The Price Of Love

Just 18 days into the 'New Politics' of a Coalition Government in the UK, a good old fashioned, sex and money scandal, right out of the 'Old Politics' has taken its first victim.

The Liberal Democrat Secretary to the Treasury, David Laws was caught with yet another of these tedious 'expenses scandals' that wore out the last of the life in the last parliament. However added into this was a homosexual affair, which somewhat oddly, considering the Liberal Democrats views on Homosexuality, Mr Laws was trying to keep totally 'private'.

Essentially for those of you who can't be bothered reading the press stories, Mr Laws moved into 'rooms' owned by a Mr James Lundie in 2001 (after meeting a couple of years earlier), and claimed rent expenses from the public purse for this rent amount. Mr Lundie was a Liberal Democrat Press officer and now allegedly works for a lobbyist firm (which raises other possible issues). At sometime after their meeting they became 'lovers', and entered into a 'long term' relationship.

However, in 2006, Parliamentary rules have banned MPs from “leasing accommodation from...a partner" but Mr Laws carried on claiming money for accommodation owned by Mr Lundie. His stated reasons for doing so are that “Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses. At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as ‘one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses’. My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality. "

Now, I might not be the intellectual giant that many are portraying Mr Laws as, but we all understand what the term 'partner' means in the context of love, relationships and sexual mores, and living with someone inside a sexual relationship for several years or more, normally classes each of them as sexual partners.

I therefore find Mr Laws retreat behind the strictly legal definition of the Parliamentary rules somewhat disingenuous at the very least, and dishonourable in the worst. Does this mean that in order to curb MP's from more abuse of the public purse, we have to explicitly add extracts to the rules to cover every possible 'interpretation' of what constitutes 'a partner'? Are they all such crooks?

And surely the simplest and easiest way to avoid public scrutiny about your sexuality would have been to not claim back 'rent' paid to your boyfriend, whether you consider him your partner or not?

A lot of parliamentary figures have defended Mr Laws and suggested that he can return to power quickly after the dust has settled ...... it's this casual approach to what was essentially a fraud of public funds that most of us find so disgusting. When a single parent lives with her boyfriend but continues to claim welfare benefits she's no longer entitled to, she is dragged through the courts, and faces prison, and fines.

The least we can do to MP's is drag them through the court of public opinion, and stop them entering offices of power again ........... let's not have another Mandelson.

Below are some links to men and women classed as benefit cheats by the press ....

• A fraudster mum-of-seven who claimed £68,000 pounds in benefits by saying she was a single mum was caught out after being snapped with her partner in a bonny baby competition.
• A mother-of-one escaped jail when she appeared at Manchester Crown Court,where she admitted falsely claiming more than £15,000 in income support.
• A Birmingham postman was convicted of benefit fraud for claiming disability allowances worth £8,000 on the basis that he was unable to work, and had no other source of income.
• Millionaire benefit cheat jailed for claiming more than £108,000 in benefits to which he wasn't entitled.

I fail to spot the fundamental difference between these (and the thousands like them), and the MP's of the UK .... of yes, these others aren't MP's.