Ms Thornberry is in the unfortunate position (entirely of her own making) of supporting the wrong party for her beliefs and situation in life. Among other things she and her husband are extremely affluent and seem to want to retain much of what they have (nothing wrong with that at all). She snubbed the local State secondary schools and instead sent her children to a partially selective school many miles from her home (which in fact was situated a mere half a mile from her house before it was forced out of London by the now defunct ILEA's witch-hunt against direct-grant grammar schools). Again nothing wrong with that. She campaigns for ever more “social“ housing and for more tenants‘ rights in that sector, though she and her husband bought a former social housing flat (not from the social owners but from somebody else who had bought it from them) for more than half a million pounds which they now let, presumably at the going rate. This flat is managed by a property agency of which Ms Thornberry denies all knowledge, despite having been a director of it for two years. They also own a £3m property in Islington and a flat in Clerkenwell.
There’s nothing wrong with any of this. Good luck to them in making a good living for themselves and looking after the best interests of their children. But she is in no position to campaign for ever greater amounts of taxpayers’ money to be used to support housing whilst sitting on a portfolio of properties herself. But most importantly of all, as far as this question goes, she is in no position to sneer at people who are not quite so affluent (and that’s what she did). I usually subscribe to the philosophy that “I do not have to be like you to be able to represent your interests”. However, the representatives must have a reasonable idea of the concerns and problems of those they represent and Ms Thornberry, living in her agreeable isolated Islington crescent far removed from the thousands of social housing tenants in the estates around her, does not have a clue.