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?

Beta, I was responding to abraid, I think, who said her rule of thumb was Labour was more likely to be dodgy. Just saying isn't it funny how people can come at the same issue exactly opposite points of view.

And yes, of course there are dodgy expenses claims on both sides. But if you remember Major, there was case after case of adultery committed by people who had been busy slagging off single parents and case after case of fingers in the till - Neil Hamilton was far from the only one.

(What I mean is, I was a relatively young voter under Major, so that probably played a part in shaping my preconceptions.)

'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.'

Unfortunately Labour in the Central Belt of Scotland is notorious for corruption. Lots of money and favours change hands. It's far from the ideals that are represented by the Benns, for example, whom I respect though I disagree with their views.

But in fact, in my post, I wasn't necessarily meaning dodgy in the sense of doing illegal things, just that the Tories are always so keen on looking after the taxpayer and...well, erm,,,

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.

Well yes and no, the point is the cost to the taxpayer is only £22k. Which is certainly below market rent for a decent place in central London. The MPs use their personal resources to buy the house with the £22k as a subsidy and hopefully (for them) make money through house price inflation.

The tax payer saves on rent and the MPs make a profit. What's the problem?

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

Why not? If the cost is lower to the taxpayer it seems like a good deal. Particularly if it means the total cost of MPs is reduced.

at Abraid and 'erm' - that's about how my 'the Tories are only interested in money and were a bunch of spivs under Major' theory ends!

MrsAB, the combined wealth of David and Samantha Cameron's families may well indeed be £30m but that isn't necessarily relevant to them. Viscount Astor is afer all her stepfather, not father.

At the moment, edam, I entirely agree that the Tories don't look any whiter than the Labour MPs. But what's sad is that some otherwise good MPs (on both sides) have been lost. And that's not good for anyone.

yes, abraid, although personally I feel we can do without Margaret Moran, Viggers and Mackay. And Elliot Morley.

And the Keens - wot about the Keens - why haven't they gone? (or have they & I didn't notice?)

I don't think that there is any doubt that the Camerons are extremely wealthy. He has been described as a millionaire throughout the expenses saga, and they both come from very wealthy families (including her paternal family). That he used his expenses is not surprising. They weren't means tested after all, and any accountant (and they will have had an accountant) will have told them to do exactly what they did with the allowance. As to whether the system was fair, almost certainly not. Was it moral for him to claim an expense he didn't need - well how many claim for child benefit or pensions who have no "need"? The scheme was incredibly loosely worded and policed. However because of that there are almost no cases for prosecution bar a couple of real abuses (bearing in mind the moat and other really stupid claims were not in fact paid up).

The issue is the system being poorly thought out and too much of a club type set up, where people were implicitly trusted to be doing the right thing, and that this was not questioned. Plus there appeared to be no conception of what is for many people a perfectly a normal commute - the only people who couldn't claim for a second home/hotel allowances were inner London MPs. All the outer London MPs were allowed to claim, which is really insane - my old borough was a 30min commute from Westminster by public transport, but as outer London (Bromley) would have qualified for two homes.

And what IS this about the Chancellor 'having' to go because he made a single false claim for less than £700?

I'm no Labour lover but this strikes me as completely over the top. The danger is that nobody will want to become an MP because they're so scared of being named and shamed for something silly.

Okay - lets just say everyone was doing this. It is quite possible. Do we sack them all?

Abraid, I think where ever there is money and people you will find corruption. That's human nature. It's the systems that are at falut here as they seem to either have been drafted on wishful thinking or otherwise designed to give MP's a backhander.

I did say almost!

What's really worrying me now is that nobody decent will want to be an MP because they'll be so scared they'll make a genuine mistake. Some of those who are going did some good work for their constituents and for the country. I think you're right about the system, monkeytrousers.