Cable Forum - View Single Post - David Laws has resigned as Chief Secretary to the Treasury

Tezcatlipoca · 29-05-2010, 23:05

I still think that the Telegraph's timing is rather suspect, coming during the week of the Queen's Speech, & after David Laws has gained a high profile due to his (now short-lived) role at the Treasury.

Also, although the Telegraph claimed that it "was not intending to disclose Mr Laws’s sexuality", what exactly did they think would happen if they published a story saying he had claimed expenses to pay rent to his long-term partner? I know Mr Laws pre-empted it by disclosing it himself, but I think that's only because it would be better coming straight from him rather than people digging around & discovering it due to the Telegraph story.

As for not sleeping in the room... well yes, presumably he would not have been sleeping in the room in question. I don't see it as implying fraud though, it is not as if he would not have been sleeping anywhere at all in the property itself: he would presumably have been sleeping in the same room as his partner. He did not mention that however due to not wanting to have to disclose his sexuality: he wanted his private life to stay private.

It is not as if he was claiming money for a property he didn't actually use at all. He did live there, did sleep there, did use the kitchen, & the bathroom, & the utilities... He just presumably slept in the same room as his landlord given that his landlord was his partner.

If your landlord is also your partner, you still need to pay towards the rent & the bills...

As mentioned earlier, if he had been open about his sexuality & his relationship, he could have officially been a co-owner of the London property with his partner & could have claimed FAR MORE MONEY THAN HE ACTUALLY DID. By trying to keep his private life private, & doing his expenses claims the way he did, he claimed *less* money.

Alternatively, he could have claimed that his constituency home was his 2nd home, & claimed the full £20k per year on that (= more than he actually claimed for London), & used his own money to contribute towards the cost of living with his partner.

Although, as I said before, given his personal wealth he really should have not claimed anything at all (& that goes for plenty of other MPs). That way he would have been safe too: if he paid for everything himself, this wouldn't have happened.

29-05-2010, 23:05	#25
Tezcatlipoca Inactive Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cambridge Posts: 16,760	Re: David Laws has resigned as Chief Secretary to the Treasury I still think that the Telegraph's timing is rather suspect, coming during the week of the Queen's Speech, & after David Laws has gained a high profile due to his (now short-lived) role at the Treasury. Also, although the Telegraph claimed that it "was not intending to disclose Mr Laws’s sexuality", what exactly did they think would happen if they published a story saying he had claimed expenses to pay rent to his long-term partner? I know Mr Laws pre-empted it by disclosing it himself, but I think that's only because it would be better coming straight from him rather than people digging around & discovering it due to the Telegraph story. As for not sleeping in the room... well yes, presumably he would not have been sleeping in the room in question. I don't see it as implying fraud though, it is not as if he would not have been sleeping anywhere at all in the property itself: he would presumably have been sleeping in the same room as his partner. He did not mention that however due to not wanting to have to disclose his sexuality: he wanted his private life to stay private. It is not as if he was claiming money for a property he didn't actually use at all. He did live there, did sleep there, did use the kitchen, & the bathroom, & the utilities... He just presumably slept in the same room as his landlord given that his landlord was his partner. If your landlord is also your partner, you still need to pay towards the rent & the bills... As mentioned earlier, if he had been open about his sexuality & his relationship, he could have officially been a co-owner of the London property with his partner & could have claimed FAR MORE MONEY THAN HE ACTUALLY DID. By trying to keep his private life private, & doing his expenses claims the way he did, he claimed less money. Alternatively, he could have claimed that his constituency home was his 2nd home, & claimed the full £20k per year on that (= more than he actually claimed for London), & used his own money to contribute towards the cost of living with his partner. Although, as I said before, given his personal wealth he really should have not claimed anything at all (& that goes for plenty of other MPs). That way he would have been safe too: if he paid for everything himself, this wouldn't have happened.