Sniping over Blair’s security is unfair

By Mark Ferguson / @markfergusonuk

As reported this morning, the cost to the taxpayer of Tony Blair’s security was £250,000 last year. On the surface this is an eye watering sum, especially during a time of government belt-tightening. However we should not be taken in by the size of the claim, or the caterwauling from the right wing press.

Whether we like it or not, Tony Blair was forced to make many difficult decisions as Prime Minister and David Cameron and all of their mutual successors will be forced to do the same. Often those decisions will be unpopular, and sometimes those unpopular decisions may lead to protest, civil unrest and death threats. Prime Ministers must be able to make the decisions that they believe are in the interests of the country at all times, without living in fear that once they are out of power they will be in the firing line. Would it really be preferable for governments to shirk tough decisions in order to lower the security costs of former-PM’s further down the line?

One example which seems to have got the press into a rage is that security forces have stayed in five-star hotels with the Blairs when they have been on holiday. It is unclear what the papers would have had the security services, or the Blair family, do differently. It stands to reason that if your job is to protect an individual then you need to remain in close proximity to them – even if they are staying in a flash hotel. Perhaps the preferable option might have been for the Blairs to have not travelled around the world on expensive holidays, but after ten years in a high stress job where family time is at a premium, how can we make moral judgements about how our former leaders spend their time?

These complaints seem to be particular to Blair, and don’t seem to extend to his predecessors. I don’t object to the security detail that Margaret Thatcher continues to retain, despite my intense distaste for so many of her policies. The venom felt towards Thatcher by many on the left (including on occasion myself) is what has convinced me that high security for former leaders is necessary. Although of course the vast majority wouldn’t want to commit physical violence of any kind against either Thatcher or Blair, there are those that would, and in a lawful society they should be stopped by any means necessary – however costly.