David Laws has resigned as Chief Secretary to the Treasury - Page 2

Ignitionnet · 29-05-2010, 17:50

To me Prescott is the quintessential Champagne Socialist.

In other news David Laws has been caught with his fingers well and truly in the till. Nice actions to try and make up but a tad too late I feel.

**Damien** · 29-05-2010, 18:57

David Laws has now resigned.

**Mick** · 29-05-2010, 19:04

Now being said that Danny Alexander to take up his role.

**Damien** · 29-05-2010, 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

In other news David Laws has been caught with his fingers well and truly in the till. Nice actions to try and make up but a tad too late I feel.

I don't think he 'had his hand in the till'. I don't know how everyone else's situations work but when you share accommodation you pay rent, it's just in this case it was a partner. So against the rules but it's not like he was trying to scam people or to make a tidy profit like so many of the other MPs attempted to do.

Recluse Sister · 29-05-2010, 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

David Laws has now resigned.

What a pity

Tezcatlipoca · 29-05-2010, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't think he 'had his hand in the till'. I don't know how everyone else's situations work but when you share accommodation you pay rent, it's just in this case it was a partner. So against the rules but it's not like he was trying to scam people or to make a tidy profit like so many of the other MPs attempted to do.

Exactly.

I know the rules were changed to say that you cannot use 2nd home expenses to pay rent to a partner, but I don't think that it's "wrong" as such, certainly not in this case.

If you live with your partner, in a property rented/owned by your partner, then you pay them money towards rent & bills, same as if you lived in a property owned by a random landlord. Living with a partner doesn't mean you live for free & have no rent.

He actually re-mortgaged his constituency home to help his partner fund the purchase of the London property.

The sad thing is, if he had been open about his relationship, & the property was classed as a proper 2nd home he had a stake in, he could have claimed far more money per year (e.g. the full Â£20,000).

I have no problem whatsoever with him paying his partner for accommodation.

[Although, given his own financial situation, I don't think he should have claimed any expenses at all in the first place... ditto for any other MP with that much money].

I think this is a very sad thing. OK, he made a mistake, but he wasn't after profit, just privacy. And now the Coalition Government has lost someone who, to me, seemed pretty much ideal for the role he was in.

Flyboy · 29-05-2010, 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I wonder how many more of these the ToryGraph has squirreled away, just waiting to de-rail a coalition they don't agree with?

Which kind of begs the question, how many are they not telling us about? How much will they never tell us?

---------- Post added at 22:58 ---------- Previous post was at 22:57 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Presumably he hasn't refused the peerage..

A little hypocritical considering he said he would.

A little self-serving perhaps, but immoral? I don't think so.

---------- Post added at 23:00 ---------- Previous post was at 22:58 ----------

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.

Tezcatlipoca · 29-05-2010, 22:07

Quote:

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.

David Laws wasn't "flipping".

nomadking · 29-05-2010, 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I wonder how many more of these the ToryGraph has squirreled away, just waiting to de-rail a coalition they don't agree with?

It would only been identified as an issue after the relationship link had been established. The details of the expenses would have been public, which meant anybody else could of reported the story before now if the link was apparent all along. So it's not the Telegraph holding onto the story. If the Conservatives had won a majority then releasing the story now would have had less of an impact. It would have made more sense to release the story before the election. That's assuming the accusations of certain ridiculously biased people are true.

He took out a mortgage to give/lend to his partner, so that Mr Lundie could buy an expensive house. If it was a loan, how was Mr Lundie going to pay it back? Could Mr Lundie have afforded to buy the expensive house if he wasn't receiving the rent.

The expenses were for a room that would not have been used for sleeping in. That implies fraud whatever any relationship was or wasn't there.

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 Â£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.

**Damien** · 29-05-2010, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

The expenses were for a room that would not have been used for sleeping in. That implies fraud whatever any relationship was or wasn't there.

Fraud because he didn't want to reveal he was gay, not because he wanted to fiddle expenses. Who cares if he slept in that room or in another room with this partner? It's none of our business.

Tezcatlipoca · 29-05-2010, 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Fraud because he didn't want to reveal he was gay, not because he wanted to fiddle expenses. Who cares if he slept in that room or in another room with this partner? It's none of our business.

Yup. And even if it wasn't the same specified room, if was still the same property. What does it matter which actual room was slept in, so long as he was sleeping in, and making use of, the property?

Still, too late now. He's gone, & I think it's a damn shame. Hopefully Danny Alexander will be as good a Chief Sec. as Laws looked like he would be. I bet he won't be as popular with the Tories as Laws was though.

nomadking · 29-05-2010, 23:17

He claimed expenses for something he didn't use.

Tezcatlipoca · 29-05-2010, 23:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

He claimed expenses for something he didn't use.

So he used a different room in the same property to the actual specified room. Big deal!

He still used the property in question. Still slept there, still used the gas & electricity there, still used the water there. He just used a different bed...

It's not like he claimed for that property, but only ever stayed somewhere else, simply using his expenses to fund his partner.

[something which I believe some MPs *did* do, .e.g. I'm sure there was at least one MP who claimed expenses for a property he never actually lived in, & which was actually used by his daughter or some other family member].

**Damien** · 29-05-2010, 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

He claimed expenses for something he didn't use.

Nice try but he did in fact use the property. Unless we follow up on our elected officials to check they have actually slept in the bed of the room they are claiming for then living at the address provided is all the proof they can provided.

Besides, He still had to pay rent. Which he could claim for anyway. So he didn't gain anything by doing it is way around. The only problem is the technicality that he said his partner was his landlord and did not disclose fully the nature of the relationship. However that did not allow him to claim more than he was entitled for, he in fact claimed less anyway.