Kerry McCarthy posted this on her blog:
If David Laws had told the authorities that he was in a relationship with his landlord,he would not have been able to claim rent. The rules have been clear on this since 2006.
If he had just stuck to those rules and not claimed rent, no-one would have needed to know. No-one would have asked why he wasn’t claiming, and even if they did, he could have said “I’m a rich man, I don’t need to” and gained brownie points for doing so.
So what if he couldn't afford to not claim the rent? Are only rich people entitled to keep their sexuality private?
Glad to see well-rounded Labour MPs doing their best to smash the class war and not just making party-political points. Oh, wait...
POSTSCRIPT: Having had a mini-debate with Ms McCarthy about this on Twitter, I'm pleased to say she's updated her blog. I still don't entirely agree with her. I believe David is not a 'victim of his own desire to keep his sexuality secret' but rather a victim of a system of rules that forces him to pay for his second home out of his own pocket if he wishes to keep his sexuality a secret. Nonetheless, I'm always pleased to see in politics instances where people don't enter an argument with their opinion set in stone. Thanks, Kerry.
12 comments:
Isn't Laws a millionaire and an MP? How would he not be able to afford the rent?
If he wasn't a millionaire. The same rules apply to all MPs, no matter what their financial situation. Why should he have to pay the rent himself to hide his sexuality just because he happens to be able to afford it?
How would an MP not able able to pay rent?
Are you advocating scrapping the second home allowance then, on the basis that all MPs should be able to pay for the upkeep of 2 homes? If you are, then that's a separate matter and applies to all MPs, not just David.
It is against the rules to claim rent for a property owned by your partner, whatever sexuality you happen to be.
I'm saying that rule should be changed because you shouldn't have to pay a premium if you want your private life to be private. You've just changed the argument because you lost the first one.
Changed what argument? Not lost anything kid. You initially talked about ability to pay rent, MPs have the ability to pay rent if that's what they want to do.
At the moment the rule stands, Laws broke it and expected the taxpayer to fund his desire for a private life. What do you think would happen if someone claimed HB and it was found the 'landlord' was their partner?
It seems silly that the rules encourage MPs to rent on their own rather than save money by living with a partner or spouse.
Also, he was not in a relationship when he moved in, but by the time the rules were changed, he had been in a relationship for several years although it is clear that he had no desire to share this fact with the world, for whatever reasons, and I can completely understand that, he would have found it extremely difficult to out himself in this manner by no longer claiming for the rent.
I also understand that maybe he was not entirely sure of the status of their relationship, especially given Laws said this was his only relationship ever, and that they led very independent lives, with their relationship being limited to what goes on in their own home.
They should have been allowed to come out in their own time, if they ever desired to do so, not forced in this despicable manner.
I'm a very private person Is it OK if I claim HB and pay it to my partner towards her mortgage?
As someone who is also gay, I know just how difficult it is to admit your gayness to the world. It is extremely hard in present day society to just "come out". I know from bitter experience. Once when with others who I thought would be hostile to gay people even denounce others as gay, to "try" to keep the heat off me. Of course in a year he will probably think "why had I not come out sooner"? I know I did in the end but it was not easy.
Post a Comment