David Laws' expenses

[longfingernailspaintedblue]

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.

Well if that's the case, LeninGrad, I have to say that I do think David Laws and this guy are "friends"- I can't argue that.

It's the partner thing I have a problem with and not friend.

Therefore, he has broken the rules but for a different reason than that that is currently being put out.

It's akin to the man who got half his ex-partner's house last week and the press jumped on it as being a "cohabiting" issue.

No, the cohabitation was a red herring, the guy got the house because it was a joint purchase and it was both their name on the deeds- whether they lived together or not was irrelevant.

So here's the thing. He "only" claimed £950 per month for rent (without the cleaning and "repair bills") The national minimum wage is £5.93 per hour. So working on a forty hour week times 4 weeks in a month, that's £948.80 before tax and NI.

So a man who knowingly broke the rules, who is independantly wealthy, fraudently claimed more for rent per month than he expects his constitutents to live off if they are on the minimum wage.

When will they get it?

Funny article, but disagree that we want our politicians to be honest, but would then crucify them for it. Look at John Hemming MP. He has a rather unconventional family life. Long term marriage; had an affair with parliamentary secretary, they became parents, and instead of walking out on her, he lives with both his wife and new partner.

The press don't seem terribly bothered by it as he's been absolutely honest with all concerned. No skeletons in the closet etc.

As far as the timing here goes in revealing DL's finances as apparently was common knowledge in the Westminster village, just a thought, but could it be that the Telegraph was asserting their authority? A shot across the bows?

LeninGrad, that article is too soft on them.

ilovemydog - John Hemming is a long way from ever holding a powerful position in parliament. Which is possibly why that passes with little or no comment.

ilovemydog - John Hemming is a long way from ever holding a powerful position in parliament. Which is possibly why that passes with little or no comment.

ilovemydog - interesting point you make politician and honesty. I think we still tend to favour conventgional MPs like Blair and Cameron with lovely families including kids. In the early days rumours about Brown's sexuality didn't help vs Blair.

Really, LeninGrad You actually believe that whether or not people receive monies should NOT be dependent on who they're having sex with?!

I AM SHOCKED AND APPALLED. This is the 21st century- I want CCTV cameras installed in people's bedrooms now!! So we can find out what everybody is up to in their private life.

As does everybody else who accused David Laws of fraud...

Yeah, because David Laws wished to keep his private life well, private he actually SAVED the good ol' taxpayer money.

But no, FORCE HIM OUT THE CLOSET, to hell with his feelings, his family- nevermind that that would actually have cost MORE money.

It's hard not to have contempt for my fellow humans sometimes.

does the contempt extend to Laws or just to those that think he is not quite the Mr. Integrity that the honourable members proclaim?

Why would I have contempt for David Laws- he saved the nation money while upholding his right to a private life.

I've already said that if the rule is that he shouldn't have given money to a friend, then, OK, he has broken the rules. Although he is entitled to rent a room off someone, so I can't really see a problem with this either, to be honest.

It's this "partner" thing I have a problem with.

The whole idea that who people s**g should be a deciding factor in whether or not monies is received.
And it is this that seems to be what people seem to think should be the deciding factor.

I will concede that actual marriage is different as the two people involved have at least declared their relationship to be mutually supportive. Fairy nuff.

But if not, married, who knows what goes on behind closed doors?

but Leningrad already pointed out that it is not just about shagging, it also applies to family members. I don't know the ins and outs of it, but isn't it an attempt to avoid beneficiaries, who are in a close relationship, from gaining from the public purse? Isn't it to try to avoid any sort of collusion which might lead to artificially high rents being charged in an attempt to gain from the public purse? Isn't it similar in a way to not being allowed to allocate contracts to a company of which you are a director? Isn't the objective to stop you benefitting indirectly from your close partner at the expense of the public? Isn't it an attempt to create a Mr. Integrity?

I used to spend a lot of my working life writing appeals for the DWP for 'living together as husband and wife' cases. there is no legislative definition, but there is a commissioners decision that we used to use to judge whether persons were living together as spouses. The criteria does not only include shagging and an absence of shagging, you will be pleased to hear can still mean people are in a spousal relationship. The assesment is judged on, amongst other things, sharing of household tasks, whether people voluntarily share leisure time together - if there are children if the childcare is shared at some of my previous 'spousal' relationships. Officers who interview in the home for the purposes of establishing whether a couple are a couple, are strictly prohibited from enquiring about sexual relations and this type of information can only be used if it is volunteered freely by the customers involved. para 7 is the kind of area looked at

I would also suggest that whilst one's private life is...private a lot of the shame & alienation gay men and lesbians may feel is precisely because public figures are resolutely in the closet. I'm torn because I think it is private, but I want to be able to point to respected serious public figures, who are happy about their sexuality rather than let my 10 year old DS2 think all there are as role models for young adults is the entertainment industry. (Graham Nortonnnnnn...) (That's not to suggest that we lack an appreciation of lesbian/gay scientists or university lecturers etc in our household, just that the popular image of a gay man is still very narrowly defined)

also

because I'm finnicky - that is part of the DWPs Decision Makers Guide with relation to determining 'Living Togethers'. I would argue that if our legislators wish to use a set of criteria to determine the nature of a relationship for persons claiming benefits, then they should adhere to the same general definition themselves. I'm not all that interested about the intricacies of my MPs life, apart for when I am actually paying for it.

Thanks, persephonesnape, it is good to have an expert in the field say that this "Living together..." is not exactly clear cut.

Perhaps it will help silence those who are screaming "fraud!" here as they know any "fraud" as FACT. Perhaps they will now be quiet and consider that this is a bit of a grey area.

great stuff persephonesnape. Please can you stand for office and sort them out for us?

(Sorry Marantha!) It is complicated and I have seen so many customers make statements based on hearsay or misinformation. The common assertation that a partner can stay overnight for a set amount of nights without it affecting benefits is one. If we (I) judge people on benefits based on the available facts, then I have to do likewise for our politicians. It doesn't really matter, from the DWP decision making point of view if someone doesn't regard themselves as a spouse - generally they won't, if the question of whether someone is living as a couple has arisen, because it is financially advantageous for two people to be thought of as single. Rightly or wrongly it carries equal weight whether they are commonly regarded as a couple. As to that - I don't know if Mr Laws and his partner/friend were. It seems that a lot of his family and friends were unaware that he is gay - which would suggest, possibly that they were not regarded as a couple. I have a degree of sympathy because I would hate to have to live like that - but I'm also suspicious of things like the service charges etc magically reducing once a receipt had to be supplied.

dream ticket - me and Leningrad!?

sadly, I'm unable to stand, as a crown servant I am politically neutral and as such would need to resign my post. I have my gold-plated pension (and DCs!) to consider!

yes you and LeninGrad would be the dream team. Shame it can't be. But I think I heard somewhere that they get good pensions, are well looked after, and the expenses that they can claim are on the generous side. Some people also claim that they get lots of free beanos to the Seychelles and the Caribbean, particularly in the mid-winter months. I think they call them "fact finding missions", but I can't vouch for the veracity of these claims.