Just so I’m clear on this, as I find this story less than crystal clear, your take on it is that it is unacceptable for any MP with a mortgage on their second home to pay down their mortgage on their first home?

The reason that both the Guardian and others are downplaying this story is that it isn’t one. There is absolutely no doubt that what Cameron did was within the rules. But , ever since this crisis began, Cameron has said that the rules weren’t good enough and that claims should also have to pass the test of reasonableness. It is to test the reasonableness of his claims that he is now submitting them to scrutiny and it is in that context that he has offered to pay back any claims that are subsequently deemed unreasonable. It isn’t, as you appear to suggest, an admission of guilt. I can understand why both Bob Piper and Liberal Conspiracy would wish to show everything Cameron does in the worst possible light. But you do your own cause no good by being selective with the truth. Voters are not fools and will not be taken in by it.

Cameron should explain why it was acceptable, not just why it was within the rules.

Unless I’m mistaken the issue seems to be that he could have saved the taxpayer 22K but failed to do so, although he denies this.

Cameron may of course have been lying but from what he said to Jon Sopel in his interview yesterday [which Sopel also failed to grasp] was that he was only reclaiming part of the mortgage on the second home, which presumably was a lot more than the £1,750 per month claimed, so that even if he had paid the £75,000 off the second home mortgage he would still have claimed £1,750 because the remaining mortgage would still have exceeded that amount. Non story really which makes the offer to pay it back a bit weird

When the second home mortgage is paid for by us – well, it doesn’t look great, does it?

However the corollary seems to be to say that if someone with no mortgage on their first home wanted to go into politics and needed a London base, that they should pay for it themselves since they can afford it…well that doesn’t sound quite right either.

And that is why he will get away with it, if “getting away with it” is the right construction to put on it.

(Either way, not quite the same as Darling’s quadruple flipping or double claiming.)

Bob Piper has his own ‘allowances’ to account for – he denied to me getting any ‘expenses’ but I have found out he actually got £17,217 TAX FREE in ‘allowances’ year ending March 2006 (the latest figures I could get hold of). He refuses to say what he spends our money on. It seems like all seasoned politicians, Bob knows how to ‘play on words’ to get round difficult issues.

As for Cameron, you are all missing the point. This guy is worth £30m, why should taxpayers have to pay for a mortgage he doesn’t actually need? Especially such a ginormous mortgage on a massive country house.

Sorry, forgot to give link to my post on Bob.

http://neilharding.blogspot.com/2009/06/bob-piper-not-penny.html

Wasn’t the argument against Julie Kirkbride, that expenses are meant to be solely in support of your duties as an MP and not to ease the burden on your family life.

I can see why Mr Cameron would want a large house in his constituency for his family – especially for his late son Ivan – but the fact of the matter is that as he already had a London property as his main home, the taxpayer should only be expected to contribute towards a modest property in Witney that would allow him a base to see his constituents.

As things stand, the property is far from modest and even if the Camerons are worth 10% of what has been reported in the papers (£30 million), they could pay the mortgage off at a stroke. If it is unacceptable for Julie Kirkbride to use the ACA for family reasons, why is it OK for Mr Cameron?

To me, the obvious problem with the above article is that it tries to get Cameron to take a consistent, principled position on something when he has no intention.
When the public is angry at any other (esp Labour) MP, then the rules aren’t enough. When Cameron is questioned, the rules are fine.
What is the difference between what is legal and what is acceptable?

Surely it would’ve been cheaper to have bought the house outright (which he is well capable of doing), than to get a mortgage? My concern is that Cameron only got a mortgage because he knew he could claim for mortgage interest. For me it therefore falls under property speculation and his claims fall in the same category as Hazel Blears’.

Neil Harding – Bob Piper is a councillor and so therefore gets a councillor’s allowance (like every other councillor in the country). These aren’t expenses, they’re the payment he receives for doing his job.

And they’re not tax free. Councillors have to pay tax and national insurance like everyone else. They also have to cover all of their office expenses out of their basic allowance.

Of course the Tory blogs like Guido and Dale are playing it down, because they are all discredited Tory hacks. Dale was boasting on here last week that he had called for 1 Tory to resign. Yes, just 1 Tory. Pathetic.

There is a change in the mood of Conservatives about this expenses row. When it first started they thought it was just lovely that all those nasty Labour Mps were getting tarred and feathered. But as it has gone on and it is become obvious that the Tory Mps are just as bad , if not worse, seeing as they are always banging on about people scrounging off the state they are starting to back track. “Oh we don’t like the idea of that nice Miss Kirkbride losing her seat.”

Cameron just shows himself up to be the great fraud that he is.

So if you can afford a second house anyway you shouldn’t get the ACA? Should he get the salary then? After all, he could afford not to. Or is this means-testing of allowances and expenses silly?

Actually, you make a good point about means-testing there. If we subject ordinary people to means-testing in order to make the most efficient use of resources, why not MPs?

You seem to be treating the ACA as part of MPs salary, which is what MPs have been criticised for. The point should not be to spend as much of it as possible, it’s there to spend as necessary to ensure MPs have a roof over their heads in both their constituency and Westminster, and get a reasonable ordinary standard of living in whichever is their second home. We seem to be paying for Cameron to live a life of luxury.

So we do means-test MPs then. At what level? After all, on a base salary of £63k all MPs could get a mortgage on two v small and basic properties, which is all they absolutely need. This would rather imply that the entire ACA can be done away with for everyone. Hell, lets cut their salaries to the national median wage too – after all that’s how most people have to cope.

You seemt to think it’s a ludicrous idea, but I’d support cutting their salaries to the national median wage.

I’d rather all MPs paid rent and couldn’t claim on second mortgages (or ideally they paid nothing, claimed nothing and were housed in flats bought by the Commons specifically for the purpose). That way they couldn’t make a profit out of the taxpayer.

(I want call him pro life seeing as e was happy to kill plenty of people in illegal wars)

I have told you what the solution to all these second homes is. Build a block of political halls of residency which can be used over decades. Nice little falts with internet acces, ans all the mod cons. The tax payer would get his money back in spades over th long term.

If people like Cameron wont live in social housing, he can buy his own second home. Dam it he can afford it, like most wealthy MPs

Well, that’s pretty much what the circs were up until the Atlee Government, which dramatically increased parliamentary salaries. The reason? Having a very low wage structure meant that only people with lucrative, flexible jobs (ie: barristers or people who owned their own businesses) or private incomes could be MPs. Guess which party that helps?

It’s not the situation before Attlee – MPs weren’t entitled to expenses then, either. There’s no reason why people who are not independently wealthy could not survive as an MP on the median wage providing expenses and living arrangements are generous enough to take into account the additional costs of being an MP.

Adam, I don’t begrudge hard working councillors their allowances, but actually a lot of these allowances are tax free under section 198 of expenses Act. Does Bob not make use of this?

The point with Bob is that he says he claims ‘not a penny’ in expenses thereby giving the impression he gets nothing off the taxpayer when in fact he does. His excuse is that he didn’t vote for the allowances and doesn’t need them because he earns ‘more than enough’ anyway. If so, why does he not pay them back or not receive them in the first place.

Bob is a hypocrite of the highest order because he defend the present system of being elected because he knows he is unlikely to ever be accountable under it. He is in a safe seat that has been Labour for decades and will remain Labour long after he has gone. All you need to do is brownnose the leadership long enough to get a safe seat – that is not democracy and that is why most MPs noses are in the trough.

Sunny’s right, it is unacceptable, even in within the rules, which in Lucy Mangan’s apt phrase appear to be made of rubberised bullshit.
However, nobody within New Labour can attack Cameron on this, since any call for him to step down as a result would logically entail just about the whole bloody cabinet departing (no bad thing at all, mind you…)

#20 – is your animosity to Bob Piper based on the fact he has a different view about PR to you, then? I don’t like PR (might be persuadable on AV as long as the top-up element isn’t included), either. Surely it’s possible to have an honest disagreement on the issue.

your take on it is that it is unacceptable for any MP with a mortgage on their second home to pay down their mortgage on their first home?

Using taxpayer money!! How much is the guy worth Tim J? You like subsidising millionaires do you??

Neil – please take that off-topic stuff elsewhere. Thsi is about Cameron

“How much is the guy worth Tim J? You like subsidising millionaires do you??”

Yes, he does- Tory voters love lining up for repeated kickings at the hands of the super-rich who laugh mockingly because they are deluded enough to think they will prosper thereby despite the Thatcherite dream being shown up as a fucking mirage.

Those who support the other branch of the Tory party, currently being led by Brown, are exactly the same but actually think they are supporting Labour despite the plain evidence that there’s nothing Labour about these thieving MP filth who consort with banker scum to see who can wring most from the sweat of the working class.

Until we abandon the now discredited Thatcherism we will just get this repeated.

Blimey, is this the Daily Mail Sunny? I pay Barbara Follett’s salary too. And Shaun Woodward’s. And their expenses. And it’s no more (or less) of a scandalous imposition than paying (to pick a name at random) Sarah Teather’s.

And FFS, he didn’t use taxpayer’s money to pay down his mortgage except in the narrow sense that a certain proportion of his money is “taxpayers money” because we pay his wages. That’s like arguing that every single purchase made by every single MP on anything is “using taxpayers money”. It’s the debating tactics of the playground. Grow up Sunny.

And exclamation marks are like cats. One is fine, but more than one is the sign of a warped mind.

Well yes Sunny, I’ve been wondering this point of why those who claim to have done nothing wrong pay money back. And I think, looking at news items concerning Darling, that it has something to do with how that person would look if they didn’t pay a symbolic gesture back.

That’s what the logic looks like to me, although judging by the response Blears received for waving around a cheque for 13K (her constituents only wished they could do such a thing etc etc) it seems like the wrong thing for an innocent subject to do.

Which may have implications of their own.

As for Cameron, lets see what this Tory Scrutiny Panel have to say about it, then make up our own minds. If you’re right about what you say, reading the Guardian about it may not fair us well.

Also thought I’d mention that Bob Piper cannot even tell the truth about how many votes he got – see here.