What is so special about a rich MP?

To my shame, I have not read through this thread, but my first thought on reading the title is "Depends if he's cute or not"

Cameron has a degree.

Corbyn was awarded the Ghandhi International Peace Award for constant effororts over 30 years parliamentary career to uphold the ghandhian value of social justice and non violence

Spot on Eloethan.

The Spectator is currently owned by the Barclay Brothers who also own The Daily Telegraph newspaper. As with most of our press, it invariably supports the Conservative Party, and editors of the Spectator have included Iain Macleod, Ian Gilmour and Nigel Lawson, who later became cabinet members. The article posted should perhaps be viewed in that context.

The comments made regarding Blair, Mandelson and Campbell I agree with. Many members and supporters of the Labour Party would, I think, go along with them and that is why the Blairites in the party (the so-called "modernisers") are not very popular. And yet when it came to the Labour leadership election the Blairites were the very people that the right wing press and media were implying were the only people fit to be considered for the leadership.

Then there are the usual attacks on any Labour MPs or ministers regarding where they were educated, where they live and what they earn, etc.

The article says about Miliband "he has acknowledged that his house, valued at £2.3 million, would be subject to the sort of mansion tax he wants to introduce." Well, that's exactly the point isn't it - even though the tax would have hit him and some of his friends, that didn't make him think it was a bad idea. Cameron went out of his way to protect offshore trusts from EU tax avoidance measures and Conservatives are much keener to increase VAT, which hits the less well off much harder than the better off, than to increase income tax at the higher end.

It seems to me that, so far as the right wing media is concerned, hardly anybody who stands as a Labour MP is to be respected or trusted. If they are from a privileged background, well educated and wealthy then they are hypocrites and "champagne socialists", and if they are from a poorer "blue collar" background and state school educated they are "not up to scratch", "low achievers", motivated by the "politics of envy".

Cornwall is very 'posh' too, although I never realised it at the time!
(it was just the nearest place to go to and sometimes very damp.)

In that case jalima we are very posh indeed.

Oh yes, I forgot him, the son of a circus performer.

Although DD had a friend at college who was terribly posh. When he visited he told me that his father was working in the Middle East; I asked (out of interest) what he did. He said 'he's a clown'.

No, some have expensive holidays abroad and some go camping in the Lake District
A few years ago, apparently, the most 'posh' holiday was to go camping in France. None of yer Costas, very infra dig.

There seems to be a lot of inverse snobbery around at the moment.I f you can afford public school fees for your children and you think it the best education for them, then what's wrong with that? Do we all take comparable holidays for example? No, some have expensive holidays abroad and some go camping in the Lake District... Do we all make a fuss about it? In other words, what you earn and what you choose to spend your money on is up to you.So, to diss Cameron because he went to Eton, is like dissing a politician who attended a comprehensive, it would be ridiculous.

John Major?

I agree with the rest of your post, Jalima.

I do like to take a balanced view, however, sometimes it is very difficult because of the extreme views of some who make me want to play Devil's Advocate.

Presumably it was OK for Labour millionaires to demolish the houses of many people who owned them, causing utmost distress to the owners, promising 'better' homes (not better and not forthcoming in some cases).

It was OK because they were Labour politicians. However, had they been Conservative 'millionaire' politicians we would never have heard the last of it.

DC's parents chose Eton for his education because they could afford it and he has not been able to live down the choice they made for him when he was a child.
JC's parents were fairly wealthy too, and he went to the local grammar school (a very good one) where he attained mediocre - no, let's be truthful - very poor results.
What does that say about Britain today? It tells me that one man has achieved the top job in politics from a privileged background and a good education at a public school and the other could achieve it if a General Election went his way from a privileged background and a good education of which he did not take full advantage.

I do not think we have had a PM in this country from an ordinary background since Margaret Thatcher. (and no, Gordon Brown's background was not exactly ordinary as far as I am concerned.)

Perhaps the country needs another PM of the people.

Its bleeding non-obvious to me.

Not trashing things because you do not use them or care a hoot seems just as heinous as any other such activity.

Anyway how do you know what the m,optives of the Conservative millionaires is? Other than those you attribute them.

On the judgement basis you use all Labour millionaires are just value signalers parading around claiming they support the Labour party knowing that it doesn't matter because they can always buy themselves out of any minor inconveniences supporting the party might cause.

Its not about how much money you are born with or without
MPs are there to serve the public.
It should not be for profit or ego.

I have my eyes wide open .

None so blind....

So there you have it.

There is nothing wrong in having millionaires as MP's and your posts that state we 'should get rid of them' is totally about partisan politics, not wealth .

For heavens sake, talk about stating the bleeding obvious.

The difference is that the Labour millionnaires have not trashed the benefit system , have not nearly quadrupled foodbanks - because none of their families would ever need one , have not almost demolished the NHS - because they do not need it - have not threatened to privatise the education system.

Is that bleeding obvious as well? It is to me.

For heavens sake talk about stating the bleeding obvious, ALL party's have millionaires. If you don't see the hypocrisy of only berating one party whilst accepting it is perfectly acceptable for other party's is quite ridiculous. The political spin, class warfare, 'dislike' of a certain party is apparent and laughable when you try to say other wise.

Funny how nobody bothered when Miliband and Co were on the opposition benches. Had Corbyn not got shot of them or they didn't want to serve with him, whichever the case maybe, then no doubt the voices of class warfare would remain shtum. Some labour MP have died, some didn't stand at the last election, some still sit on the opposition benches , some have taken their pieces of silver from the EU.

I wonder what Corbyns family Inhereitence was? His family wasn't short of a Bob or two but I find it interesting in google /related search you can find Cameron and Miliband WORTH but Corbyn WEALTH it only divulges his present earnings .

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5146709/labour-politicians-millionaires.html

www.spectator.co.uk/2013/09/socialist-climbing/

More Labour names could put forward with links connecting them to the world of finance and banking, wealth and tax dealings . No party can be singled out as pious, , no party!

OK, but people of all denominations linked to politics if we are to be pedantic!

The Kinnocks are not MP's
Sorry to Lord Kinnock, Baroness Kinnock and all other Kinnocks either by birth or by marriage, connected or not connected to politics.
I do apologise, Neil and Glen and family who are not MPs or MEPs any longer but who didn't disappear into the wide blue yonder.

I did mention nepotism as being a particular dislike of mine.

Some are born rich, some achieve richness, some have richness thrust upon them.

IDS left, and he was one. Mind, he's still a millionnaire MP.
I do not know about the one who has taken over from Stephen Crabb at the Welsh office.

78% of MPs being millionnaires does make them ten a penny, though.
Don't you feel sorry for the other 22%, particularly those who have to sit near Alan Duncan?

The Kinnocks are not MP's

14 a penny then

14 of them in the cabinet, Jalima. Mind, I think that was before the latest resignations.

I think he made 5000 BP workers redundant, Eloethan, so they had no hand in anything.

I can see nothing whatsoever wrong with a Labour MP being relatively wealthy
OK, so just in the interests of fairness (please understand!):
www.spectator.co.uk/2013/09/socialist-climbing
Yes, I know it is slightly out of date, but I doubt any have since given away their millions to the deserving poor.

And of course, I would not point the finger at any for tax evasion!
And in answer to the OP - no there is nothing special about a rich MP - they seem to be ten a penny.

Mr Dudley, the CEO of BP, has just got an increase of 20%, bringing his total pay to around £14 million, despite BP losing several billion.

It is true that this loss resulted mainly from the fall in oil prices and that the rationale for his increase is that "despite the challenging environment, BP delivered strong operating and safety performance throughout 2015". However, presumably the other people that work for BP also had a hand in this - Mr Dudley didn't work single-handedly to achieve it. The salaries of other executives and workers appear not to have been increased.

When a company is losing money, even though that loss may not be the fault of its bosses or its workers but primarily due to market conditions, ordinary workers are often told that their pay will be reduced/frozen or they are to be laid off/work shorter hours for extended periods. Meanwhile, CEOs, who are already paid on average 180 times more than the majority of workers, do not have to tighten their belts.

The remuneration committee used its discretion to let him keep the money.
If he wants goodwill, there is no reason why he cannot refuse it, is there?
He could give some of it back to shareholders, couldn't he?
Why does anyone need that much money in a year?