New Education Secretary (not David Laws, but Michael Gove)

Discussion of all things non-11 Plus related

Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators

Looking for help
Posts: 3767
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Location: Berkshire

Re: Michael Gove as Education Secretary

Post by Looking for help »

I do not think it has anything to do with his personal lifestyle, more the fact that he has been dishonest, and worse still he carried on standing for parliament in this election knowing that he had fraudulently claimed these expenses. I think he should be deslected by his party forcing a by-election, as an example that any sort of fraudulent activity will no longer be tolerated by the electorate :roll:
Amber
Posts: 8058
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:59 am

Re: New Education Secretary (not David Laws, but Michael Gov

Post by Amber »

He claimed rent, which he is entitled to do. What he wasn't allowed to do was to pay it to a 'spouse or relative'. This man was neither, though he was a civil partner, which is tantamount to spouse. He did not commit fraud as such. I am not so much trying to defend him as pointing out that this is not in the duck island/moat league, and anyway, he has referred himself to the ombudsman who will get the full facts out.
Looking for help
Posts: 3767
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Location: Berkshire

Re: New Education Secretary (not David Laws, but Michael Gov

Post by Looking for help »

I understand, but he must have know he was making a mistake, I apologise for my views, I just don't like dishonesty, whatever the reason. I couldn't get away with it, and I don't expect someone in public life to do so either. At the moment, I would be very happy with an extra £40k, it would make my life soooo much easier :lol:
Sassie'sDad
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:36 pm
Location: Rugby

Re: New Education Secretary (not David Laws, but Michael Gov

Post by Sassie'sDad »

I am not attacking Laws for being gay but for breaking the rules. I agree that he was otherwise an asset to the government. He was extremely self righteous throughout the election campaign on the subject of MPs expenses.

By insisting that his 'partner' of long standing is not a partner for the purposes of the Parliamentary Rules, he is dancing on the head of a pin. He has conceded he was at fault by apologising and resigning.

Time has moved on since the days of Jeremy Thorpe. I could not care less about peoples ******** proclivities and would prefer they kept them private. Ironically by claiming expenses, and since he has been a multi millionaire since his early twenties one might well think he could have afforded not to, he has made his situation very public!

I think MPs who have jobs outside Parliament (and Peers) are much better informed. Career Politicians are the very devil!
First-timer
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:47 pm
Location: Essex

Re: New Education Secretary (not David Laws, but Michael Gov

Post by First-timer »

I couldn't care less what he does in the privacy of his own bedroom. I do care if the said bedroom is his boyfriend/partner's and partly funded at my expense. If he really was motivated purely by the desire to keep his orientation private he shouldn't have paid 40K to his partner. I think it's at best disingenuous for him to say that this man was not the equivalent of his spouse. Not only is he guilty of poor judgment and possibly dishonesty but he is quite clearly a muppet for thinking he could keep the situation secret given the hoo-ha over MP's expenses. Quite right that he should go. What puzzles me are the intimations that he would be welcome back.
moved
Posts: 3826
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:42 pm
Location: Chelmsford and pleased

Re: New Education Secretary (not David Laws, but Michael Gov

Post by moved »

Given his private and financial situation a simple solution to protect his privacy would have been to rent a London house. To argue that because he had a different social life from his partner and therefore mistakenly did not view him as a spouse-style partner is mere sophistry. Sadly, I think for plenty of the MPs this sum of money is such small change that he probably genuinely claimed it to make his relationship look less obvious.
Amber
Posts: 8058
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:59 am

Re: New Education Secretary (not David Laws, but Michael Gov

Post by Amber »

moved wrote:Sadly, I think for plenty of the MPs this sum of money is such small change that he probably genuinely claimed it to make his relationship look less obvious.
Indeed - the man is a millionaire several times over so could not have done it purely for the money.
Looking for help
Posts: 3767
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Location: Berkshire

Re: New Education Secretary (not David Laws, but Michael Gov

Post by Looking for help »

Amber wrote: Indeed - the man is a millionaire several times over so could not have done it purely for the money.
So then, why on earth did he do it, if he didn't need the money ?Does he really think we are so narrow minded we care about his personal life? I would feel more sympathy for someone who'd done it because he was absolutely broke, rather than this complete lack of thought about the consequeneces of his actions. It is completely black and white to me - he took money that was not his and he had no right to do so. I am deeply disgusted that after the newspaper ink is hardly dry from writing about the previous expenses scandal, 5 mins after a new government, nothing has changed. :shock:

Absolutely shocking, and he has no excuse whatsoever.
Amber
Posts: 8058
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:59 am

Re: New Education Secretary (not David Laws, but Michael Gov

Post by Amber »

Image
KS10
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:39 am

Re: New Education Secretary (not David Laws, but Michael Gov

Post by KS10 »

Coming out is not easy for a lot of people. Sometimes it's not about the public but the family (don't know what his family's reaction is btw). I don't think for one minute that anyone is condoning his actions, just that it isn't always black and white.
Post Reply