Inherited wealth millionaires sitting as labour politicians

Looking at our political labour bench in the UK I see that most of its seats are filled by millionaires who have inherited or had the easy way to wealth opportunity - yet they represent the labour party.

Joe public accepts these people because we have little or no choice, but is it a conspiracy by the wealthy to back people who have no relation to the public over whose lives they govern by basically what is a two party system only?

I don't know about the USA but presume as the class system seems to apply to mostly those with their unelected royalty feeding off the fat of the land, if there is a similar division politically there as well?

I am not saying that the wealthy should be penalysed against working for the working class but I wonder how, from their backgrounds, they really understand the general public and their situation - especially during these times of such austerity?

reply to post by Shiloh7


The simple answer to that, is that they cannot possibly have a clue what the people they are allegedly representing are thinking, feeling, needing and what is affecting them, and what that really means.

Frankly we have not had a true Labour Party for about thirty years. The last bunch to be what I would consider proper working fellows, who had taken up the banner for the common man, left office and politics well before I was born in 1985.

Since that, we have had increasing levels of disconnection between the Labour Party and the voting public. As a result, there is no longer a socialist element in modern British politics, and I for one think that stinks. I do not think it is necessary for me to explain what I believe has lead to this terrible state of affairs, which means a total lack of representation of the common man, by any party ,let alone the one which would traditionally have done so. We all know the history of this particular farce, but the crucial thing now is to combat it.

Right now, socialist politics in the UK has taken such a bashing, that over the last ten years, the very term has become almost a dirty word, no doubt as a result of failiures in education, and a lack of awareness in the newer generations, of what it actually is, or indeed of what anything that happened before 1997 actually was.

Someone needs to take a stand, and announce PROUDLY that we SHOULD have a free, and equal access health service, that we SHOULD have a comprehensive unemployment benifit, that we SHOULD be ensuring that all jobs offer a living wage, that we SHOULD prevent excess earnings in parliament and in Whitehall, and we SHOULD be fighting Tory party theft at every turn.

We should be out in the streets announcing that blatant profiteering in ANY arena is not acceptable, that those who have the most should bear the greatest burden in terms of tax, and I do not mean just by paying a greater number of pounds, but paying a VAST proportion of thier salaries to government. Everyone knows that the people who earn bugger all, despite doing all the real work around this Godforsaken rock, pay HUGE percentages of thier yearly wealth to government, to the point where a council tax bill can ruin a person if they havent got thier crap together.

But stupendously wealthy people? They can pay half a million and more and not even notice, because they have TEN million plus in various bank accounts world wide. Why is that allowed? No one can earn tens of millions of pounds by hard graft. You earn that sort of money by ownership, which is not work and therefore should have NO BLOODY REWARD! One should SWEAT for thier bread, not sit in an office rubbing ones hands together over ones burgeoning property portfolio. And yet it is those who do just this, who currently populate the Labour Party, them and those you mention who were born to thier money, and have never so much as received a splinter, nor changed a tap, nor a car battery, or even wiped thier own fundament after performing thier toilet.

I would agree with the OP in a sense that the politics tends to be an arena for those of means and an abundance of time to dedicate to their mission/platform. It is difficult for the 9-5 worker to have time to effectively devote time to politics beyond reading it in the morning newspaper or watching it on television. In this sense, this barrier to entry, monetary requirement/ time requirement keeps many of the "average joes" from participating.

I will paraphrase a favored personality of mine, Neil Degrasse Tyson who asks: Where are all the scientists in politics? Why are they not our leaders?

I personally would love a paradigm shift to the above. I also believe in the idea that anyone who wants to be the leader of men, should probably not be given such a role.

We also mistakenly presume that ones ability to amass wealth or has wealth will also be an effective leader of nation.

As TrueBrit said, we need a solution to the huge gap between those wealthy politicians (in the UK) that represent the working public as well as the poorer, weaker and younger members of our society. That gap has never been so aparent as it is today and the people so badly represented.

I do hope that we will get either more people relevant to the Labour ideals in politicis or a number of parties so that we get rid of the accursed two party system. I cannot help wonder regarding our two partys' about the Bilderberg set/meetings, when I see a top man from the Tory side as well as a top one from Labour side attending their meetings, because it virtually confirms that both party's agree with the Bilderberg agenda, otherwise it would only be Tory Ministers who attend. Bildenbergers don't meet as a world charity, they meet to organize their control over the world's markets and peoples.

I watched the huge demonstration in Egypt and could not help thinking that there, the general public were free to protest to try to get change yet here, the harrassment by the police would be immediate were we to gather and ask for change. They would arrest as many as they could, because once arrested and charged with public disorder or similar, one's job would be on the line due to the effect a charge of this nature on one's the CAB report would have eg.- it could make one unemployable. Although we think the CAB report is to protect our children and vulnerable from paedophiles and violent individuals etc, the CAB works also as a very effective form of blackmail on anyone of working age. It effectively stops people from protesting because they cannot afford to loose their jobs and we have no other means of protest.

reply to post by Shiloh7


Do you mean the CRB check?

I dont think the Citizens Advice Blokes :p would give a crap about it.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Ha ha, you're right, the CRB - you can tell I'm retired. My son's were talking and decided I was the best member of the family to send on a protest because being charged etc wouldn't bother me. They have laughed in the past when I have protested because I go dressed very smartly and it seems to put off the cavalier attitude some police have when confronted with a suit and a smile. You can't beat them but you can talk and make them see why you are there, often they quietly agree with you. One son works with two ex coppers, both left because of conflicting views despite the pension and perks etc - so not everyone sells their souls etc.

I do wonder if the only way we will bring about change is by talking and questioning how we are governed and not being intimidated into silence and acquiescence.

Originally posted by Shiloh7
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

Ha ha, you're right, the CRB - you can tell I'm retired.

Its nothing to do with age. I put the kettle in the fridge and the milk on the kettle stand the other day. I am only twenty eight lol.

I do wonder if the only way we will bring about change is by talking and questioning how we are governed and not being intimidated into silence and acquiescence.

No need to wonder about that. You have hit the nail squarely upon the head. Being unprepared to quietly accept a fate we did not choose, nor had any power over, is the only way that we can shape destiny to our will as a people. It is essential for the survival of our nation and the continuation of the social changes which were fought for by our ancestors, those which give us rights, which changed employment law, which govern elements of our morality in this day and age, those parts which are most often ignored by the government.

reply to post by Shiloh7


We have a similar situation in Australia where our Labor polititians are often very well off. I think people would be shocked if they knew how wealthly their Labor politicians were and they all seem to have rich "mates". The Labor PM's wife is a very wealthly woman for example. I would like to see Labor pollies' property portfolios as the whole country seems geared to support one industry- real estate- through generous handouts and tax concessions. The negative gearing handout for example costs tax payers 13.5 billon dollars per year but we can't have rich people missing out can we?

yeah, same as the union leadership, there out of touch. We need real labor not new. At least in the past the done good in opposition. I don't think miliband has a sincere stance on anything, all the charisma of a wet paper bag. which seems to be the norm in UK politics atm. Its turned into a popularity contest where the least cringe worthy " Matey mate" gets the vote. I blame the televised debates it all when quickly down hill.

reply to post by grumpy64


Did you see the scandal of the bird house to float in the politician's house's lake all paid for by expenses costing the tax payers here. So here, to, they love their real estate and especially the second home - although hopefully that little earner has been brought under some form of control.

In Oz do your politicians have the fee-earning luxury of 'directorships'? Here they sit on different boards and collect huge fees for the priviledge. Again it seems to be odd for labour representatives to be board directors on various multinationals. Especially should one suddenly decide to shift its base to another country and workers loose their jobs. Here politicians have to declare interests particularly when taking votes or sitting on committees, but it never seems to effect the way they vote when it comes to representing either the multinational's interests as opposed to the general public's.

reply to post by Redarguo


You are right re the Labour Party and New Labour. The New seems today to stand for Conservatism because its hard to see any difference between the two parties. Occasionally we get them remembering the vulnerable but it never compares to the amount of effort they seem to put in legislating against the public's freedom and welfare.

I saw that Briton is trying to get Europe to accept GM products. As we still don't know the future effects, if any, of these foodstuffs I cannot believe that our government is taking this tack. However its happened since the Bildenberg meeting held here, so we can see one topic of their agenda already. I don't know if Labour has colluded with the Conservatives on this but they are the people who should be protecting especially the poor as these are the people that GM food is likely to be fed to through the economy brands.

Going back to the Trades Unions. We have had a situation in the past where strikes were the norm, and over time the unions have lost a lot of their power and the ability to strike. I am sorry that the situation has come about because people worked hard to get recognition and fair rights for the workers and the wealthy of this country certainly have exploited people badly in the past. But today some of those rights are quietly being eroded and the Unions seem to have little real clout or ability to stop them. OK they finance politicians, but perhaps its about time they thought long and hard about who they finance and whether there should be some kind of criteria for Labour Politicians to adhere to, because its clear that our front benchers don't always seem to be aware of the labour party's principles or everyday hardships they are inflicting upon us all.

Labour isn't doing enough for workers and the vulnerable and I agree that Mr Milliband does have little charisma but I also didn't care for his brother either. I would be hard pushed today to find a politician I admired and thought did a good job for the people of this country.

Labour, like the Conservatives, are largely out of touch and generally populated by "career politicans" who have never actually worked a day in their lives...

That said, there is a fundamental difference between UK and US politics in that we in the UK have a lot more choice at the ballot box. The problem is waking the apathetic British public up to this fact and not have generational voting like we do in some area's - you know the types "My daddy voted Labour and I've always voted Labour" types who would always do so even if the party put a Donkey up for election.

Another thing people forget (or don't even realise) about our system is that political parties are not recognised in Parliament - when you vote, you do so for the candidate not the party, but most don't realise this and the parties behave as is this wasn't the case as well.

It's all very well having a go at the rich folks who sit in Parliament, but at the end of the day it's our own fault. If we weren't so apathetic as a nation, voted properly and made politicians accountable then we wouldn't have half the problems we do.

and it is nice to see the top 5% of the population want a pay RISE when everyone else is struggling.

and on top of the expenses they recieve from us plebs .

yet we still go out and vote for those scum who should not be in the job

Originally posted by geobro
yet we still go out and vote for those scum who should not be in the job

Exactly - the problem is with the electorate.

Most people, when asked, will say politics is "boring", yet it affects everything they do. If people weren't so apathetic, the problem would be resolved.

reply to post by stumason

this country needs a screaming lord souch again but all we have is dave's cousin boris johnsone .

even the jimmy savile scandal never took the nest of vipers out ?

reply to post by geobro


The MRLP, while providing some mirth at elections, just made a mockery of it all at the same time. What we do need is considerable reform of the system.

It is a problem with having the worlds oldest Parliamentary Democracy, we have several hundred years of conventions and procedures weighing it all down - we should really wipe the slate and start again, but there is no appetite in the general electorate to do that because they are so bought into either the idea of party politics or are so apathetic they won't even walk the 5 minutes down the road to vote.

I will put it this way, In America, people of lower of the low political positions make normal amounts.
But as they get on up in the ranks they get into lobbyist pockets and make more money, some are born into wealth but are normally able to start higher up in the poll, everything is run by wealth and honestly hope evolution takes effect soon or we'll all be servants or rebels.

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined


18 out of the 29 Cabinet Ministers are millionaires, but I do feel that this has been overegged slightly.

These days, simply owning two properties can make you a millionaire (even if you owe mortgages on both houses) just from the combined asset value. That, however, does not make you privileged or even rich, you might not have much liquid cash tom play with. My own parents are not far off being millionaires just from their property values, but they work perfectly normal jobs and certainly don't have huge piles of cash knocking about.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by geobro

 

The MRLP, while providing some mirth at elections, just made a mockery of it all at the same time. What we do need is considerable reform of the system.

It is a problem with having the worlds oldest Parliamentary Democracy, we have several hundred years of conventions and procedures weighing it all down - we should really wipe the slate and start again, but there is no appetite in the general electorate to do that because they are so bought into either the idea of party politics or are so apathetic they won't even walk the 5 minutes down the road to vote.

and we are still waiting for a vote on europe which will never come

reply to post by geobro


I think it will, the political will is there now after many years of public pressure. The problem is, they all want us to remain in the EU so want to control the debate and the question asked.

However, if Europe is a concern for many, then hopefully they will vote accordingly and UKIP will gain some ground. The only problem with that is they tend to take votes away from the Tories, which may end up leading us into a new Labour government in 2015, which in my opinion would be far worse than any of the other options.