Today's Daily Express front page criticising Housing Minister John Healey is yet another example of the Express at its hypocritical, biased worst.
Today’s Daily Express front page attack on housing minister John Healey – saying he “insulted” struggling homeowners in a radio interview – is yet another example of the Express at its hypocritical, biased worst.
The article:
• Is written by the wife of the Tory housing renewal minister
• Fails to mention the repossession rate under the Tories was nearly double the rate it is under Labour
• Takes Healey’s remarks completely out of context
• Criticises his expenses – the author making no mention of her husband’s house “flipping” and £66,000 expenses claim, including £3,000 for a “Berber” carpet and a £300 pool cleaning bill
Report author Sarah O’Grady is the wife of the Conservative MP for Peterborough, Stewart Jackson, shadow minister for communities and local government since January 2008.
He has responsibility for the fire service, flooding, housing renewal areas and the Thames Gateway and is currently writing a green paper on regeneration for the Tory manifesto.
Her report quotes Healey’s remarks in the BBC radio interview:
“For some people it can be the only, and it can in fact be the best, option for them to allow their home to be repossessed. Sometimes it is impossible for people to maintain the mortgage commitments they’ve got. It may be the best thing in those circumstances.”
Which suddenly becomes:
“It’s OK to lose your home”
On repossessions, O’Grady writes that:
“The figure is the highest since 1995 and a significant 15 per cent increase on 2008, said the Council of Mortgage Lenders.”
Yet once again, the Tory housing renewal minister’s wife fails to put this in context. Comparing recent years with the early nineties, the figures show that:
• In 1991, 75,500 properties were repossessed (0.77% of all mortgages) – in 2009, 46,000 properties were repossessed (0.43%)
• In 1992, 350,000 househoulds were in arrears (3.6% of mortgages) – in 2009, 188,330 househoulds were in arrears (2.5%)
• In 1991, there were 9.8 million mortgages (and 13,050,000 homeowners) – in 2008, there were 11.1 million (14,628,000)
In the three years following his election in 2005, O’Grady’s husband claimed £66,722 for their house.
This included £2,545 in solicitors’ fees, a £2,412 initial mortgage charge, £1,836 in mortgage broker fees, £1,430 for the installation of security gates at the house, carpentry bills and repairs to his television aerial, £1,145.63 solicitors’ conveyancing costs, £1,336 in mortgage fees, £775 for plumbing work in his “summer room”, £705 for a survey, £600 to his building society and £435 for insurance.
He also claimed more than £1,300 for “household expenditure” from John Lewis, bedding, kitchenware, lightbulbs and £200 for a new refrigerator. Additionally, O’Grady’s husband claimed £3,000 for a “100 per cent wool berber carpet” for the house and £741 for a king-size bed – both of which, presumably, she benefited from.
Last week, he was ordered to repay a £304.10 claim for “swimming pool maintenance” in July 2006 by the Legg review.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
21 Responses to “Revealed: Hidden agenda behind Express attack on housing minister”
Alex Ross
Revealed: Hidden agenda behind Express attack on housing minister http://bit.ly/9kQHJI
Anon E Mouse
Shamik – Two points. I agree with the minister – he’s right.
The woman making a complaint about his expenses is entitled to make the comments without being tarnished about things her husband has done.
We shouldn’t live in a world where she is criticised for the actions of her husband – to do that is an act of misogyny on your part.
My partner, who is a feminist social worker, also said that to suggest a woman should be judged on the actions of her husband and moderate her behaviour based on something she herself hadn’t done was a “typical male chauvinist” remark.
Personally I think the story is a good one but to effectively condemn this woman for her husbands actions seems unfair and detracts from an otherwise good article.
She is entitled to both publish her story and have that story judged on it’s merits and not her husbands bad behaviour.
Why John Healey was right about repossessions | Westminster Blog | FT.com
[…] Left Foot Forward is not happy with the Express coverage of the story. […]
Look Left – The Week in Fast Forward | Left Foot Forward
[…] also gave a particularly illiberal interview to the Express. The face may have been airbrushed changed but it’s the same old Tories. All in all, you […]
Colin Gilbey
Shamik Daz, good article and well said. Some people are too pure to poop, especially the nameless ones. The press has no integrity whatever.