David Laws - corrupt hypocrite?

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

scraped by? isn't he a millionaire?

Yes. Tongue in cheek. Humph. noone ever made mewbie explain himself so.:D

robin_banks

Wookster wrote: »

This isn't a like for like comparison.

Benefits are different for sharing couples & sharing singles. Not so for David Laws. Also he could have claimed an annual limit of £22k (or there about) and he actually claimed about half that.

And he shouldn't have claimed that.

Wookster

ninky wrote: »

you're not blinded by party loyalty here by any chance wookster. i mean, are you sure you'd give the same opinion a labour shadow minister had been caught out in the same fraudulent act?

I don't think I'm blinded by loyalty. I'm angry that there is another scandal (which no one needs) but actually when I look at the facts, the only mistake I see is one of disclosure, probably driven by Laws' shame of his sexuality. If he had exactly the same commercial terms with a stranger, there would be no issue.

In fact if he had claimed double the amount from a stranger, there would still be no issue.

I feel very sorry that he has suffered this way. Every story has an angle and his is that he probably felt he wouldn't be accepted if he came out. That is a doubt that some people (but not everyone) has.

This is very different to Hazel Blears flipping (was it 3?) properties with the sole intention of making money. She is still an MP! That makes me angry!

chucky

Wookster wrote: »

I don't think I'm blinded by loyalty. I'm angry that there is another scandal (which no one needs) but actually when I look at the facts, the only mistake I see is one of disclosure, probably driven by Laws' shame of his sexuality. If he had exactly the same commercial terms with a stranger, there would be no issue

you're definetly being blinded by your party loyalty aren't you...

here's what you said about Jacqui Smith and her rented room at her sisters flat

Wookster wrote: »

The very fact that Jacqui Smith's argument rests on the fact that she has "not broken the rules" says it all. She might be within the letter of the law but it still stinks.

Does anyone really believe that a rented room in her sister's house is her main residence? hmmmmmmm

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=18728321&postcount=59

and here's what you thought about Labour MP's that cheated on their expenses

Wookster wrote: »

Simple reason is that none of these f@ckers have ever had a job out in the real world where they are accountable to someone for the actions they take.
This is why they treat the electorate with utter contempt.

how come it's different and all ok when it's a Lib Dem MP?

ninky_2

the bit that makes me laugh is when he says he didn't consider himself breaking the rules because they didn't live as spouses as they had seperate bank accounts and seperate social lives! since when does being married mean you have a joint bank account and are joined at the hip? .....i guess he considers that most friends have sex together and live in the same house too....worryingly out of touch there.

he's only in his mid 40s !!!!!!.

robin_banks

ninky wrote: »

the bit that makes me laugh is when he says he didn't consider himself breaking the rules because they didn't live as spouses as they had seperate bank accounts and seperate social lives! since when does being married mean you have a joint bank account and are joined at the hip? .....i guess he considers that most friends have sex together and live in the same house too....worryingly out of touch there.

he's only in his mid 40s !!!!!!.

And a man with 'an amazing intellect' with a double first blah blah blah that needed 'clarification' as to what constituted a partner.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

the bit that makes me laugh is when he says he didn't consider himself breaking the rules because they didn't live as spouses as they had seperate bank accounts and seperate social lives! since when does being married mean you have a joint bank account and are joined at the hip? .....i guess he considers that most friends have sex together and live in the same house too....worryingly out of touch there.

he's only in his mid 40s !!!!!!.

Again I agree. But what it also makes me think is about our view of cohabitation as opposed to civil partnership/marriage and how we choose to regard cohabitation both as a society (culturally) and financially/legally. How do we both protect the rights of people not to have things like marriage imposed upon them and require they ''pay dues/receive benefit'' as a couple? It seems to me we can't. Often one part of a partnership seeks ''recognition'' and the other dreads it. Is that relevant at all?

carolt

Someone in this very long thread raised an interesting point - that millionaires shouldn't really be claiming foe these things at all, as they don't need to.

I thgink means-testing of MPs expenses would be perfectly reasonable; after all, there are not very many of them, so it would be easy to do, and save the public purse potentially millions every year. It would also discourage the greedy, doshonest rich from entering politics at all - no great loss.

After all, if means testing is good enough for us (and nearly all benefits are means tested these days, bar child benefit and basic state pension), then I see no reason why they shouldn't practice what they preach.

Especially in these times of cost-cutting.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Again I agree. But what it also makes me think is about our view of cohabitation as opposed to civil partnership/marriage and how we choose to regard cohabitation both as a society (culturally) and financially/legally. How do we both protect the rights of people not to have things like marriage imposed upon them and require they ''pay dues/receive benefit'' as a couple? It seems to me we can't. Often one part of a partnership seeks ''recognition'' and the other dreads it. Is that relevant at all?

well maybe people have a right to be seen as individuals (for financial purposes etc) unless they chose to link themselves in public via a marriage / civil partnership. this would seem fair to me. i don't see what business it really should be of the state but it clearly is for all of us. some friends do co-habit, and share living expenses etc - why should they be treated any differently by the benefits system just because the relationship isn't sexual? but it should be one rule for all.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

well maybe people have a right to be seen as individuals (for financial purposes etc) unless they chose to link themselves in public via a marriage / civil partnership. this would seem fair to me. i don't see what business it really should be of the state but it clearly is for all of us. some friends do co-habit, and share living expenses etc - why should they be treated any differently by the benefits system just because the relationship isn't sexual? but it should be one rule for all.

Ninky, I am agreeing with you a lot to day.

I think I need some coffee.