSION of £60K+ and Neil gets far more. Now to put it in perspective, the current HMRC "LIfetime allowance" for pensions is £1.25m (greatly reduced by the coalition, from Gordon's original limit of £1.8m - so much for the "tax cuts for millionaires" nonsense), which in the case of a defined benefit pension (like those of the Kinnocks) is compared to the actual pension multiplied by 20. So the pension of Glenys alone is valued at around the limit (or more) although as she has probably already started drawing it she will have got in before the limit was reduced. Very, very, few people retire on a pension of £60K+. To achieve that using a private pension, at current very low interest/annuity rates, would require savings of considerably more than £1.25 million (so punitive taxation now that the limit has been reduced), especially with inflation indexation, spouse benefits, etc (all of which you can be sure are bundled up into the Kinnock's arrangements).
Did anyone on here watch the frankly disgracefull behaviour of the press outside the court on BBC news?Mrs Brooks was manhandled,blocked and had a gaggle of reporters firing questions at her in a manner which certainly didnt allow her to respond in any way due to the hand em high questioning and questioning inundation.The BBC reporter then said on his report that she refused to give an answer.She had no chance to and,to me,has once again shown that the press just have not learnt from the whole experience whatso ever.Whilst I am certainly not a fan of the News of the World and associated practises,others should look more closely at their own before commenting.Shame on you all press.
