As I understand it the answer, if you're MP David Laws, appears to be about £40,000!
Now, if I was seeking to keep my sexuality out of the public gaze my first thought would be to make sure that I kept work and private life well separated. Sadly this hasn't been the case and as much as his friend and colleague (Jeremy Browne), wrongly in my opinion, protested in Mr. Laws defence on R4 this morning, the reality is that Mr. Laws broke the rules. In fact, as an aside, Browne brought up issues I hadn't previously considered and actually settled the matter for me!
Claims that 'although they were living together they didn't treat each other as spouses' is a little hollow as many married couples I encounter live exactly as they claim to have been living (for many years)and consider themselves to be a coupe, married or whatever.
That they didn't have joint bank accounts doesn't count for much because this it the situation for many of the couples I meet.
Having separate social lives and separate groups of friends is, once more, the reality for many couples and certainly doesn't negate the relationship or deny the nuances that might make Mr. Laws actions intellectually or morally acceptable. In fact, thus far David and his partner appear to tick all of the boxes!
In all, I'd have to say that morally and probably legally too (and I'm discounting reports of having put up money for the property) the bloke is in the wrong and that at best what we have before us is an exercise in semantics and the first bit of damage done early on to the new government.
Another black mark against what was being billed as a 'new order' for British politics and proof that the MPs do appear to inhabit a very different world from the rest of us.
Sad
2 comments:
Vic,
While I do not condone what Mr Laws has done, it is convenient that the Telegraph held this in reserve and raised it now to discredit a government that they dislike.
I am afraid that my view of the media (particularly Tory leaning media) remains as jaundiced as ever.
Keeping your powder dry until it is needed might be good journalistic practice, but an immoral one.
If the newspapers sat on this until after the election then they should be brought to book as this is just more fuel for the entrapment and 'public interest' debate.
Seems to me that the Torygraph needs some investigation and that there needs to be some sort of formal dealing of with the newspapers.
Post a Comment