David Laws - corrupt hypocrite?

PhylPho

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Personally, I find it worrying (indeed staggering) that the public is being 'primed' for a return.

No reason to think that it is. Any clique will always seek to protect itself by down-playing that which impacts on its reputation: public tears, but private anger. "We'd love to see you back one day" (public) versus "You stupid berk, look what you've just done to us" (private.)

Nor is this episode over: after the report of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Laws is going to have to make yet another apology. That's something else the governing elite can well do without.

Gorgeous George summed it up perfectly a few posts back: Laws is a multi-millionaire banker, not exactly a role model for our times. Laws is now also shown to be a multi-milliionaire on-the-fiddle banker. No amount of "priming" is going to wallpaper over that.

He's gone. He's finished. And it's entirely his own fault.

Kohoutek

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Personally, I find it worrying (indeed staggering) that the public is being 'primed' for a return.

It doesn't take very long these days, under New Labour less than a year in purgatory on the backbenches was enough for their ministerial 'talent'.

Mandelson:

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 27 July 1998 – 23 December 1998, resigned due to scandal.

Appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, 11 October 1999.

Blunkett

Home Secretary, 8 June 2001 – 15 December 2004, resigned due to scandal.

Appointed Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 6 May 2005

ash28

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

I wonder if the Libdems got an easy ride during the original expenses exposure?

I did read somewhere they were the "fluffy bunnies" of British politics and fairly insignificant in the political scheme of things. The Labour and Conservative parties had their dirty linen well and truly aired, and a lot mps tainted by expenses have been re elected, or not, or prosecuted, as the case may be, but for those 2 parties expenses appear to be history - the Libdems maybe didn't come under the same type of scrutiny.

What a difference a year makes. They are now in government and perhaps the airing of their dirty linen is still to come.

It makes a bit of joke of Nick Clegg and his squeaky clean party, IMHO. Same old, same old.

I remember the first leader's debate and the comments he made there about "it was your money" etc.

I guess if you play with the big boys you've got accept the same treatment.

A._Badger

Guido (not my favourite source, I admit) over at http://order-order.com has regularly been poking and prodding the Lib-Dems over their dodgy behaviour and one gathers there have been some pretty vile tactics employed by local Lib-Dem activists down the years. Anyone who can remember Jeremy Thorpe would have known all along that the Party's clean image was simply in the mind of a credulous public.

Lance

Looks like the new boy isn't much better. At least Laws has experiance in finance.

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

amcluesent

Makes you wonder what agenda the Barclay brothers have with this editorial line in the Telegraph. I don't expect they are too worried about the plight of BTL landlords!

After all, they own a private island, Brecqhou, in the Channel Islands but for tax purposes are domiciled in Monaco.

This is their castle on their island...



Have they got upset that 'call me Dave' Dave got too cosy with the Murdoch clan? Or is their a religious element too it? The brothers are staunch RC, so maybe shirt-lifting Liberals aren't to their taste?

dealsearcher

Lance wrote: »

At least Laws has experiance in finance.

Indeed. So why did he get in such a mess over this then?

dealsearcher

amcluesent wrote: »

Makes you wonder what agenda the Barclay brothers have with the Telegraph.

After all, they own a private island, Brecqhou, in the Channel Islands but for tax purposes are domiciled in Monaco.

So they won't have any issue with UK CGT will they! Just shows - the rich can always avoid tax. It's the ordinary folk with a few shares or a second property that get caught.

chucky

Wookster wrote: »

While I think this disclosure IS scandalous and damaging, surely Law's right to privacy is more important? After all, we do not know his personal/ family circumstances. Maybe his parents didn't even know - we are all entitled to have some secrets aren't we?

Rent was paid at market rates. Surely this indicates that his motives weren't dishonest.

the guy is a millionaire if not multi millionaire - if he wanted to furnish his gay lover with £40k he should have written a cheque from his personal account and not making money from the tax payers.

the Lib Dems do it, Tories will do it and Labour will do it.

Wookster

Has anyone here watched The Reader?

I suspect that the same thing that kept Kate Winslet's character quiet about her illiteracy kept Laws quiet about his sexuality.