Cameron's mortgage

David

So, we have a second home that no one is in doubt is a second home, the ACA being used purely to pay the interest on the mortgage, and Cameron spending his own money to reduce the interest payments.

Um, why is this a front page story?

Andrew

Dacre's latest bid for a slot on Brown's Lavender List. Pretty feeble stuff.

Harry

I find it rather hard to be lectured about Cameron's wealth and privilege by Brown who's been earning well over £100,000 a year for the last 12 years

Julianlzb87

Foolish man should have insisted
upon a livable dowry from Sams' dad.

Mitch

Or are they getting this out now so when Gordons "arrangements" are outed he will have no where to turn?
For someone who has only ever been an MP gordon seems very rich.

Joseph

This is nothing to do with Cameron's background or inherited wealth. It's all about whether or not he has played the system to make himself thousands of pounds at the taxpayers expense.

Did he pay off his mortgage on his main home by increasing his taxpayer funded mortgage on his second home? If so, then he must have questions to answer.

TrevorsDen

In what way has Cameron made the system work for him? He has bought a house in his constituency and used the ACA to help pay for it.

Quite rightly for ALL MPs its not expected that they should run two 'homes' on their pay.
Cameron has used the system fairly and if any Tory MPs are upset I invite them to write to me on my blog and I will be happy to give them a piece of my mind.

The story is a smear - it's a totally expected smear from that well known friend of Brown the Mail editor.

Stronghold Barricades

Are we saying that the ACA should be means tested?

Seems a little harsh and counter productive

If we make the issue of mortgage interest payments a "part of the problem" then it will implicate a lot of both sides

I can, however, understand the grandees who simply say that if they'd claimed mortgage interest relief then no-one would have said anything. The fact that they didn't have a mortgage and were allowed to claim for other things says much about the Fees Office and the system

David

"Did he pay off his mortgage on his main home by increasing his taxpayer funded mortgage on his second home? If so, then he must have questions to answer."

No, he paid off his first mortgage by selling shares and with some savings. As any normal person would do, he paid off his primary mortgage first.

This story has the whiff of the smear about it. The point it seems to be making is that every MP who comes into money, for whatever reason, should only be allowed to spend that on paying off their second home mortgage. If they sold a car - that too! It's a way of reminding people that Cameron is relatively wealthy - it's not a story with any actual merit whatsoever.

Geoff

why does multi millionaire Cameron need to claim any money? the hypocrisy of these people is beyond belief.

Anand

Cameron's use of the ACA s how it SHOULD be used. I would do the same if I were an MP. It looks clean, it is beyond scandal and is bang ON the spirit of the rules.

This is a complete non-story by the Mail, no idea what they are playing at.

In comparison, Brown's property history and claims histiry is VERY dodgy, especially the fact he has been using ACA to fund a second and often 3rd home (cleaning on a flat in westminister whilst his scottish constituency home was declared as his second home and he was living in Downing Street)

Mike

So, its ok because it was "within the rules".

Presumably Cameron will now sack himself?

Tiberius

David; the answer to your question is that they can't nail him on any valid point.

TGF UKIP

This story wouldn't be the story it is if Dave hadn't been his usual preachy self and if his Tory targets had taken in not just the old guard but The Clique and Clones as well. If Viggers, Steen etc why not Maude and Grayling as well?

Quite apart from which isn't there something quite delicious when the unctuous and sanctimonious get bitten in the arse themselves?

THX1138

Why don't we ask the loathsome Dacre's where his boss Jonathan Harmsworth pays his tax?

Slagging of MP's while Harmsworth's allegedly playing fast & loose with him nom dom tax status.

Nigel Sedgwick

As I have already posted on the blog of Tom Paine, although I think much of this MP's snout in the trough activity is absolutely appalling, there is one particular aspect of these accusations that I am not happy about.

My issue is this: should the allowance paid for a second home depend on whether the MP owns it outright, on some proportion of mortgage, or rents it?

My view is that it should not. If the MP saves travel expenses between Westminster and constituency (together with a sufficiency of his/her time), I think the allowance should be paid. And it should be paid as a nominal rent appropriate for the property and with a modest upper limit. It is also clear to me that the allowance should be for the lesser property of those in Westminster and his/her constituency.

It is important that the MP should not make a profit out of the allowance, and this seems to be where the difficulty perhaps arises: expenses currently must be for items that are actually paid for (preferably against receipts). Although this works well for most things (travel, hotel accommodation, meals away from home, etc), it does not work well for an owned property unless it is on a 100% mortgage. Perhaps it is insistence of actual expenditure for second homes that is causing effective invention of expenditure to replace that which should be claimed as 'notional rent'.

Best regards

Angry Voter

The taxpayer paid a huge chunk of his mortgage interest. Thousands of quids. How many asylum seekers live near him? 0. Why should he have a posh house, while saying nothing about excessive immigration which affects millions of others? Look on www.daily-mail.co.uk for a pic of his posh cottage paid for by taxpayers. He's not even a real Tory he's a faker. Time for him to step down.

Verity

I have learned to be suspicious when a politician says that something was "within the rules".

Cameron's a humourless, preachy, self-righteous prig, like his hero and template, Tony Blair.

Fergus Pickering

Relatively wealthy! He's stinking rich as far as I can see. But I have no objection to that. The logical position of his detractors is that rich men (and women) shouldn't do anything to minimise their tax and shouldn't claim any of their allowances. But if you really feel like this then be a man - up and cut his throat for being a bloated capitalist. And then look out for yourself, for any mugger in the street cn justify his activities in the same way.

Rob Slack

Why should an MP claim less just because s/he (partly) owns a second home? Anyone who owns a second home is entitled to rent it out for income. If an MP lives in his/her second home s/he should be entitled to rent/interest on value; that is s/he should be able to recover the REAL (opportunity) cost of living there, which is the greater of lost rent, net of expenses, or lost interest on the invested cash. Many people seem to confuse monetary payments with costs; sometimes the payments proxy costs quite well but they are never other than a proxy for the real costs. Many people will disagree with me. They are wrong.

SCS

Just because Cameron may be entitled to claim mortgage interest under the ACA doesn't mean he has to! He could have purchased a more modest second home outright at no expense to the taxpayer.

Should anyone claim because they see something as an entitlement rather than that they need to?

Forlornehope

What is the Mail playing at? Suspect a CCHQ plant to get this out and dealt with. It is difficult to make a case that he shouldn't have used the ACA to pay mortgage interest. The argument seems to be that if you can afford to buy a second home you shouldn't claim.

KJ

The man has a second home, for the purpose of being an MP, he claims his ACA for the mortgage.
This is the purpose of the ACA.
The fact that he was in a position to pay down some of his own mortgage later on is not relevant.

Sounds like a smear to me.

Craig Strachan

@Andrew: Why would Lord Dacre want or need a place on Brown's lavender list? You think Brown would bump him up to an earl or something?

David

"The argument seems to be that if you can afford to buy a second home you shouldn't claim."

Quite. That's all this story is; a 'get Cameron because he's got money' smear. He is one of the few MPs to follow everything to the letter, and is now being pilloried by the dumbies at the Mail for having the cheek to sell some shares and pay off his first mortgage with the proceeds.

peter

"(It should be stressed that Cameron’s claims for mortgage interest are completely within the rules)."

This the MPs version of:
"I voz only following orders."

Joneeboy

Harry
The difference between Brown and Cameron is that Brown has worked for his money, and his salary is not tax-free, whereas Cameron is a multi-millionaire, born with a silver spoon, and so far, has not worked at anything other than collecting director's fees, and owning a share in a 'public relations'company.
Anand
You seem to have information that the rest of us are not privy to, including apparently, the Telegraph, which had to apologise to Brown, and say very loudly and clearly that they had found nothing untoward about the PM's own accounts,and they were exceedingly sorry if anything they had printed might have been misinterpreted as suggesting otherwise.If you know otherwise, do tell!

John Page

David, I'll tell you why it's a story. Because they bought a big house (they didn't need one that size) with a big mortgage on which poor taxpayers are helping to pay the interest.

And soon after getting the mortgage he paid down/off a loan on his London house which he had been having to pay the interest on himself.

This would be a moral affront even if there wasn't family wealth.

No austerity for Milord Cameron.

Fox in a box

It seems to me that many of those on the Tory benches are millionaires and so are some on the Labour benches.

The "dividing line" appears to me to be that most of the millionaires on the Tory side of the house were such BEFORE they became MP's.

Whereas those on the Labour side have become millionaires SINCE they became MP's...

John Lea

David, you miss the point - why should politicians be able to claim money on second homes AT ALL? If their consituency is far from London and they need to stay in London in order to attend parliament, then they should stay in hostels or modest RENTED accommodation. They should not be allowed to take out mortgages and pay for it out of our pockets. They should not be allowed to make a profit out of expenses. Cameron is a snake oil salesman. Worse than Brown in so many ways. People who try and defend him are living in denial.

Nicholas

Quick in the attack these Liebour trolls, but nowhere to be seen when the finger is pointed at the ghastly criminal gang of nutjobs and shysters occupying the cabinet.

Elizabeth FitzGibbon

David Cameron`s Constituency is in Witney, so why isn`t he living there and staying in a (designated hotel for all politicians as they do in Warsaw)when in London. Parliament only sits for approximately a third of the year. If he wishes to live in London, that is his choice and no reason for the taxpayer to fund the mortgage on his second home and pay his stamp duty. I think he has got off very lightly over the Wisteria business too. I would really respect him if he came down on M.P.s expenses during this Conference.