Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Should David Cameron be allowed to rent out his London home?

84 replies

LilyBolero · 21/08/2010 10:27

David and Samantha Cameron are renting out their Notting Hill home, reportedly for an income of 72k annually. They are only able to do this because they are provided with a London home (Downing Street) at the taxpayer's expense. Should this be allowed? Should they have to pay rent on Downing Street? And should he still claim to be a member of the 'middle classes'?

My answers;
Yes, this should be allowed, IF they pay rent on Downing Street.
and
NO he should not claim to be a member of the middle classes!

OP posts:
herbietea · 21/08/2010 10:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

earthworm · 21/08/2010 10:47

I can't see a problem with it really, unless he is somehow evading paying tax on the income.

I would rather see it being used than standing empty. I suppose he could sell it like Tony Blair did, but maybe he hopes to move back to it one day.

Did you want him to give it away?

Alibabaandthe40nappies · 21/08/2010 10:50

Of course he should, it's his house and he can do what he likes with it.

bruxeur · 21/08/2010 10:51

What a stupid thread.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 21/08/2010 11:23

bruxeur, thank you for your intelligent contribution!

I don't know whether I think this is ok or not, pretty much everything the man does irks me. It seems weird to me that the PM should be able to supplement his income at the taxpayer's expense, whilst cutting lots of things 'ordinary' people benefit from. And it certainly does take away from the "We're all in this together" statement.

The claims on being middle class annoy me as well - he tries to justify screwing things for middle class people by saying "I'm middle class too" when he so blatantly isn't, and I was pretty hacked off by the "sharp-elbowed" comments, because that assumes that all middle-class people will shove others out of their way, which I find an offensive assumption.

OP posts:
ajandjjmum · 21/08/2010 11:28

Apparently the Camerons would have preferred to stay in their own home, but the cost to the tax payer would have been so extortionate, so they agreed to move to Downing Street.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 21/08/2010 11:35

yes I heard that too.

It's a really tricky question to get right I think, because after the whole expenses scandal, and with the massive cuts, I think it is very bad for him to be seen to benefit financially like yhis, but yes, obviously the house should be used, not left empty.

OP posts:
HumphreyCobbler · 21/08/2010 11:49

yes, it is his house to do with as he pleases.

ISNT · 21/08/2010 11:52

If it's within the rules then yes he should be allowed to do it.

Should the rules be changed?

In this case, it's their family home. (One of them anyway Grin

As prime minister, he has to go and live in downing street

You can't make him sell his home, leaving it idle (which he could afford to do) would be unethical considering the pressure on the housing stock in london.

So actually I think it's better that he rents it out than keep it empty.

Re rent on downing street. That would just mean that either a. the PM wages would have to increase to pay it, or b. we would return to a situation where only the wealthy could be the "ruling" class in that only a rich person could afford to be PM.

So having thought it through, I tihnk it's fine.

On the other point, him being a member of the middle class - well that was a ludicrous proposition before he had this additional income. Class isn't about money anyway, in the UK, is it.

Bonsoir · 21/08/2010 11:53

Poor Camerons, having to live in 10 Downing Street - it's no luxury pad. Give them a break! It is standard practice for people who are forced to live in professionally-supplied accommodation to be able to rent out their own homes.

edam · 21/08/2010 12:01

Nobody forced them to live there. And given the government's swingeing cuts in housing benefit, a taste of his own medicine might do him some good.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 21/08/2010 12:11

edam, nick clegg made a comment about the housing benefit - he said it wasn't right that "some families received hundreds of pounds a week HB, more than MPs got..."

I'm not quite sure why he thought MPs were more deserving of HB than the poorest people in society...

but yes, the HB cuts were the reason that I think perhaps the Camerons shouldn't benefit from being given a house by the taxpayer.

OP posts:
edam · 21/08/2010 12:35

Clegg's found his spiritual home with the Tories, that's for sure. God only knows why he joined the Lib Dems in the first place. Unless he was leading a sleeper cell. Grin

jodevizes · 21/08/2010 14:05

I think he should join the Big Society and lend it to Westminster council for them to rent it out to the homeless.

Rockbird · 21/08/2010 14:08

It is a stupid thread. The man is the prime minister ffs. While I agree that MPs should live by the laws of the land and the rules and regs set for the rest of us, once you get to be PM, I think all bets are off. Salary for running the country is a pittance, I wouldn't do it. Let him earn a few extra shekels, at least he's doing it honestly. Stop being so bloody resentful.

violethill · 21/08/2010 14:10

If you are required by your job to live in accommodation provided by the employer, then yes, of course you are entitled to rent out your personal home if you choose.

This is the situation for thousands of people.Are you suggesting it would be better for it to stand empty so that no one has the chance to rent it? Hmm

MissAnneElk · 21/08/2010 14:18

Yes of course he can rent it out. According to media reports they dragged their feet in moving into number 10 because they would have preferred to stay in their own home but security is easier and cheaper to provide when they live in downing street.

The prime minister whoever he or she is deserves to be well paid. They are paid less than many people employed in private companies. We can't afford to have only politicians who have a private income.

I don't think the Camerons are middle class but then I don't really care.

BeenBeta · 21/08/2010 14:43

It would be impossible for him to live in his old home. Security is nightmare.

Would people be objecting if he had just sold it right at the top of the market and taken the tax free capital gain like everyone is entitled to and Tony Blair did when he became PM?

By the way did anyone know that Gordon Brown secretly cut the Prime inisters pay just hours before he left office?

David Cameron gets less pay than Gordon Brown and his pension will also be smaller. Anyone going to criticise that or comment on why Gordon Brown chose to cut the prime Minister's pay just hours before leaving office?

That deprived David Cameron of hundreds of thousands of pounds of pay that Gordon Brown got in pay and will get in pension for the rest of his life. On top of that, Gordon Brown is stil an MP, gets paid and yet very rarely turns up in Parliament.

scaryteacher · 21/08/2010 16:52

The PM has no choice really about where he lives, and No 10 is an office as well as living quarters. I thought they lived at No 11 like the Blairs did, whilst George Osborne had the flat at No 10?

We are provided with accommodation at the taxpayers expense in the equivalent of a Married Quarter for which we pay MQ rent. We rent out our family home until we are sent back to UK. Should we not be doing that?

The Camerons will be paying the appropriate tax on the income from rent, so what is the problem?

Bartok · 22/08/2010 00:28

Yes.

scottishmummy · 22/08/2010 00:36

YES

kalo12 · 22/08/2010 00:39

I think he should probably do it on a short term let

SmellyPirateHooker · 22/08/2010 00:47

I think he should be able to let it out, I also think he should quit pretending to be middle class and oh so ordinary. He will get 360k in rental income for the term in government (more if he gets reelected) which is more than someone on minimum wage would earn in 30 odd years.

He is a filthy rich toff not normal or middle class at all. Which is fine, just be a bit more honest about things.

edam · 22/08/2010 00:48

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If people poor enough to qualify for HB have to suffer, then our millionaire PM can manage without renting out his desirable family home in Ladbroke Grove.

(Been - DC's been boasting about taking a pay cut.)

Tortington · 22/08/2010 01:10

yes he should be allowed to rent out his house

no the prime minister of this country - from which ever party shouln't have to pay rent on downing street - thats just ridic.

yes he'll get a shit load of money, but thats hardly news - that the rich get richer is it?

if i was offered a job accom included i would rent out my house.

the job happens to be prime minister, the elected (lets just get past that bit Grin) democratically elected person who ruins the country, and i am happy to pay for the leader of the country to have a residence to conduct the running of the country.

Swipe left for the next trending thread