What is so special about a rich MP?

d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/thepeoplesassembly/mailings/404/attachments/original/Charlotte_Meme_1.jpg?1460475153

Nothing special about a rich MP. They are ten a penny at the moment.
That's why we need to get rid of them and make parliament more representative.

Ah, the class warfare rears it's ugly head .

I guess Momentum will be going all out to make sure Labour candidates will fulfill that wish but to be honest I call it class warfare.

Are you saying Parliament would have been better without the likes of Tony Benn, Michael Meacher, Margaret Hodge, Harriet Harmen , Emily Thornberry et al?

Well, you can get rid of Emily Thornberry as soon as you like - awful woman!!

(and it's not often I disagree that strongly with you, POGS)

Yes, better without Emily Thornberry

I wasn't sure about her, thinking she had had bad a press and gave her the benefit of the doubt - then I saw her on QT

That is an interesting point. Not sure I agree though. Going back to the ordinary I guess. I personally do not want many ordinary people in Parliament I think it takes some extraordinary to do the job. Not even sure I would want ordinary as district councillors either,. A few would be ok.

If you get rid of all rich MPs, then parliament is no longer representative of every part of society. That is not democracy. Wealth should be no more a bar to public office than should poverty be.

Andgetting rid of the rich does smack of the worst excesses of the French Revolution - kill off all the rich/aristocrats and vive les sans culottes. Bring out the guillotine, and pass durhamjen her knitting needles!

I don't have a problem with wealthy MP's but admit I find some 'new money' MP's like many 'new money' people boring and so very puffed up.

Poor Alan Duncan is desperate to get off the back benches hence the attempt of his blue eyed brown fingers comment .

If you get rid of all rich MPs, then parliament is no longer representative of every part of society
I would agree with that statement.
I have no problem with people being wealthy (echoes of Peter Mandelson) providing they have paid their taxes and have behaved in a moral fashion and not exploited other people.

To come from an ordinary background then to succeed in any field - politics, business etc, requires a certain intelligence (not necessarily academic) combined with ambition and drive.

However, what annoys me is nepotism in politics (and in other areas such as acting). Although one could consider that politics and acting may attract the same kinds of people.

It isn't representative of society as a whole now, so what's the problem.

The government front bench is full of millionnaires. They have no idea how most of the people they represent live.
Many <MPs are parachuted in to the constituencies they represent, from a list of favourites knowing nothing whatever about the area.
It's wrong.
Emily Thornberry is doing a very good job at the moment. Tories obviously will not agree.

i0.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/160412MPmillionaires.jpg?w=421

I hadn't realised it was this bad.

"As well as his MPs’ salary of £74,962, Mr Duncan is paid £8,000 a month as a non-executive Chairman of an Dubai oil company, for which he works just 12 hours a month."

I'm sorry but I can't let this go. Your winding us up aren't you DJ.

You want shut of wealthy MP's and your hatred of millionaires in the Tory party is widely accepted. Yet you think Labour millionaires are fine because they are in the Labour Party. Emily Thornberry / Lady Nugee quite possibly has more wealth than Cameron yet that's of no consequence , why, because she is Labour. Hypocrisy.

This is the same Emily Thornberry, Shadow Defence Minister, who has made such dumb remarks over defence issues even Labour Lord West couldn't restrain himself from saying she spoke 'nonsense'. The same Shadow Defence Minister who even her own party heckled her . Ye gods.

If only djen was winding us up! No, she is deadly serious IMHO.
Scary, huh?

What do you suggest that DC and GO do with their houses while they are living in Downing St? What did previous incumbents do? If we were forced to move for our jobs I think we would rent out our homes, why not?

Some of the biggest millionaires in this country are Labour but that is okay because they give all their millions to the oppressed masses don't they

Tony Blair rented out his house, then sold it because he had enough money to buy something much grander.

I am deeply suspicious of people who hate other people and dismiss them because they are poor/rich, own their own house/ live in rented accommodation. Most of all I am deeply suspicious of anyone who thinks that being poor/rich , owna house/ rent a CH is evil when the person concerned does not share your political views but OK if they do.

It is only a short step from there to hating/approving of people because of their religion. race or gender. The thought processes are the same. It is just the targets that differ.

It's unfair and most rude to accuse any poster of HATING, dislike , disapprove , yes but HATE no

If anyone in the Forces owned their house it was quite usual to rent it out if you had an overseas posting.

I do not like Mr Duncan and his sneering attitude, but if someone offered you
£8,000 a month as a non-executive Chairman of an Dubai oil company, for which you work just 12 hours a month. would you turn it down?

I don't think I would
But I would pay my tax.

My concern is not so much rich MPs per se, but rather that they often come across as arrogant and with a sense of entitlement simply because they are rich.

I have not accused any individual or group of poster/s of anything. I would never do so. I merely expressed concern about individuals in general who express strong negative feelings (a nice euphemism) in the way described in the rest of the post.

Monica, I am sorry , I should have included a name in my post on hatred. I hadn't read your post. The post I was referring to was from POGS where she says 'YOUR hatred etc' i dislike Cameron very much, I think he is a liar, a bully and lacks what I class good breeding. I do not hate him and I don't read hatred of an individual in Jens posts , Jen is a poster who speaks out against injustice , she msy hate injustice, I don't know, I do believe her anger is directed st. a persons actions or lack of action not the person

I can see nothing whatsoever wrong with a Labour MP being relatively wealthy, unless they are using their position to introduce or continue to maintain regulations that will enhance their wealth and protect it in ways that will inevitably have a negative effect on the general population. It is, of course, at this point that Conservatives point gleefully to Tony Blair and cite his vast wealth, but TB was very much on the right of the Labour Party and increasingly adopted Tory-lite policies. After all, Mrs Thatcher referred to him proudly as her political "heir".

The difference between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party is that - whatever the financial standing of their individual MPs - the Labour Party has endeavoured to bring in measures that enhance the economic, educational, housing and health position of the population as a whole (through the state pension, NHS, social housing, minimum wage, etc. etc.) while Conservatives MPs have invariably opposed such measures.

Why put relatively?

Annie, a mistake that is easy to do, I have done it myself! An accident of time of posting.

Eloethan, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there is nothing wrong with a labour party politician being wealthy, then there is nothing wrong in a conservative party politician being wealthy. Anything else is having the double standards I described in my last post.

We have two main political parties and several small ones. None of them, big or smal,l has a monopoly of virtue, rectitude or truth. If anyone wants to advocate the policies of any party, it should be done on the objective facts of the case and without impuning the characters of the politicians or others as part of the attack on the policies.

Quite separately, of course the character of those leading the parties should be judged for their capacity to do run the country, regardless of their policies. The way Jeremy Corbyn has been shown to be bumbling and disorganised over his tax form, neither giving it his full intention himself, nor paying an accountant to do it for him mut give a cause for concern about his capacity to lead the government of any kind of organisation, let alone the government of a company. David Cameron's inabilty to leave his career as a spin doctor behind him and realise that what works in PR is utterly inappropriate when running a government equallydoes the British Government a grave disservice.

Monica I agree there is nothing wrong with a Conservative MP or an MP from any other party being wealthy, but the matter that was being discussed was rich Labour MPs. However, I feel that if a wealthy politician is seen to use his/her power and influence when changes to regulatory issues relating to tax and other financial matters are being discussed then they are not acting in the interests of the whole population but of themselves and similarly wealthy people.

I agree with you that there are politicians on all sides of the political spectrum whose motives and actions may be viewed with suspicion. In such instances, I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to comment on such matters. When Alan Duncan pontificates about "achievers" and "enterprise" when his own behaviour in office has not been exactly "virtuous", as you put it, he deserve to be criticised.

As to the capacity of someone to "run the country", it is very much a matter of opinion as to whether this government has done a good job in that respect. Despite massive public spending cuts, the Financial Times and City AM point out that several of George Osborne's economic targets have not been met. In trying to "shrink the state", this government has created chaos in the NHS, stagnating or falling wages, insecure employment and any number of other social ills that leave the UK's population in an unhealthier, less educated and poorer state than when the Conservatives came into office. An example of this is the recent UN reprimand to Britain for failing to improve children's wellbeing, with the disclosure that the UK is ranked 25th out of 27 wealthy countries (behind Poland, Romania and Slovenia) for children's health and educational outcomes. In the 6th wealthiest country in the world, I don't consider this to be an indicator of a successfully run country.