David Laws has resigned as Chief Secretary to the Treasury

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

How many more excuses to we need for MPs fiddling their expenses. This forum was the last place I would have expected to read support for a MP caught flipping and renting.

Unlike some other politicians on both sides of the house, Laws hasn't been accused of flipping.

Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls on the other hand....

Flipped homes three times

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-expenses.html

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

Yes, really. Commiting a crime with "good intentions" is still commiting a crime.

What, suddenly everyone can decieve and cover up so long as they are doing it under quote: "good intentions"? Would that apply to heterosexual conservatives as well?

Originally Posted by punky

Yes, really. Commiting a crime with "good intentions" is still commiting a crime.

What, suddenly everyone can decieve and cover up so long as they are doing it under quote: "good intentions"? Would that apply to heterosexual conservatives as well?

Judges do take into account intentions and character when sentencing. In fact other intent helps decide what crime people are charged with. Intentions are very important.

What, suddenly everyone can decieve and cover up so long as they are doing it under quote: "good intentions"? Would that apply to heterosexual conservatives as well?

For someone complaining about people using the homophobe card you sure do seem keen to use it yourself. Yes, it does apply to heterosexual conservatives as well! I resent this constant attempt to portray my argument as "He is gay so it is ok", honestly that is out of line.

No one can deceive and cover up and then say it's ok. But seriously there is a difference between someone doing it because they want to commit fraud and someone doing it because they are insecure about an aspect of their personal life. It's still wrong but it is far more understandable.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

Judges do take into account intentions and character when sentencing. In fact other intent helps decide what crime people are charged with. Intentions are very important.

Still makes it a crime. And they are still held to account for their actions. That's why Laws was right to resign, refer himself to the standards committe and face the music.

For someone complaining about people using the homophobe card you sure do seem keen to use it yourself. Yes, it does apply to heterosexual conservatives as well! I resent this constant attempt to portray my argument as "He is gay so it is ok", honestly that is out of line.

No one can deceive and cover up and then say it's ok. But seriously there is a difference between someone doing it because they want to commit fraud and someone doing it because they are insecure about an aspect of their personal life. It's still wrong but it is far more understandable.

I didn't start this. When the news broke I don't recall anyone bringing up his sexuality in any negative way until the Lib Dems and his supporters tried to hide behind it. He/they were the ones that brought it into the public debate. It was the Lib Dems supporters on this forum and off of it that have to tried excuse his actions by wrapping it in a blanket of his sexuality.

Peter Tachell was on TV earlier and even he said his sexuality wasn't an excuse. And he's normally the first to claim everything is a homophobic conspiracy.

And you say it does apply to heterosexuals but I can't see it happening. Imagine the same thing with an old man and a younger (16-18 year old) girl? Or a man with a black girl fearing a racism backlash? Would people still be so eager to say its OK for him to deceive the public to protect their privacy? I doubt it. If it is OK, where's the line? How much are elected officials allowed to decieve the public in the name of privacy?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by snowey

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

RizzyKing says a very good point.

I wonder how many editor's get policies they want purely on the basis they can threaten and then report info to the public if they dont get their own way.

[Angua]

For goodness sake anyone would think the poor bloke had committed murder or worse.

Yes he was wrong and made a bad error in judgement. In the grand scheme of things he hasn't cost someone their livelihood or life and has owned up and paid the price - and more.

There are shades of grey and a little understanding, compassion & forgiveness go a long way. Regardless of who is at fault.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Exactly. Things are not always black & white. Yes, he cocked up, yes he appears to have broken the rules, but he did not do it out of a desire to defraud, he did it out of a desire to keep a certain aspect of his private life private. And he claimed far less than he could have legitimately claimed if he had been open about his relationship...


Regarding Derek Conway... I don't get the comparison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7224538.stm

Mr Conway used £40,000 of taxpayers' money to pay his son as a "researcher", yet the standards committee said there was no record of Mr Conway's son actually doing any work at Westminster.

Mr Laws did not use taxpayers money to employ Mr Lundie for something he did not actually do, he used it to pay rent to Mr Lundie. It is not as if he was paying rent to Mr Lundie yet not actually living in the property in question.

Yes, Mr Lundie & Mr Laws became involved in a relationship with each other, but Mr Lundie was still Mr Laws' landlord & so Mr Laws would still have had to pay rent & contribute to the cost of his accommodation, regardless of his status with Mr Lundie.

Yes, the rules changed so that it became prohibited to claim for rent paid to a partner, so yes he should have done something about it when that rule change occurred. But it does not look remotely like it was done as a way of lining his or Mr Lundie's pockets. He just wanted to keep his sexuality & his relationship private.

My opinion would be the same if Mr Laws was a Labour MP or a Tory MP.

[Osem]

Tend to agree with Matt here and I'm no Lib Dem supporter. There's no doubt he did wrong but, unlike so many of his colleagues, the motivation for doing so clearly wasn't to extract as much money from the poor old taxpayer as he could. It was about preserving his private life and for that I have some sympathy although I do think he was right to resign.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Matt D

Regarding Derek Conway... I don't get the comparison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7224538.stm

The point I made was that when you are diverting public money in to someone who is a relative - be it family or lover - then that transaction should be held to a higher level of scrutiny. This makes sense as when there is a relationship, it is much easier to cheat the system. Hence why it was presumably banned in 2006.

I'm not going back and forth on this. Its obvious that the Lib Dems and their supporters have a lot invested in this man and need him to remain in power. They want to mitigate this man's actions down to irelevence. That's when I got fed up and spoke up. He doesn't deserve to be hung but likewise his offence wasn't exactly a parking ticket. Especially from a political party that campaigned so much on transparency and honesty. He has been caught, he has resigned, paid back the money and whatever censure he gets the parliamenary standards committee will presumably be fair and draw a line under it.

---------- Post added at 21:41 ---------- Previous post was at 21:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Tend to agree with Matt here - there's no doubt he did wrong but, unlike so many of his colleagues, the motivation for doing so clearly wasn't to extract as much money from the poor old taxpayer as he could. It was about preserving his private life and for that I have some sympathy although I do think he was right to resign.

That's the thing - he was brought down by £900/month that he refused to pay for himself and thought we ought to. Had he just paid for his own lovenest, he'd still be in office. Not too dissimilar from some of the MPs that claimed for small amounts that really they ought to have paid for in the first place. Had they did, they would have still be in office.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by punky

That's the thing - he was brought down by £900/month that he refused to pay for himself and thought we ought to. Had he just paid for his own lovenest, he'd still be in office. Not too dissimilar from some of the MPs that claimed for small amounts that really they ought to have paid for in the first place. Had they did, they would have still be in office.

I agree in part but don't think it was about the money - it was about keeping his private affairs private although in order to do that it appears he did misuse public money and the relatively small amounts involved have clearly cost him very dear on both counts.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

What did he do with the money?

This argument might well have been made, if he could have proved that he did something socially worthwhile with the money.

---------- Post added at 22:11 ---------- Previous post was at 22:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Matt D

Exactly. Things are not always black & white. Yes, he cocked up, yes he appears to have broken the rules, but he did not do it out of a desire to defraud, he did it out of a desire to keep a certain aspect of his private life private. And he claimed far less than he could have legitimately claimed if he had been open about his relationship...


Regarding Derek Conway... I don't get the comparison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7224538.stm

Mr Conway used £40,000 of taxpayers' money to pay his son as a "researcher", yet the standards committee said there was no record of Mr Conway's son actually doing any work at Westminster.

Mr Laws did not use taxpayers money to employ Mr Lundie for something he did not actually do, he used it to pay rent to Mr Lundie. It is not as if he was paying rent to Mr Lundie yet not actually living in the property in question.

Yes, Mr Lundie & Mr Laws became involved in a relationship with each other, but Mr Lundie was still Mr Laws' landlord & so Mr Laws would still have had to pay rent & contribute to the cost of his accommodation, regardless of his status with Mr Lundie.

Yes, the rules changed so that it became prohibited to claim for rent paid to a partner, so yes he should have done something about it when that rule change occurred. But it does not look remotely like it was done as a way of lining his or Mr Lundie's pockets. He just wanted to keep his sexuality & his relationship private.

My opinion would be the same if Mr Laws was a Labour MP or a Tory MP.

I can see some relevance to parallels here. Laws paid his partner for a room he neither used, nor intended to use. Therefore paying someone for services never received.

[Tezcatlipoca]

I certainly think there should be a higher level of scrutiny if money is going to someone who is a relative or close friend etc.

However, what David Laws did is not at all the same as e.g. Derek Conway (claimed expenses to pay his son for work which allegedly was not actually done) or Ian Gibson (claimed expenses to help pay for a flat which his daughter used as her main residence).

Yes, he paid money to his partner, but his partner *was* also his landlord. It's not like he was paying for something which did not exist, or paying rent for somewhere he did not actually live. OK, it was against the rules once they changed in 2006, but I don't see it as being anywhere near as "wrong" as what many other MPs did.

It's not just the Lib Dems who had a lot invested in David Laws... the Tories did too. George Osborne didn't just want any old Lib Dem as his Chief Secretary, to tie the Lib Dems into the unpopular but necessary cuts, he wanted David Laws (& had previously asked him to defect, offering him a front-bench role with the Tories), someone who he said "had been put on Earth" to do the job of Treasury chief secretary. Other Tories apparently also considered him the best man for the job, & are quite disappointed that he has gone.

Danny Alexander has taken his place because he is a Lib Dem, & the Coalition agreement requires a Lib Dem to be replaced with a Lib Dem (or Tory with a Tory). I don't think he's going to be as good as David Laws was though, which is unfortunate given the importance of the position in this current economic situation.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

What did he do with the money?

Paid the cost of his accommodation... same as he did before he & Mr Lundie became romantically involved.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I can see some relevance to parallels here. Laws paid his partner for a room he neither used, nor intended to use. Therefore paying someone for services never received.

Hardly the same. Mr Laws may not have used the actual specific bedroom (although we do not actually know that), but even if he did not sleep in that bedroom & instead slept in the same bedroom as Mr Lundie, he still slept in the property in question & still used the property in question. Therefore he still would have had to pay rent, would still have had to contribute to the accommodation costs. Not the same as claiming expenses to pay a relative for allegedly non-existent research (Mr Conway) or claiming expenses to pay for a property a relative used as their main residence instead of him (Mr Gibson).

[LondonRoad]

I find it very disappointing that in this day and age a corrupt politician tries to use his sexuality as an excuse. I mean ffs who didn't know, or at least suspect, that he was gay.

That was not important in the least. As a taxpayer there have been worse thieves working in the House of P. but a crook's a crook.

In this ,allegedly, new open political environment I find it even more disappointing that the PM and his deputy have been so supportive.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

Excuse me but there were others who did things expenses wise that they shouldn't have and may or may not had the best of intentions but they got no leeway.Why should this person?

Funny how the tune has changed now it's a new government.

Frankly I can't care less about him and his sexuality.It's not an issue for me and in this day and age it's a bit specious to claim it is pertinant to the situation. It's total rot as most wouldn't have given the fact a second thought.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

I find it very disappointing that in this day and age a corrupt politician tries to use his sexuality as an excuse. I mean ffs who didn't know, or at least suspect, that he was gay.

That was not important in the least. As a taxpayer there have been worse thieves working in the House of P. but a crook's a crook.

In this ,allegedly, new open political environment I find it even more disappointing that the PM and his deputy have been so supportive.

By all accounts David Laws is a very private man, & he kept his sexuality & his relationship with Mr Lundie a secret from everyone including his friends & family.

If he was "corrupt" or a "crook" as you allege, and if it was about the money & not his sexuality or his privacy, then why didn't he come out & declare his relationship officially, given that he would then have been able to claim far more money than he actually did? Or why didn't he "flip" his second-home designation to be his constituency home, and claim far more money than he actually did?