Posts
Michael Meacher: Reminding What the Labour Party's For
David Ottewell quotes the Rt Hon Michael Meacher thusly:"I was saddened by a current minister commenting that we should celebrate people being very wealthy. I certainly do not object if people become wealthy by honest work, but the Labour party did not come into existence, and it is not its rationale, to celebrate the very wealthy. It is there to protect the poorest, give them more opportunity and reduce the divide between rich and poor."
Michael Meacher, MP for Oldham West & Royton, speaking in parliament this week.
Good point Michael. But it impossible to read this and avoid remembering at this point that Michael and his wife have accumulated a portfolio of around a baker's dozen of considerable investment properties. Which in some terms would make them very wealthy indeed, what with the price of land and houses these days. Not to mention the humungous pensions and benefits they have ahead of them.
And remember too that it was the contention of Count Karl von Westphalen and his chippy capitalist chum that money accrued by holding such assets was not considered "by honest work" at all.
5 comments:
Too right. He has reportedly some 12 propertiesthat were worth £2m in 2001! I hate champagne socialists! I am off to look at the members list to see how many are let and the amount of rent paid.
Jane
Only two or three of them are in his name as far as I can remember. But good luck with that.
Presumably current second homes rules allow any number of house moves while hanging on to the paid for old house to rent out? Or "do a Winterton" with if you have lazy children to cater for.
Michael has a lot of good ideas and he clearly does speak up for working people. But I think being a landlord is among the least advised sidelines for a left wing Labour Mp than I can think of. He says it's for his pension. But of course that is already rather grand by anyone's standards.
He's allowed to be filthy rich. He just doesn't want people to celebrate that fact.
Chris, just to be absolutely clear on this - we are supposed to be attacking the Tories on sleaze, aren't we? I thought that was what you told Labourhome we should do.
Leave Gordon (and Michael Meacher?) alone - go for Spellman and Duncan you said. Are you now saying it's OK to have a go at anyone who is a "sleazist"? Like Abrahams, for example? £670k channelled through his secretary and a friendly builder to the Labour Party.
Just checking.
I'm not suggesting that Michael Meacher has any case to answer on sleaze. Just that his chosen sideline business activity is not a happy companion to his socialism.
We'll get the outcome of the Abrahams stupidities soon enough.
But in the meantime we have Oily Duncan, Nanny Spelman, GOOey Osborne, Stinky Fox, Conway, Chechester, Dover, Atkins, Hammond, Shapps, and so on and so forth.
I don't know where you blog, but here at LOL we are attacking these greedy and disingenuous elemsnts of the same old same old (so so) Tories.
Post a Comment