Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

David Laws' expenses

601 replies

longfingernailspaintedblue · 28/05/2010 22:41

I really thought he was the very best of the Lib Dems.

Given his fortune he obviously doesn't need the expenses, but hiding his landlord/partner from the authorities is unacceptable, even if it was to hide his sexuality.

I'm completely shellshocked.

OP posts:
LeninGrad · 30/05/2010 18:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TDiddy · 30/05/2010 18:48

We should have less MPs, better paid and demand more value from them.

Original poster
longfingernailspaintedblue · 30/05/2010 18:49

Yes, I was a bit distracted in the kitchen at the time and wasn't paying complete attention - but what garbled fragments I did hear did sound like he was resigning.

Apologies if I jumped the gun!

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernailspaintedblue · 30/05/2010 18:51

I have just searched Twitter for clarification - apparently what the BBC reported is that he is "considering" resigning as an MP.

OP posts:
MadameCastafiore · 30/05/2010 18:55

He didn't need the money was a big fish in the city so was just being a lying little twerp trying to line the pockets of his boyfriend.

And to play the 'Oh I'm gay and didn't want anyone to know' card is a joke - if you didn't want anyone to know you shouldn't have lived with him and claimed.

Think Cameron and Clegg have behaved appallingly - they should have brought the axe out immediately - showing no sympathy to hinm at all - all this bollocks during the election that they were going to be hard on the lying theives doesn;t ring very true now.

marantha · 30/05/2010 18:59

TDiddy. I am married, my husband and myself declared that we wished to be viewed as a couple as a matter of record. Therefore, should we be unfortunate enough to fall on hard times, I'd have little qualms with the "authorities" telling us we have to support each other. To be fair, we DID say as much. Can't argue, we both signed the form, better for worse, richer or poorer...

But the whole issue of treating people who are living under the same roof as "spouses" makes me sick. Britain an enlightened country? We're still in f***g dark ages if we consider whether or not two people have sex to be a measure of whether or not they should receive monies.
I mean if David Law and friend (yeah, I think "friend" is fair enough) were two good male mates in a non-sexual relationship the matter wouldn't have arisen.

Seriously, we haven't moved an inch.

TDiddy · 30/05/2010 19:13

I prefer them to be paid more and be less compromised. These are our law makers...they shouldn't be prone to lobby interest etc. There are many city scribblers on starting salaries better than backbenchers!

TDiddy · 30/05/2010 19:14

marantha - i agree

TDiddy · 30/05/2010 19:20

MadameCastafiore- a bit harsh as he left the City when he was 28yrs and therefore probably didn't have that much money not to want to make claims. He started his claims when expenses were treated like an extension of salary. I have some sympathy. Especially now that he has paid a very high price. I don't enjoy seeing him suffer.

ilovemydogandMrObama · 30/05/2010 19:29

Living under the same roof doesn't necessarily mean being in a relationship. Seem to recall that one of the criteria is whether or not one's laundry is being done by the other . Very sexist idea, but nevertheless there is the recognition that some people cannot afford to move out, and have separated, yet due to unfortunate circumstances, can't get separate accommodation.

Allowances/perks. I'd get rid of them. Pay MPs a higher salary, and that's it. Maybe a set allowance for postage/phone, or free postage for constituency business. Then, that's it. People can live at the Ritz, and eat the Savoy Grill and it wouldn't matter because it would be part of their salary. No grey areas because it would be their money.

vesela · 30/05/2010 19:44

MadameCastafiore - he was in the City until he was 29, at which he decided there was more to life, gave it all up and became a Lib Dem researcher. That was 16 years ago.

Your wording makes me livid.

MmeLindt · 30/05/2010 19:49

I agree with Ilovemydog. The whole expenses system makes it too easy for MPs to take advantage. It is a wonder that the scandal took so long to break.

MPs should get a fair salary, that reflects their need of having accommodation in London in addition to their house/flat in their constituency plus a small expenses budget but no more.

To those arguing that he was not in a real relationship, I would say that it does not matter. He knew the rules and he broke them.

If he had been living with a woman since 2002 and had been claiming expenses for rental payments to her, then would it be ok?

vesela · 30/05/2010 19:49

ilovemydog, I'd do the same - higher salary, no expenses.

marantha · 30/05/2010 19:56

MmeLindt If- you may not be, to be fair- you are referring to my posts, then I must say that I agreed that they were in a relationship.

My point is that that relationship may not be akin to a SPOUSAL relationship.

If you were living with a woman since 2002 etc, and you GENUINELY did not believe your relationship with this woman to be akin to that of a SPOUSAL one, YES it would be OK.

Who is the better judge of whether or not this relationship is a spousal one- you (who are in it) or me (who is not)?

I am sure you will agree that not all live-in relationships are marriage-like.

TDiddy · 30/05/2010 20:00

ilovemydog and vesela as ever, are voices of reason- pay MPs higher salary, no expenses and make them more accountable etc.

LeninGrad · 30/05/2010 20:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TDiddy · 30/05/2010 20:04

I am wondering if people would have concluded the same if it were a woman he was having a relationship with? Not sure, just wondering.

MmeLindt · 30/05/2010 20:05

True, Marantha. Then that is an issue that has to be addressed.

At the same time, how else do you define a relationship that has been going on for over a decade, where the partners have made financial commitments (buying a house, one partner selling his house to help finance it) etc.

There has to be some way of assessing two people's living arrangement, I presume this way is similar to the one for Benefit applicants.

LeninGrad · 30/05/2010 20:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

vesela · 30/05/2010 20:06

MmeLindt, if it were a woman - it would have been OK until 2006 (and for the first two years they weren't even having a relationship - it was totally a landlord/tenant thing).

After that - depends on the nature of the relationship. The definition of "partner" in the parliamentary allowances rules is "one of a couple ... who although not married to each other or civil partners are living together and treat each other as spouses"

TDiddy · 30/05/2010 20:15

" treat each other as spouses"...well that's clear isn't it? Maybe this lot aren't up to the job of rule/law making. I guess we are getting what we pay for.

vesela · 30/05/2010 20:22

LeninGrad, agree it should be more on individual basis, hence opposition to marriage tax break apart from anything else. Assessment for benefits is IMO way too hard on people for living with what can be some pretty flakey partners (there's a four-night rule, though, which arguably Laws would have fallen under if he went to Somerset every Friday...).

As people have said in various blog posts, the difficulty of defining a partner runs right through the law, and has for a long time. There are people who say Laws should have sought professional advice, but I can understand if he thought well, I don't want to become an open couple (and there is the out question plus the couple/commitment question) and moving out would be more expensive, things are fine the way they are.

MmeLindt · 30/05/2010 20:22

Lenin
I suspect that most of Europe is similar, if not even more outdated. Certainly in Germany.

vesela · 30/05/2010 20:22

yes TDiddy

claig · 30/05/2010 21:20

Ben Summerskill of Stonewall on Sky News said there was some unease that Laws may have used the gay aspect as some sort of smokescreen. Peter Tatchell was also excellent on the Politics Show earlier today and didn't offer much support to Laws. Tatchell was on top form, made great sense.