David Laws - corrupt hypocrite?

Backbiter

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

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

Deliberate choice of words?!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Backbiter wrote: »

Deliberate choice of words?!

Bit if a dilemma that one.

I was going to write bent but thought someone might take offense & changed it to straight & then realised it would have the same connotation to some.

Then I thought sod it. It stays as it is.

So in answer to your question. Yes it was deliberate but not for the reason you might draw from it.

I deliberately decided it stays because I am not changing it for the sake of being PC. It is a well known & used word in the right context.

A._Badger

Having read the comments here and seen the way Laws has been mollycoddled by the Press in general, I'd have to say that his homosexuality appears to have been his saving grace. People are bending over backwards (don't even go there) to cut this greasy little banker excessive amounts of slack, for fear of seeming 'homophobic'.

Then we have the frogs' chorus croaking how 'gifted' and 'talented' this man is - despite the complete lack of any evidence to support the claim. The fact that a privileged kid gets a double first and makes zillions in banking (of all things) tells us absolutely nothing at all about his abilities as politician.

Degenerate

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

Reading the article, it appears he benefited from the three-year rule which is entirely legit and hardly the "loophole" that the Telegraph claim. OTOH, it would take a special brand of hypocrite to profit from his taxpayer-funded second home, pay no CGT, then take up the task of making sure other second home owners get no such relief.

This creates an interesting situation given that he's another LibDem and they are the ones demanding the CGT rise, which is very unpopular on the Tory backbenches as it will hit their core vote harder than any other segment of the population. I forsee some serious watering-down of the proposed legislation, and the LibDems will have to suck it up, or "we're in this together" could become the death march of this coalition.

Shakethedisease

A bit of a masterstroke from the Telegraph unfortunately.

Makes it very, very difficult for the likes of Mr Alexander to argue for it to be raised given that he himself has benefited from loopholes that involved him avoiding paying CTG tax altogether !!

Very difficult indeed.

Wonder how many more 'skeletons' are still to come out. But I must say, this 'new, fresh and untainted coalition' government.. whatever the circs and however it's debated..is starting to look pretty murky and 'same as the last lot' to the general public only 3 weeks in.

Not a good sign.

roddydogs

"Afraid of his private life being made public" dont make me laugh (A) he needn't have claimed for anything (B) Being gay is no longer a stigma--its a "Positive" these days!

Gorgeous_George

I wonder which Tory is feeding the Telegraph these stories?

There are far too many of these third place politicians in top positions in the 'coalition' government. The Tory backbenchers must be well pee'd off.

GG

LilacPixie

If he was so keen to protect his privicy and sexuality then why claim anything in the first place??

Jennifer_Jane

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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

I think you're being kind to him, 7DW.

The more I read about this, the less I am inclined to believe in the fear factor.

Personally, I find it worrying (indeed staggering) that the public is being 'primed' for a return. Politicians don't seem to realise that we must have people in power who are beyond reproach, and seen to be so. Also, he had lost credibility and therefore was no longer the right person for the job (and we can only assume that he was all along, there's no proof).

I have also been concerned about the number of LibDem ministers. This is surely intended to spread the 'blame' when the cuts begin to take hold.

Gorgeous_George

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I have also been concerned about the number of LibDem ministers. This is surely intended to spread the 'blame' when the cuts begin to take hold.

I don't think so.

I think it is all about the third placed politicians holding all the cards when negotiating a coalition government. If Labour had offered even more top positions we'd have had a Lib/Lab pact.

GG