David Laws has resigned as Chief Secretary to the Treasury

chris9991 · 28-05-2010, 22:13

A year after the expenses scandal broke and more cases still rise to the surface

Are they ALL at it???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8712383.stm

Tezcatlipoca · 28-05-2010, 22:27

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...000-claim.html

http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=19728&...mpaign=twitter

chris9991 · 28-05-2010, 22:34

You'd have thought the Telegraph could have mentioned it earlier - or maybe it's one they missed

Tezcatlipoca · 28-05-2010, 22:40

Why mention it earlier, when they can save it for when the MP in question has gained more power & popularity & is a more enjoyable target to take down?

nomadking · 28-05-2010, 22:44

It is the nature of the link to the person he rented the room from that is the issue, and that would not have been apparent at the time of the original revelations.

Tezcatlipoca · 28-05-2010, 22:50

Couple of blog posts I've just read commenting on this:

http://eachwishresigned.blogspot.com...o-himself.html

http://nickthornsby.wordpress.com/20...-will-survive/

chris9991 · 28-05-2010, 22:51

Oh, sorry I only looked at the news story briefly and thought 'not another one'

Tezcatlipoca · 28-05-2010, 23:11

Tory Blogger & aspirant politician Iain Dale: David Laws: I Hope He Survives

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain Dale's Blog

I'm about to hit the hay as I have to get up early in the morning to do my LBC show. Guess what the phone in is likely to be about. Yup, David Laws.

The Telegraph has revealed tonight that he has claimed Â£40,000 in expenses over eight years to rent a room from someone who turns out to be his lover.

The first thing to say is that there appears to have been no financial gain. Renting at Â£950 per month is not extortionate by any means in central London. And if he had moved out into his own place it would no ddoubt have been far more.

I suspect part of, if not all, the reason Laws didn't fess up to this arrangement before was because he did not want to 'out' his relationship. Many of us have suspected for some time that David is gay, but if he didn't want to come out, that was his business. He and his partner didn't even tell their friends. I know exactly why he did this. I did it myself for a very long time.

The Telegraph hasn't outed him, but he has courageously decided to be completely open about the circumstances of his relationship and rental arrangements.

(snip)

nomadking · 28-05-2010, 23:19

He wasn't paying a third party for them both to have somewhere to live in, he was paying the other person that he was living with. That is what was wrong. He was, in effect, having the cost of the other person paid from expenses.

Tezcatlipoca · 28-05-2010, 23:29

Or, in effect, having the cost of himself paid from expenses, something which was allowed & was the point of the old regime... unfortunately however the person he was paying for his accommodation was also his partner (so there are issues regarding the later changes to the rules)... But even so, whether his landlord was just a random landlord, or whether his landlord was also his partner, he would still have needed to pay the cost of his own accommodation... Living with a partner doesn't mean you live for free, you still have to pay your share of the rent/mortage & other bills.

I think it was a mistake, but I doubt he did it to line his own pockets (doesn't need to*!), it seems more a case of an error of judgement made when trying to keep his private life private.

*[Of course he has enough money that really I think he should have paid all his accommodation costs out of his own pocket... however that goes for many MPs]

frogstamper · 28-05-2010, 23:52

What a surprise David Laws is gay.

Tezcatlipoca · 29-05-2010, 00:09

This piece on David Laws in the Guardian yesterday was very good:

David Laws: Diehard liberal with no qualms over wielding Treasury axe

----------------

This blog post makes some good points I think:

The Laws simply don't cater for such privacy

Especially, if you focus on the money, this part (given that if he had been open about his relationship & the London property had been a proper full-on Second Home he could have claimed far *more* money than what he actually claimed)

Quote:

David had put money into this London house - he says he remortgaged his constituency home to do so - and had he been in any other personal circumstances, with a name on the deeds, say, it would have been partly his second home, for which generous expenses of Â£20,000 per year, have thus far been available. Even those who do not own, but rent, their "second home" in London have been allowed to claim that. And here is David, it would appear, having claimed a fraction of that - half of it or less for most of his time as an MP - as rent, paid to someone who for whatever reason he felt unable to acknowledge publicly as anything more than someone he shared a house with.

The expenses system simply has not the rules to deal with such circumstances. If you ask me, the taxpayer has had a bargain out of Laws's domestic arrangements, much more so than many others from far flung and closer constituencies who have had available to them the simple expedient of being open enough about their relationship to openly buy a house with the person they live with.

So I reckon the Telegraph has done absolutely nobody any favours with this supposed "revelation". I reckon that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should clear David and that if this has caused any family friction for David, the Telegraph ought to take the blame.

**Maggy** · 29-05-2010, 08:19

Well that's ok then...He can be excused as he's now part of a NEW government and he was just protecting his partner and his own sexuality.

I don't give a stuff who or what their reasons or what party they are.The Telegraph (traditionally a Tory rag)has done it's duty and reported the facts.
If any other such cases come up I hope they will report them which ever party they belong to.

One can only hope that other media outlets will do the same thing about new or old MPs

If we are going to have to tighten our belts and suck it up during the future cutbacks then so must the MPs.

punky · 29-05-2010, 08:23

I don't think its about privacy or respecting homosexuality. Its about preventing another Derek Conway situation from happening.

nomadking · 29-05-2010, 08:58

He was claiming rent and other expenses for a room that he wasn't using at all.
One of his excuses:-

Quote:

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.

You could be married for 50 years and that could still be true.