Man-Baby Tory MP Lives with Parents

carefullycautious

thequant wrote: »

Aberdeen-!!!!, cyber stalking strangers on the internet again. I think you could do with some help, it's not healthy.

I'm afraid after reading that I'm bowing out as I cant take you seriously but maybe that's what you want?

BobQ

thequant wrote: »

"A Tory MP earning £77,000-a-year has revealed that he is still living with his parents because he cannot afford to buy a home."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3440327/Tory-MP-earns-74-000-year-plus-expenses-moves-parents-t-afford-deposit-London-house.html#comments

Probably marking time until he picks up a few directorships........

wotsthat

Man works in London and goes back to his mums to visit once a month or so. No point buying as he's hardly at home and his employer pays his £1245.84/ month rent anyway.

Bit of a non-story

TheeMaskedTurnip

To be honest I expect more from a Tory member of parliament. The fact that he's happy to continue leeching off his parents at such an age does not bode well for our taxes. Expect to see his name appear in an expenses scandal in the future. What is wrong with these man babies that they see this behaviour as acceptable???

princeofpounds

seems he was a primary school teacher until May 2015
and it appears he hasn't been able to save £90,000 in the last 8 months to put down as a deposit in London

Shouldn't have spent his money on iphones and foreign holidays then. honestly the yoof of today.

kabayiri

Why does he need a permanent residence in London if he represents a constituency in Stockport?

I know for a fact that the 2 places he represents have a good variety of housing at reasonable pricing levels. He will soon save up a deposit.

Is he really trying to "relate to the people" rather than say he has no options?

princeofpounds

Why does he need a permanent residence in London if he represents a constituency in Stockport?

Joking aside, MPs spend the majority of their time in London. There's nothing wrong with his workplace providing secondary accommodation for work purposes. Of course exactly how that is done is another question.

kabayiri

princeofpounds wrote: »

Joking aside, MPs spend the majority of their time in London. There's nothing wrong with his workplace providing secondary accommodation for work purposes. Of course exactly how that is done is another question.

He might be deselected in 5 years time. Perhaps he should see his time at Westminster as an assignment rather than guaranteed permanence.

An attraction to the voters is that he is from the locality. It's very easy to commute at weekends from London to Stockport. I'm sure he could bill it all on expenses too.

I'm struggling to find the problem tbh. It's his choice to live at home; doesn't matter what others say.

TheeMaskedTurnip

kabayiri wrote: »

He might be deselected in 5 years time. Perhaps he should see his time at Westminster as an assignment rather than guaranteed permanence.

An attraction to the voters is that he is from the locality. It's very easy to commute at weekends from London to Stockport. I'm sure he could bill it all on expenses too.

I'm struggling to find the problem tbh. It's his choice to live at home; doesn't matter what others say.

The problem is that thankfully the vast majority of men are not permanent babies forever suckling on their mothers teat, however how can he relate the the man in the street if he's in the pockets of others?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

TheeMaskedTurnip wrote: »

The problem is that thankfully the vast majority of men are not permanent babies forever suckling on their mothers teat, however how can he relate the the man in the street if he's in the pockets of others?

Well seeing as many in their 20s live with parents in order to save for a deposit I imagine he will have the sympathy of potential voters.

I remain puzzled at the attitude of certain posters who despise both renters AND those who live with parents to save in order to buy their "dream house"?