UK Laws

[santa claus]

That David Laws used expenses to pay rent for his partner is bad enough. That the PM and Deputy PM are keeping the door open for his return is appalling. I don't care what his 'gifts' are and how the Country has 'lost' his skills, what he has done is tantamount to theft. He should repay all the money he owes the taxpayer and be prosecuted for misusing the public purse to fund his coalition with Mr James Lundie and he should have been sacked.

The Government is in its infancy and already there is major scandal. Those who voted for this change must be feeling like mugs . Let's see, achievements so far: got rid of HIPS (yawn), talked endlessly about changing the voting system (yawn) and lost the Secretary to the Treasury.

Things can only get better. But it may take 4 years.

[pollaxe]

Well the fact that the stench of Mandelson is now out of Westminster can only be a good thing.

Honestly though, they're all as bad as each other.

[scaryjim]

interesting one. While it looks like he's definitely broken the word of the "law" (in this case the expenses regulations), that money would still have been paid to someone, so it's not like he's claimed unreasonably high expenses or for some frivolous and unnecessary purpose - quite aside from the fact that he obviously hasn't claimed 40k in rent in the last 3 weeks, so this is all expenses boil-over from the previous expenses scandal, which - let's be honest here - hit all the parties equally.

This isn't like spending money on a duck island, or your husband's porn collection - he claimed rent that he would haved claimed one way or another - he just didn't declare a relationship to the person receiving that rent. He's now 'fessed up and promised to pay the money back, so fair enough.

The relationship was obviously not an open and widely-known one: it was a private, potentially even secret, one. I can understand why he'd not declare it. But the bottom line is he's been caught, held his hands up, promised to give the money back, and resigned his high level position in cabinet. Isn't that enough?

There's an interesting parallel to Housing Benefit here, because it has very similar rules about renting frmo partners / close family / parent of your children. And if you were caught breaking those rules, you'd get hauled up, dressed down and told to pay the money back. But you wouldn't be banned from claiming HB again. You'd be given a chance to prove that you'd learned your lesson. I'm inclined to think that our politicians deserve the same basic chance to have another go. If he does it wrong again, then deseat him and ban him from standing again. But let's let him make one mistake for himself, huh?

[cptwhite_uk]

I feel very sorry for David Laws, and your pro-labour stance claus is just without merit - try being objective. His reasoning was obvious - he didn't declare because he knew it was have consequences for him, both perosnally and professionally. What a sad indictment of our society. Obviously he was treading a fine line with his interpretation of the wording of the law, and his personal circumstances let him turn a blind eye to the situaton.

Obviously in retrospect he realises he made the wrong decision (which I would agree with) but instead of waiting to see how the game plays out, he's done the honourable thing and resigned of his own freewill and referred himself to the standards commission.

Based on that evidence I would suggest we have indeed lost an honourable man, who admitedly made a bad judgement call due to being swayed by personal circumstance. A very sorry affair.

I'm also highly suspcious of the motives for outing his position. The timing was impecable as always for maximum damage to the coalition's credability. Obviously my thoughts of this being a right of centre tory conspiracy are completely unfounded, but it does play conveniently into their hand, doesn't it?

[SeriousSam]

That David Laws used expenses to pay rent for his partner is bad enough. That the PM and Deputy PM are keeping the door open for his return is appalling. I don't care what his 'gifts' are and how the Country has 'lost' his skills, what he has done is tantamount to theft. He should repay all the money he owes the taxpayer and be prosecuted for misusing the public purse to fund his coalition with Mr James Lundie and he should have been sacked.

The Government is in its infancy and already there is major scandal. Those who voted for this change must be feeling like mugs . Let's see, achievements so far: got rid of HIPS (yawn), talked endlessly about changing the voting system (yawn) and lost the Secretary to the Treasury.

Things can only get better. But it may take 4 years.

This post is a clear example of one of the malaises pervading this country. Such righteous fury and schadenfreude serves absolutely no purpuse and in the long run diminishes us all. It is not just about this particular situation , which I will come to in a minute, but across a wide range of topics. How else do we end up with 10 year olds being speciously convicted of attempted rape and drugs banned with no scientific basis. In giving over to such emotions you open yourself up to being manipulated by pontificating public figures, the media and anyone who has the skill to subvert your original ire.

We seem to want to blame everyone else for the state of our country, whilst stubbornly refusing to realise that we ALL brought this about collectively. Until we accept this and learn from it we are doomed to keep on treading the same destructive path.

In reference to David Laws then yes what he did is wrong but as scary jim pointed out it is money that would have been paid out in any case. I can understand why he would want to keep this relationship secret and whilst this does not excuse him for his actions, the way in which he has dealt with this situation leaves me to believe that he has learnt his lesson. Thus in time he should be given a second chance to prove that he is worthy of holding high office. The other thing I would point out is that everything I have heard about him from people I know in the civil service is that he is a decent and highly capable man. Considering the paucity of such men in recent times, it ill behoves to waste such talent if it can be applied in the correct manner.

As a final point in regards to the OP intimation that things will get better in four years time if Labour get back into power then consider this; who spent and legislated us into this mess and when did they do anything other than trying to weasel out of accepting blame. Oh and no, any recent statements don't count as anyone with a shred of common sense can see that for what is is, false contritions designed to engender sympathy and gain support for what will be self serving adversarial politics to get themselves back into power.

[peterb]

That David Laws used expenses to pay rent for his partner is bad enough. That the PM and Deputy PM are keeping the door open for his return is appalling. I don't care what his 'gifts' are and how the Country has 'lost' his skills, what he has done is tantamount to theft. He should repay all the money he owes the taxpayer and be prosecuted for misusing the public purse to fund his coalition with Mr James Lundie and he should have been sacked.

The Government is in its infancy and already there is major scandal. Those who voted for this change must be feeling like mugs . Let's see, achievements so far: got rid of HIPS (yawn), talked endlessly about changing the voting system (yawn) and lost the Secretary to the Treasury.

Things can only get better. But it may take 4 years.

Santa - I'd expect better than a taher cheap shot like that! Yes, he has apparantly broken the Parliamentary code - and has resigned (rather than cling on to his position with barnacle like grip until he was sacked) pending the outcome of an investigation by the PSC. He may - if exonerated - make a come back - lets face it, Mandelson did a pretty good impression of Lazarus in the last 13 years. Peter Hain hardly covered himself in glory with his donations fiasco - although he was subsequently cleared.

Whether or not David Laws' conceern about privacy justifies what he did is a moot point. I was tempted to draw comparison with Mark Oaten - although his case was different in that he was (and I think still is) married, and there was no question of public funding used for his 'rent boy' - but the red tops had a prurient field day at the time.

And I can understand - even if he is cleared by the PSC - why he would want to stand down - the task of sorting out the monumental mess generated by the last administration (including their disgraceful spending spree in the last few weeks prior to the election) is probably more than enough as a full time job without the inevitable intrusion into his private life.

So is David Laws a moment of sensationalism? Probably. Is there any reason why he shouldn't return to Government if he is cleared by the PSC/ Probably not - if not in this parliamentary term - then hopefully the next!

[Saracen]

Actually, I'm rather in line with Santa on this one. I might have put it in a slightly less partisan and loaded way, but I agree with his basic premise.

I remember Cameron saying something on the lines of "we not only need to be following the rules but the spirit of the rules, and need to be seen to be acting properly. The rules for MPs expenses do, and since long before the recent scandal, always did say that things must not only be correct, must must the perceived to be so. That's why, to my mind, this "it was within the rules" cobblers that so many MPs spouted is utter drivel, because the rules are very specifically to be interpreted so as to pass the nose of the public in a stink test.

And this business with Laws stinks.

Was he living on another planet when all the MPs expenses scandal was going on? Did he not realised how this was going to look if it came out after they've supposedly (hah!) resolved all this, washed all the dirty linen and outed all the skeletons from Parliamentary expenses cupboards?

What his sexual preference may or may not be is not only none of our business (providing it doesn't manage to compromise his job), and I not only don't care, I actively don't want to know. Full marks to Alan Duncan for just coming out with it. It was a mildly interesting subject for about 10 minutes, then we all moved on and forgot about it. The danger in hiding it, though, is that you set yourself up for being pressured by anyone that finds out, and that is our business.

So that's my first point. His preferences are irrelevant, but keeping it a secret isn't. So he's gay? Who cares? But to be actively hiding it? Well, that's led him into trouble.

But here's the real issue. He's got a lover? Fine, he's entitled. But, if the rules say you cant claim for expenses, then you damn well don't claim. And what kind of relationship is it where he's charged thousands of pounds a year for living with his lover? Maybe I ought to charge the wife rent, and get her employer to pay for it on her expenses? Yet, multi-millionaire Laws not only expects to pay to live with his lover ( I thought there was a name for that), but he expects the public to pay for it?

And, and here I utterly agree with Santa, the new kids on the Downing Street block think it's okay to let it "blow over", and bring him back? Utter hypocrisy.

If, IF Laws had come forward with this months ago, approached the standards committee and said "I think I got this wrong, here's the money", then fair enough. We can all make mistakes. But I simply don't believe Mr Laws didn't notice that there was a bit of a ruckus over expenses. It did, after all, ever so slightly make the news. In fact, for weeks on end, it pretty much was the news - it drove just about everything else right off the agenda. So didn't he think to go through his with a fine toothed comb, and not just looking for gotcha's, but sniffing for them to make sure they pass that stink test?

So ... either he went through them and missed this, in which case I don't care how gifted he is, he doesn't deserve to be a senior Treasury minister if he can't get his own expenses right, or he did find it and decided to ignore it and keep his head down, and hope he didn't get caught. And in that latter case, he clearly doesn't have the moral fibre to be a public representative at all, let alone a Minister.

And that is why I agree with Santa about the notion already being expressed that he can come back. Christ, guys, the ink isn't even dry on his resignation yet. At least the Blair/Brown show had the decency to shove the Sith (His Galactic Supremeness Lord Mandy) off to Europe for a couple of years until the heat died down a bit, but it seems CamClegg down even want to have his name taken off the office door.

What message does that send?

I'll tell you, Cameron and Clegg .... it sends a message of utter contempt for the public, it sends the message that for all your protestations about cleaning up politics, all you are is the brave new face of the same old corrupt republic.

Laws, had you come clean and fronted this up, you might (in my judgement) have got away with it. But by trying to brazen it out and hope nobody noticed, your own ethics are now on show for the whole nation to see. You got caught with your fingers in the public cookie jar, and all this claptrap about how "gifted" you are is absolutely beside the point. Your intelligence and abilities are not the issue - your moral compass is.

Good bye, good riddance and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

And Cameron ..... for pities sake, buck your ideas up. If you're going to pontificate about cleaning up politics, and everything being fresh and new, do it when it's inconvenient as well as when it's convenient. If you bring this man back, all you will do is turn him into your version of the contemptible Mandelson, and prove your own lack of moral compass.

[santa claus]

Actually--------compass.

Very well said Saracen. I should have spent more time on my OP but I couldn't have improved on your post. I'm fed up to the eye teeth of these people 'making a little mistake and it will all be ok if they just say sorry'. Cameron and Clegg should have added a swift size 10 up his backside on the way out. Now, not only is Laws' judgement suspect, so is theirs. Are they completely out of touch with the main thrust of public opinion? I think we now know after just 18 days.

But the bottom line is he's been caught, held his hands up, promised to give the money back, and resigned his high level position in cabinet. Isn't that enough?

Imo no, it isn't. Here is a man in one of the critical roles for this Government and he had a secret, male lover. He clearly didn't expect to find himself in the Treasury job and he knew it was only a matter of time before he was outed. Fortunatey, he cracked when he got whiff of the revelations before something else broke him. Pathetic.

I feel very sorry for David Laws, and your pro-labour stance claus is just without merit - try being objective.

Your pre-conceived view of what you consider to be my political view is the thing that is preventing you from seeing that my comments on this topic are objective.This has nothing to do with my political views. It has everything to do with the integrity and honesty I expect of those elected. Laws falls very short of expectation.

This post is a clear example of one of the malaises pervading this country. Such righteous fury and schadenfreude serves absolutely no purpuse and in the long run diminishes us all. It is not just about this particular situation , which I will come to in a minute, but across a wide range of topics. How else do we end up with 10 year olds being speciously convicted of attempted rape and drugs banned with no scientific basis. In giving over to such emotions you open yourself up to being manipulated by pontificating public figures, the media and anyone who has the skill to subvert your original ire.

We seem to want to blame everyone else for the state of our country, whilst stubbornly refusing to realise that we ALL brought this about collectively. Until we accept this and learn from it we are doomed to keep on treading the same destructive path.

Gawd, what are you on about? Spare me the lecture and get to the point.

Santa - I'd expect better than a taher cheap shot like that!

Cheap shot Peter? Read your next sentence:

Yes, he has apparantly broken the Parliamentary code

Seems a fair target to me.

[Kata]

Your pre-conceived view of what you consider to be my political view is the thing that is preventing you from seeing that my comments on this topic are objective.This has nothing to do with my political views. It has everything to do with the integrity and honesty I expect of those elected. Laws falls very short of expectation.

Seriously, you expect anyone to believe this? You even manage to fit in a cheap shot about "those who voted for this must feel like mugs", ignoring the fact that Labour just lost power after 13 years of pretty much this kind of non-stop corruption. You "objectively" ignore the thousands of Labour screw-ups, and claim that this single instance should make everyone regret their vote?

Your attempts at claiming impartiality are, quite franky, ridiculous.

It's a shame that Laws screwed up in this manner, and it's right that he's gone; but it will take at least another decade of corruption at this rate before the new lot manage to equal Labour's performance.

[cptwhite_uk]

What Saracen and Claus have failed to realise, is the kind of "relationship" Laws had, seems to have been more of the 'physical kind' shall we say. It's very easy to make cheap jokes in reference to "charging rent to the wife". That's completely different to what we're talking about here.

Without knowing the specifics, which none of us really know, we can make some good estimations of what the relationship was, coupled with Laws' private and public position as to why he did what he did. That doesn't mean it's excusable, it isn't, but on a 1v1 level it is much more grey than either of you are making out and understandable as to what lead him to such action.

After the expenses debacle he should've held his hand up, agreed, but this is a privite man and to do so would've exposed his sexuality for all to see and be judged. Note he did stop claiming around summer last year so in my view he did make a judgement call and stopped it immediately.

We have to remember that had he been a lodger what he did would've been perfectly fine and dandy. He never financially gained from this episode and he stopped it immediately after the expenses scandal (probably as a precaution as he knew it was potentially questionable by that point, but I fully expect he started it with a clear conscious). He also resigned immediately and referred himself.

While I don't condone what he did, I can empathsise with his situation and understand why he's ended up in this situation.

...and Santa, I know you're pro labour from reading your previous posts, as well as this one. There's absolutely no point in trying to argue this point and if the best you can do is pick me up on this, I must have wrote a fairly solid initial argument...

Edit:
I want to say this again as whatever your thoughts on this argument, it's pretty irrelevant at the end of the day. What's really important it who outed him, when they outed him and for what reason. I wonder how long they've been sitting on this one just waiting for the perfect moment to do maximum damage. Why was David Laws forced out, and by who?

[peterb]

Very well said Saracen. I should have spent more time on my OP but I couldn't have improved on your post. I'm fed up to the eye teeth of these people 'making a little mistake and it will all be ok if they just say sorry'. Cameron and Clegg should have added a swift size 10 up his backside on the way out. Now, not only is Laws' judgement suspect, so is theirs. Are they completely out of touch with the main thrust of public opinion? I think we now know after just 18 days. <---snip--->

Cheap shot Peter? Read your next sentence:

Seems a fair target to me.

Hmm perhaps I'm just as guilty of the cheap shot My apologies.

However he has referred himself to the PSC - and he resigned with commendable speed - and the PSC haven't yet ruled whether he has broken the code of conduct - so although that is being reported, it isn't yet a fact. However, given that the PSC hasn't reported, I would agree that it is equally premature for the PM/DPM to make such a statement - although that is not without precedent. The phrase "xxx has my full confidence" is not new in political circles - although often the prelude to xxx being banished/dismissed or otherwise dropping out of circulation.

[McPhee]

What Saracen and Claus have failed to realise, is the kind of "relationship" Laws had, seems to have been more of the 'physical kind' shall we say. It's very easy to make cheap jokes in reference to "charging rent to the wife". That's completely different to what we're talking about here.

Without knowing the specifics, which none of us really know, we can make some good estimations of what the relationship was, coupled with Laws' private and public position as to why he did what he did. That doesn't mean it's excusable, it isn't, but on a 1v1 level it is much more grey than either of you are making out and understandable as to what lead him to such action.

After the expenses debacle he should've held his hand up, agreed, but this is a privite man and to do so would've exposed his sexuality for all to see and be judged. Note he did stop claiming around summer last year so in my view he did make a judgement call and stopped it immediately.

We have to remember that had he been a lodger what he did would've been perfectly fine and dandy. He never financially gained from this episode and he stopped it immediately after the expenses scandal (probably as a precaution as he knew it was potentially questionable by that point, but I fully expect he started it with a clear conscious). He also resigned immediately and referred himself.

While I don't condone what he did, I can empathsise with his situation and understand why he's ended up in this situation.

...and Santa, I know you're pro labour from reading your previous posts, as well as this one. There's absolutely no point in trying to argue this point and if the best you can do is pick me up on this, I must have wrote a fairly solid initial argument...

Edit:
I want to say this again as whatever your thoughts on this argument, it's pretty irrelevant at the end of the day. What's really important it who outed him, when they outed him and for what reason. I wonder how long they've been sitting on this one just waiting for the perfect moment to do maximum damage. Why was David Laws forced out, and by who?

Bang on there. Pretty much what I was about to write.

The claims of him "stealing from the state" are a bit silly. The amounts are irrelevant, lower than they would have been by any other means (and not the £40,000 that the papers are throwing around, that figure is total rent from 2001-2009, but the rules only changed in 2006). If he had come out as being gay and had taken up a joint mortgage with Lundie, he could have claimed more. If he'd claimed on his constituency home instead, he could have claimed more. If he got his own flat in London, he could have claimed more. It's not the money that's the issue here, he took a completely respectable amount. It's the rule he broke by his method of claiming the money.

I don't think the Parliamentary Standards Commission will take this case very far to be honest, it's too messy. Not only have they got to decide whether or not he broke the rules, they've then got to decide whether or not the introduction of new rules in 2006 put him in an unfair situation. There's also question over the nature of Laws and Lundie's relationship and whether or not they actually fall under the definition of being partners. The chances of him going to court for fraud are pretty much nil.

I wonder what's next for him? A return to cabinet? Or will he go off and do something completely different?

[santa claus]

Seriously, you expect anyone to believe this?

Erm, yes? My comments/reaction would be exactly the same if this was an elected Labour representative. By raising this issue for discussion, I am not ignoring the screw ups of others, I'm airing a legitimate topic concerning a (now former) senior minister in the current government. Laws can't be excused because 'we all make mistakes'. He has shown his judgement to be suspect; not a quality I admire in the Head of the Treasury.

Why was David Laws forced out, and by who?

David Laws forced himself out. Even he knows his position is indefensible.

Hmm perhaps I'm just as guilty of the cheap shot My apologies.

However he has referred himself to the PSC - and he resigned with commendable speed - and the PSC haven't yet ruled whether he has broken the code of conduct - so although that is being reported, it isn't yet a fact. However, given that the PSC hasn't reported, I would agree that it is equally premature for the PM/DPM to make such a statement - although that is not without precedent. The phrase "xxx has my full confidence" is not new in political circles - although often the prelude to xxx being banished/dismissed or otherwise dropping out of circulation.

Apology accepted . Better they kept their gobs shut then to avoid prejudicing the findings eh?

----cut----It's the rule he broke by his method of claiming the money.---cut---

I wonder what's next for him? A return to cabinet? Or will he go off and do something completely different?

Well spotted.

Now he's out of the cabinet and the closet, he can do whatever or whomever he likes; don't ask me to contribute to his wages though.

[Kata]

Erm, yes? My comments/reaction would be exactly the same if this was an elected Labour representative. By raising this issue for discussion, I am not ignoring the screw ups of others, I'm airing a legitimate topic concerning a (now former) senior minister in the current government. Laws can't be excused because 'we all make mistakes'. He has shown his judgement to be suspect; not a quality I admire in the Head of the Treasury.

OK, given this, can you explain why those who voted for the new government should be feeling stupid right now as you mentioned in your first post? As the Labours governments failings have been far worse, and catalogued for far longer, which "third way" should people have voted to avoid them feeling stupid? Not Labour, obviously...!

[Barrichello]

Those who voted for this change must be feeling like mugs .

Not at all. Could of been much worse, imagine another term of destruction from nuLabour (Shivers)

[cptwhite_uk]

David Laws forced himself out. Even he knows his position is indefensible.

While that could be argued that's clearly not the question i was asking, so I'll rephase it so you can't just side step it. Why did the telegraph publish this story now, how long had the telegraph known about this story, why didn't they publish it straight away and who was the source and what were their motives for making this situation public?


It you want to be gullible you can argue that they published straight away and that the only motive was money and to sell stories. I'd give the chances of this being the full truth about nil. That's not how it works, the papers are all politically motived bull**** feeders to give their multimillion pound owners a kind of puppet string control over the moronic masses who buy their bile. By swaying their opinions they gain a kind of prox control over who the readers vote for. I have no doubt this story is motived for the good of these multimillionaires, or they've been somehow rewarded to run with this story (potentially just sales of papers) but there's a strong chance it's been published now to do maximum potential damage to something they don't like - either Laws, or the Coalition.