David Laws - corrupt hypocrite?

tomterm8

Something went wrong with your quotes, I think your question is:

Lots of people are saying he could have claimed more - specifically how ?

By renting out any house he had in the constituency, and buying another house to live in, courtesy of the state.

Yep, I knew that but I thought there had been changes as a result of the expenses scandal ? Aren't these in the pipeline ?

The expense claims the Laws incident relates to were made before any changes as a result of the expenses scandle. I'm sure some changes are in the pipe line. I don't necessarily think these changes will work as well as simply requiring all expense claims to be published within a month of making them.

Somerset

tomterm8 wrote: »

By renting out any house he had in the constituency, and buying another house to live in, courtesy of the state..

So, the essence of the ''he could have claimed more'' rests largely on the fact he could have bought a flat or house to live in as his primary residence. Except he wouldn't have been living in it. He would still have been living with his partner in his partner's house.Sounds remarkably like the Jacqui Smith response.

''Jacqui Smith has launched an astonishing defence of her decision to claim £116,000 in expenses - by insisting she could have had even more''.

Wonder how that would have sat with Cameron ''What I always say to my members of Parliament is as well as meeting the rules, you also need to make sure that your arrangements, if you explain them in a reasonable way to a reasonable person, they would think them reasonable. The Home Secretary has to cross that threshold too. There are some questions she has to answer about the rules and her arrangements with regard to them ''

tomterm8 wrote: »

The expense claims the Laws incident relates to were made before any changes as a result of the expenses scandle. I'm sure some changes are in the pipe line. I don't necessarily think these changes will work as well as simply requiring all expense claims to be published within a month of making them.

This question referred more to the 'flipping', nothing to do with Laws. I just assumed part of the 'clean-up' involved more stringent rules around designation of first & second homes, and flipping. But tbh I don't know the detail - wondered if you did.

My original point was, I keep reading that Laws could have claimed more, what he did was wrong, but he could have claimed more. Have read it in the papers, on the internet and lots of poster's have repeated it. Almost like we're being fed a pill that's preparing the ground for him coming back. Saying and repeating it doesn't make it true. So given his circumstances, I'm just wondering in practice, what he could have claimed for. IMHO buying a house, while never living in it, but claiming interest as an allowable expense, would be an abuse, and therefore he couldn't have legitimately claimed it.

P.S. Yes, I'm rubbish with quoting

carolt

Wookster wrote: »

If you insist on this then you will only get those who are so thick skinned they don't really care if their private lives are splashed over the papers (remember Blair/ Blears/ lord levy).

I think this is a real tragedy and the loss of someone of real integrity at a time when the government really needs gifted people.

Integrity???!!

You are having a laugh.

If there's one thing this man has clearly not got, it's integrity.

And where does all this guff about him being 'gifted' or 'brilliant' come from? He's an ex-banker - that hardly qualifies you as brilliant, given what they did to the financial system. I have friends who are bankers - I wouldn't describe them as any more brilliant than any other contemporary, just more motivated by greed and money - which Laws clearly is.

See this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/30/barbara-ellen-david-laws-resignation

for an excellent reasoning of why what he did had nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with money.

Nasty little man - exactly the type I don't want running the country, thank you.

Jennifer_Jane

Thanks for posting the Guardian article, carolt. Some of these points have been made on the forum, and I agree with the article. Also, it seems that the big secret wasn't so secret. I understand (from a posting on another forum) that people in the constituency knew, and apparently it wasn't a secret in Westminster (per article by Jonathan Aitken in Daily Mail Online). So - there was no reason for Laws not to have gone to the Fees Office to pay back the money or make this all square. His excuse is (as per the Guardian) a red-herring.

Absolute madness or hubris on his part.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1282565/If-hed-come-completely-clean-House-just-saved--I-wish-Id-tried-it.html

seven-day-weekend

I think David Laws is basically an honest man who has done something horribly wrong because he was terrified of his private life becoming public.

I don't think he is of the Hazel Blears/Jacqui Smith 'look-at-me-I'm-paying -the money-back-although-I-haven't-done-anything-wrong-aren't I-wonderful' brigade.

I do think he should pay the money back, but it is a shame if he feels he cannot continue in the role that many people seem to think he is very good at, and help our country to get back on its feet again.

I really do think it is a case, not of arrogance, but of 'those of you who are without sin, cast the first stone'.

I feel sorry for the guy.

Jennifer_Jane

Just a reminder, though, that it seems that a lot of people knew the secret - so he could have gone to the Fees office and spoken to them about the situation for guidance, and to clarify the 'partner' status.

Also, on his own admission, he increased his own mortgage on a house to help his partner buy a house (with him, I think) and claimed for the interest on that mortgage; and also, his expense levels were apparently quite vast and rounded until vouchers had to be supplied. Then his expenses suddenly reduced considerably. I begin to feel less and less sympathy for him.

roy62

He should be prosecuted.

seven-day-weekend

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Just a reminder, though, that it seems that a lot of people knew the secret - so he could have gone to the Fees office and spoken to them about the situation for guidance, and to clarify the 'partner' status.

Also, on his own admission, he increased his own mortgage on a house to help his partner buy a house (with him, I think) and claimed for the interest on that mortgage; and also, his expense levels were apparently quite vast and rounded until vouchers had to be supplied. Then his expenses suddenly reduced considerably. I begin to feel less and less sympathy for him.

I don't doubt any of that. What he did was very, very wrong and he need not have done any of it.

No way am I saying that he has not done anything wrong.

However, he still appears to me as someone who has got himself into a situation primarily because of fear.

We've all done this, to a lesser or greater degree, surely, at some time or another? It's just that most of us can get away with it because it does not impact upon anyone.

I think the guy should 'fess up, (which he has done), pay up (which he has also done) and then 'go his way and sin no more'.

If he is the best person to get us out of the financial hole we are in, then I would like him to do that.

Just my 2p worth.

vivatifosi

Oh boy, here we go again (from the Telegraph, added to website in the last hour):

Danny Alexander, new Treasury chief, avoided capital gains tax on house

The new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, avoided paying capital gains tax when he sold his taxpayer-funded second home at a profit, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Edited to add (from article):

Mr Alexander took advantage of a tax loophole that allows people to continue to tell the tax authorities for three years that a property is their main home even if they have bought another house –in Mr Alexander’s case in Scotland – which has become their “principal residence”. It did not stop him telling the authorities at the House of Commons that the London property was his second home...

.... Senior accountants last night likened Mr Alexander’s arrangements to those of Hazel Blears, the former Labour minister.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/liberal-democrat-mps-expenses/7787519/Danny-Alexander-new-Treasury-chief-avoided-capital-gains-tax-on-house.html

1984ReturnsForReal_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

Oh boy, here we go again (from the Telegraph, added to website in the last hour):

Danny Alexander, new Treasury chief, avoided capital gains tax on house

The new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, avoided paying capital gains tax when he sold his taxpayer-funded second home at a profit, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/liberal-democrat-mps-expenses/7787519/Danny-Alexander-new-Treasury-chief-avoided-capital-gains-tax-on-house.html

Lets face it, they aren't going to find anyone straight to put in there.