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.
21 Responses to “Revealed: Hidden agenda behind Express attack on housing minister”
Anon E Mouse
Colin – It’s 2010 for goodness sake. Agreeing with Shamik is like wanting to go back to an age before woman got the vote.
Let me guess Colin. You’re single right?
Shamik Das
Anon, you still don’t get it do you? It is not sexist, misogynst or harking back to pre-1928 to point out the blatant conflict of interest in O’Grady attacking her husband’s direct political opponent or the hypocrisy of her having a go at John Healey when her husband did exactly the same.
The more people that know about this, the better.
If it was the other way round you and the Tory sock-puppets would be up in arms.
Anon E Mouse
Shamik – To be clear here and please have the courtesy to answer my question.
(I disagree with this woman’s article and agree with the minister)
Since you claim to be a “progressive” is your policy to say that because of her husbands actions she is not entitled to express a free opinion?
Why shouldn’t she do it? What do her husbands actions have to do with her opinion in a free equal society irrespective of who she or he is?
By your way of thinking can Sarah Brown no longer hold an opinion or have the right to air it? Or anyone else that’s married?
Seems to me “progressives” are anything but…
Shamik Das
Anon, the taxpayer has paid for her bed, carpets and all the fittings in her “second home”, claimed for out of expenses by her husband. Quite how she has the gall to criticise Healey for expense abuses is anyone’s guess.
We’ve got more on her, and the way the Express operates, to come. Watch this space…
Anon E Mouse
Shamik – She did not claim the expenses, her husband did. End of.
Your behaviour now in this matter has simply resorted to spiteful and jealous remarks over her husband.
If you say that it is not OK for her to make those statements then Gordon Brown shouldn’t be doing the same about other MP’s expenses since he stole £12500 from the taxpayer for cleaning. And Cameron for his wisteria.
The position you advocate means Cherie Blair can no longer act as a lawyer since (some believe – not me) her husband took us into an illegal war.
Have you not heard the term “The sins of the fathers”?
The fact is I agree with this article but not attacking someones wife – but your final remark “We’ve got more on her” shows the left and the actions of those such as Derek Draper and Damian McBride, despite Gordon Browns protestations, are clearly alive and well…