Treasury Minister David Laws 'should step aside'

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 30 May 2010, 09:18

I totally agree with Aurora.

Laws is a millionaire ex JP Morgan banker who defrauded us tax payers when he claimed his expenses.

The fact he could (Clinton like) make a case for the man he lived and slept with not being his partner, because they didn't share a bank account is disengenuous at best.

The expenses rules are clear: since 2006 MPs are not allowed to pay rent to their partner. He did. End of story.

The real tragedies with this are that :

1. Laws is clearly not sorry- this is his 'apology' - buried half way down his resignation letter:

. I cannot now escape the conclusion that what I have done was in some way wrong, even though I did not gain any financial benefit from keeping my relationship secret in this way.

in some way wrong

2. That Clegg is ALREADY grooming Laws for a Mandleson like return to power as soon as the general populace has forgotten/been distracted by Britains Got Next Dancing Jungle Talent XFactor.

Surprise surprise, this isn't the new politics- it's the same old shite, with extra cuts and richer people running the country- 18 out of the 23 strong cabinet are millionaires. Lets hope they make the right decisions to get us out of the financial mess the other lot got us into.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 30 May 2010, 09:48

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we all know it was wrong.

However, if you can look at it through Laws' eyes there is - just possibly - a different interpretation. If you can imagine him absolutely terrified of his parents - devout Catholics who believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin and a passport to eternal damnation (yeah, I know it's all bollocks but it is what the family believe) - finding out that he is homosexual then it starts to make sense. Very sad.

The story I read (somewhere) was that he started the relationship with his landlord two years after moving in. Quite when the relationship started is of course key to the interpretation of his actions. But if that story is correct, then when did his relationship change from lover to partner/spouse? By what definition? And how would he have explained suddenly ceasing to claim second-home living expenses when his circumstances had not, apparently, changed? That, of course, is the bullet he should have bitten on rather than getting drawn into self-deception and expenses fraud.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 30 May 2010, 09:56

foodimista wrote:Yeah, yeah, yeah, we all know it was wrong.

However, if you can look at it through Laws' eyes there is - just possibly - a different interpretation. If you can imagine him absolutely terrified of his parents - devout Catholics who believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin and a passport to eternal damnation (yeah, I know it's all bollocks but it is what the family believe) - finding out that he is homosexual then it starts to make sense. Very sad.

Personally, I don't give a stuff about his sexuality. I do, however, object to his fraudulent attempt to line his own pockets at my expense.

I seem to remember a time when fraud was punishable by law. Have I missed an episode?

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 30 May 2010, 10:09

OK, not sure I 'buy' the explanation that the relationship with his landlord started 2 years into his tenancy but there are different ways to handle it then how he did.

He could have just stopped claiming- I don't think people are bothered about what people aren't claiming when there are so many moats, bath plugs and duck houses to worry about.

And how would he have explained suddenly ceasing to claim second-home living expenses when his circumstances had not, apparently, changed?

If ,as you suggest, he did get 'rumbled' then he could easily say that as a millionaire he didn't want to impose upon the public purse, especially in these financially straightened times.

I think it shows poor judgement and a lack of ability to handle difficult situations. I do understand his wish to retain his privacy regarding his sexuality and I think it is important that gay people are able to come out (or not) at a time of their choosing, but by placing fraudulent expenses claims he wasn't able to control this.

Also if he was concerned about his parents finding out maybe he shouldn't have taken the cabinet position he did, which was bound to make his secret vulnerable. I think he placed his ambition over common sense and do we need leaders like that?

Janco2 · Post by **Janco2** » 30 May 2010, 10:13

Surely the real tragedy is for this country.

The media merely want to cause as much mayhem as possible and thus increase their profits.

No-one is perfect.

We desperately need a government that will bring stability to our country.

I am not happy with many aspects of this coalition government but I do feel that it is better than one party on it's own and am prepared to give them a chance.

As to Law's "fraudulent attempt to line his own pockets at my expense" Aurora; I may not agree with what MP's were/are allowed to claim for but am I not right in thinking that when he originally claimed his expenses he was on the right side of the law which seems to have changed regarding spouses etc. in 2006. Of course he should have altered his situation then but didn't for all the reasons we have heard.
Am I right in thinking that he would still be entitled to expense claims if he had a platonic relationship with his landlord?

I would like to see this government make an attempt at sorting out our debt and this is yet another setback the country cannot afford to have.

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 30 May 2010, 10:28

I am prepared to give this government a chance if they stop breaking their own rules and the laws of this land.

I agree we need stability, but that doesn't give the new lot a licence to behave badly.

Excusing their behaviour with the 'no one is perfect' line is both partisan and lazy. Of course no one is perfect, I just don't want them to behave fraudulently. As a voter, I don't think that is too much to ask.

This is the thin end of a wedge. Where do you draw the line? What could the new lot get away with that you would excuse?

Anyway, I'm off to plant veg

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 30 May 2010, 15:36

I just hope that the media either zap all the bad guys NOW and get it over with, or wait until the economy has been rescued.

We urgently need a government that works.

alex · Post by **alex** » 30 May 2010, 15:48

The guy is in no doubt the victim of a which-hunt. However, there is no case for the defence. I don't know why he was trying to hide his sexuailty, my "Gaydar" kicked in very quickly.

When all the sleaze regards expenses where going on a year ago, he should have owned up at that time. Even if strictly irrelevant, it would have been buried among the other scandals of duck islands and moats, and he was a little known Liberal MP from the wild west at the time.

The tragedy here is that he appeared to be doing a bloody good job in the government, and it seems he is an excellent constituancy MP.

To be sure your sins will find you out.

Alex

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 30 May 2010, 16:01

It's no surprise that the Tory right love David Laws, he's a multi-millionaire ex-JP Morgan banker and I believe was co-editor of The Orange Book (2004):

"Arguing for free trade and lighter regulation, they proposed a greater role for the private sector in delivering public services"

" ... the group offers liberal solutions – often stressing the role of the free market – to several societal issues, such as public healthcare, pensions, environment, globalisation, social and agricultural policy, local government, the European Union and prisons. It is usually seen as the most economic liberal publication that the Liberal Democrats have produced in recent times."
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=14213

Clegg and Cable contributed essays.

I'm glad he's gone, but suspect he'll be back soon. I'm only surprised it was the Telegraph that brought him down (too much of Europhile?). I notice that a Telegraph commentator says: "The LibDem wooly hat brigade will be delighted".

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 30 May 2010, 17:44

Earlier today when I went to buy my usual cheese, the market cheese selling man had a crowd where he was ranting about homosexuals in high places, political corruption, tax money being taken off honest men in the cheese business and given to keep hidden male lovers, and then he brought in the fact his cheese was a damn good bargain which it is by the way its damn fine cheese .

He seems to do this a lot political commentary to get a crowd then wham "how I sell three pieces of wendsleydale with cranberries for £2 I don't know not with all thats a going on in the country

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 30 May 2010, 17:54

Excellent! I was running a coconut shy earlier on today and the temptation to say "Pick on one and pretend it's a banker or a politician of your choice" was overwhelming. But I had to shutupski because I was within earshot of our local councillor, a very nice chap from the Green Party

I blame the parents...

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 30 May 2010, 20:32

RenewableCandy wrote:Excellent! I was running a coconut shy earlier on today and the temptation to say "Pick on one and pretend it's a banker or a politician of your choice" was overwhelming. But I had to shutupski because I was within earshot of our local councillor, a very nice chap from the Green Party

I would have put photos on the coconuts to aid the public's imagination!

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 31 May 2010, 07:12

Aurora wrote:Personally, I don't give a stuff about his sexuality. I do, however, object to his fraudulent attempt to line his own pockets at my expense.

Well those are the ironies aren't they? Hardly anyone cares about his sexuality except himself and his family, and this episode has brought his downfall without lining his own pockets.

Aurora wrote:I seem to remember a time when fraud was punishable by law. Have I missed an episode?

I suppose that wink alludes to the 13 years of Labour when allegiance to The Party and furthering the power of The State took precedence over honesty, integrity and just about everything else.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 31 May 2010, 07:22

foodimista wrote:
Aurora wrote:Personally, I don't give a stuff about his sexuality. I do, however, object to his fraudulent attempt to line his own pockets at my expense.
Well those are the ironies aren't they? Hardly anyone cares about his sexuality except himself and his family, and this episode has brought his downfall without lining his own pockets.

The Guardian wrote:Mr Laws has apologised and said he will pay back the money which the Daily Telegraph said totalled £40,000.

Are these the actions of an innocent man? I think not.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 01 Jun 2010, 00:40

If he had been honest about his sexuality and his partner he could have legitimately claimed even more for a second home. He hasn't defrauded anyone except himself.