One Rule for David Cameron Another Rule for

So is this for his main residence or his second home? That would make the difference between this being none-news and news of fraud.

Any legal claim of fraud hinges on if this claim was for his main home or his second home.
The moral claim of wickedness and hypocrisy does not. Cameron is attempting to make political capital out of others doing exactly what he is doing. The "none-news" makes no other claim but points to his dissembling.

It might strike voters that Oxfordshire is a little far from London and should therefore be his second home. They might also say that is his original home and is therefore his first home. As is his wont, Cameron can claim what is expedient. What makes the entire situation not about fraud but mendacity is that Cameron does not say if he claimed expenses on his London Home as well. Failing to disclose the facts of the matter from any voter wishing to know if he is a fraud, while uttering the pretence of sincere goodwill.

Some parts of Oxfordshire are less than 45 mins from London by train. It IS conceivable that it was his main house.

Much as I dislike the tories, I'd have to see some more evidence that this is actually attempted dodginess.

Bits of Oxford are a mere 45 minutes from London. That suggests there is no need for a second home. Many people travel over an hour to get to work. Why should Politicians be any different?

Denying that Cameron has done anything illegal does not remove the suspicion of wicked double standards. He probably is within the law. But, he uses the conservative website to criticise other members of his party for exactly the same behaviour. That is not a legal issue but an issue of character. The clear evidence is that he has no character worthy of office.

If the Speaker is obliged to resign for presiding over a Parliament that wrongly claimed expenses then why should Cameron not resign for presiding over a party that wrongly claimed expenses? The answer has been clearly published on the Conservative Web Site: it is not in his interest. His claims are as questionable as any other.

And since we are, shouldn't we own his house when he stops being an MP? Of course, in addition to his non-mortgaged £2 million property in London, Cameron was lucky enough to be able to find money for a deposit on a £750,000 second property in Oxfordshire. So unlike those MPs who may only be able to pay rent out of their expense account, he gets to keep the £20,000 a year in the form of a property which will only continue to increase in value. We should demand this proportion back, at least. It's not as if his taxpayer-funded salary is leaving him on the poverty line.