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”
Shamik Das
Let me just say she benefited from those expenses and leave it at that.
Btw, as someone mentioned before, going into a rant about Iraq, McBride, Gordon Brown etc. in every argument doesn’t assist your case.
Anon E Mouse
Shamik – And Gordon Brown’s and David Cameron’s and Nick Clegg’s wife didn’t also benefit?
I’ll leave it at that Shamik – clearly the Labour Party is truly now the Nasty Party. Well Done.
Shamik Das
None of them attack their husbands’ direct opponents over it in front page national newspaper articles.
Nor do they try to hide their allegiance.
I think we’ve published plenty this week indicating the Tories remain the nasty party. Your own nasty hatred of Gordon Brown and Labour means you are unable to see that.
Anon E Mouse
Shamik – I have no nasty hatred as you put it of Gordon Brown – the man is not important enough to be bothered with and in 90 days he’s history and wait until you see the recriminations then.
Just because YOU have published stuff calling the Tories nasty doesn’t make it so. “Nah na na nah na you’re a nasty Tory” just makes your arguments look petty and mean.
My dislike of Brown is the culture that involves bullying and thuggish behaviour of his staff and the reason I mention McBride and Co is because you continue to stick to your “Nasty Party” silly remarks.
Every time you mention the same thing so do I – the difference is I can back up the things I say yet you continue to make statements with no basis in fact, just your opinion.
So you say “The Tories are nasty” and I say 10p tax. You say “The mask is slipping” and I say Gurkha’s. And on and on.
But you never address any points Shamik no matter how often they’re made. Only once have you said in this blog it was wrong of Brown to smear the character of a man in the week his disabled son died.
As a lifelong Labour voter (nearly) I am ashamed of the fact our party stooped so low to allow that to happen – it’s disgraceful and on that basis I would never call the Tories the nasty party when we have been found wanting.
My point is I repeat the same narrow things over and over because it is hard with your articles and ironically I agree with a lot of them, to be nuanced in debate because you’ll just shout “I’ve unmasked a denier” or some other childish remark.
I assumed LFF was the future of the left in the UK and whilst you make it clear from your postings you have no aspirations to hold public office, I assumed, perhaps mistakenly, Will Straw would follow his dad into politics.
If your attitude to dissenters on this blog is the way of the left in the future, it bears a striking resemblance to the deceitful politics that has become endemic in Labour since Brown took office. To publicly state you’re going to go after this woman only serves to show you shallowness and attract more attention to the story which it doesn’t need.
Why don’t you try and put forward a coherent strategy for the renewal the left is going to need to undertake after the next election? Why not devote LFF to selling Labour instead of running down the opposition? Why not start being consistent and being positive about Labour?
Because judging by the word on the street and the opinion polls this approach you take isn’t working and your words may come back in the future to haunt you.
Come back Tony Blair – all is forgiven.
Shamik Das
Another long list of perceived grievances. Of course there’s no chance of your words coming back to haunt you, is there, as you’ve never posted under your own name. Why’s that I wonder…