A few days ago David Cameron made it clear that Andrew MacKay should step down for making a claim on a second home in London. In many ways you might argue that the MP for Bracknell ought to have his first home in his constituency and his second home in London. After all, your main residence shouldn't be the home you spend least time at.
So the question is , why is Cameron standing by Mr MacKay's wife and fellow Tory MP Julie Kirkbride. Her list of things that voters would find offensive is longer than those of her husband.
1) I cannot imagine that she did not know of her husband's arrangements for claiming his second home allowance. Am I really to believe that she was not an accomplice to his guilt ?
2) She claims her second home is in Bromsgrove (her constituency). Yet this is the home she had her family in. Surely, if her children and family are there, this is her first home not her second home ? Surely this is just a scam so she can claim on her Bromsgrove home which conveniently left her husband to claim on their London home ?
3) Why are taxpayers paying for her brther to live in her second home rent free ?
4) Why did she increase her mortgage by £50,000, which the taxpayers footed the bill for so her son could have his own room when her brother gets his own room rent free ?
5) Why does Julie Kirkbride's sister get paid as a member of her staff whilst living more than 100 miles from Bromsgrove ?
6) Why did her husband have the guts to face voters before agreeing to stand down but Ms Kirkbride refuses to do so despite David Cameron insisting she does ?
This is the real test for David Cameron. He talks of change (which is far from radical in terms of what real change could offer) but if he does nothing about Ms Kirkbride he will shown to be a hollow man who speaks but fails to act.