Do you consider the UK taxpayer should be spending this, or indeed any level of expense on guarding past prime ministers?
Guarding Blair – £250,000 last year…
Do you consider the UK taxpayer should be spending this, or indeed any level of expense on guarding past prime ministers?
Boadicea's Chariot 
Yes. PMs make decisions on our behalf that do not always please some people either at home or abroad. There are probably more nutters wandering the planet than ever before and if one of these bears a grudge then they can take extreme action. If we vote someone into this position then the least we can do is protect them and their family from some form of lunatic or misguided retribution.
Quite honestly – no. If being driven around by his wife with no guards was good enough for Atlee, it’ll suffice for Blair and Brown, God rot them!
Zen
I remember reading once that when Amercan Presidents finishd their term of office they reverted to being the average Joe, there is one case of an ex President making his way from the White House to the rail station and getting the train back to his home town. As the world became a crueller place guards had to be employed to protect them. When Atlee walked away from No10 he had little to fear, the same cannot be said now. I detest b liar as much as the next man but I would not like to see him or his family gunned down in the street.
No, he should be locked up! Unfortunately, I have to agree with you, although it grieves me something terrible!
In general, yes I think the expense is justified. But for Blair or Brown, I think the protection should be removed. They just do not deserve it.
OMG – You cannot protect anyone in this world from the actions of a determined lunatic or assassin, with whatever level of security you choose to pay for. It seems to me completely over the top that British politicians consider that their actions in political life justify this burden on the taxpayer for the rest of their lives.
The late King Hussein, throughout his long life, insisted on minimal levels of security – frequently drove himself to his children’s minor league baseball games, where he would stand with the rest of us cheering them on, and expressed the view repeatedly that his point of departure from this earth rested entirely in God’s hands and no amount of security would change that. I would suggest to you, that with some 20+ failed assassination attempts against him, he had more cause for concern than any British ex-P.M., Blair included.
I think that when Blair is ‘on business’ for one of his multi-nationals, they should pay. On diplomatic business the sponsoring countries should pay.
CWJ – Setting aside for a moment the knee-jerk reactions of, “Well if he was in jail for war crimes then he wouldn’t need protection except possibly from the phycho in cell 46 who wants to play ‘pick up the soap’ with him” and, “With a gob like that she needs shooting”, I suppose protection ought normally to be offered. But the grinning, tanned multi-millionaire now has a high profile, lucrative and private career as a direct result of his tenure of No. 10 and is well able to pay for his own security. Make it so.
OZ
If Blair wants to be protected, let him sort it and pay for it.
Had Blair not been Prime Minister, he would not have been in a position to make anything like as much money as he does now. Yes, he served the country, but lets not think for one minute it was an act of altruism. He has benefited hugely and I think he should certainly pay a significant portion of his expenses. Were he to have retired or to have continued to serve the country or was otherwise unable to afford the cost, then perhaps it should be born by the tax payer. As he kept telling us, if he has done nothing wrong, he has nothing to fear.
If Bliar is on official business yes, but when he is out doing his talks getting paid thousands per minute no. He can pay for himself.
Also why do his kids warrant protection? then it will be grandkids and so on.
Let him pay out of the money he’s ‘earning’…