So, today we learn that Cameron, the man who has been banging on so sanctimoniously for weeks about the MP’s expenses scandal, who says, ‘I don’t care if it was within the rules. I want them to claim what is reasonable to do their job, not the maximum they can get away with’, got the tax payer to pay the £350,000 mortgage on the home he bought in his constituency in Oxfordshire in 2001. And, within 4 months of taking out this taxpayer funded mortgage he pays off the £75,000 mortgage on his London home.
The obvious issue raised in the papers today is that if he had used this £75,000 to reduce the amount he needed to borrow to buy this luxurious second home in Oxfordshire he would have saved the taxpayer over £22,000. Surely, an additional question Mr Cameron needs to answer, in the light of his blatant attempts to use this scandal to curry favour with the voters and paint himself whiter than white, and his rants that MPs should only claim what is reasonable to do their job, exactly how does he justify asking the taxpayer to buy him a luxury second home in Oxfordshire? Firstly, does he need a second home in Oxfordshire? The last time I looked Oxfordshire is well within a 2 hour commute from London; a commute that is performed by thousands, at their own expense, 5 days a week. Secondly, if he does need a second home to perform his duties adequately, does it need to be such a luxurious and expensive home or is it the case that he is taking the opportunity to fleece the taxpayer for as much as he can get away with?
Mr Cameron, please sit down and shut up! You are as much a sleazebag and a thief as all the rest of them!
0
Comments
Rather than making a point on a sperate thread - why can't it go in one of the MP expenses threads?
With this every man for himself philosophy, Cameron is surely looking out for number one, himself (and his family), fits in perfectly with Thatchers stated Tory philosophy. I know Cameron is not the only one on the fiddle, and the Tories not the only party. However as the Tories have clearly stated everyone for themselves and bugger society, they are less hypocritical than the 'socialist' Labour MP's on the fiddle, who are members of a party that is supposed to be for communities and society.
When Cameron and his cronies win the next election most of us are **cked, but if you're strong, young, selfish, healthy, and live in a gated community and drive an armoured car to a gated workplace, whilst having your goods delivered to your home you should be ok.
It is a separate and new point (Cameron's hypocrisy) and therefore it requires a separate thread!
The point being raised in this thread is nothing to do with MPs expenses. It is about Camerons hypocrisy. Therefore, it requires a separate thread.
As one of the numerous Rangers fans that post on this board stated when people expressed irritation at the number of threads dedicated to expressing support for Rangers FC, the clue is in the title, if it is of no interest to you don't read it.
I think I worded my posting badly here and I can see why you might think I am a Rangers fan! I actually detest Rangers. And, I agree with you, I think there are too many posts on here expressing support for them.
JOCK FOOTBALL SHOULD BE HEADED "THE PUB LEAGUE"!
Thats what oppositions do. They never win elections, Governments lose them. The same could be directed at both Blair and Thatcher.
[quote][cite]Posted By: SE7[/cite]Three words for you all, Vote Nick Clegg[/quote]
Just find him irritating,not a scratch on Charles Kennedy (when sober) or David Steel.
Cameron seems to be a bad Tory impersonation of Tony Blair.
So either someone else has to go round and do her job for her, or he just decided that laws surrounding elections are less important than his morals.
Either way it's wrong.
No, it's a 100% correct decision.
It's calling being a good manager and all round top egg.
I'm sure the white post men/women don't want to deliver that rubbish either. I think it's a sensitive decision and one well made.