| Topic: | Re:Compassionate Conservative stands up for the low paid | |
| Posted by: | Chris Martin | |
| Date/Time: | 13/08/14 10:50:00 |
| As per usual on this forum there's a grain of truth and a lot of speculation - so let's stick to the facts: 1. Mark Simmonds appears to have had a very successful career before entering parliament so it's quite likely that his income is at least a hundred thousands pounds a year less than it was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Simmonds 2.He didn't fail to declare the interest in Circle Healthcare - it was already on the register of interests. What he did do is fail to mention it at the start of a health debate http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17104463 3. Net migration was equivalent to a new city the size of Newcastle every year under the last government - this is largely behind the massive demand and associated price rises for housing now. The last government also presided over a 50% reduction in the building of new social housing compared to the previous government - further compounding the "demand" and quite ironic when you now here Ed Milliband trying to pin the housing crisis on the current government's shoulders. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26972597 4. The real substance behind Mark Simmonds' reason to stand down was addressed in quite some detail in the interview he did on Radio 4. The key points were: - although the expenses would allow him to rent a house big enough for his family in the suburbs, that wouldn't help him spend more time with his family. Like many MP's he spends 3-4 days a week in the constituency and with late nights when the house is sitting, would just spend even more time travelling across london. - the public think that spending years on end in a hotel room is fun. It's not - not having any of your normal amenities or family around is just lonely and boring... and those who have had to do it for any length of time know for themselves that the prospect of doing it for 5 year terms is no way to live. - he had already decided he could not continue as a minister because he was spending no-time with his children. His income would therefore fall by £30K if he remained in parliament. It's also worth noting that the "noise" behind the story came from the Guardian who later revised their article to reflect they had misquoted him. They said the MP said that £27K in rent plus £3K per child wasn't enough to rent somewhere in Westminster when in actual fact he said "27K in total allowances" wasn't enough - the £27K reflecting all accommodation costs i.e. rent, council tax, utilities etc. On that front he's quite correct - £27K would not cover all of the costs of renting and running a 3-4 bedroom home in most parts of inner london. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/11/tory-foreign-office-minister-quits-intolerable-expenses-rules |