To: Electronic Telegraph <et.letters@telegraph.co.uk>

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

I can well understand that the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) - and others for whom money is the measure of all things - are annoyed at Tony Blair for refusing to play ball and accept his full salary, since this calls into question their own greedy, materialistic values (Blair and Cabinet urged to draw full salaries, 17 March 2001).

It is worth bearing in mind that even at their reduced levels, the Prime Minister and his cabinet members are receiving about 5 and 4 times the average national wage, respectively, which to my mind, should be enough for any fair-minded person.

By pointing out that in some cases ministers earn just a fifth of what comparable counterparts in the private sector do, highlights the complete lack of any sense of proportion and fairness in the system as it stands, or in the values that underlie it. I strongly suspect that some members of the SSRB are in this category themselves, with incomes of perhaps 20 times or more the national average. 

Could it be that the Prime Minister and his cabinet are giving these people a bad conscience?

I hope so.

It is also worth reflecting on the fact that in Britain even "just an average" wage (which I believe is about £22,000 per annum) would represent a fortune to the majority of people in the world.

Yet if everyone on our planet enjoyed just an average British wage, the resulting demands that would inevitably be placed Earth's finite resources and limited carrying capacity would disrupt its climate and life-supporting ecosystems so quickly and to such an extent that the consequences do not bear thinking about. 

The Prime Minister's noble gesture is a lot more important than he probably realises. Only it needs to be elevated from a gesture to a principle.

What is needed is a voluntary, personal change of attitude(s). And I am not being idealistic, but pragmatic, since  it is probably all that can save us (or the generations that come after us). 

I'm not about to suggest that the wealthy give ALL their money and processions to the poor and live in poverty (Jesus was a bit of an extremist, and not only on that score), but that they should consider what share of Earth's wealth they are personally entitled to - to a fair share (whatever that may be), or to as large a share as they can possibly get their hands on?

---