Cameron's �102,874 expenses.

[Gromit]

I am a bit perplexed by Dave Cameron's expenses claims.

I realise he hasn't done anything criminal and acted within the rules, but why does a man worth �30million have to get a mortgage and then claim �102,874 from the taxpayer?

Especially when he had just sold his London home which he allegedly sold at a profit of �935,000.

Still, he is paying back �680 which he admits he wrongly claimed. This was for having wisteria removed from his chimney.

The Torygraph has not made much fuss about this , so it cannot be important can it?

[BertiWooster]

We shouldn't be suprised

If you place a trough in front of a swine , that swine is going immerse it's nose inside it , whether or not it really needs to .

[VHG]

>but why does a man worth �30million have to get a >mortgage and then claim �102,874 from the taxpayer?

Because he can.

He knows he is "allowed " to claim back all his mortgage interest (up to about �20,000 a year) on his "second home".

So he took out the biggest mortgage he could and then claimed back most (or all) of the interest as expenses.

In fact it was a "clever" move because whereas some MPs have been hauled over the coals for buying a few tins of dog food, or some cushions that cost a few pounds, he (and other MPs) who have just claimed (massive) mortgage interest have been virtually ignored.

He has been just as greedy as any other greedy MP, and I speak as a tory supporter (who voted today but did NOT vote tory).

[jake-the-peg]

He then acts all bewilderred and says how the system needs reforming as if he didn't know what the system was!

No doubt he pleaded with Michael Martin not to let him claim all that money but alas....!

Incidently it's not big news but the Telegraph has run a series of "the Saints" who are the politicians it says have claimed little or no expenses and get it's seal of approval:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps -expenses/5342811/MPs-expenses-The-saints-Part -i.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps -expenses/5342657/MPs-expenses-The-saints-Part -ii.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps -expenses/5350793/MPs-expenses-The-saints-Part -iii.html

People like Hillary Benn Anne Widdecombe and Frank Field

[ludwig]

The above answers are right. They do it because they can. There doesn't seem to be one of them that said to themselves - 'You know what, I'm a millionaire. I really can afford to buy my own food|bath plugs|curtains|kit kats|house etc, so even though I can get away with claiming it, I'm not going to'.

Having said that, obviously there are those who seem to have done just that and behaved honourably. It's just a shame that the 95% of them that were fraudulent have given the other 5% a bad name.

[ludwig]

My answer went in before I saw Jakes. It's worth looking into the people who didn't abuse the system, because these are probably the only ones worth voting in again.

[jno]

possibly but not necessarily, ludwig. Some of those not claiming for second homes live in London (Glenda Jackson for instance) and don't need one. Others are wealthy and don't need me to pay for one. Good for them, but we shouldn't be berating those who do need one and aren'twealthy enough to buy it for themselves. Otherwise we'll be back to the good old days when only the rich could afford to be in parliament - though I imagine Cameron's Eton crew wouldn't mind that at all.

[paraffin]

The outrageous aspect of this whole sorry saga of MPs' expenses is that each and every one of them has been acting within a system of self regulation, devised by them, administered by them, and ultimately abused by them to the detriment of millions of gullible tax payers in this country, duped into assuming that such "honourable" individuals would never sink so low.

And it has made not one jot of difference whether the MP is prince or pauper, leader or follower, they've each been tempted, and many have succumbed, to that most base of human instincts - greed!

[rov1200]

I think Cameron sums it all up. Not one MP has admitted he has done wrong. Reasons have included 'oversight', 'following the rules', 'maths is not my strong point'' ,etc, but no admission of guilt.

Strange when you think that some innocent people have been locked up for 30 years for still pleading their innocence. The law states that if you cannot come to terms with your crime there is no parole.

Most of these crooks in the HofC however will be voted in again at the next election with records against them. What a prospect!

[mike1222]

ludwig, you say, " It's worth looking into the people who didn't abuse the system, because these are probably the only ones worth voting in again"
They are ALL complicit insofar that they ALL knew what was going on and must have known that it was all moraaly wrong, but not one of them had the decency or guts to blow the whistle.
NONE of them are "honourable" and NONE of them are worth voting for!!

[naomi24]

Surprisingly enough, a lot of people with money have it because they don't spend it. In the case of MPs, they let their own accumulate whilst they spend other people's.

[gardenmad]

If these MPs who are named and shamed fall back on the excuse that maths 'is not my strong point' what are they thinking of, putting themselves forward to run the country? And when will they be brought to court? Some of them have blatantly broken the law - false accounting, claiming for payments they never made (Jack Straw?) etc and if you or I did this, we should soon be had. And I speak as a Telegraph reading Tory voter, who today changed her politics.