David Laws' expenses

[longfingernailspaintedblue]

I really thought he was the very best of the Lib Dems.

Given his fortune he obviously doesn't need the expenses, but hiding his landlord/partner from the authorities is unacceptable, even if it was to hide his sexuality.

I'm completely shellshocked.

Claig- don't you have any mercy for human complication? Have you any idea what turmoil, denial and darkness this man might be feeling. Can't you contemplate that he might have been thinking that (1)his claim is relatively modest against what MPs were claiming and that (2) he wanted to hide the relationship. The two together led to possible wrong doing/rule bending but I don't see it as clear cut in the way you do.

TDiddy, I think you have been taken in by his explanation. I'm like Peter Tatchell and Ben Summerskill of Stonewall, I don't buy it. If you read the papers over the next few weeks, I think more might come out. It seems he may be talking about quitting, why? is there more to come? Will he give an interview to Piers Morgan and start blubbing on natioal TV? If he does then I will disbelieve him even more and you will probably feel sorry for him and think he is an honourable Mr. Integrity.

Mr. Integrity said that he kept his relationship a secret and did what he did to hide his sexuality.

On the politics Show, a Tory from his constituency said that he had known about Laws for 8 or 9 years and so had others, we read in the Sun that his sexuality was an open secret in Westminster and from the Telegraph's profile of him, we learn

"One Lib Dem activist in the South West, who did not wish to be named and who admires the politician?s ?fundamentally decent? qualities, said: ?The only person who didn?t realise that everybody knew David Laws was gay was ... David Laws.?

I think that this LibDem activist is wrong, because he seems to have forgotten about Laws' good friend Paddy Ashdown, to whom we owe the information that Laws is Mr. Integrity. Paddy says he had no idea about Laws' sexuality. Mr. Integrity and Paddy are honourable, so this LibDem activist must be talking hogwash.

claig- I "knew" of Michael Portillo years before it hit the headlines. There is a difference between whispers and a full coming out isn't there?

LeninGrad- do you really think that MPs should be paid less than average City lawyers and scribblers?

I am not saying that he what he did was correct but I feel that this is a bit mob-rule and hounding. The rule/definition re:spouse looks unclear and the fella hasn't had a fair hearing but the mob press has hounded him out of a job. Don't you think that it is all the wrong way around and trial by press without establishing the a fact based position.

And what about Caroline Spelman - should she go over nanny-gate?

I don't think it is trial by press. If he had a valid case then he would have survived. He chose to resign. I think we need to have high standards for our legislators. I don't believe in one law for them and one law for us. While they are flipping homes, exploiting capital gains tax loopholes and claiming expenses for anything that moves, old aged pensioners are being sent to jail for refusing to pay council tax because they are protesting about the low standard of services that they are provided with or because their paltry pensions are not able to keep up with the rises in council tax.

You probably think that all the expense fiddling MPs were honourable and should still be in office. I am glad that the press informed us of what was going on, I am with the majority of the public and am glad to see the back of the brass-necked brigands.

agree with StewieGriffinsMom. How much sympathy do they have for the poor and disadvantaged? How much sympathy do they have for old-age pensioners who are served with £100 fines for leaving their bins out on the wrong day? Do they even give it a thought? or do these honourable men scour the rules and regulations looking for yet more loopholes to pocket even more of the taxes of the public? I have no sympathy for them, I have sympathy for the people of the country who have the misfortune to be ruled by these honourable charlatans.

the days of doffing our caps to the great and good are gone. We are a mature democracy and all of us count. We are no longer servile, we don't have to accept misconduct just because these Mr. Integrities went to public schools and Oxbridge. We are no longer prepared to be put back in our boxes and to let the rogues laugh in our faces as they stand on their pulpits preaching a new fair politics and lecture single mothers and castigate so many people as lazy and feckless.

we have risen off our knees and like Emile Zola, we dare to say J'accuse

What is so tragic is that he actually seems to believe that there is a grey area as to what constitutes a 'spouse' and that James Lundie didn't fulfill that criteria whereas millions of people on benefits are expected to understand what 'living as a spouse' means.

Wonder if there is scope in setting up a hotline for MPs to clarify any expenses queries?

LeninGrad- on the contrary if we don't pay our law makers properly then we will revert to MPs

1)being rich man's club
2)will continue to lose out on some of the talent
3)MPs will be vulnerable to lobbyists

I am NOT saying that what he did was correct. I am saying that the case against him has NOT yet been proven and is full speculation and conjecture. The right procedure would have been the Committee to rule on this. But he has had to resign, possibly for political reasons. I don't even like David Laws, I just feel uncomfortable with all of this hounding.

And then there is the double standard of Caroline Spelman being in the cabinet. Didn't she have to pay back 40k? Can't have different rules for different MPs?

Not read all the thread - what gets me about all of this is nc said that no one in his party was involved in the expenses scandel. He said that at the debates & it made me think well of lib dem mps - what a false statement. So annoyed.

All mps should pay for their expenses first - just like everyone else - and then apply for the money back. This should be published on the internet so everyone can read it.

What is the MP's basic salary?

And how does it compare to other European countries?

I don't understand why a regular shag = SPOUSE. Aren't we imposing our convention on someone's affairs.

Could someone explain how the definition below clarifies the situation?

"The definition of "partner" in the parliamentary allowances rules is "one of a couple ... who although not married to each other or civil partners are living together and treat each other as spouses""

Clearly our rulemakers are dunces to have such a lose definition. Perhaps they deserve a pay cut after all.

Good comparison to make MmeLindt. But I guess you also need to compare where MP's pay in Europe rank compared to the local alternatives. There are many very well paid alternatives available to people with half decent qualification, and a fair degree of application. There are many people doing what can only be described as not more than clerical jobs earning what MPs earn or more in London.

I haven't read the whole thread, I just think it's a terrible shame that just when we need some good financial brains in the government, someone who almost everyone in the know considers to be one of the brightest and the best has been forced out. He could have claimed a lot more if he was paying for a flat in central london from a stranger, which he was entitled to.

Instead, we have George Osborne and a child nobody has heard of in charge of the economy- Well done Daily Telegrah, good use of your long lenses- thats really in the public interest!

Found this comparison. The basic salary of £63 000 is not a lot tbh, but the average expenses claim in 2007 was £135 000.

So MPs really cannot complain that they are not well paid.

In comparison German MPs have a basic salary of £80 000 (which is taxed) plus £41 600 tax free for expenses - living, entertainment costs, train pass. They also have an allowance for running their offices.

Let's escort all the wrong-doers out of the building. Let's not be star-struck by their supposed talent. Let's not believe the old boys club as they all extol each other's virtues on TV, like the honourable Paddy and Lembit Opik did in their effusive praise of the talented honourable Mr. Integrity. Let's get them to declare all of their interests, including any beneficiary partners, so that they become more careful in their expense claims and think twice before being swayed by lobbyists because they realise that the proles may question them about their conduct.
Let's cut their pay so that they know what it is like to live like the public. Let's attract people who are not after financial rewards, let those carry on as investment bankers, let's instead get some people who are truly motivated by public service. We can always pay these whizz-kids as advisors, we don't need to suffer their arrogance on TV every night. But frankly let's ignore these talented people who have got us into the mess that they did, and try out some other people with common sense. Let's stop being patronised by preposterous claims that they are Mr. Integrities, let's instead create a purified polity. It is clear that they think we are stupid as they laugh at us and loudly proclaim their honour and integrity. Let's show them that they who laugh last, laugh loudest.

TDiddy yes, I agree with you, however seems to me that the benefit definition is the same as the Parliamentary definition and there isn't the nebulous concept about it. The intention is to determine whether one is a lodger or one is in a relationship, and Laws has admitted that he is in fact in a relationship with James Lundie.

Seems to me that there was a bit of circular reasoning going on; Laws didn't consider Lundie a spouse as he was keeping his sexuality a secret, therefore wasn't a spouse

But poor man. He seems quite capable, and intelligent, but what a fatal flaw.

MmeLindt- you are making an important point. When Blair won, he froze MP's salary and everyone just said yes, they have nice custy expenses so no problem, just keep claiming. That was the culture and the public knew that fully well. Then after we hung the bankers in the credit crunch, the MPs were next in line. ....yes, some MPs were dishonest and fraudulent but we shouldn't forget many were just following the normal practice of treating expenses as a salary extension.

By the way, qualified junior lawyers start on higher salaries. I know for a fact that graduates in the city get paid more that 63k to enter numbers into a spreadsheet.

If I hear the 'he could have claimed more' arguement I think I will SCREAM...

And on the spouse front the so-called green book actually states..
"You must avoid any arrangement which may give rise to an accusation that you are, or someone close to you, is obtaining an immediate benefit or subsidy from public funds."

It adds: "The additional costs allowance must not be used to meet the costs of a mortgage or for leasing accommodation from yourself, a close business associate or any organisation or company in which you ? or a partner or family member ? have an interest; or a partner or family member."