'Paying Sue Gray £170,000 is a bad political misjudgement - and there's something even more disturbing'

Some say it is wrong the public sector does not pay much higher amounts to top people in Number 10 given the importance of what they do.

As someone who had a well paid senior job in Downing Street as Margaret Thatcher's head of policy and strategy and who had much better paid jobs in the private sector I disagree.

There is no shortage of talent wanting to do top jobs close to the Prime Minister. Most of us did them with a sense of public service, and accepted they paid less than our private sector jobs would deliver with their incentive and bonus schemes.

You only need to offer more pay if the talent pool is thin. It is not for Number 10.

You pay more pay in the private sector based on performance through incentive plans which the public sector does not match as it is a different kind of activity with different risks. People in top public sector jobs are less likely to get sacked and enjoy good pensions.

As a politically exposed figure at the heart of government, a senior adviser needs to be conscious of how it looks to the millions of taxpayers paying your bill.

You should not want to be the story detracting from what the Prime Minister you serve needs to get across as messages to the country.

I received a touching letter when I first arrived as a young man on a good salary in the Prime Minister's office from someone on a low income.

She said she assumed I was worth the pay I was getting but would I always bear in mind what it is like to live on a much smaller income.

It was good advice which I often drew on.

Sue Gray came to the post of Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Opposition then Prime Minister from a senior civil role. Her skill sets are said to be working with the wider civil service to get things done properly, and high standards of propriety for senior figures.

She had been an enforcer of standards on past Prime Ministers and members of Cabinet. These are important skills and experiences, of value to a new Prime Minister. They should not, however, be unique . All senior civil servants should be versed in them.

What is disturbing is the growing evidence that on her watch these high standards and proper process are not being followed by others.

Why was there a mistake over registering Mrs Starmer's gifts from donors?

Why the mess over appointing a donor to a paid job and over a pass to Downing Street for another donor?

Why was there no impact assessment of the politically explosive proposal to take winter heating help away from low income pensioners just as energy bills go up by 10 per cent?

MORE FROM GBN MEMBERSHIP:

Why did the Chancellor promise no spending and tax announcements without an Office of Budget Responsibility Report and forecast when not doing so for important announcements?

The government announced a series of expensive inflation busting pay awards with saying how they will be paid for and went ahead with the fuel change.

Why did the government announce a policy of net zero carbon from electricity generation by 2030, before the Energy Secretary knew the costs or whether it was possible?

Why did the pledge of £300 off energy bills from more renewables go missing on colliding with the reality of the high costs of transition?

Most people looking at this would not give Number 10 high marks for ensuring due process and meeting good standards of transparency.

It says to me it was a bad political misjudgement to put the Chief of Staff's pay above the Prime Minister's and to treat her better than other privileged senior advisers.

The media assure us there is massive anger from other senior Labour aides and Cabinet members.

Sue Gray should not be the story. She needs to create more harmony amongst the top team ,whilst upping their collective game in obeying the rules and offering an open account of what they are doing and why.

The Prime Minister should expect better performance from his Chief of Staff who needs to help get Number 10 and the rest of government up to much better standards of transparency and good administration.

Telling low income pensioners to take a cut to cover the cost of the train drivers pay award was bad enough.

To add Sue Gray's high salary as another spending priority looks like political ineptitude. Any senior civil servant who becomes politically exposed takes on risks and criticism that senior civil servants usually avoid.