Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10191572.stm
Uh-oh.
this is not good, and so soon.
All because he wanted to hide the fact he was Gay (who says the Tories are the homophobes?)
So, what do we think? How will the markets react?
He certainly looke promising, but now who will replace him?
It is hard to tell from the article what exactly he did wrong.
A pretty stupid mistake on his part. I understand there are aspects of his personal life he might want to keep from the public view but when he uses tax payers money to hide such aspects it's to far. The sheer naivety in thinking he could keep something of this nature a secret when he has such a high degree of public visibility also seems stupid to me. I mean, wasn't he actually living with the guy?
It's a shame in many ways though. He did a pretty good job so far and managed to keep his role in the treasury distinct from Osborne in many ways. I don't expect much from his replacement, Danny Alexander though. He seems to be a bit lost in government and unlike Laws he will probably just cave to whatever Osborne demands. Although I'm wondering who will fill the Scottish position. I assume another lib dem?
As for the grand scheme of things, I think this will just be a blip.
Hmm ... it seems that he paid his partner rent ... and then claimed it as an expense ... and somehow that's wrong. Your guess is as good as mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I mean, if rent is claimable, then what's the problem? And if rent is not a claimable expense, then it hardly matters to whom or why he paid it.
Indeed. The associated article consisted mostly of David Cameron and Nick Clegg talking about what an great guy he is, what a good job he's doing, and how they wanted him back as soon as possible. It also mentioned that he did not gain financially from whatever transpired. Certainly in modern Britain someone wouldn't be run out of office for being gay.... :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The associated article talks about “revelations in the Daily Telegraph”; which one can look up fairly easily. Their take on the news: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ses-claim.html
Thank you Tellos, that makes things much clearer. It's yet another MP naughty expense story, much like the dude who claimed his moat cleaning. Here's the salient part:
[Laws] claimed as much as £950 a month in parliamentary expenses for eight years to rent rooms in two London properties.
The houses were owned by his partner, James Lundie, a political lobbyist. In 2006, MPs were banned from “leasing accommodation from a partner”.
So really it's got jack-all to do with being gay, and everything to do with claiming a rent paid to a "partner," which is against the rules.
Indeed. He wasn't ran out of office for being homosexual. We aren't America, you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Unnecessary and inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I watched that Top Gear episode and read the press when Senators have "came out", they usually are not re-elected after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
The Top Gear episode was staged. It's all staged, didn't you know? Great show, but I wouldn't use it as a barometer of American attitudes. Clarkson isn't fond of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The problem Americans have with gay politicians is when they have wives and children.
Correct. Although it is rather sad that an MP still feels that he ought to hide his sexuality, it has no bearing on why he has had to resign. He made an extremely foolish mistake, and given that he is rather well off whilst having the job of cutting public expenditure harshly - costing many people their jobs - his position was untenable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The really refreshing thing is that here we have a man who, realising he'd been an idiot, resigned promptly. Without weeks of excuses, lies, evasion and craven begging. Without leaving claw marks on the door jambs of his office. Unheard of.
This is a great shame.
Laws had the most urgent and most unpopular job in government; that of slashing public spending, and he was doing a thoroughly excellent job of implementing this as far as i am aware.
I am also willing to accept that he genuinely did do this to protect his private life, and not for financial gain.
It does say something about the typical attitude that the Cons are intolerant whereas the lib-dems are all progressive and tolerant, but regardless i hope to see Laws back in government soon.
Isn't that fraud?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Why are the lib-dems being attacked because he wanted to be private about his homosexuality? It was probably to hide it from his parents and family friends or somesuch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
It is just comically sad that he rejected the offer to become a Tory MP because he felt they had an insufficient balance of social liberalism to go along with the economic liberalism, and thus chose to be a Lib-Dem MP instead, only to be the first Lib-Dem Minister of Government ousted from power in 100 years because fear of insufficient social liberalism prevented him from being honest about his sexuality.
Quite, though the iliberalism is really on his own part, not so much his parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I'm not so sure it wasn't to do with hiding his sexuality, it rings true for me. As this was not against the rule until 2006 he may have felt this was an easy and legal way hiding his relationship. Clearly he was afraid of coming out, and people have serious lapses of judgement when afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Didn't he cross the line when he claimed the money back? Isn't that the offence which he's resigning over?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yes, absolutely! However, the question of his motivation bears directly upon his role in Public Life. this is the sort of thing that, in times gone past, the Editor of the Telelgraph might have kept quiet in order that a competant public servant could remain in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The other thing is he isn't the only gay MP to "come out" about his sexuality via such a media storm. The "moment of madness" anyone? All this points me to the view that whilst those who represent us are more than happy to harp on about social equality; is there still a view that within the "establishment" of Westminster, it's much better to play the straight man than be openly gay. I just can't work it out. On the one hand the proportion of MPs not being honest about their sexuality is has been noted as quite high by some sources. Yet on the other hand, being openly gay never stopped Mandy "the prince of darkness" from being one of the most ruthless MPs to roam the corridors of Westminster.
It will be interesting to see the coalition carry on from here. I doubt they can afford to loose another high-profile head so it pretty much all depends on whether Vince Cable stays or gos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
What's up with this guy? Maybe he's a closet American and afraid his parents would reject him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Don't be ashamed Beskar. We love youuuuuuu! :unitedstates:
But, back on topic: What's up with Hamster's hair lately? He's gone all hippie.
I don't think anyone woud care if he was gay or not, open or in the closet. But if any ordinary person had been fiddling their tax and expense claims as he did, I'd imagine the Inland Revenue would be interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
Perhaps it is just that the politicians are not as liberal and relativistic as the populace. On the other hand, it may be that David Laws, like many others, didn't want to confront his parents with the reality that he would never produce grandchildren?Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
There may come a point when some Liberals, including David Laws, decide that there's enough Whig rump left in the "Tory" party to change benches, that would be interesting. It's also possible that the Liberals will shrug off the SDP finally, and possebly become a credible centre party as a result.Quote:
It will be interesting to see the coalition carry on from here. I doubt they can afford to loose another high-profile head so it pretty much all depends on whether Vince Cable stays or gos.
I have to agree that fiddling with your taxes/expense accounts will always get you in trouble -- and might constitute fraud. Buggering the lawn furniture or what-not should be neither here nor there.
Expensive expense accounting has a long political tradition, as the father of my country demonstrates. Geo's expenses were so annoying that the Constitutional convention -- realizing that the hero status of their presiding officer more or less mandated that he would be our first President, required the President to receive a set compensation -- not an expense allowance -- as the First section of Article II (Executive branch) of the Constitution. Congress determined their own salary and compensation.
PJ:
I'd have to agree with Beskar on this one. Save for a few or the more liberal districts, being a homosexual in the USA is a political liability. Thankfully, this is far less so than it was and will likely become an irrelevance (at least for someone who is not cheating on a spouse thereby) in the near future as our attitudes are rapidly shifting. However, to date, Beskar's assessment is more or less valid. He might, however, have taken a less "trolling" tone in his presentation thereof.
agreed, could go either way, and i'd be pleased by both eventualities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
david laws is talented courageous and pragmatic, he would be a boon to the tories.
on the other hand, the coalition could be an opportunity to shed the beard-n-sandals variety of lib-dems and stick with the liberal (libertarian) roots of the party, in which case the country would have a much more useful and healthy progressive-left opposition than labour ever managed to be.
I agree completely. The SDP have become irrelevant with the rise of New Labour, who have gone from hyper-socialist authoritarian to just left-ish authoritarian. So it would be nice if the SDP element would go back to Labour and we could have our traditional Liberals back, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The thing is he didn't actually fiddle his expenses. He merely paid rent to someone he shouldn't have. The expenses would have been completely ligit if his landlord had not also been his lover. Further, until 2006 even this was OK, while the rules introduced last year describe "partner" as someone fulfilling the role of a spouse which is hardly as clear as one would hope. I feel genuinely sorry for Laws, a man who seems to have allowed his (maybe unwarranted) fears to rule him.
Labour went Right-wing, Centre-Right at best. They are not on the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If we're talking about housing benefits or their like, the state doesn't pay HB to contribute towards a household. If renter and landlord are part of the same household, the rent paid is assumed to be money kept inside the household, and the state does not reimburse any of that. Claim any of that back, and the state will prosecute you for benefits fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
looks like he will be back in government before long:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...overnment.html
a fact which won't please the beard-n-sandals end of the lib-dem spectrum, because they know the orange-bookers have the upper hand right now and that a purge of one or the other is coming if the party is to be truly consistent to a set of core principles.
where would the beardies live then, they are a bit like panda bears; utterly incapable of surviving in the wild!
Oopsy...
David Law's successor as Treasury Chief, Danny Alexander, barely in office for one day, avoided capital gains tax on his second home:
Maybe Greece...erm...I mean the UK ought to accept that tax evasion, fraud and expenses abuse is the standard of its governing class.Quote:
Mr Alexander, who was appointed on Saturday after the resignation of fellow Liberal Democrat David Laws, designated the property as his second home for the purpose of claiming parliamentary expenses but described it to HM Revenue and Customs as his main home.
Last night Mr Alexander admitted that he took advantage of a loophole to legally avoid paying CGT on the sale of the south London property for £300,000 in June 2007.
The disclosure that he failed to pay CGT comes at a particularly sensitive time because the Coalition is planning to increase the rate of the tax for owners of second homes and buy-to-let properties in an emergency budget next month.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-on-house.html
There will be nobody left to govern if this sort of corruption is an impediment.
Must be a bummer for the tax paying middle classes though, for this lot to be in charge of raising taxes and squeezing them out for all their worth to pay for the millionaire bailout.
Hmmm, Danny Alexander hasn't looked like much other than a scared and surprised rabbit for the last two weeks. The Liberals will need to produce better metal if they want to keep those five seats at the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
losing David Laws at the Treasury is a blow, not just to the government, but also to Britain's ability to deal with the recession and to convince the markets that we are dealing with our deficit.
But we aren't talking about housing benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The only shame is that he resigned and wasn't sacked and charged with fraud, as I would have been as a civil servant
Quelle difference. The principle is that the state doesn't pay for you to give money to others inside the household. When you pay rent, and you claim some of that back, in any form, from the state, the state assumes you're paying to an outside agency. You're not seeing any of that money back, so the state reimburses you. If you're paying the rent to your partner, you're basically transferring money from one part of your household to another. You're not really paying rent, you're just giving another family member part access to your accounts. The state does not reimburse you for any of that, and if you claim it, you're committing fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
I apologise for the "trolling" tone. I admit, I was unamused we were being accused of being homophobic from a nation where it is a massive political liability when the topic was about nothing of the sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Mandleson can give out money to whoever for several years - earning the crown as the politician writing the most directions to civil servants (for events they view as suspect or possibly illegal). Of course, nothing will happen to him.
This chap is certainly not whiter than white. But one has to gain perspective on things. Sure, he should pay it all back (as many others have done) but he was one of the minority who would be good at the job he was doing. His loss is far greater than the money that he misappropriated - although many others took a lot more for a lot longer.
~:smoking:
For those of you still confused about what this expenses claim has to do with his sexuality, I'll try to explain what I've understood of the situation. Before 2006 it was perfectly OK for MPs to use the expenses system to pay rent to a partner. David Laws therefore used the expenses system to do just that. In 2006 the rules changed. Had David Laws stopped claiming these expenses, it would have been clear that his landlord was his partner and that he was therefore gay. He obviously thought he could hide all this and simply carry on as before, a foolish thing to think surely, but a long way from a selfish desire to enrich himself off the back of the taxpayer.
This is my take on it. He'd either have to move out (and possibly incur rent on a property he'd presumably not be in most of the time) or come out. It has also been pointed out that "partner" means "one who fulfills the role of a spouse" and it seems the clandestine nature of their relationship precluded this; no joint bank account for starters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
So technically he may not have actually done anything wrong. Hopefully the Commission will come to this sensible conclusion and he can get back to kidding the daisy out of the Civil Service in short order.
I also laughed at the ridiculous claim from the telegraph that they never meant to expose his sexuality by reporting this article. Looks like an editor realised they might not be doing the pubic, the government, Laws, or themselves any favours.
Sounds a lot like the start of the Obama administration. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
And in all fairness, as a LibDem did he realistically expect to be placed in a position of power where this would become an issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Some one had to recieve the buck after the mess Bush jr made.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
So Bush forced Obama to appoint tax cheats to federal office? Including the Secretary of the Treasury? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
He gave Obama a lovely debt. The whole debt/money crisis was there before Obama. I remember the stuff back in 2003/2004 about the massive US debt problem, it was even in a online flash game about Bush (platform side-scroll) that went in all the details about the bogus plans and other issues, including Enron.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
And they were prosecuting people for HB claims on that basis dating back before that time, so it used to be one law for ordinary people, another for MPs (literally). Good to know it's now the same for all people, rather than the law persecuting relatively poor people whilst excusing MPs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Let's not go derailing this thread with US politics, please.
Thank you kindly. :bow:
Agreed, ANYTHING but that. Bunch of whinging.....oops, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
True enough, but not really pertinent to David Law's personal case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian