DC - who's been a naughty boy then?

[Lord Bracknell]

Never mind the question of whether Cameron was or was not "within the rules". If you are a Member of Parliament who "needs a second home to do the job", why are you being allowed to buy a second family home and not a simple pied-à-terre? Something more modest than a place that needs a £350,000 mortgage is all that should be allowed.

 

[keaton]

In an interview the other day Cameron couldn't remember how many houses he had and then asked to not be made to look a posh idiot

 

[severnside gull]

sad thing is that Cameron's "indiscretions" will be played down by the press after a brief obligatory mention and then airbrushed out

 

[glasfryn]

So, the whiter than white Tory true blue David Cameron appears to have abused the system albeit, entirely 'within the rules'. Takes out a £350k mortgage, funded by us, on his '2nd' home in his constituency in Oxfordshire and then shortly after pays off a £75k outstanding mortgage on his London flat! According to reports, had he taken out £75k less on his constituency house then it would have cost us taxpayers £22k less!

What really pisses me off about this second home allowance is that MPs are using it to buy property in their constituency. Sorry, but if you represent an area then you should bloody well live there at your cost.

(Waits for the blue brigade to rise up to DC's defence)

they are all at it!

Or someone in a hurry. I just assumed it would have been one of the earlier things he paid off, surely?

why would he do that when he can get the likes of you and I to pay it off for him.

"No if's, no but's" as the campaign goes..

It is just a joke. Now I don't care admitting it but I'm a Labour voter but that doesn't mean I don't think all the Labour MP's caught are any less guilty than the Tories or Lib Dems..

Plus it's gone beyond being greedy with the claims to being criminal with the flipping, it is shameful.

as I said they are all at it

Absolutely. It pisses me off immensely watching the leaders of the political parties trying to score points by claiming to be taking a stronger lead, or suggesting that one side's impropriety is somehow worse than the others.

Is that what the public want to see, Cameron claiming the moral high ground, or Brown stating that the Tories have claimed more money? No. What they don't seem to be able to understand is that we're seeing them all in the same light, for what they really are, which is a bunch of grasping, self-serving leeches, bleeding the tax-payer dry in order to maintain the lifestyle they seem to think they deserve.

Shameron rode into his job as opposition leader saying this sort of back biting would not be done as it was not his style .........shabby man.

we need revolution in politics in this country and I don't mean putting all the MP's up against a wall and shooting them (although hang on a minute) I mean we need a revolution in the voting system this first past the post bollocks has to go

 

[desprateseagull]

", he is slimier than an Eel in a pot of Vaseline.."

i thought that was Peter Mandelscam?

 

[Falmer Flutter ©]

No matter how outlandish the claim we keep hearing the phrase 'within the rules'. Were there REALLY any proper rules? It seems to me that the only rule was 'You must have a receipt'.

Not even that. Until April last year, MPs were not required to submit receipts for claims up to £400 a month for groceries, £250 for utility bills, £250 for telephone bills, £250 for cleaning, £250 for service and maintenance and £250 for repairs and insurance.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Not even that. Until April last year, MPs were not required to submit receipts for claims up to £400 a month for groceries, £250 for utility bills, £250 for telephone bills, £250 for cleaning, £250 for service and maintenance and £250 for repairs and insurance.

The food thing is even more of a joke, MPs would have to eat whether they're at Westminster or in their constituencies, 200 miles away.

Why on earth should we pay for their food? It's not an additional expense, as far as I can see, particularly not for people earning £65,000 a year, considerably more than the national average wage.