Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J
The issue is that you cannot have a Chief Secretary to the Treasury having been seen to have his fingers in the till after all the expenses furore,having lied about it and carry on in the position three weeks into a new government.
At least he has behaved now in a gentlemanly manner.
Let's hope that there are no more political banana skins around the corner as we need for things to settle and the matter of government to continue so we achieve some sort of stability.
|
He wasn't "carrying on" with it after the expenses scandal & into the new Government. He has been renting another flat in London since September 2009.
I expect plenty more "banana skins" around the corner, because certain sections of the media & Westminster do not like the coalition & will be keen on destabilising it.
I think that given the circumstances, & given his position, he had to resign, but I do not think he did anything seriously wrong. He was just trying to keep his private life private & made an error in judgement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r
DC said he was an honourable man.
He conned the British tax payer out of £40,000, how is that honourable
|
I don't think he "conned" anyone, as such.
He was trying to keep his private life private, but cocked up.
He lived with Mr Lundie as a tenant, & paid him rent accordingly. The rules allowed him to claim expenses for this, which he did.
At some point they entered into a relationship, & continued to live together.
Mr Laws continued to pay Mr Lundie rent, because Mr Lundie was still his landlord. However they were now also in a relationship.
Mr Laws continued to claim expenses, as there was nothing prohibiting this.
The rules
did not prohibit paying rent to a partner until they were changed in 2006.
Once the rules changed, he could have stopped claiming expenses because his landlord was also his partner. Or he could have moved elsewhere.
However, he presumably thought that either of those options would be tantamount to "coming out", as it would be rather blatantly obvious that Mr Lundie was his partner if he changed his claims or his accommodation when the rules changed. And given his intensely private nature & his upbringing, he did not wish to "come out".
So he chose to keep as he was...justifying it to himself by saying that they were not actual civil partners or spouses, as although they were seeing each other they were not full-on "partners".
Was he wrong to do that? Probably. Did he do it to con anyone? No. Did he do it to line his own pockets? No.
As said before, if all he had been interested in was "conning the taxpayer" or lining his own pockets, he could have been open about his relationship & claimed the full £20,000 per year from living with his partner in a joint-property. Or he could have "flipped" his designated second home to be his constituency home in Yeovil, & claimed the full £20,000 on that. He didn't, he just kept things as they were before the rule change, & tried to keep private, while claiming far less than he could have done & far less than many other MPs.
Mistake? Yes. Thief? No.
---------------------------------
David Laws will bounce back from resignation, say senior Conservatives
Iain Dale in the Mail