David Laws, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, claimed up to £950 a month for eight years to rent rooms in two properties owned by his partner. The claims could be against parliamentary rules governing MPs’ second home expenses.

 

On Friday night, Mr Laws apologised and announced that he would “immediately” pay back tens of thousands of pounds claimed for rent and other housing costs between 2006 and 2009. He also referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.

 

Mr Laws said: “I regret this situation deeply, accept that I should not have claimed my expenses in this way and apologise fully.”

 

His controversial claims were not uncovered by an official inquiry into MPs’ expenses last year because Mr Laws did not admit that his landlord was also his long-standing lover.

 

The disclosure is the first big setback for the Coalition. Mr Laws, a Liberal Democrat, has the task of implementing public-sector cuts worth more than £6  billion.

 

He has already drawn up tough new rules limiting the pay and perks of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers. However, his hard-line approach could be undermined by the disclosure of his own controversial use of public money.

 

The Daily Telegraph’s Expenses Files show that between 2004 and 2007, Mr Laws claimed between £700 and £950 a month to sub-let a room in a flat in Kennington, south London. This flat was owned by the MP’s partner who was also registered as living at the property. The partner sold the flat for a profit of £193,000 in 2007.

 

In 2007, Mr Laws’s partner then bought another house nearby for £510,000. The MP then began claiming to rent the “second bedroom” in this property. His claims increased to £920 a month. The partner also lived at the property. Mr Laws’s main home is in his Yeovil constituency. The arrangement continued until September 2009, when parliamentary records show that Mr Laws switched his designated second home and began renting another flat at taxpayers’ expense. His partner remained at the Kennington house.

 

Mr Laws’s partner is James Lundie, who is thought to work for a lobbying firm. The Daily Telegraph was not intending to disclose Mr Laws’s sexuality, but in a statement issued in response to questions from this newspaper, the minister chose to disclose this fact.

 

“I’ve been involved in a relationship with James Lundie since around 2001 — about two years after first moving in with him. Our relationship has been unknown to both family and friends throughout that time,” it read.

 

“James and I are intensely private people. We made the decision to keep our relationship private and believed that was our right. Clearly that cannot now remain the case.

 

“My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality.”

 

John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner, will now have to scrutinise whether any rules have been broken.

 

Since 2006, parliamentary rules have banned MPs from “leasing accommodation from… a partner”.

 

Mr Laws said: “I claimed back the costs of sharing a home in Kennington with James from 2001 to June 2007. In June 2007, James bought a new home in London and I continued to claim back my share of the costs. I extended the mortgage on my Somerset property, for which I do not claim any allowances or expenses, to help James purchase the new property.

 

“In 2006 the Green Book rules were changed to prohibit payments to partners. At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as ‘one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses’.

 

“Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses. For example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social lives. However, I now accept that this was open to interpretation and will immediately pay back the costs of the rent and other housing costs I claimed from the time the rules changed until August 2009.”

 

Friends of Mr Laws said that the decision to disclose his sexuality was an “immense decision”.

 

“Anyone who knows David, knows he is someone of great integrity,” one friend said. “He has been very private about his life. But he absolutely wants the public to understand the reasons for this arrangement, it has not been about making a profit. He has decided he wants to be absolutely clear. His integrity is obviously very important.”

 

Mr Laws’s claims for a series of other expenses are also now expected to come under scrutiny. Between 2004 and 2008, he submitted regular claims, in rounded figures, for service and maintenance, repairs, utilities and other items.

 

He typically claimed between £50 and £150 a month for utilities and £100 to £200 for maintenance. Receipts were not provided to back up the claims.

 

However, in April 2008, the rules were changed and MPs had to provide receipts for any claims above £25. Mr Laws’s expense claims dropped sharply. For example, he claimed only £37 a month for utilities.

 

Mr Laws, a former investment banker who is said to be independently wealthy, has been an MP since 2001 and represents Lord Ashdown’s former constituency.

 

SOURCE: Telegraph

**

 

He needs to leave the government, immediately... I mean, this is literally the guy who's telling us we need to make cutbacks - what moral authority does he have to say that when he's been cheating the taxpayer out of tens of thousands? Incredible.

David Laws, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, claimed up to £950 a month for eight years to rent rooms in two properties owned by his partner. The claims could be against parliamentary rules governing MPs’ second home expenses.

 

On Friday night, Mr Laws apologised and announced that he would “immediately” pay back tens of thousands of pounds claimed for rent and other housing costs between 2006 and 2009. He also referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.

 

Mr Laws said: “I regret this situation deeply, accept that I should not have claimed my expenses in this way and apologise fully.”

 

His controversial claims were not uncovered by an official inquiry into MPs’ expenses last year because Mr Laws did not admit that his landlord was also his long-standing lover.

 

The disclosure is the first big setback for the Coalition. Mr Laws, a Liberal Democrat, has the task of implementing public-sector cuts worth more than £6  billion.

 

He has already drawn up tough new rules limiting the pay and perks of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers. However, his hard-line approach could be undermined by the disclosure of his own controversial use of public money.

 

The Daily Telegraph’s Expenses Files show that between 2004 and 2007, Mr Laws claimed between £700 and £950 a month to sub-let a room in a flat in Kennington, south London. This flat was owned by the MP’s partner who was also registered as living at the property. The partner sold the flat for a profit of £193,000 in 2007.

 

In 2007, Mr Laws’s partner then bought another house nearby for £510,000. The MP then began claiming to rent the “second bedroom” in this property. His claims increased to £920 a month. The partner also lived at the property. Mr Laws’s main home is in his Yeovil constituency. The arrangement continued until September 2009, when parliamentary records show that Mr Laws switched his designated second home and began renting another flat at taxpayers’ expense. His partner remained at the Kennington house.

 

Mr Laws’s partner is James Lundie, who is thought to work for a lobbying firm. The Daily Telegraph was not intending to disclose Mr Laws’s sexuality, but in a statement issued in response to questions from this newspaper, the minister chose to disclose this fact.

 

“I’ve been involved in a relationship with James Lundie since around 2001 — about two years after first moving in with him. Our relationship has been unknown to both family and friends throughout that time,” it read.

 

“James and I are intensely private people. We made the decision to keep our relationship private and believed that was our right. Clearly that cannot now remain the case.

 

“My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality.”

 

John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner, will now have to scrutinise whether any rules have been broken.

 

Since 2006, parliamentary rules have banned MPs from “leasing accommodation from… a partner”.

 

Mr Laws said: “I claimed back the costs of sharing a home in Kennington with James from 2001 to June 2007. In June 2007, James bought a new home in London and I continued to claim back my share of the costs. I extended the mortgage on my Somerset property, for which I do not claim any allowances or expenses, to help James purchase the new property.

 

“In 2006 the Green Book rules were changed to prohibit payments to partners. At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as ‘one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses’.

 

“Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses. For example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social lives. However, I now accept that this was open to interpretation and will immediately pay back the costs of the rent and other housing costs I claimed from the time the rules changed until August 2009.”

 

Friends of Mr Laws said that the decision to disclose his sexuality was an “immense decision”.

 

“Anyone who knows David, knows he is someone of great integrity,” one friend said. “He has been very private about his life. But he absolutely wants the public to understand the reasons for this arrangement, it has not been about making a profit. He has decided he wants to be absolutely clear. His integrity is obviously very important.”

 

Mr Laws’s claims for a series of other expenses are also now expected to come under scrutiny. Between 2004 and 2008, he submitted regular claims, in rounded figures, for service and maintenance, repairs, utilities and other items.

 

He typically claimed between £50 and £150 a month for utilities and £100 to £200 for maintenance. Receipts were not provided to back up the claims.

 

However, in April 2008, the rules were changed and MPs had to provide receipts for any claims above £25. Mr Laws’s expense claims dropped sharply. For example, he claimed only £37 a month for utilities.

 

Mr Laws, a former investment banker who is said to be independently wealthy, has been an MP since 2001 and represents Lord Ashdown’s former constituency.

 

SOURCE: Telegraph

**

 

He needs to leave the government, immediately... I mean, this is literally the guy who's telling us we need to make cutbacks - what moral authority does he have to say that when he's been cheating the taxpayer out of tens of thousands? Incredible.

 

Oh, another hypocritical Government MP getting caught out, Quelle Shocker.... And this one's worse actually than most of the rest in a lot of ways, as he used some pretty dodgy chicanery to avoid being caught out during the first round-up of cheaters and fraudsters..... <_<

 

Not only should he be out of government, he should out of a JOB altogether and a bi-election held at his constituency, because this scandal is actually so much more serious than the others in many ways.. I also think his name should be added to the list of ex-MPs facing criminal proceedings at this point in time... It's also made so much the worse as he's "independently wealthy" and surely would not even have had to make any such expenses claims anyway.... Scumbag..... <_<

 

There is a flipside to this though, Laws could not come out to his parents. It's pretty sad that, even today, people would rather commit acts of gross fraud than face the possibility of being disowned by strictly religious parents - if he'd disclosed what he was up to then he would have been outed.

 

I'm not sure how he's doing on that side of things.

There is a flipside to this though, Laws could not come out to his parents. It's pretty sad that, even today, people would rather commit acts of gross fraud than face the possibility of being disowned by strictly religious parents

 

It's not "sad", it's gutless IMO.... The more high-profile people who "come out", then the greater the likelihood that something can be done to improve the lot of the gay community in general.... Even Stonewall had a policy to out MPs back in the day.. Particularly those gay MPs who voted in favour of things like Clause 28....

 

If he were that bothered by his parents finding out, he could've moved out, lived somewhere else, still saw his lover on the side, just not screw the taxpayer by making false claims, I dont care if he's sleeping with his landlord, I dont care if he's gay, what I care about is here we have another well-to-do MP who's got a fair bit of money anyway, screwing the taxpayer and then telling us that we have to tighten our belts and tolerate cuts in our services... Here, in going about things in the manner that he did, it looks VERY bad, in fact it looks like he was giving his lover cash "gifts" at the taxpayers expense, even if this were not the case.... Which is something you'd crucify any "straight" MP for doing no question....

 

It's not "sad", it's gutless IMO.... The more high-profile people who "come out", then the greater the likelihood that something can be done to improve the lot of the gay community in general.... Even Stonewall had a policy to out MPs back in the day.. Particularly those gay MPs who voted in favour of things like Clause 28....

 

If he were that bothered by his parents finding out, he could've moved out, lived somewhere else, still saw his lover on the side, just not screw the taxpayer by making false claims, I dont care if he's sleeping with his landlord, I dont care if he's gay, what I care about is here we have another well-to-do MP who's got a fair bit of money anyway, screwing the taxpayer and then telling us that we have to tighten our belts and tolerate cuts in our services... Here, in going about things in the manner that he did, it looks VERY bad, in fact it looks like he was giving his lover cash "gifts" at the taxpayers expense, even if this were not the case.... Which is something you'd crucify any "straight" MP for doing no question....

But he did move out from his parental home many years ago. Sometimes you seem as blind to the facts as Craig. And he went to a Catholic school in Weybridge, hardly the easiest environment to come out if he knew he was gay then. After university he then went in to the City, still a bastion of homophobia as John Browne would tell you.

 

What really is ridiculous is that he could have taken out a joint mortgage with his partner and pocketed the gains when they sold it. Morally wrong but within the rules. Alternatively, he could have made his Yeovil home his second home and claimed on that. As, from what I know, he left his partner behind when he went there, that would have made sense. Again he could then have pocketed the profit when he sold the house - morally wrong but within the rules. So the cheapest option for the taxpayer (apart, obviously, from him making no claim at all) - and the one which saw Laws himself gain nothing - is the one that is against the rules.

 

Like many highly intelligent people, Laws has shown a lack of common sense. He's paid the price for that.

 

As for what I would say if a straight MP had done the same, it's less likely that the situation would arise. It would only happen if a married MP was trying to hide the fact that he/she was having an affair.

 

The Telegraph are now having a go at Danny Alexander, Laws' successor at the Treasury. From what I've seen so far, he hasn't broken any rules. It's perfectly clear that the Torygruff are trying to destabilise the coalition. Forget about giving it time to see if it works. After all, that would be kow-towing to the electorate and that would never do for the Torygruff unless there was a majority Tory government. To them, any other government is illegitimate.

But he did move out from his parental home many years ago. Sometimes you seem as blind to the facts as Craig. And he went to a Catholic school in Weybridge, hardly the easiest environment to come out if he knew he was gay then. After university he then went in to the City, still a bastion of homophobia as John Browne would tell you.

 

You, like everyone else on this is bringing sexuality into it.. It's NOT the issue.... The issue is FRAUD mate, nothing else, just as it would be in a case of a single mother claiming benefits off the state letting her boyfriend move into her council flat and not telling the council about it, how understanding is the law towards that situation....? Not very... I'm not blind to the sexuality of the man, I just dont see it as relevant, the issue here is fraud, as I keep on stressing, it really is quite simple, it's not complicated at all.... And when I say, "move out", I meant, he could have moved out of his lover's house if he was that bothered about "coming clean" to his parents and his colleagues... He COULD have moved into the place next door or something, continued to claim his rent for THAT property in expenses, and nothing would ever have been said about it, because there would've been nothing suspect about it... Do you honestly buy that he was merely "paying the rent" to his lover...? Oh, come on, you're surely not that naive as to buy that one... How many wives, boyfriends, girlfriends charge their partners rent FFS....?? The phrase I believe is "pull the other one, it's got bells on"....

 

I've posed several other questions on the other related threads around here, which I hope you and the other Pro-Laws lot will address.... Because it seems to me that it's one set of rules and standards for the likes of Laws and another set of rules for the working classes who commit benefit fraud, and that's just not on IMO... We're now living in a country which is totally fukked up because of the excesses of Capitalism, the banks and the Corporationsm and the unwillingness of our "elected representatives" to step in and actually DO something to curb the excesses of these people... Hmmm, Laws is an ex-Merchant Banker himself isn't he....? Just another c/unt who thinks he's somehow entitled to fukk us over in my book..... <_<

As for what I would say if a straight MP had done the same, it's less likely that the situation would arise. It would only happen if a married MP was trying to hide the fact that he/she was having an affair.

 

Well, the situation that springs immediately to mind is "Lord" Archer.... He lied to a court of law, took money under false pretences to cover up an affair with a prostitute (okay, it was from Private Eye, and not the taxpayer, but still, a fraud was committed as well as Perjury.... Mind you, did Archer claim Legal Aid come to think of it, hmmm, worth investigating.....), the point is, NOBODY had one iota of sympathy for him, and rightly so.... And again, it was a case of an MP being dishonest and not forthcoming with the truth... In fact, he went out of his way to lie through his teeth about it, when the simple fact is, very few people beyond the the "blue-rinse brigade" would probably have cared that he'd boned a prozzie, and it probably would've been forgotten about quickly if he'd just come clean about it.....

 

Well, the situation that springs immediately to mind is "Lord" Archer.... He lied to a court of law, took money under false pretences to cover up an affair with a prostitute (okay, it was from Private Eye, and not the taxpayer, but still, a fraud was committed as well as Perjury.... Mind you, did Archer claim Legal Aid come to think of it, hmmm, worth investigating.....), the point is, NOBODY had one iota of sympathy for him, and rightly so.... And again, it was a case of an MP being dishonest and not forthcoming with the truth... In fact, he went out of his way to lie through his teeth about it, when the simple fact is, very few people beyond the the "blue-rinse brigade" would probably have cared that he'd boned a prozzie, and it probably would've been forgotten about quickly if he'd just come clean about it.....

I suspect we would have known by now if the very wealthy Archer - who wasn't an MP at the time - had claimed legal aid.

You, like everyone else on this is bringing sexuality into it.. It's NOT the issue.... The issue is FRAUD mate, nothing else, just as it would be in a case of a single mother claiming benefits off the state letting her boyfriend move into her council flat and not telling the council about it, how understanding is the law towards that situation....? Not very... I'm not blind to the sexuality of the man, I just dont see it as relevant, the issue here is fraud, as I keep on stressing, it really is quite simple, it's not complicated at all.... And when I say, "move out", I meant, he could have moved out of his lover's house if he was that bothered about "coming clean" to his parents and his colleagues... He COULD have moved into the place next door or something, continued to claim his rent for THAT property in expenses, and nothing would ever have been said about it, because there would've been nothing suspect about it... Do you honestly buy that he was merely "paying the rent" to his lover...? Oh, come on, you're surely not that naive as to buy that one... How many wives, boyfriends, girlfriends charge their partners rent FFS....?? The phrase I believe is "pull the other one, it's got bells on"....

 

I've posed several other questions on the other related threads around here, which I hope you and the other Pro-Laws lot will address.... Because it seems to me that it's one set of rules and standards for the likes of Laws and another set of rules for the working classes who commit benefit fraud, and that's just not on IMO... We're now living in a country which is totally fukked up because of the excesses of Capitalism, the banks and the Corporationsm and the unwillingness of our "elected representatives" to step in and actually DO something to curb the excesses of these people... Hmmm, Laws is an ex-Merchant Banker himself isn't he....? Just another c/unt who thinks he's somehow entitled to fukk us over in my book..... <_>

No, you pull the other one. Do you really think that if he'd moved next door and then visited his partner on a regular basis, the press would not have found out? The Telegraph would still have found out. They may have decided not to publish the story themselves but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have passed it on to the Daily Mail. It doesn't take much imagination to come up with the sort of headline they would have used.

I suspect we would have known by now if the very wealthy Archer - who wasn't an MP at the time - had claimed legal aid.

 

Naaah, just a "Tory Lord", that's all.... :lol: :lol: Which is even worse.....

 

Being wealthy doesn't stop some of them mate... Moats? Duck Island...?

No, you pull the other one. Do you really think that if he'd moved next door and then visited his partner on a regular basis, the press would not have found out? The Telegraph would still have found out. They may have decided not to publish the story themselves but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have passed it on to the Daily Mail. It doesn't take much imagination to come up with the sort of headline they would have used.

 

So, doesn't matter... At least he wouldn't be guilty of fraud.. He'd actually be using the expenses for rent if he wasn't actually LIVING with his partner.... Which is my whole issue with Laws... You seem to be determined to bring sexuality into this, whereas I am actually emphasising the case for FRAUD.... Last time I looked, being gay wasn't a crime, however, being a two-faced, lying, fraudulent b'astard almost certainly IS..... -_-

 

And, still not addressing the other issue - why is Laws as a wealthy ex-banker even CLAIMING expenses in the first place...? Like I say, another c'unt who thinks he's entitled to thieve off me, you and everyone else... Why the fukk are you defending people like him.....? <_<

It's impossible to divorce sexuality from this when, had he been straight, it would not have happened!

So, doesn't matter... At least he wouldn't be guilty of fraud.. He'd actually be using the expenses for rent if he wasn't actually LIVING with his partner.... Which is my whole issue with Laws... You seem to be determined to bring sexuality into this, whereas I am actually emphasising the case for FRAUD.... Last time I looked, being gay wasn't a crime, however, being a two-faced, lying, fraudulent b'astard almost certainly IS..... -_-

 

And, still not addressing the other issue - why is Laws as a wealthy ex-banker even CLAIMING expenses in the first place...? Like I say, another c'unt who thinks he's entitled to thieve off me, you and everyone else... Why the fukk are you defending people like him.....? <_>

I've got better things to do with my life than arguing with a brick wall.

It's impossible to divorce sexuality from this when, had he been straight, it would not have happened!

 

Please, that's just a cop-out.... Like I say, he COULD have moved out, then there would've been no such seeming conflict of interests, he also could've just stopped claiming expenses, not that he'd've had to explain to anyone really why he stopped.... Either that, or, blimey, just COME OUT.... He wouldn't exactly be the only Gay Lib Dem MP would he....? FFS..... :rolleyes:

 

It's impossible to divorce sexuality from this when, had he been straight, it would not have happened!

There's no point. Scott's hostility to all politicians makes him blind to rational argument.

 

Is it any wonder some very good people are reluctant to stand for Parliament when they come up against belligerent people like him?

I've got better things to do with my life than arguing with a brick wall.

 

More like you dont have a credible arguement to counter me, Danny or Craig.... Because, essentially, there IS no arguement you can possibly make which defends fraud... Or hypocrisy... Both of which Laws is guilty of....

There's no point. Scott's hostility to all politicians makes him blind to rational argument.

 

Is it any wonder some very good people are reluctant to stand for Parliament when they come up against belligerent people like him?

 

I repeat - there IS NO arguement to justify fraud... Or any other illegal activity come to think of it... You haven's demonstrated to me what can possibly justify a rich, well-to-do ex-banker even making such claims in the first place.... Hostile..? Damn right I am, I tend to be when someone p!sses on me and tells me it's raining.... I'll be hostile to ANY MP who makes such fraudulent claims... After all, where is the understanding or compassion shown towards a single parent or an unemployed person who "fiddles" the dole for reasons of basic human survival...? Answer, it is NON EXISTENT...... <_<

 

Good people dont stand for Parliament because they know the old saying is true - Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely..... You can't, with the best of intentions, change this rotten, corrupt-to-the-core system, the system will end up corrupting YOU long before you can affect any changes... Best thing to do - destroy it, and build it again from the foundations upwards, and get it right this time.... Sounds like Anarchy or Revolution..? Well, yeah, I suppose it does....

 

Here's an interesting article from Newsweek that you may want to check out Suede.....

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/26/rekers-...-hypocrisy.html

More like you dont have a credible arguement to counter me, Danny or Craig.... Because, essentially, there IS no arguement you can possibly make which defends fraud... Or hypocrisy... Both of which Laws is guilty of....

No, it's just that whatever anyone else says gets the same boring, copied and pasted response. Any attempt to open up the discussion to a wider debate gets the same treatment.

No, it's just that whatever anyone else says gets the same boring, copied and pasted response. Any attempt to open up the discussion to a wider debate gets the same treatment.

 

Where's the "wider" debate though... You, Richard and Tyron are basically trying to say that his sexuality somehow excuses him or is a factor in his fraud... Which, errr, it's not, it's a cop-out... I'm just shooting your pathetic arguments down in flames with some actual LOGIC and you dont like it.... And I will keep repeating the same points which you all resolutely FAIL to address, until you DO actually address them..... The most important one being, just why is it that a well-off, ex-merchant banker even NEEDS to fill in an expenses form in the first place... I'm sorry, but he's hardly penniless and can afford to pay his own way, END OF FUKKIN' STORY..... <_<

 

But we all know what the answer is I suppose - this sense of entitlement that these priveleged douchebags think they have which is outlined in that article which I provided a link for, and that's based on a SCIENTIFIC STUDY by the way....

I do have sympathy for Laws that he felt he couldn't come out as gay - that shows we as a society still have more work to do on teaching schoolchildren to understand and tolerate homosexuality.

 

But his sexuality just doesn't have anything to do with his expenses claims, and I think it's shameful that he's trying to use it to score pity points. Like others have said, if a couple are living together and both claim housing benefits, arguing that "well, if we were living apart we'd be both claiming it, so we're not really cheating the taxpayer out of money" - that couple would be prosecuted. Whether or not he could've claimed if he'd been the joint owner of the property along with his partner is neither here nor there.

 

Also, while, like I said, I really CAN understand why he felt he couldn't come out as gay, what exactly did he have to fear by telling the Fees Office that he was living with a man? Did he think some of the civil servants there would go round sniggering about the fact he was gay with MPs? Did he have a premonition that the Telegraph would one day start leaking MPs' expenses?

 

The fact is, his job is specifically concerned with bringing down the deficit, so it was simply untenable for him to carry on. If he'd been in a role such as Defence Secretary or Scottish Secretary, then maybe, MAYBE, he would still be in his job - but, if you're preaching to the public to make cutbacks, then it goes without saying that you need to be squeaky-clean on what your claiming from the public purse. And I stand by that he shouldn't've been claiming expenses in the first place - when this "national interest" government formed and started telling us we all needed to "do our bit" to help the public finances, he and the other excessively wealthy Cabinet members should've done their bit and voluntarily given up their expenses. Or do they think Theresa May getting to buy leopard-print shoes is a higher priority than people in the public sector keeping their jobs?