If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
But he did claim more than he was allowed.
The laws of expenses say you cannot claim for payments to a partner. He did.
His improprieties were done before the coalition was even formed, so it's not Cameron's or Clegg's fault. They perhaps could have vetted all incoming Cabinet members, even if this did take time to implement.
I think an Ofgov wouldn't make sense, since it still would be controlled by the government. If it could be set up that it was independent of direct Cabinet control, then perhaps it could work. All of the telecommunications/utilities companies are privately owned, so it's less problematic to regulate. There would be less conflicts of interests involved.
Because he got the shit he was hoping to avoid - and extra from people accusinghim of stealing from the tax payer, or fiddling his expenses.
It's a strange fiddle where you get to claim less than you could if you declared it properly.
And gain I've never said he didn't break the rules - just that he didn't abuse the system. But you're not going to stop beating the government you didn't want with any stick you can find. To misquote Stewie, "To me, you look like StarGalaxy."
yes, you have to declare if the person you live with is a partner or family.
Had he said we're buying this house together, the mortgage is 950 per month, hed have been given the money.
Because he said it costs 950 per month to live here, and the reason there's another man in the house is because, errrr, he's landlord he got the money too.
Yes he lied, yes he broke the letter of the rules. No, nobody profited from it - which is hat the rules are there to prevent.
The media used the 40K to build public outrage, when that money was an equivalence anyway. Laws received the brunt of the public's anger that MPs can claim for a house because they have to live in two places.
I still haven't seen anything to say he didn't act morally, or cheated the system of money.
I also believe to lie to claim less is morally positive.
And that difference in the concept of morality drives the difference of opinion, and I doubt anyone is going to change their moral framework, so I've not much more to say.
This rule was put in place to stop the practice of some members where they signed the house over to their partner, who then charged the full expenses rate as rent.
I consider this practice to have been immoral - as did those, I presume, who added the rule to stop it.
Do you consider it to have been immoral to have made money from the state in this way even when it was within the rules?
with the housing benefit comparison a married couple can't claim, so if you claim that you aren't a couple you get money you are not entitled to.
For MPs expenses a couple can claim more than a single person.
I'll add that he apparently stopped claiming in 2007 after the rules changed in 2006.
The one that he chose was a lie. He obtained money under false pretences. Has he told the truth about who he was renting from he would have got nothing. Instead he got over £40k.
That's not just dishonest, it's also dishonourable.
claimed some other way in the same relationship... and to me that makes all the difference - it show the intent, from which I conclude he was acting honourably, even though dishonestly.
He didn't do what the rule was intended to stop, which was to make a profit out of claiming for housing.
Had the rent been set at anything other than covering the nmotgage I would say he was acting dishonourably, but as it wasn't the his only intent in the fictional landlord/tenant relationship was to conceal the real one. The guy's a closet Tory, so I dislike him for plenty of reasons, but I don't consider this to be one.
Of course, I am inoring the whole "is this a spouse like partner" argument - which has merit - because I don't think there should be the distinction
And anyway, I know plenty of people who pay 'rent' to their partner as a contribution to the monthly rent / bills / everything, I didn't realise it was so bizarre and that you would be expected to either have a joint mortgage or get a free ride.
Is that right? Just because you're sleeping with someone, it's expected that you should have to contribute nothing to the costs of having you effectively live there half the time? Seems a bit dodgy to me. I don't really see why your relationship with the person you're renting from is massively relevant, really. I can kinda see why it's a bit dodgy to be handing taxpayer money to someone you know, but it's just as likely to happen with some rich mate who owns a few bits of property as it is with someone you're having a relationship with. But we still come back to the argument that government-owned flats would avoid all of this.
HoC expenses rules say that you cannot claim for rent paid to a partner.
Gotta admit that it's a little unusual to be living with someone and yet to have them also acting as your landlord, in an offical capacity. Paying towards to the upkeep of a house that you are sharing is a different issue.