Treasury chief David Laws, secret lover and £40,000 exes

[dilbert]

Can anyone explain to me exactly what has been done wrong here?

[colonel c]

One up the bum, no harm done. But claiming £950 a month of our money for the privilege is going too far.

[Mojooo]

dilbert said:

Can anyone explain to me exactly what has been done wrong here?

He has used expenses to pay rent to his partner with who he lives with.

Presumably the assumption is that if you live with a partner you live together for free.

"Since 2006 parliamentary rules have banned MPs from "leasing accommodation from a partner". "

Edited by Mojooo on Saturday 29th May 01:30

[dilbert]

Mojooo said:

dilbert said:

Can anyone explain to me exactly what has been done wrong here?

He has used expenses to pay rent to his partner with who he lives with.

Presumably the assumption is that if you live with a partner you live together for free.

"Since 2006 parliamentary rules have banned MPs from "leasing accommodation from a partner". "

Edited by Mojooo on Saturday 29th May 01:30

I guess that's fair enough then. Assuming the rules are that way.

Ignoring the rules, and assuming that MP's are assured basic secondary accommodation, no matter what the circumstances, I wouldn't say this sounds too bad.

I mean, it's not Xty thousand pounds a second for a moat and a porn subscription, because he'd have to live somewhere. £900 a month isn't that extreme at all for London. In real terms, I'd say that's a grotty bedsit somewhere. Certainly 40 miles further South, £600 a month gets a small flat. As you go North to London, the prices go up and the quality goes down.

He's gay, but by the sounds of it, the people who would criticise him for his financial mistake are criticising him for his gayness.

These days, the latter is off limits (certainly if you're a Labour supporter and natural hater of the opposition). The Tories are proving that they are tolerant of diversity, and the victim doesn't really seem to have bled the coffers dry.

It seems a bit of a non-story to me.

I'm not in favour of this whole bash a politico stuff because it doesn't do anyone a favour. The real solution to this problem is dormitories. Make them as posh as you like, on the public purse, and kick out the occupants when they lose their seats. Then just end the payments.

Edited by dilbert on Saturday 29th May 02:33

[RichB]

dilbert said:

I mean, it's not Xty thousand pounds

Well £40,000 is 40 x thousands to be precise and that seems like a fair amount to me, dont know about you?

[-DeaDLocK-]

The part about his claims tanking the moment receipts were required is dodgy as heck.

[Andy Zarse]

RichB said:

dilbert said:

I mean, it's not Xty thousand pounds

Well £40,000 is 40 x thousands to be precise and that seems like a fair amount to me, dont know about you?

It's about two years take home pay for the average UK earner.

Ian Huntley was a cracking school caretaker too.

Edited by Andy Zarse on Saturday 29th May 11:31