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.

Was sickened by the news coverage today - all those journalists and politicians being oh-so-sympathetic to Laws and none of them pointing out these are the rules that MPs have decided apply to the rest of us.

jackstarbright, I think that that is what they essentially are. They are front men, sales people who sell us the spiel. Much of what has been done has already been decided years ago. I remember Ken Livingstone saying that the congestion charge plan had been drawn up by civil servants in the fifties or something like that. They put the policy to every government in office and Red Ken was the first to carry out their wishes and implement it. They have probably already drawn up congestion charges with integrated satellite trackers for the whole country. They are just waiting for a government who can pull it off. GBH, a chancellor for many years, told us that he made a mistake in not taking note of what the banks were up to, it never dawned on him what they were involved in. Of course he knew all about it, his advisors and chums in the industry told him all about it. He took the advice of the experts, the advice that they always give "it is of paramount importance that the City remain internationally competitive and light touch regulation is the way to go". Whilst he and his aides are busy firefighting Bigotgate and all the other crises, he is thankful for the advice of the civil servants who relieve him of some of the burden.

I mentioned aaaaaaaaages ago on this thread that maybe his relationship with the other man did not fit the criteria of 'partner'.

However, if I could see that, surely Laws should have seen it, and really his downfall is due to his lack of judgement, rather than his homosexuality or the expenses claimed. I suspect it must have been down to him not really accepting that he is gay, so on a personal level I do feel sorry for him. He could so easily have avoided any of this.

I really do wonder though what on earth the end of this is going to be if the Daily Telegraph continues with these 'revelations'. What do they really hope to achieve now? I think everyone has got the message now that MPs are fiddling their expenses.

The Treasury Department and all the civil servants working there must be in despair.

the Daily Telegraph strategy is fascinating. There are thousands of things that are always kept covered up from us the plebs, but that are an open secret in Westminster circles. Why have they deigned to let us know about it all? Not just the Telegraph, but all the other papers of the people, such as the people's Guardian, have known about all of this for decades but hushed it up. They didn't want to upset the sheep. What has changed, why are they hanging out the dirty washing and letting us in on the secret?

The Telegraph is not exactly independent, Claig, is it?

It has been obvious last year that they mainly targeted Labour MPs and Tories whom Cameron did not rate.

They must have just realised there is a third party.

yes but they represent the establishment, and conservatives usually like to keep things as they are, they don't like revolutionary upheavals, that is more the socialists' style. Tipping over the apple cart has all sorts of dangers, which is why socialists love it, they want to destroy the current order and create a new nirvana. The Telegraph are destroying the faith of the public in politicians and hence in democracy. It is very unusual for the establishment to want to do that, that is usually the aim of the Marxists.

it's a good point
in the 90s when I was a lot nearer to the centre of gossip and information - I knew people in government/journalists - I heard loads of things about politicians, most of which never came to light (although some e.g. Portillo/Lilley/Mandelson) have become rumour...

there must be an overarching reason why this is coming out now...

Claig - still thinking about your 10.46 post....

Do agree about the media / politicians silence conspiracy. I lived in SW1 for a while (in my youth) and there were many 'open secrets' which the press happily ignored. The Tory family values efforts brought much of it out eventually.

All this business about David Laws regarding his lover as a "spouse" and the fact that nobody (not even leading commentators who happen to be gay themselves) has stood up and said, "well hang on, not everybody regards themselves as being in a SPOUSAL relationship with a partner. Relationships vary greatly. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt", saddens me.

The whole business has cemented my view that UNLESS a couple officially declare the nature of their relationship via a formal document whereby they state they wish to be regarded as a couple, others should not assume the nature of their relationship for them.

I am sorry, but unless a couple are actually married/civilly-partnered, I don't see it as my place to judge the nature of their relationship, therefore, I am fully prepared to believe Laws when he says that he didn't regard his lover as a "spouse".

Yet not one "Influential" gay person has stood up and defended the position that relationships are grey areas and that to a lot of gay people, the concept of being someone's spouse is alien to them.

Not sure it's an actual conspiracy, but by nature the British political system is adversarial, and the opposition isn't much of a force to be reckoned with at the moment. In any case, the press has always been the best opposition anyway.

Marantha, when it comes to taking cash from the taxpayer, it cannot fall to the indvidual to decide on the nature of their relatinship.

Otherwise, all folk on benefits would also be able define themselves as single, should it suit them financially.

David Laws can classify his relationship in any way he likes but when it comes to claiming expenses from the public purse, he has to operate within the rules. Just like the rest of us.

Yes, I agree with Marantha in principle, and presumably so does David Laws so he will have been thinking he was operating 'within the rules' as he was not as far as he was concerned, in a spousal relationship.

However, he must have seen it coming that there would be some ambiguity about it and it would have been better to err on the side of caution and either not claim, or live somewhere else. And that the press would get on to it in someway or another (rightly or wrongly).

Which brings it back to his serious lack of judgement. It is all very odd.

Ah, but don't you see, wubblybubbly, as someone pointed out a few posts back, what defines "Living as a spouse" is highly contentious and very much a matter of judgement.

Putting aside the benefits issue, I would be amazed if even the piss-poorest lawyer couldn't make a case in Laws "defence".
(Of course, if ACTUALLY married, there's no argument).

So these "rules" you speak of are not clear cut by any means.

Unless, we accept the moronic mantra of: "They're shagging, so like they must be like married, like innit".

I agree with you loungelizard the whole business does show lack of good judgement on Laws part. That is certainly true.

Oh FGS, it's ridiculous to pretend this is about the definition of a spouse or partner. The government decided people on benefits can't muck around, and Parliament decided neither should MPs. There is NO wriggle room here.

All this stuff about 'waaah I didn't want anyone to know I was gay' or 'ooh, I didn't think he was a partner' is just an attempt to distract from the facts. Which are clear. Laws lied and committed fraud.

Oddly enough people on benefits aren't told 'never mind old chap, just pay the money back no questions asked'. They are taken to court.

agree with you edam. Unfortunately the ordinary people don't have character witnesses like Sir Paddy calling them Mr. Integrity.

It's nothing to do with shagging though. The DSS aren't interested if you're shagging someone. It's about finances.

Okay, he moved in and then started a relationship with his landlord, at that point I'm not sure anyone would expect him to declare the relationship as a partnership. I'd certainly be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, as I understand it, after the new rules were introduced in 2006, Laws extended his own mortgage so that his Lundie could buy another home that Laws moved into and claimed rent on.

At this stage, surely he must have guessed that the arrangement might fall foul of the rules? He's supposed to be an intelligent man.

If a financial genius like Laws can't figure that out then I can't see how the rest of us mere plebs can be expected to work out when a relationship becomes a partnership from a financial point of view.

Perhaps us mere mortals find it easier to focus on the rules, since we can't just write a cheque out for £40k in the blink of an eye and say 'oops, sorry about that'?

David Laws is not an ordinary person. He is a highly intelligent, and widely respected politician who has a huge amount of the financial experience and understanding required to make a reasonable job of getting the UK out of the massive debt that the last government left us with.

He has undoubtedly landed himself in trouble through a desire to keep the details of his relationship a secret; but compared with the past dodgy misdeeds of others, not least our last Business Secretary Peter Mandelson, it is fairly mild.

I wonder where the Telegraph gets off by undermining such a key figure during this time of crisis. If the coalition collapses it could cost all us taxpayers a lot more than £40K!

I'm not saying he should get away with something if he has done wrong, but I feel that the perspective has been lost in this case.

But even aside from spouse issue Green book 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."

So surely he should have been thinking, 'hmm suspect this falls within those rules'...

edam The facts are NOT clear. I hope to goodness that the "judge" in David Laws case is a bit more open-minded than yourself.

wubblybubbly Look, I'm not after a fight here, but if as you say, it's NOT about shagging then tell me what IS it about?
Because if David Laws and partner are not having sex then clearly they are just good friends?
And if they are just good friends, then what on earth has he done wrong?

All I'm asking for really is some understanding that these things aren't as black and white as some people like to think.

I agree with you though, every single person who is on dodgy ground as regards a partner can now use David Laws as a "role model" and say: "Well, if it's open to interpretation...".