Looks like the Mail is desperately trying to carve out its own expense related niche in the news cycle that never ends.

Seems he used the sale of some shares from his previous employment to pay off the mortgage on his family home. Laying aside the fact that it would be nice to have those resources, I can't see the problem.

I'm only five years into repaying my own 25 year mortgage, and the thought of being able to pay it off would by so much peace of mind.

I think he did, Adrian, but then having used his capital to pay off the mortgage it seems he took another one out and lumped the interest on the taxpayers. I suspect it is definitely at the lower end of the sort of stuff that has been reported so far, but I thought it was interesting that the first response from the Tories was... "It was within the rules" when Cameron is telling us that is an inadequate excuse.

I was more surprised that he didn't appear to know how many homes he had actually got.

Is there really any difference in claiming the ACA allowance in duck islands or in mortgage subsidies if they are both within the defined "rules"? Quite frankly I don't see it.

Rather than a £650k house with a £350k mortgage why didn't Cameron just buy his own house and then make a claim for a few duck islands or whatever - the impact on the public purse would have been just the same. The impact of Cameron's purse however is that he is now sitting on an extra £350k capital gain on his Cotswold property given that house prices in Witney have risen c100% since 2001 - perhaps he might want to promise to pay this gain back into the public purse when he sells the property??

The basis of Cameron's complaint against others would appear to be that they didn't play the system as well as he did - hardly moral leadership I'm afraid.

Stephen, "Is there really any difference in claiming the ACA allowance in duck islands or in mortgage subsidies if they are both within the defined "rules"?"

Yes, of course there's a difference! A huge, great hulking difference. I hadn't noticed until I re-read the story that at some later point he did actually pay a lump sum off against the Witney home, thus reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

The ACA is to allow an MP to run a second home in the constituency or London. Surely the purchase of the second home qualifies?! Whereas housing stray fowl self evidently does not.

This is why I do not believe there is a moral equivalence in the examples you use. Also, according to the Halifax calculator, the price rise in the Witney area is 34% (although it did peak at 70% prior to house price slump)?

How about claiming second home expenses when you live in a Grace & Favour residence (including the examples in Downing St)? Is that not demonstrably unfair?

Bob: Yes, I would have thought the PR geniuses at CCHQ would have avoided the "within the rules" landmine!

Adrian

An expense of a second home is an expense of a second home they are all within the rules and they cost the same to us- I'm sure the others could have easily taken out an extra mortgage on a property and then used the proceeds to pay for whatever they wanted if they thought this whole thing was ever going to blow up. The fact was Cameron could have got something completely serviceable for £350k back in 2001 and needn't have claimed any mortgage interest.

And when did Cameron reduce his mortgage - looks like he did it pretty recently as he was claiming the full amount of the ACA until recently

Look at more detailed house price information for the area where Cameron lives using Land Registry prices - Halifax only quotes for regions - you will see the figure is pretty near 100% since 2001 even taking into account recent falls.