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

[edam]

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?

I never said £60k is a low salary, simply that it would be extremely hard to live on that, support a family and run two homes, one of which is obviously in London.

Not sure why you have the idea that they are "given" money with which to buy a house. The second home allowance is a sum of money up to £22,000 a year in order to cover the costs associated with maintaining a second home. I agree the system is far from perfect but I'm not sure that providing an MP with a second home (or tied home) in Central London and covering their travel costs would cost significantly less than £22k a year. Certainly the allowance as it stands equates to the rent on a fairly modest Central London flat taking into account council tax, utilities and other expenses plus travel costs t and from the Constituency.

smallwhitecat is right.

The issue is not over DC's claiming of allowances for a second home, but the overall system of purchased second homes, which is a different (and fair) debate.

I still think it's fair for London-based MPs to have the cost of their accomodation in their constituency covered, and for them to be able to have a house suitable for their family to join them at weekends. It must be bad enough being the spouse /child of an MP without being holed up in a manky travelodge every weekend .

I don't think £22k is really that much to maintain a family-sized second home -especially in the South of England?

Just to contrast with Expat's scenarios - when I worked in the private sector we were able to buy a second property if required to be in a different place of work for some time. If your family stayed in the main home then the company covered both sets of costs. If the family moved too, the the company covered the costs over and above any rental income (and paid £5k a year for 'maintenance and decoration' of the rental property.

We were also paid 'moving allowances' - for furniture/ curtains/ electricals etc - not expenses - simply lump sums, which you could choose to spend as you wished.

The parliamentary allowance system is not so unique.....

"The second home allowance is a sum of money up to £22,000 a year in order to cover the costs associated with maintaining a second home."

I used to live in David Cameron's constituency until recently and I paid more than £22k per year to rent a 4 bed house with a gardener. That is the market rate.

It is not a excessive claim in my view. It is not fair to say that just because he is wealthy he shoud not claim is allowed expenses to maintain the second home in his constituency. His main home is clearly London.

He has not flipped property, he has not avoided tax, he has not changed the designation of primary and secondary residence. He lives in London as his primary residence - his second home is in his constituency. End of.

And the public paid for your house, Legacy?

'Not sure why you have the idea that they are "given" money with which to buy a house. The second home allowance is a sum of money up to £22,000 a year in order to cover the costs associated with maintaining a second home.'

In other words, they're given public monies to seed their purchase and then when they sell it they take all the profit with them.

And so then, they're not actually having to maintain two homes on £64K, but on £86K (£22,000 of which was apparently tax free).

If the family wants to join them in London at weekends, it should be at their own expense.

The accommodation is for hte person in question whose job required them to go to London.

Sorry, that last post was applying to MPs who constituency was outside of London.

Cameron has claimed the maximum in mortgage interest on the Oxon house (over £20K pa, how large a mortgage incurs that much interest???) Was it necessary for his second home to be quite so large house & need such a large mortgage? And has he ever declared an intention to refund all the profit he makes on the eventual sale of that house?

I heard Nick Clegg on the radio recently saying that "of course" he would be refunding the taxpayer for his second home, but it would have been nice to have had similar declarations from all those second home owners before the shit hit the fan

I don't care if it's 22000 or 220 pounds, they should all be prosecuted, same as any of us would if we stole anything, or claimed benifits we were not entilted to, they all knew what they were doing, they are not stupid people, just very greedy,cunning and got caught out

In some respects, as a Tory voter, I feel more annoyed when Tory MPs have been caught at it. I expect Labour MPs to be a bit free with tax-payers' money because that's what they do: tax and spend. (Honourable exceptions aside: that other Luton Labour MP who just commuted to London, and Hilary Benn, etc: hats off to them).

But Tories are supposed to be more frugal with our precious, hard-earned taxes.

I think they should have a set sum paid to them to cover EVERYTHING from secretarial to housing costs. They could spend it as they wished.

expat - I agreed with you that the system of purchased second homes for MPs was open for debate, and MP 'halls of residence' seemed a reasonable solution for non-London MPs mid-week.

However your previous post implied that it is ONLY in parliament that the current sort of allowance/ second homes system exists, and I was I merely pointing out that the use of second home purchasing/ allowances etc has historically been widespread elsewhere too.

In the private sector it's common to refer to the various 'allowances' as part of the overall salary/package, e.g.

Salary: £ xk
Car allowance £y k
Flexible benefits allowances: £ z k
Pension: £ p k
Total package: £ a k

I guess what I'm saying is that to people who are used to working in such environments, they are wondering what the fuss is about for the 'legitimate' second home allowances.

Whether it's hotels + expenses, or payment for a rental income/ mortgage interest I think it would probably turn out to be c. £20k a year anyway, so it will just result in moving money around.

Therefore the only REAL issue & debate is the one about capital gains on purchased second homes?

At the higher end of the private sector then, Legacy. Because John Q. Public whom the MP is voted in the represent probably isn't getting all that if/when his job requires him to travel to and work in London .

If not a halls of residence, then flats owned by the government, like the Church of Scotland does. It's worked for them for years and then they get to keep it and pass it on when the employee moves on or retires.

But can you imagine all the shenanigans going on if you put all the MPs in one giant hotel/hall of residence.... ]

I now it's not very popular to voice this at the moment, but I DO think we make the job of our MPs unnecessarily difficult with 10 pm voting and late night committees etc. It means meany good people who might otherwise become an MP are put off by the ridiculous working practices.

Surely in this day and age of web-meetings there shouldn't be a need to have them all in London all the time anyway??

When I was sent to Japan by my company I had all sorts of allowances / expenses not to mention an apartment paid for at a cost of US$6,000 a month. I really do not think £22k to fund a house in London is excessive. Also, now house prices are falling so many MP's who chose to buy may well be nursing losses.

Halls of residene are all very fine but it is rather sexist imo as it assumes that there is a spouse able to stay in the constituency to look after the children on their own. Many MP's have partners who have a job in London and then they all travel toegther to the constiteuncy at weekends. I also very much doubt that a Hall of Residence could be achieved in Central London at a cost of less than £22k.

Also not sure what they should be prosecuted for jumping beans when few of them appear to have broken any law.

They still sit until 10.30 pm 2 days a week despite the changes.

Obviously renting would be far more expensive. Expats here (outside London) usually get £4-£5k/month rental allowance.

Is the fact that DC is well off enough to pay off one mortgage relevant to the rules?
It's not as though MPs are means tested is it? If they do the job they are entitled to have their second home mortgage paid, regardless of whether they (or their spouses for that matter) can afford to pay off the family home.

I'm not sure of the answer to this, but have been pondering if it should be any different for rich MPs with castles and moats or whatever, compared to those 'struggling' on a 60k salary, running 2 homes, supporting a family etc and are therefore entitled to help with expenses.

abraid - funny you and I have working assumptions about MPs' honesty from opposite ends of the spectrum.

I've always thought that in general Labour is less likely to be dodgy. Remember sleaze under Major, cash in brown envelopes for asking questions?

Roughly, my rule of thumb has been that Labour historically is a democratic movement rooted in social justice for the ordinary working man or woman, hence Labour MPs tend not to be snouts in the trough.

While the Tories are more money-oriented, all those non-exec directorships that pay them thousands of pounds while they are supposed to be working long hours in Parliament and their constituency. Hence my guess has always been there would be more Tories vulnerable to temptation.

Look at Derek Conway... although then you have 'New' Labour types like Mandelson who make me despair.

Dunno what to think about them any more, hard to argue with people who say they are all as bad as one another (with some honourable exceptions such as Hilary Been and Alan Johnson).

Wiki entry, no idea how accurate:

"A Daily Mail article from June 2007 quoted Sunday Times Rich List compiler Philip Beresford, who had valued the Conservative leader for the first time, as saying: "I put the combined family wealth of David and Samantha Cameron at £30m plus. Both sides of the family are extremely wealthy. They certainly have no need to worry about poverty or paying school fees."[176]"

SWC- "And I think anything that undermines Parliament as a debating chamber isn't a good idea" - but do you REALLY think the (poorly attended) debating chamber style is effective?

I don't.

It's purely a point-scoring game (and a boorish macho one at that). It isn't clever, reasoned debate that provides new information, or convinces people to re-evaluate their position. More like a punch and judy show (especially PM's Q's of course).

I think the parliamentary process needs to be modernised. Why just have MPs making long monotonous speeches from side after side of A4? Why can't they explain and convince with powerpoint slides and video clips and proper supporting materials.

In other walks of life such as teaching or business the 'stand and deliver' approach has been shown to be a pretty ineffective mode of communication in isolation.

I think there is a very real risk that this whole issue will mean that in years to come it will ONLY be people like DC who have personal/family wealth prior to entering parliament who will be able to afford/ be willing to be MPs, and I think that will be a backward step for the political system as a whole.

I know people in different parts of the country are incredulous when people say £64K isn't that much for a dual-sited MP, but it REALLY ISN'T!
If you've never lived and worked in London then you simply have no idea what it's like. The price of everything is much more expensive. And at the end of the day MPs are expected to be out and about all over the place, which ends up costing more than if you're sitting at your desk eating your packed lunch!

When people start banging on about what a lot of money it is, and what a load of wasters MPs are, I always think, "well what's stopping you from doing it then?" If more supposedly honest and decent people came forward they could collectively make a real differencr?

SomeGuy - the rent on my house is a lot less the landlord pays on his 100% interest only mortgage plus his maintenence and insurance costs plus the gardener he pays.
Renting is also now far cheaper than owning in London as rents are down quite significantly.

MPs should rent. Their job is only temporary.

The thing that does stick in my craw is how MPs have bought houses and pocketed the profits wile the state paid the bills.

MPs should rent not go riding the property market by buying an flipping multiple property. David Cameron did not do that of course.

edam - really?

"Roughly, my rule of thumb has been that Labour historically is a democratic movement rooted in social justice for the ordinary working man or woman, hence Labour MPs tend not to be snouts in the trough."

I don't think this is a party issue - there are good and bad examples on both sides.

That's what I said Legacy!! On J-Kirkbride thread -- and I got slammed for it.
I cannot believe MPs are "all crooks".
They are much too ordinary for that (imho ).
System was too generous & laxly supervised; fix that rather than villify individuals.