Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3

News

David Cameron paid off his mortgage on one house while claiming taxpayers' money on the other.

66 replies

edam · 01/06/2009 08:45

Cameron had 75K to pay off his mortgage while claiming 22k on his 'second home'.

He's had his fingers in the till yet his party is winning in the polls. How the hell does that make sense?

OP posts:

Report

spokette · 01/06/2009 09:33

Because we live in a society that values froth over substance.

Report

SomeGuy · 01/06/2009 10:34

Hardly fingers in the till.

If I go away on business and the hotel costs £200/month, I could pay it with my own money. But I don't because my employer should pay for it.

I don't see why he should be expected to use his own money to reduce the cost of his accommodation - which is required for his job.

Being accused of paying off one debt rather than another is hardly a crime.

Report

edam · 01/06/2009 10:43

Very possibly.

OP posts:

Report

edam · 01/06/2009 10:46

(that was to spokette, btw)

Someguy, point is Cameron's as bad as those who have been dropped in it and forced to offer to stand down at the next election. Yet he's been parading around the media claiming to take a tough line on this.

And it's not comparable to an employer covering hotel costs while you are staying away on business at all!

He's expecting the taxpayer to pay for a new mortgage on one home, while paying off the mortgage on the home that he used to claim on. Not that far off the MPs who were claiming for non-existent mortgages - at least, on the start of the slippery slope.

OP posts:

Report

foreveroptimistic · 01/06/2009 10:50

I don't actually see the problem with this. It makes sense to clear one debt first rather than having two outstanding debts.

Report

SomeGuy · 01/06/2009 11:00

no it's not the same thing at all. What business of it of anybody else's that he's got £75k to pay off his mortgage with?

He is entitled to claim for the costs of a second home, and so he did.

Meanwhile Alistair Darling, the Chancellor FFS, has been forced to pay back his expenses - news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8076405.stm

Report

EffieGadsby · 01/06/2009 11:13

I have quite a strong dislike and distrust of Cameron, and wouldn't contemplate voting Tory in the foreseeable future, but I really don't have much of a problem with this claim. Why shouldn't he pay off the mortgage on his main home, rather than use that £75k as a greater deposit on the constituency home? If he'd continued paying the mortgage on his London home, he'd have been worse off than if he'd paid this lump sum to finish it; that's not fair on him. I firmly believe that MPs shouldn't be become out of pocket to carry out their work, no matter how considerable their personal or family wealth.

Report

smallwhitecat · 01/06/2009 13:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

expatinscotland · 01/06/2009 13:03

I'm not at all surprised.

All of them either did it or were complicit via their knowledge of others doing it.

Report

edam · 01/06/2009 13:11

point is, he's choosing to use his money to pay off one mortgage we used to fund (as London seems to have been designated his second home) BUT then decided constituency home was his 'second home' in order to keep claiming the allowance. So he pays off his mortgage but keeps claiming public money by taking out a mortgage on a second property and deciding that is his second home. Very dubious.

If he's paid off his mortgage which we were contributing to, fine. but then deciding to claim on another home is a bit shady. Especially when frankly, he's rich enough to pay for his homes himself. Second home allowance in theory is to make sure people who don't have enough money for two homes aren't prevented from standing. NOT so the rich can milk the public by fannying around with their properties and mortgages.

Just because others have also had their fingers in the till, doesn't mean Cameron should escape scot-free.

OP posts:

Report

reach4sky · 01/06/2009 13:43

But he had to buy a second home to do his job. Why should he pay for that out of his pocket when that's precisely what the second home allowance is for? If he wasn't an MP, he would presumably only need one home. And since when are allowances/ salaries/ expenses based on how wealthy someone is?

I would very much like to hear from anyone who can afford to run two homes (one being by definition in London) and support their family on a £60k salary.

Report

mrsruffallo · 01/06/2009 13:46

No he shouldn't escape scot-free esp as he is multi millionaire and is using the expenses issue to his advantage.

Report

reach4sky · 01/06/2009 13:51

Mrs Ruffalo, how is he a multi millionaire exactly?

Report

angelene · 01/06/2009 14:00

What's most surprising about this is that they are ALL at it, generally the rule of thumb for scandals is that with Labour it's money, and the Tories it's sex. The Tories are just as bad overall it appears.

I believe DC is a multi millionaire by marriage, Samantha Cameron v loaded - family money and Smythsons.

Report

reach4sky · 01/06/2009 14:05

She simply works for Smythsons. DC's father was a reasonably successful stockbroker and while Samantha Cameron's stepfather is Viscount Astor, it seems pretty unlikely her stepfather would have handed over loads of wodge to her, not least because he has his own children. In any event seems strange that a multi- millionaire would choose to live in a house worth £1m (not a huge amount in London) in grimy North Kensington.

Report

wannaBe · 01/06/2009 14:06

tbh I think the whole expenses thing is getting boring now.

So most mp's are crooks - I think that's been established.

And I think this story has just been dredged up to drag the whole issue out even further, when actually i don't see a problem with what he's done.

Report

edam · 01/06/2009 14:17

It does feel a bit 'day 999 of the exes scandal', doesn't it? Like the fag end of a long running series that has got really, really dull.

OP posts:

Report

mrsruffallo · 01/06/2009 14:19

A million pounds is a large amount of money for the majority of people in London actually.
A life changing amount in most cases

Report

wahwahwah · 01/06/2009 14:20

Isn't he richer than God though?

Politicians should be banned.

I thought he lived in Notting bloody Hill

Report

throckenholt · 01/06/2009 14:26

conservatives are ahead in the pills because labour have been in power for 12 years. That is too long for any one party - and anything that is wrong at present will be blamed on them even if it was nothing to do with them.

The conservatives are probably no better (or worse) now than they have ever been (or any of the other parties) - but lots will vote for them because they want a change. They won't vote liberal or green because they think it is a wasted vote.

And more people than ever are bored with the whole thing and won't vote at all.

The expenses system was set up to compensate for the fact that mp salaries are relatively low - most of them have just used the system - they haven't cheated it as such - it was just a daft system.

The odd thing is - Brown was the one trying to change it - but somehow the government is to blame.

I think for democracy 12 years of any one party is too long - but can't say I relish the alternative at present.

Report

edam · 01/06/2009 14:30

He does, wahwahwah, but I think closer to Ladbroke Grove - could be wrong about that though. Notting Hill can be reasonably described as North Kensington, as it's in the North of the Borough. Dunno, maybe some people think NK sounds less posh and not 'call me Dave' than Notting Hill?

OP posts:

Report

reach4sky · 01/06/2009 14:37

Defo North Kensington postcode and not Notting Hill. Of course £1m is a life changing sum for many people in London Mrs Ruffallo. Equally, though pretty much anyone in London who bought a house for say £350k in 1995 is now living in a house worth around £1m. It's not quite the same as having a million quid to spend.

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Email address

You've subscribed!

smallwhitecat · 01/06/2009 14:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

expatinscotland · 01/06/2009 15:04

'But he had to buy a second home to do his job. Why should he pay for that out of his pocket when that's precisely what the second home allowance is for? If he wasn't an MP, he would presumably only need one home. And since when are allowances/ salaries/ expenses based on how wealthy someone is?

I would very much like to hear from anyone who can afford to run two homes (one being by definition in London) and support their family on a £60k salary.'

He has to buy one? They all have to buy one?

That's funny, other public employees like MoD people don't get a second home allowance to buy a home in London when their job requires them to work in London.

Still others in the private sector have to stay in a Travel Lodge or the company's serviced apartment, rented out for such purposes, when their job requires them to work in London.

My landlord was a headteacher at a non-mainstream public school in London. He had an apartment owned by the school to stay in.

The Church of Scotland owns flats in Edinburgh for vicars who are assigned to do a job there to live in with their families, or a vicarage home.

It's called 'tied accommodation' and it's hardly a new concept.

Why do MPs have to be given money to buy a home in their own right and then flog it off for whatever price they can get and give absolutely nothing back to the taxpayer who bought them that home?

LOL @ £64 as a low salary! Even in London.

Report

Legacy · 01/06/2009 15:07

Don't have a problem with this at all, and think it is the media really trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel on the expenses story .

The circumstances around this are completely different to the various 'hand in the till' MP expenses issues.

Why should he have to pay off part of the mortgage on a house his job requires him to have?
Just because he has a bit more cash to hand than the rest of us why should he have to 'hand it over'? Last time I looked, Britain wasn't a communist state, I don't believe??

I like David Cameron. I've read all the biographies about him and have talked to people who know him. I think he is a lot better than most of our politicians at the moment.