David Laws has resigned as Chief Secretary to the Treasury

[punky]

Originally Posted by Angua

Let's see £6,600 per year as share of rent to hide a relationship with a secret partner.
V
£20,000 per year for a second home for an open relationship.

Silly lack of judgement in this enlightened day and age.

The real shame is in the grand scheme of things the Government has lost a highly able Secretary of State to the Treasury and will be much the poorer as a result.

So let's see... If someone can earn £15,000 in benefits legimately instead goes out and eans £10,000 cash-in-hand then its OK because its a smaller amount?

It doesn't wash. He was diverting public funds to his own ends. At worst it should have been recorded and at best it should not have been done at all. People keep hanging on to the homosexuality and privacy issues but they have to abide by the same rules as Iain Duncan Smith (who was innocent) and Derek Conway (found guilty). If he was that concerned at his homosexuality becoming public then why choose the 2nd most publicsed profession after TV personality? I think its clear he's trying to hide behind this but it's a the flismiest of flimsy excuses and gives him an opportunity to say he is being persecuted for his sexuality rather than just because he broke the rules.

I'm sorry but he's guilty which is why he offered to pay the money back and why he reported himself to the standards community and why his resignations have been accepted. People can fawn over him saying he was a victim of his sexuality and and excellent treasurer and hope he comes back soon, but that doesn't change what he did.

The timing is interesting by The Telegraph and if they have saved up pieces of news to use at opportune moments then that's certainly unethical. But the fact remains if he wasn't 'at it', they'd have nothing on him to report. I don't have any sympathy.

I don't have any sympathy for him but end of the day he came clean admitted to what had gone on took responsibility and went rather then clung having to be dragged away. If the telegraph does have more and comes out with it at a later date then they should face sanction as well because i already think the media have too much power and influence in this country to all our detriment but to have information and use it purely for the purpose of causing trouble is not acceptable. This issue is now dead as far as i can see and there is no legitimate reason to continue it unless there is an agenda personal to david laws and that is also not acceptable if we truly do hold dear the principles we claim too.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by punky

So let's see... If someone can earn £15,000 in benefits legimately instead goes out and eans £10,000 cash-in-hand then its OK because its a smaller amount?

It doesn't wash. He was diverting public funds to his own ends. At worst it should have been recorded and at best it should not have been done at all. People keep hanging on to the homosexuality and privacy issues but they have to abide by the same rules as Iain Duncan Smith (who was innocent) and Derek Conway (found guilty). If he was that concerned at his homosexuality becoming public then why choose the 2nd most publicsed profession after TV personality? I think its clear he's trying to hide behind this but it's a the flismiest of flimsy excuses and gives him an opportunity to say he is being persecuted for his sexuality rather than just because he broke the rules.

I'm sorry but he's guilty which is why he offered to pay the money back and why he reported himself to the standards community and why his resignations have been accepted. People can fawn over him saying he was a victim of his sexuality and and excellent treasurer and hope he comes back soon, but that doesn't change what he did.

The timing is interesting by The Telegraph and if they have saved up pieces of news to use at opportune moments then that's certainly unethical. But the fact remains if he wasn't 'at it', they'd have nothing on him to report. I don't have any sympathy.

Missed the point entirely -

In this day and age hiding your sexual preference is idiotic and it was this that led to the error. He has resigned and behaved properly. Witch hunting and claiming double standards in comparison to how much he could have claimed is absurd. Up to the RECENT change to excluding partners he was perfectly entitled to claim rent for his share of accommodation in a property.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Angua

Missed the point entirely -

In this day and age hiding your sexual preference is idiotic and it was this that led to the error. He has resigned and behaved properly. Witch hunting and claiming double standards in comparison to how much he could have claimed is absurd. Up to the RECENT change to excluding partners he was perfectly entitled to claim rent for his share of accommodation in a property.

Yes, when in doubt label me a homophobe. Didn't see that one coming.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

What a surprise David Laws is gay.

I too was surprised that it was secret. I always presumed he was and that everyone knew.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by punky

Yes, when in doubt label me a homophobe. Didn't see that one coming.

Please explain where I have done so?

Originally Posted by punky

Yes, when in doubt label me a homophobe. Didn't see that one coming.

That's unfair. I don't see where she claimed you where one? That's not the argument she was making and it's not fair to presume everyone defending him is playing the homophobe card.

[snowey]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I don't have any sympathy for him but end of the day he came clean admitted to what had gone on took responsibility and went rather then clung having to be dragged away. If the telegraph does have more and comes out with it at a later date then they should face sanction as well because i already think the media have too much power and influence in this country to all our detriment but to have information and use it purely for the purpose of causing trouble is not acceptable. This issue is now dead as far as i can see and there is no legitimate reason to continue it unless there is an agenda personal to david laws and that is also not acceptable if we truly do hold dear the principles we claim too.

He took a long time " to come clean" lets hope there are no more skeletons in the cupboard.....

[Tezcatlipoca]

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.

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

The fact is that at the time the misconduct occurred he knew it wasn't right and he didn't admit to it until he was more or less forced too.Not the conduct for a Treasury Secretary whatever the timing.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

The fact is that at the time the misconduct occurred he knew it wasn't right and he didn't admit to it until he was more or less forced too.Not the conduct for a Treasury Secretary whatever the timing.

Yes but I think we can understand his intentions where not corrupt. He did not want to scam the taxpayer and make a profit out of them. He wanted to cover up his relationship, and when the rules changed it would have meant revealing that so he carried on his agrement knowing it was now wrong. Yes, that's bad but honestly, it's not corrupt or sinister it's a human struggling with their personal issues.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Angua

Please explain where I have done so?

Originally Posted by Damien

That's unfair. I don't see where she claimed you where one? That's not the argument she was making and it's not fair to presume everyone defending him is playing the homophobe card.

I thought it was clear when Angua made the "witch-hunting" comment. Laws admits breaching parliamentary standards, far from it being his fault, its really down to me and an army of Daily Mail/Telegraph readers trying to hound homosexuals out of public office.

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes but I think we can understand his intentions where not corrupt.

That's as is irrelevent as his sexuality.

And as I said before if he really wanted to be a closetted homosexual then he shouldn't have willingly became an MP let alone a cabinet minister. Anyone with half a brain would have said that. Even going by your words "cover up" should not be used in the same sentence as an elected official.

[Hom3r]

As soon as all these theiving MPs quit, regardless of what party they are the better.

But I wonder if anybody would be left to run the country

Originally Posted by punky

I thought it was clear when Angua made the "witch-hunting" comment. Laws admits breaching parliamentary standards, far from it being his fault, its really down to me and an army of Daily Mail/Telegraph readers trying to hound homosexuals out of public office.

I think it's tenuous to suggest that she meant sexuality there. I perceived it as a witch-hunt against the liberal democrat side of the collation from the Tory press hostile to the idea of them influencing government policy. No one said it isn't his fault but that we should have a level of understanding on what happened, that is more complex than someone cheating on expenses.

Playing the homophobe card is wrong but attempting to portray others as using it is also wrong.

That's as is irrelevent as his sexuality.

Not really. Intentions are important in judging someones character. We all make mistakes but our intentions are a far better indictor of our character and likely future conduct. He didn't seek to profit from this arrangement so we can assume he is not a corrupt, thieving individual that some wish to portray him as.

And as I said before if he really wanted to be a closetted homosexual then he shouldn't have willingly became an MP let alone a cabinet minister. Anyone with half a brain would have said that. Even going by your words "cover up" should not be used in the same sentence as an elected official.

Sometimes people do not behave rationally on matters of sexuality, sex, and relationships. Cover-up should not be used by the way and, although he is entitled for his sexuality to never be an issue, what he did was wrong. It is very different to some previous MP's expenses though.

[punky]

I find it odd that a political party and their followers who claimed to want more transparency in public offfice seem to be blase about someone in their own team covering up and misleading the public.

He wasn't just paying his "landlord" he was paying his lover. There is a clear distinction here and they must be treated separately for good reason. Otherwise we'll end up with more Derek Conways.

That's why we need transparency, honesty and proper scrutiny of our elected officials. Laws fell short of all of those.

That's the issue here. Not because his critics are hell-bent on chasing homosexuals and Lib Dems out of office.