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.

it always amazes me how many facts are to be found in the Seychelles, but that's why I'm no politician

Leningrad, we absolutely recognise that it can take time for people to make seperate living arrangements, particularly given economic factors and that some people can be bloody minded when it comes to property and just refuse to leave, until legally obliged to do so! determining factors for me in that decision would be if the ex-couple in question had filed for divorce, if they were previously married, how they now spent their leisure time, ate meals etc. If either party were trying to seek alternative accomodation and what their future plans were - If either party were now seeing a 3rd party, or intending to 'get back out there' We do look into collusive seperation as well, as it can be financially advantageous for people to seperate (of course that doesn't bring into account the dreadful experience of actually separating from a partner and I don't personally believe that people stay together for any promised financial incentive, or actually, truthfully seperate for one either - that said, a factor when deciding whether to over-look my XPs unfaithfulness was whether I could manage on my own. I could, so i did.) It is a lot easier to make a decision in these cases if there is a degree of acrimony!

I like this bit from the guidance. it makes me all warm and fuzzy, as only decision making guidance can.

'To be treated as Living together as husband and wife or civil partners, the relationship has to be the same as that of a married couple. Marriage is where two people join together with the intention of sharing the rest of their lives. there is no single template of what the relationship of a married couple is. It is a stable partnership not just based on economic dependancy but emotional support and companionship. All factors of the relationship have to be considered. the significance of each factor can only be determined in the context of all the factors wth none being decisive. There is more to the determination than the cold observable facts. The characteristics of the relationship between husband and wife may include: mutual love, faithfulness, public acknowledgement, sexual relations, shared surname, children, endurance.'

Leningrad - so difficult without full facts - wouldn't want to open a can of worms! I think societal expectations are that people splitting up are either because of unfaithfulness or growing-apart. I personally, fully accept that people can having loving relationships that are mutually supportive etc, but living with someone else would drive them (me!) nuts, so i'd be treated as a single person, even if I thought of myself as being in a couple - so the opposite must be true as well. If people can live in the same household and function as a family unit, whilst persuing their own lives outwith that relationship, and it benefits them and their children, then that's fab - but I don't think the variances of the benefit system would necessarily be as supportive! wouldn't like to fully comment though.

Back to Laws - In my experience, people tend to claim benefits as a same-sex couple where they can, because they can now make a public declaration of love and intent. That is a financial penalty to them that they take on the chin, because of equality legislation. For Laws to be in a relationship with his alleged partner, but hush it up for a financial advantage, if that is the case, is truly loathsome. My DS2 may or may not be gay (probably not, but he is incredibly flouncy...he gets called the usual tiresome 'gay-poof' names at school )and if I can say to him - look! Derren Brown, Turing (although look what society did to him..)Wilde AND the chief secretary to HM treasury amongst many others then it makes our lives a little happier.

Well, persephonesnape The fact that David Laws could have claimed MORE money had he declared that he and his friend were "Living as husband and husband (for want of a better word!) makes me think that he simply did not wish to come out as gay and it WASN'T about financial gain.

But then, has been said a zillon times, he could have just not claimed at all....

LeninGrad To be clear: I think David Laws has a right to deny that he was living with his friend as "Husband and husband" BUT I also think that the poorest people have a right to say this, too.

But, of course, being poor means you don't often have someone to fight your corner for you- or you don't know where to turn.

Personally, I am of the opinion that people should be treated as individuals in their own right UNLESS actually wed in which case you can't blame the authorities for assuming that the relationship is mutally supportive.

Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that as a person is taxed as an individual when it comes to tax they should be (seen as individuals) when it comes to benefits.
There is a discrepancy a mile wide here.
But I am a cynic and realise that the government will class you as a couple when suits and as an individual as suits!

I still think Laws has broken the rules though- living as "spouses" or not, the other chap in his life is clearly a friend and you're not allowed to rent off friends, either.

"makes me think that he simply did not wish to come out as gay and it WASN'T about financial gain."

remember Laws' resignation speech. He said he had not acted to "maximise profit" but to protect his privacy. There is nothing about not making a financial gain, nothing about not making any profit, just that he was not aiming to "maximise" it. I think even the top PR firms and the likes of the Cliffords may have had a job trying to prove that he was Mr. Integrity, which is possibly why he threw the towel in.

I don't really like Laws but I hope that we get a considered and fair official ruling as I don't think trial by press is fair. I suspect that we will find that the rules weren't clear, but that he showed bad judgement. But I don't think it is black and white and I hope that he is free to continue his career.

TDiddy It is obvious to me that the phrase "Living together as..." is vague.

I hope to god that he is not "done" for living with someone "as married" because I don't think that such a vague term allows for black-and-white innocence or guilt.

If this is what he is being "charged" with, then I honestly think he'll get away with it. And quite right, too. We knows what goes on in matters of the heart?

We pay lip service to "freedoms" and "diversity" but underneath it all, British people are an uptight bunch who like to pigeonhole everybody.

If he's being done for renting from a friend, then I happen to think that in this instance he IS guilty, though.

But if I read c*ap about people "Not being interested in his sexuality" yet condemning him for not saying he had a lover, I'll scream - because, in their opinion, it IS all about his sexuality! How can it not be?

marantha - i agree entirely with your points

Agree Lenin

TDiddy YOU AGREE WITH ME??!! Jeez, that's more than my husband does!! Fancy moving in together? Just as good friends mind (if anyone asks, that is. Not "partners", y' understand ).

LeninGrad, I agree with you but I don't think it will ever happen.

One thing, though, I do hope the new government stops the: "marriage is better than cohabitation business" now Laws has gone- after all, you can be "as married" without being formally wed, can't you?

marantha - DW always says that she has put the hard work into training me but that the second wife will benefit most.

TDiddy Is this a proposal of marriage I see before me?! I don't know though, what if hubby won't divorce me but we start living together anyway?
I mean, how exactly would that work on the old expenses form?
How can I be "Living as married..." with you when legally I am wed to someone else?
Some would argue that this was a logical impossiblity, wouldn't they? (silly, silly people!)

Would our "partner" status be dependent upon:
a, Who took the bins out?
b, Any agreement made between us for you to buy my baked beans* in exchange for, um, certain "favours" from me?
c, Would the fact that I took responsibility for washing your smalls in a 60c cycle be a factor?
d, Perhaps my Auntie Liz would have the final say in the matter when her statement that she once saw us holding hands outside Sainsbury's while she nipped in to buy spuds would be seen as ultimate proof of lasting commitment and stability?

*Heinz. Full- fat. High-sugar. And none of those stupid little sausages either.

marantha -

it would work if one of us becomes an MP then the other could pay the rent without being classed as a spouse so stay we should stay married until they change the rules.

I hope the new rules are a bit more specific than you suggest. What happens if I did the brown and green bins and you did the green?

Can we have anti-spousal clause for parliamentary purposes in our pre-nuptial?

I am sure a good accountant would tell us to only accrue for the days that we "consider each other our spouses" - pay as you.

...hope this doesn't get in the way of the budding leftie romance.