![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I blame sex
Jun. 2nd, 2010 08:58 amOne thing which no-one seems to have commented upon in this whole David Laws farce is that if the British didn't have such a ridiculously uptight attitude about sex, none of this would have mattered.
The guidance on expenses claims is littered with words such as "partner", without delving too deeply into the meaning of the word. In fact, it's probably because the drafters of the guidelines were thinking along the lines of married couples in semi-detached houses, rather than along the lines of the far more varied societal world that we now live in, that the mess developed the way that it did.
OK, so Laws and James Lundie were "partners". In 2006 MPs were banned from "leasing accommodation from a partner". The obvious question here is, why? I know that it offers opportunities for side-stepping the system, but, hell, the entire tax system works that way, offering opportunities that I would define as "unfair" to those who have a partner. But, hell, life is unfair. Live with it.
My point is, the alternative, once you use the phrase, is that you have to define what a "partner" actually is. And, as far as I can see, this basically comes down to "do you share a bed?" It doesn't seem to be about shared bank accounts, "going everywhere together". Indeed, this whole "is this person my 'partner' or not?" region seems to be stuck in the area of "does it walk and quack like a duck"?
I think that the whole business comes down to sex being "special". But, let's be blunt about this, sex isn't special any more. In the US it appears to be commoditized at High School level. And in London's gay scene it's definitely commoditized. Thirty years ago Laws could have shared a flat with this man, gone everywhere with him, and still claimed for rental expenses (no-one, recall, is denying that the money wasn't paid to Mr Lundie, who probably found the rental income useful. No-one is denying that Laws also had another home in his constituency, for which he paid the upkeep). and no-one would have muttered a word.
In addition, if Laws had been in an equivalent private sector position, the company might well have paid his London-based expenses, without worrying about whether the money was going to a boyfriend, a partner, or Mrs Hiscox's B&B in Wilton Road.
In other words, it's all UK-morality bollocksy tight-arsedness about the sanctity of sex, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or with the sheep in the field out back. If we stopped worrying about that, and stopped worrying about whether couples treated themselves as one economic unit or two, as one social unit or two, then perhaps we could get back to the important work of having the best man for the job when it comes to trying to get us out of the shit that we are in.
The Daily Telegraph should be ashamed of itself, as should anyone who works for it.
The guidance on expenses claims is littered with words such as "partner", without delving too deeply into the meaning of the word. In fact, it's probably because the drafters of the guidelines were thinking along the lines of married couples in semi-detached houses, rather than along the lines of the far more varied societal world that we now live in, that the mess developed the way that it did.
OK, so Laws and James Lundie were "partners". In 2006 MPs were banned from "leasing accommodation from a partner". The obvious question here is, why? I know that it offers opportunities for side-stepping the system, but, hell, the entire tax system works that way, offering opportunities that I would define as "unfair" to those who have a partner. But, hell, life is unfair. Live with it.
My point is, the alternative, once you use the phrase, is that you have to define what a "partner" actually is. And, as far as I can see, this basically comes down to "do you share a bed?" It doesn't seem to be about shared bank accounts, "going everywhere together". Indeed, this whole "is this person my 'partner' or not?" region seems to be stuck in the area of "does it walk and quack like a duck"?
I think that the whole business comes down to sex being "special". But, let's be blunt about this, sex isn't special any more. In the US it appears to be commoditized at High School level. And in London's gay scene it's definitely commoditized. Thirty years ago Laws could have shared a flat with this man, gone everywhere with him, and still claimed for rental expenses (no-one, recall, is denying that the money wasn't paid to Mr Lundie, who probably found the rental income useful. No-one is denying that Laws also had another home in his constituency, for which he paid the upkeep). and no-one would have muttered a word.
In addition, if Laws had been in an equivalent private sector position, the company might well have paid his London-based expenses, without worrying about whether the money was going to a boyfriend, a partner, or Mrs Hiscox's B&B in Wilton Road.
In other words, it's all UK-morality bollocksy tight-arsedness about the sanctity of sex, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or with the sheep in the field out back. If we stopped worrying about that, and stopped worrying about whether couples treated themselves as one economic unit or two, as one social unit or two, then perhaps we could get back to the important work of having the best man for the job when it comes to trying to get us out of the shit that we are in.
The Daily Telegraph should be ashamed of itself, as should anyone who works for it.
