peterbirks (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
peterbirks) wrote2010-06-02 08:58 am
peterbirks) wrote2010-06-02 08:58 am
I blame sex
One 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.
Re: Hard cases - bad law
But my main point is not about Laws, it's more about your statement:
"The trouble is that in relationship-politics there is a very grey area between a couple of dates, a quickie, a one-night stand, staying for the weekend, having a couple of draws for your clothes and full-blown shacked-up. It gets even more complicated if Laws had ended up bonking Mrs Hiscox, the landlady."
Just throw out the rule. Let people "pay themselves" (in fact, they are "half" paying themselves, because they are two people as a single economic unit).
In this particular case (or in the "is it a duck" case), I think that Laws was paying Lundie, and that Lundie was spending the money. Yes, they were partners, but no, Laws was not benefiting from the cash; Lundie was. Did Laws benefit economically indirectly? Perhaps, perhaps not, but the whole greyness of the area makes it a farce, I feel.
Re: Hard cases - bad law
That's the problem - would you prefer consistency (with absurdities) or would you like freedom from rules (with inequities)?
Re: Hard cases - bad law
If the whole thing is about redistribution of wealth, then be upfront about it and bash up income tax. But it isn't about that. Anny money paid or not paid, justly or injustly, doesn't come from a pot that would otherwise have gone to a deserving cause. One could equally argue that MPs work all kinds of hours and should be entitled to the extra money, which they could spend as they wish. My argument is just to scrap the restrictions would not cost as much as people think. Assume that it gets taken from benefit fraudsters, or the Ministry of Defence.
Sure, it might enrich those who don't need it, but as a rule I don't think it enriches those who don't deserve it. Is that the nub of the difference between us?
PJ
Re: Hard cases - bad law