bridge too far Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7780642/MPs-Expenses-Treasury-chief-David-Laws-his-secret-lover-and-a-40000-claim.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 The MP's said it was time to clean up parliament. I see that the Libs are coming out and saying he is a good man etc, and wished to keep his private life away from the spotlight. Cameron/ preferably Clegg has to act, if not the whole lot are going to lose credibility straight away. Laws has to go, or the coalition is going to flounder as the normal voter is going to think 'here we go again' This is not about party politics but decency at this difficult time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 29 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 29 May, 2010 The MP's said it was time to clean up parliament. I see that the Libs are coming out and saying he is a good man etc, and wished to keep his private life away from the spotlight. Cameron/ preferably Clegg has to act, if not the whole lot are going to lose credibility straight away. Laws has to go, or the coalition is going to flounder as the normal voter is going to think 'here we go again' This is not about party politics but decency at this difficult time. Absolutely - and I wasn't trying to make a quasi-political point. I do wonder why this wasn't picked up at the time of the original 'outing' of MPs expenses though :confused: £40K is a lot of money (by my standards) although I have heard he was wealthy so probably not by his standards. It's a shame because, reading his biog, he appears to be eminently qualified for the job to which he was appointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Didn't I hear Cameron stating as Conservative policy, during the election debates, that the electorate of any constituency would have the right to vote out their MP if he was guilty of just this sort of misdemeanour? I wonder whether the Lib/Dems are in accord with that policy? It is a bit of a shame that this didn't come out before the election, as the good people of Yeovil might feel cheated not being able to make a proper judgement on the integrity of their MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Didn't I hear Cameron stating as Conservative policy, during the election debates, that the electorate of any constituency would have the right to vote out their MP if he was guilty of just this sort of misdemeanour? I wonder whether the Lib/Dems are in accord with that policy? It is a bit of a shame that this didn't come out before the election, as the good people of Yeovil might feel cheated not being able to make a proper judgement on the integrity of their MP. What a great opportunity to put this policy into play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 (edited) What a great opportunity to put this policy into play Exactamondo. DC has no choice here. False claims are false claims. Edited 29 May, 2010 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 To be honest, I bet the £40,000 over several years was a lot less than would have been claimed if he had had other arrangements. However, at the same time, I understand why the rules are what they are, it could lead to a lot of abuse if they were not that way. In addition though, it's clear that David Laws wasn't doing this in a dishonest way, but it is very sad really because David Laws will be extremely good in this government for the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 (edited) To be honest, I bet the £40,000 over several years was a lot less than would have been claimed if he had had other arrangements. However, at the same time, I understand why the rules are what they are, it could lead to a lot of abuse if they were not that way. In addition though, it's clear that David Laws wasn't doing this in a dishonest way, but it is very sad really because David Laws will be extremely good in this government for the country. Why is it clear that Laws wasn't making use of the system? He has been with his partner since 2001. Most MPs under the same circumstances would have realised the problem and divvied up voluntarily or grudgingly because they could see what was coming. Laws may have ability, but he is naive to think he is different to others in similar situations. Edited 29 May, 2010 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Why is it clear that Laws wasn't making use of the system? He has been with his partner since 2001. Most MPs under the same circumstances would have realised the problem and divvied up voluntarily or because they could see what was coming. Laws may have ability, but he is naive to think he is different to others in similar situations. Laws used the apartment as his second home in London, which most MPs do need and anyone who says they don't need a second home is a fool. He fell in Love with his Landlord, it's not his fault, but at the same time it doesn't mean Laws should have to stop paying him for the rent. The amount claimed is quite small compared to other MPs, and if you look at this carefully, it's clear Laws has been stupid(but for understandable reasons), not malicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 (edited) Laws used the apartment as his second home in London, which most MPs do need and anyone who says they don't need a second home is a fool. He fell in Love with his Landlord, it's not his fault, but at the same time it doesn't mean Laws should have to stop paying him for the rent. The amount claimed is quite small compared to other MPs, and if you look at this carefully, it's clear Laws has been stupid(but for understandable reasons), not malicious. I'd be amazed if he is still in position by Tuesday. It looks bad and his judgement is poor. I don't think DC can let it go. Edited 29 May, 2010 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I'd be amazed if he is still in position by Tuesday. It looks bad and his judgement is poor. Oh yes, the judgement is poor, but I still do not accept his actions were a deliberate misuse of the system for profit. There were other factors at play, like him trying to hide his sexuality. The Telegraph has had this for months and obviously did not consider it scandalous enough at the time to release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Oh yes, the judgement is poor, but I still do not accept his actions were a deliberate misuse of the system for profit. There were other factors at play, like him trying to hide his sexuality. The Telegraph has had this for months and obviously did not consider it scandalous enough at the time to release. Well, either way, I think Laws has to be a gonner. DC can't hold out against the Telegraph and "scandal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 It is a bit of a shame that this didn't come out before the election, as the good people of Yeovil might feel cheated not being able to make a proper judgement on the integrity of their MP. I would imagine a good few of them feel cheated that their MP is propping up a Tory Government they didn't want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 He fell in Love with his Landlord, it's not his fault, but at the same time it doesn't mean Laws should have to stop paying him for the rent. Oh behave, if it was any other MP the reaction would be the same. He mustg have known about it and didnt declare. He would have known if this had come out pre election it would have made a mockery of Cleggs snow white stance and it was hidden. It is new politics and so sadly he should go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Absolutely - and I wasn't trying to make a quasi-political point. I do wonder why this wasn't picked up at the time of the original 'outing' of MPs expenses though :confused: £40K is a lot of money (by my standards) although I have heard he was wealthy so probably not by his standards. It's a shame because, reading his biog, he appears to be eminently qualified for the job to which he was appointed.On this occasion i knew that was the case, i meant it as party politcs do not come into this for any of us as we had all been told they werre changing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 29 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 29 May, 2010 He's resigned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 He's resigned! Good, i wonder if he'll resign as an MP. It'd be funny as **** if the Liberals lost Yeovil in a by election, although unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 It's sad that he has had to resigned, but obviously he broke the rules from 2006 onwards. However, I still maintain he did not do this maliciously and for profit. Ironically, he actually claimed a lot less than he could of if he had declared the partner. The taxpayer actually got good value for money out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 29 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I think it's a sad reflection on our society that he felt he couldn't reveal his sexuality. But I think he had no option but to resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 The real loss is for the country to be honest, David Laws is a politician of the highest integrity and has a lot intelligence to go with it. He would have been excellent in this job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 The real loss is for the country to be honest, David Laws is a politician of the highest integrity and has a lot intelligence to go with it. He would have been excellent in this job. Clearly not since he fiddled his expenses. He broke the rules and should be sacked as an MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 29 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Clearly not since he fiddled his expenses. He broke the rules and should be sacked as an MP. I think the Parliamentary Standards Committee has yet to opine. Unless, of course, you know something they don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Clearly not since he fiddled his expenses. He broke the rules and should be sacked as an MP. The language you use is harsh. Saying 'fiddling' makes it sound like he did it deliberately and profit. I'd like to point out the irony of this is that the taxpayer actually got a BETTER deal out of this than if he had actually flipped his home or bought another home. You totally ignore the human side of this, a man in the closet afraid to come out. I have a couple of friends who are currently not out, so I can sympathise with his mindset. He was not motivated by greed and for that reason I would say this was a stupid mistake and he does not lose his integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 The language you use is harsh. Saying 'fiddling' makes it sound like he did it deliberately and profit. I'd like to point out the irony of this is that the taxpayer actually got a BETTER deal out of this than if he had actually flipped his home or bought another home. You totally ignore the human side of this, a man in the closet afraid to come out. I have a couple of friends who are currently not out, so I can sympathise with his mindset. He was not motivated by greed and for that reason I would say this was a stupid mistake and he does not lose his integrity. I sympathise with his predicament, but the fact is he cheated the system and broke the rules. His boyfriend is a professional earning good money so if he cared that much about privacy he shouldn't have claimed. This is not about his sexuality, it's about him being greedy and getting caught out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I think the Parliamentary Standards Committee has yet to opine. Unless, of course, you know something they don't? lol, the rules were in place and just because his lover was a man and not a woman should make no difference. Equality works both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I sympathise with his predicament, but the fact is he cheated the system and broke the rules. His boyfriend is a professional earning good money so if he cared that much about privacy he shouldn't have claimed. This is not about his sexuality, it's about him being greedy and getting caught out. Yer, but a large amount of his income would have come from the renting of the room. Remember that he was his Landlord first before all this, and laws was probably too afraid to do anything in 2006 when the rules changed for obvious reasons. And no, it's not about him being greedy, he could have claimed waaaay more if he had done it not this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 29 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 29 May, 2010 lol, the rules were in place and just because his lover was a man and not a woman should make no difference. Equality works both ways. I'm not arguing with you about that! Jeez! I'm arguing with you for jumping to a conclusion (i.e. he's guilty) whereas that's a job for the Committee to do. I guess knee jerk is your middle name? Or at least part of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Yer, but a large amount of his income would have come from the renting of the room. Remember that he was his Landlord first before all this, and laws was probably too afraid to do anything in 2006 when the rules changed for obvious reasons. And no, it's not about him being greedy, he could have claimed waaaay more if he had done it not this way. Rules are rules. He should be sacked. If the custodians of democracy cannot be trusted to set an example it makes a mockery of democracy. He has to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 29 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Dune in Judge, Jury and Execution shocker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I'm not arguing with you about that! Jeez! I'm arguing with you for jumping to a conclusion (i.e. he's guilty) whereas that's a job for the Committee to do. I guess knee jerk is your middle name? Or at least part of it? I don't need an official enquiry to tell me that what he has done is right or wrong. What he has done has broken the rules so it's wrong. It really is as simple as that. This is a black and white scenario and there are no grey areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I don't need an official enquiry to tell me that what he has done is right or wrong. What he has done has broken the rules so it's wrong. It really is as simple as that. This is a black and white scenario and there are no grey areas. Why is this case any different to any of the Tory MPs 'outed' by the Telegraph's reporting last year ? How many of them are now in the Cabinet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Why is this case any different to any of the Tory MPs 'outed' by the Telegraph's reporting last year ? How many of them are now in the Cabinet ? How many of them broke the rules? What many MP's did was morally unacceptable, but legally within the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 29 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 29 May, 2010 How many of them broke the rules? What many MP's did was morally unacceptable, but legally within the rules. You see - that's the point. WE all thought a lot of those MPs had broken the rules, but it turned out they hadn't. Morally unacceptable, yes, but illegal, no. How do you actually KNOW he broke rules - because he, a highly intelligent and capable man, doesn't necessarily accept that he has. You don't any more than I do or don't. He's resigned because that is the honourable thing to do all the time the matter is being investigated. I'm pretty sure that, if the Committee finds he's innocent, he'll be back in the cabinet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 You see - that's the point. WE all thought a lot of those MPs had broken the rules, but it turned out they hadn't. Morally unacceptable, yes, but illegal, no. How do you actually KNOW he broke rules - because he, a highly intelligent and capable man, doesn't necessarily accept that he has. You don't any more than I do or don't. He's resigned because that is the honourable thing to do all the time the matter is being investigated. I'm pretty sure that, if the Committee finds he's innocent, he'll be back in the cabinet. WE ALL didn't think the MP's had broken the rules, I knew from the outset that the rules allowed them to milk the system. Laws has broken the rules. A completely different scenario to the vast bulk of greedy claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 29 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 29 May, 2010 WE ALL didn't think the MP's had broken the rules, I knew from the outset that the rules allowed them to milk the system. Laws has broken the rules. I sincerely hope that you're never, ever called up for Jury service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I sincerely hope that you're never, ever called up for Jury service. Ha Ha, i already have been, and it was a case with some long haired anti vivisection campaigners. I had them guilty straight away, but the bloody cps withdrew the case before the trial.:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I'm not arguing with you about that! Jeez! I'm arguing with you for jumping to a conclusion (i.e. he's guilty) whereas that's a job for the Committee to do. I guess knee jerk is your middle name? Or at least part of it? Don't call Stanley a knee! You're bang out of order.....oh! :smt105 You mean...err...I got the wrong word? 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Don't call Stanley a knee! You're bang out of order.....oh! :smt105 You mean...err...I got the wrong word? 8-) I feel embarrassed for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 A multi millionaire syphoning our money to his gay lover seems a bit sleazy to me. I thought Clegg was talking about a new start what a hypocrite I actually feel sorry for Mr Cameron but he is probably a little niave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I feel embarrassed for you. Awwww shucks Stanley. I feel nothing but pity for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 A multi millionaire syphoning our money to his gay lover seems a bit sleazy to me. I thought Clegg was talking about a new start what a hypocrite I actually feel sorry for Mr Cameron but he is probably a little niave It's nothing to do with syphoning... the guy was originally his Landlord, just because they fell in love it doesn't suddenly become malicious. Again, I point out this whole arrangement worked out cheaper than any of possible arrangement would have been. We are in dangerous waters right now, ruining many political careers of decent, hard-working intelligent politicians. The loss is as much ours as theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 The real loss is for the country to be honest, David Laws is a politician of the highest integrity and has a lot intelligence to go with it. He would have been excellent in this job. What a lot of cant. If he had real integrity, then he wouldn't have allowed this to happen. I know what a Lib/Dem cheerleader you are, so it is not surprising that you try to defend him. I had to have a little chuckle when the situation was explained on the radio news, that Laws was paying rent to his male lover and it called to mind another high profile Liberal and some other connection with rent. Does his integrity stretch as far as resigning his seat? Regardless of how he tried to expain it all away, the electorate in other constituencies who had MPs who had made misuse of their expenses claims had the opportunity to vote them out. The electorate of Yeovil didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 What a lot of cant. If he had real integrity, then he wouldn't have allowed this to happen. I know what a Lib/Dem cheerleader you are, so it is not surprising that you try to defend him. I had to have a little chuckle when the situation was explained on the radio news, that Laws was paying rent to his male lover and it called to mind another high profile Liberal and some other connection with rent. Does his integrity stretch as far as resigning his seat? Regardless of how he tried to expain it all away, the electorate in other constituencies who had MPs who had made misuse of their expenses claims had the opportunity to vote them out. The electorate of Yeovil didn't. He didn't misuse his expenses though, all he was doing was paying his Landlord at quite a good rate. He was not enriching himself, and made no profit. The irony is, as I have said, he actually got a very good deal for the tax payer out of this arrangement. It's a sad day that man of such quality has been allowed to go in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 He didn't misuse his expenses though, all he was doing was paying his Landlord at quite a good rate. He was not enriching himself, and made no profit. The irony is, as I have said, he actually got a very good deal for the tax payer out of this arrangement. It's a sad day that man of such quality has been allowed to go in this way. If he didn't misuse his expenses, then what is all the fuss about? And why has he submitted himself to a committee of enquiry? In 2006 MPs were banned from leasing property from their partners, so he broke the rules on expenses. All your caveats and whining about how the taxpayers got a good deal do not alter that fact, nor does his excuse that he didn't declare it because he was shy about the fact of his homosexuality becoming known. Some have called his actions stupidity, but when you claim that he is a man of integrity, then he clearly isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 If he didn't misuse his expenses, then what is all the fuss about? And why has he submitted himself to a committee of enquiry? In 2006 MPs were banned from leasing property from their partners, so he broke the rules on expenses. All your caveats and whining about how the taxpayers got a good deal do not alter that fact, nor does his excuse that he didn't declare it because he was shy about the fact of his homosexuality becoming known. Some have called his actions stupidity, but when you claim that he is a man of integrity, then he clearly isn't. It was a misjudgement, but I agree with Lord Steel when he says it is a massive overreaction. A sad loss for the country. Let's see what the committee of enquiry says first... and the reason there is so much fuss is the media and the pressure that brings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeovil Saint Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 I'm absolutely sure that if this had come out prior to the General Election then Yeovil would still have re-elected David Laws. On a personal level I feel sorry for the guy, I see him every so often and he's always very pleasant despite us having different political views. But for a millionaire ex-banker to take money that he's not entitled to while overseeing the job losses of hundreds of thousands public sector workers and forcing down the wages of the lowest paid just wasn't going to be politically tenable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 I'm absolutely sure that if this had come out prior to the General Election then Yeovil would still have re-elected David Laws. On a personal level I feel sorry for the guy, I see him every so often and he's always very pleasant despite us having different political views. But for a millionaire ex-banker to take money that he's not entitled to while overseeing the job losses of hundreds of thousands public sector workers and forcing down the wages of the lowest paid just wasn't going to be politically tenable. He is entitled to a second home allowance. The dispute isn't over whether he was allowed the money, he is allowed it. The dispute is over who he rented his space from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 He is entitled to a second home allowance. The dispute isn't over whether he was allowed the money, he is allowed it. The dispute is over who he rented his space from. Wrong - he claimed it falsely. To protect his private life he was prepared to squander £40,000 of our money. For somebody who was supposed to be saving money for the nation that set the wrong precedent. My instinct is to feel sorry for him but then I just think he is another politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeovil Saint Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 He is entitled to a second home allowance. The dispute isn't over whether he was allowed the money, he is allowed it. The dispute is over who he rented his space from. Andy, I don't think it's clear that Laws was entitled to the allowance. The Green Book (the MPs guide to what they can and can't claim) says this about PAAE (Personal Additional Accomodation Expenditure, otherwise known as Second Home Allowance) Rule 2.1.4.1 PAAE must not be used to meet the costs of renting a property from yourself; a partner or family member (including a spouse or civil partner); a close business associate; or an organisation or company in which you or a family member have an interest (other than as an ordinary investor). David Laws has said himself that he had a relationship with James Lundie since 2001. His argument on Friday was that he didn't consider James to be his partner which may be true - we don't have all the information to judge and we await the report of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Personally I thought that Laws had a complete right to stay on until the IPSA report and then carry on if cleared, but he's decided to quit now, that's an honourable thing to do and if he is cleared by IPSA then he should be able to return to Cabinet - he's easily the brightest MP I know and he would have made a fine Chief Secretary. You can download the Green Book to have a look at the rules yourself at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-finance-office/greenbook.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 30 May, 2010 I've learned a little bit more this morning, mainly from comments on the Andrew Marr show. The concensus view was that his homosexuality isn't an issue. However, it seems that his parents are devout Catholics and he was looking to protect them by keeping his sexuality from them. Where I do have some doubts is his statement that the other man wasn't his partner because they had separate bank accounts and didn't socialise together. This could apply to many married and living together couples I know. But they're still partners - so I think he was a tad disingenuous there. Because of his undoubted financial acumen and the respect with which he is held by politicians of all parties, I hope he soon returns to the cabinet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now