What’s bigger, “peanuts” or “chicken feed”?
I know that Bright Green readers are also avid fans of the Daily Telegraph, so you have no doubt seen the page 16 story that suggests this knotty arithmetical conundrum.
The official paper of the UK’s retired Colonels gets stuck right in to John Ransford, the former head of the LGA, who said of his £245,000 salary (plus £57k pension) “some would consider it peanuts” (he went on to say “I don’t – I regard it as high pay”).
I applaud the Tele’s editorial boldness, given that this is the same newspaper who disburse £250,000 to Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson for a rather less full-time occupation, namely shouting BAAAAAAHHHHHH and getting a staff member to transcribe it and email it to the Telegraph comment editor. Mr Johnson describes this sum as “chicken feed”.
The Taxpayer’s Alliance said of Mr Ransford’s remuneration:
Taxpayers would be disgusted to hear him describe £300,000 as peanuts. It’s outrageous.
Famously, the same organisation said of Mr Johnson’s chicken-feed remittance:
We conclude therefore that “peanuts” is less than £300,000, but that “chicken feed” is equal to or more than £250,000. Glad that’s sorted.
To celebrate, let’s have a song: