Eliot Wilson Eliot Wilson

Why shouldn’t Sue Gray earn £170,000?

Sue Gray (Credit: Getty images)

We are a day short of Sir Keir Starmer marking 11 weeks as prime minister. His first 76 days have not been easy ones, and it is striking how often they have been dogged by relatively minor stories which have nonetheless contrived to make the new occupant of Downing Street look out of touch, high-handed or even slightly grasping. The most recent brickbat is a report that Starmer’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, earns more than her boss, receiving a salary of £170,000.

The mechanics of this have been clumsy: shortly after Starmer took office, he signed off on a shake-up of pay scales for special advisers which was, in truth, long overdue. The net results, however, come together as a toxic mixture: Gray not only outearns the PM, she is paid around £25,000 more than her predecessor, Liam (now Lord) Booth-Smith. Salaries for political advisers, it seems, are rising at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is warning Whitehall departments of swingeing cuts in public spending.

If we want the best people, they will have to receive substantial remuneration

This is a communications failure which, while not fatal, is damaging by accumulation.

Written by
Eliot Wilson

Eliot Wilson was a clerk in the House of Commons 2005-16, including on the Defence Committee. He is a member of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

Topics in this article

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in