« | Home | »

Parliamentary Double Standards

Tags: |

A conversation overheard at a meeting of the Parliamentary Double Standards Committee:

Newspaper owners of all colours are worried about David Laws. He has had to resign for something about which we really ought to have been more understanding.

He took money he wasn’t entitled to and didn’t declare it. It’s against the new Commons rules and is often called fraudulent conversion. End of argument.

Good Lord, how terribly unsophisticated of you. Look at the context. He didn’t say anything because it would have meant revealing a homosexual relationship, and he’s a ‘very shy man’. Plus, his old-fashioned Catholic parents didn’t know he was gay.

So? He still took enough public money to build nearly 25 duck houses.

He’s highly valued by his colleagues.

Because of his gift for finding ways to make universities scrap smaller departments, reduce employment in local government and generally make life harder for people who haven’t stolen anything at all?

Mr Laws is a very able man.

If he had been less able, sacking him would have been in order?

You’re twisting my words. Anyway, he wasn’t just able. He had been a banker. He understood money and what has to be done with it.

Yes, the bankers have really shown in the last few years that they understand money and what should be done with it.

Absolutely. Er, That is… but dammit that was big time and had very serious consequences.

And this is a piffling forty grand which in the world of very able, highly valued people isn’t serious?

Not a nice thing to say, old chap. But look. Lets get real. Lets do candour. The Lib Dems have been severely embarrassed and the Tories have lost, well lets face it, one of their own.

So a rich man taking money away from universities and jobs away from people, who happens to have taken a few quid for himself, has done no wrong?

I wouldn’t say absolutely no wrong but…

The sort of moderate, par-for-the-course wrong you can rub along with?


Comments on “Parliamentary Double Standards”

  1. carrion says:

    You’re an idiot.

  2. pinhut says:

    The gay angle is no defence.

    What MPs such as David Laws and others have failed to understand is that the argument that ‘they were paying the market rate’ (or, in some instances, less), etc, does not hold good here.

    If David Laws is paying rent to his partner, then he is more than likely benefiting from the allowance twice, once when he pays his rent, and then when the rent money is then used to do his shopping, etc.

    The kicker is to look at the rules for claiming housing benefit, which are designed to stop such shenanigans on the part of the lower orders. There it states that a person is not eligible if living in the house of a close relative, and that if a person is living with a partner then this partners ability to pay some or all of the rent is also assessed.


  3. dragbert says:

    While I admire carrion’s economy, I don’t agree – but that’s because I agree with you. Here’s my take

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement