The Shadow Cabinet Rich List - Part 1
Fraser Nelson 1:12am
The Shadow Cabinet Rich List is published today by the News of the World (where yours truly is a columnist). It shows there are 19 millionaires around that table. Conservatives, of course, tend to come from a business background, whereas Labour come from public services. Wealth from previous jobs tends to be stored in the form of property – which has, of course, boomed in the last decade thus augmenting their net worth.
And does all this moolah matter? I’d say so. Labour, for example, argue that the Tories can afford to be enthusiasts for cleaning up Commons expenses when they’re all minted. And from the other side, a Tory made the point to me that not many of his colleagues understood the “Thursday night dinner problem” – ie, what to have for dinner the day before payday, and the weekly budget hasn’t quite stretched as intended.
The British public, of course, will judge the Conservatives on the quality of their proposals. It’s my guess that the average voter won’t think “what a bunch of rich Tories” as this money is, almost all, the fruit of success. As the News of the World research shows, it’s almost all earned rather than inherited because Cameron’s team is mix of people who have been successful in diverse fields. I've put the full details in a separate post here.
Previous
Fergus Pickering
July 27th, 2008 2:53am Report this commentOh come along. Publish a Labour Cabnet rich list now. What do you suppose our Gordon is worth? Less than a million or more. And ho many of them have a Thursday dinner problem. None, that's how many. The fact is that pretty well EVERYBODY who is an MP or an MEP is RICH. The Tories are RICHER, of course they are. Incidentally, most successful journalists over forty are also RICH. Aren't they?
Chuck Unsworth
July 27th, 2008 8:02am Report this commentSo the Labour positions are:
That people only join the Conservative party because they are wealthy, whereas those who are poor tend to join the Labour ranks?
That it's OK for Labour MPs to rip-off the taxpayer because they are relatively 'poor'?
That wealthy people are inherently casual with their cash?
That there are no wealthy Labour MPs and/or Ministers?
These are sweeping generalisations. I mean, where does this argument go? I really don't care very much about these people's bank balances. What I do care about is their competence and principles. In those respects the ranks of NuLab seem to be remarkably bereft.
As to being a columnist on the News of the World - is this something you really wish us to know, Fraser? Discretion rather than valour, I'd have thought...
The Laughing Cavalier
July 27th, 2008 9:26am Report this commentMuch more interesting would be the rich list of past and present Labour cabinet Ministers. Some have made it to multi-millionaire status without ever having a job outside the public sector. Interesting eh?
"Sackerson"
July 27th, 2008 9:53am Report this commentIsn't it a sad refelection of our personal powerlessness, that we pay so much attention to politicians?
BTW - “Thursday night dinner problem”: payday in Birmingham used to be Thursday, so the wives could get their housekeeping before the hubands drank it on a Friday.
TrevorH
July 27th, 2008 10:21am Report this commentAre any of them as rich as Tony Blair? Or even Cherie. Or Prezza?
Is this a story worthy of comment?
Personally I would rather trust a politician who had made his money before politics rather than out of it.
Faceless Bureaucrat
July 27th, 2008 11:35am Report this comment'So What?' - If Labour are seriously saying that their Members should be allowed to fiddle their Parliamentary expenses for no other reason than because "...a bunch of rich Tories" have enough money not to have to, then the politics of envy really has reached a new level. Rich or poor, it is how they perform that matters – and for the benefit of all Members of Parliament from whichever Party, a small reminder – fraud is fraud, however much you have in the Bank…
Verity
July 27th, 2008 1:21pm Report this commentTrevorH writes: "Personally I would rather trust a politician who had made his money before politics rather than out of it."
I think it should be de rigueur. They shouldn't be able to stand for Parliament until they had had a minimum of 10 years in the private sector. That should be the number one qualification for standing.
thomas
July 27th, 2008 6:23pm Report this commentSo will Cameron follow up his idea for a fuel tax modulator with an expense account modulator for MPs?
Or is all fair in love, war and politicking?
Ian C
July 27th, 2008 8:42pm Report this commentYou should really find a proper newspaper to right for - not that such a thing exists any longer. As for dallying on such idle gosspip, says alot about how a journo has to keep paying his bills. You only have to own half a house in Central London to be worth a couple of million and seeing you can buy one on HofC expenses you will find that all MP's are worth a bob or two. And if they're not what havethey been doing for the past 10 years? and who would want someone so daft to be their MP?
Oh, and by the way, if expenses were only a matter of whether some could go without while generous employers (us) look the other way for the others says it all, doesn't it?
Marian C
July 27th, 2008 9:49pm Report this commentFraser, is there a point to this story? and if so, could you please enlighten me to what it is; after all, its not the Conservatives who govern the country, (well not yet anyway) so the purpose is what exactly?.
Also, would it not be deemed prudent to include not just a 'Shadow Cabinet Rich List', but also that of; Zanu Labour Cabinet Rich List and Lib Dems Cabinet Rich List
Back to top