David Laws Resignation

[dave_mc]

ah, i missed that. I normally don't watch question time, i have a really high (or is that low?) embarrassment threshold so I don't like watching anything like that. :lol: I just about managed to watch the debates (mainly to cheer on saint nick).

and yes i realise i was for the lib dems, lol, but not for pseudo-tories like laws.

And :drink: , i figured it wasn't aimed at me, but i thought I'd better deflect it just in case (or in case anyone else thought it was aimed at me).

But yeah, I agree, the public kinda can get worked up and hit the wrong targets, I agree wholeheartedly there. What annoys me is that I complain about things for years, to be told I'm just silly. Then when the public decides to do a characteristic 180, it goes far further than I'd have ever gone, conveniently forgets that I was calling for something similar (but less extreme) ages earlier, and now I'm the churl for not wanting to take part in the lynch mob. :lol:

another thing is, with the exception of laws (as far as i'm aware, and assuming other revelations don't come out), i thought the lib dems were probably the least bad in the expenses scandal- this has the possibility of making them look as bad as the others because they're now in government.

EDIT: did anyone else LOL when david laws called them "revelations" too? Were they revelations to him? :lol:

[nfe]

another thing is, with the exception of laws (as far as i'm aware, and assuming other revelations don't come out), i thought the lib dems were probably the least bad in the expenses scandal- this has the possibility of making them look as bad as the others because they're now in government.

Yeah, up until now no Lib Dem MP had been implicated at all in the expenses scandal. Nick Clegg rode that story plenty in the election.

[MrBump]

Again, I'm not generally in the habit of defending politicians.

However, I find myself doing it again!!!

I have a partner - I have a lovely wife, two wonderful children and a great house in the leafy suburbs.  That's the life as our generally hetrosexual, liberal/conservative (with a small "l" & "c") press and society tell us it should be.  But I know that's not necessarily the norm for all shades of our society.

Some gay men (shock/horror) AREN'T in monogomous relationships, but may cohabit.  I know gay men (not so much now, but some years ago) who indulged in what I'd consider to be very dangerous personal lives; many partners, and very different the the "stable" life that I have.

What I'm saying is that the Parliamentary rules (and they're rules, not laws...) MAY be vague and may not necessarily be easy to apply to a gay relationship - as far as I know, Laws may genuinely not believe that his relationship with his landlord/lover qualified in any way as a spousal relationship.

Mark.

[Philly Q]

What I'm saying is that the Parliamentary rules (and they're rules, not laws...) MAY be vague and may not necessarily be easy to apply to a gay relationship - as far as I know, Laws may genuinely not believe that his relationship with his landlord/lover qualified in any way as a spousal relationship.

I see what you're saying, and in a way I wonder if the "spousal relationship" rule is fair at all.  You could be in a relationship (of whatever sexuality) with someone and only live together part of the time, still maintaining your own separate homes.  In that case, it seems fair to me that person X makes a contribution to person Y's costs when staying at Y's house.  It's really not much different from lodging with a third party.

On the other hand (  :lol: )..... some of Laws' own statements seem to point towards more of a "spousal" relationship:

"I claimed back the costs of sharing a home in Kennington with James from 2001 to June 2007.

In June 2007 James bought a new home in London and I continued to claim back my share of the costs."

I dunno.... I think on balance, in the framework of the rules, he's pulled enough wool over enough people's eyes that he had to go.  But I don't think he's done anything terrible.

   

[dave_mc]

dude in stonewall claimed he was playing the gay card to cover the fact he broke the rules. I think I'm gonna take the word of the leader (is that the right word?) of stonewall.

oh, and now danny alexander's up for tax avoision. :lol: EDIT: man i love the telegraph. it's a complete rag, but they sat on that story until they made danny alexander treasury spokesman. that's some nice skullduggery.

[MrBump]

Exactly - he broke the rules, but the media stoning wasn't deserved.

Hmmm... the Stonwall thing?  Given that Laws spent all his life covering up the fact that he was gay, I find that a little rich...