The BBC reports:
Liberal Democrat David Laws has resigned as Chief Secretary to the Treasury after admitting he claimed expenses to pay rent to his partner.
Mr Laws said he would be standing down with immediate effect in a statement given at the Treasury.
He had earlier apologised and said he would pay back the money which the Daily Telegraph said totalled £40,000.
The Yeovil MP said he wanted to keep his relationship with James Lundie private.
Mr Laws said he had informed both David Cameron and Nick Clegg, but it had been “his decision alone”.
Explaining his decision, he said: “I do not see how I can carry out my crucial work on the Budget and spending review while I have to deal with the private and public implications of recent revelations.”
Mr Laws added that for too long he had put his political interests before the people he cared for.
Lib Dem Scottish Secretary Danny Alexander will take over the post, Downing Street has announced.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
69 Comments
Laws should have stuck it out and Danny Alexander is far too inexperienced to be Tres Sec Hunhe should have been moved as its the most senior Lib Dem Cabinet position
Danny Alexander is not the right person for this job. Vince Cable or Chris Huhne would be much better.
I feel sick. I can understand his impulse to take time out to deal with the fallout (especially for his private life and relationships with friends and family), but I can’t help thinking this is a terrible mistake.
He left a much, much better paid job to become and MP and fight for his principles, for liberalism and for a better country. In doing so, and ever since, he has put the public interest before his own.
In stepping down now, I feel he is putting his private life above the public interest. I can completely understand why he wants to do that, but I wish he hadn’t.
Such a shame, really feel for David Laws. Hope he comes back soon. If Mandy could do it, Laws can too.
I firmly beleive that David Laws has done the right thing & I hope he will be left to recover at nhis own speed. Many people would like to see him returning to The Front Bench at some point.
This has been a horrible experience for The Party, lets all try to be nice to each other for a bit.
A very warm statement in support of David Laws by David Cameron. Sounds like he wants him to come back into Cabinet very quickly.
This is a tragedy for Laws, and for the country. Above all it is a tragedy for what passes for journalism in this country. The Daily Telegraph saw fit not to include this in its big exposure of expenses. Why now? Who benefits? And who put up, tipped off the DT to do this?
I feel sick for the political health of the UK. We not only need a new politics. We also a new journalism.
Donald
Lib Dem member, reluctant but accepting coalition supporter
David Laws, wherever you are, I wish you and your loved ones the very best.
I hope to see on the front bench again before the end of this parliament…
Danny Alexander was a wise choice, as VC and CH just get up the noses of the Tories too much, despite their great experience and wisdom. Good luck to him, too.
I am disgusted with the British press. they try to take the moral high ground and their holier then thou attitude yet, in the case of the DT – fleece the tax payers of money from ‘creative accounting’ and call a man’s desire to keep his sexuality into question, under the very thin cheap veneer of an ‘expenses scandal’ . Rubbish, this is just plain old fashioned homo phobic baiting. that and a desire to derail the coalition (of which I am no fan).
The press should not dictate policy nor should it dictate who should or should not be in government. A bad day for democracy (again). and please, don’t try this is about expenses lark to me, I am a gay man, who knows how hard one tries to keep it a secret; I did for 20 years. When homosexuality is not an issue, is when it will be a safe and comfortable environment for a person to do so.
really saddened he chose to resign, both for himself and for the country as we are all losing a huge asset.
This is an inevitable outcome of the bang the drum loud enough and long enough media narrative. I long for the day when leaders will stand up against this and not just cow-tow to the press agenda. David did nothing wrong and will be cleared 100% and he’ll be back very soon. I do hope though that he’ll use his period on the backbenches to fight to clear up the ambiguity over the term ‘spouse’ and ‘partner’ which prevails right across our society and systems. What is sad though is that David felt he couldn’t be open about being gay in the Lib Dems. That i find a little bizarre..!
There will be much self-congratulatory ardour in the country clubs of Northern Virginia this evening, as assorted billionaires, oil company bosses, generals and spymasters marvel at the ease with which they influence public opinion in the UK through the media they control.
Any chance of the “Daily Torygraph” having a pop at their former boss, Mr Conrad Moffat Black, who is currently languishing in a Florida slammer for defrauding shareholders of millions of dollars?
So wrong, so unfair. David Laws is a great talent, I hope and expect he’ll be back. In the meantime the country loses out and the only beneficiaries are the Labour partisans. Laws is the toughest act to follow but Danny Alexander is a smart guy too so we’re lucky to have such a strong replacement.
@Ashley – it was probably more to do with his family, not the party.
This was probably the worst of all the expenses scandals. £400000 straight to his boyfriend’s pocket through outright deceit and you blame the press. All your moral high-ground has just fallen from beneath your feet. This is just the first stage of the collapse of your intrinsically immoral alliance. Are the tories your landlords or your spouses?
David Laws has been sensible in standing down. Would a gay couple, one working and one on the dole be able to claim housing benefit in this way? No, they’d be labelled as frauds in the eyes of the housing benefit office and would most likely face consequences. That is the issue, regardless of how much people like or admire David Laws, regardless of how wealthy he is, regardless of his talents. He may not have benefited financially. That is not the point. He covered up a relationship while claiming housing expenses. He mis-represented his true circumstances. Sadly, he didn’t have to. He didn’t have to claim a housing allowance – he is a wealthy man and could easily have lived in London without the support of the tax payer in the form of a housing allowance. The moment he made the claim for taxpayer-funded expenses he opened up his living expenses to public scrutiny. I honestly wish he hadn’t done so. I really do.
He may well be an intelligent man. But he lacks the sense to grasp that the standards the population must live by apply to David Laws too. Intelligence is necessary, but so too is the ability of our leaders to grasp they too must meet high standards of behvaviour and honesty. His intelligence does not excuse his mis-representation of his relationship. 1 in 5 of the population are out of work for one reason or another in this country. Any one of us, through circumstance may spend part of our lives as part of that statistic and we will not have the excuse of requiring domestic privacy to save us from prying questions. They, like we would be, are expected to be honest about their living arrangements as they seek help with their housing costs. The pleas that David Laws did not financially benefit himself are missing the point, almost certainly quite deliberately. After the financial shambles we’ve seen in the last government, there is no room for bending of the rules just a little this way or that.
I’m really sad, sad for David Laws, sad for the Liberal Democrats and sad for the public. I had hoped the Liveral Democracts would be better than what we’ve had for years. Watching the weaving and excusing and the missing of the points, conveniently’ are the beginnings of a scramble to the old ways and that is giving yet more cause for concern.
Couldn’t you all have left me in my hopeful bubble for just a while longer?
As a Tory, I am shaking with fury at the brain-dead Telegraph for torpedoing one of the most talented and crucial members of the Coalition – an action that can benefit only Labour and harm the country. I will never buy the damned rag again.
Hmm, this is like some Sherlock Holmes puzzle…
Parliament is dirty and corrupt. Right?
Laws has been seeing this guy since 2001. Right?
He’s a loner BUT not married. Right?
There are enough closeted gay men/women in parliament to sink a ship. Right?
The Tory party tried to get David to join their party around 3 years ago. Osbourne in fact was pushing for this and Law said publicly he felt the Tories were, well, too Tories =Economically Liberal. Right?
And this coalition govt happens. Yey!. And Law gets put in straight away as secretary. Right?
A month down the line, the Torygraph do an ‘expose’ on a not that scadalous story about a gay man in the closet. Right?
And he resigns because this man is ruthless with honour!Right?
And then as quick as you can say ‘booh’ Danny Alexander is in! Wow! Danny Alexander BEST buds with the Cleggster? Right?
So who done it? Angry Tory back benchers or someone in the Libs?
The poor dude was been gun down for….
Just saying…..
If David Laws wanted to keep his sexuality private, all he had to do was stop claiming this allowance when the rules changed in 2006.
Also when a person puts himself forward to serve in a public position such as an MP or Minister then they must expect public scrutiny. He must have known that what he was claiming was wrong and only has himself to blame for his predicament,
@Ashley
“This is an inevitable outcome of the bang the drum loud enough and long enough media narrative. I long for the day when leaders will stand up against this and not just cow-tow to the press agenda.”
Hear, hear. Ironically, the one politician that comes to mind re. standing up to the press is Ken Livingstone. I don’t like his politics, but he took on the hostile press over the congestion charge – and won. That’s what can happen when an elected politician faces down the media, who seem to think they have some kind of mandate to “speak for the people”, apparently forgetting that we elect our own spokespeople in this country. When do we get to elect our journalists? If they’re going to act like they run the country, it’s time they faced the democratic accountability that goes along with that sort of power.
“What is sad though is that David felt he couldn’t be open about being gay in the Lib Dems. That i find a little bizarre..!”
I doubt it was the Lib Dems he was worried about – apparently he’s very close to his mother, who is Catholic. He went to a Catholic school. He spent much of his life in the city where homophia is alive and well to this day. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was unsure of the reactions of some of his friends and family. Hopefully they’ll surprise him in the days ahead.
@ Shawcross
Then WHY wasn’t he one of yours??
Damn, I still think the Libs are like some Kamikaze group for the Tories!
We have a big dilemma. We believe strongly in press freedoms as the one of the cornerstones of democracy. Yet, we have a press that is dangerously powerful, unaccountable, almost anti-democratic. How can we restore good investigative journalism while at the same lancing the canker eating at democracy? I don’t know the answer but tonight I feel very angry, dejected and despondent.
Donald
I think in making such a dignified exit he has maintained the integrity of the lib dems in government and left with enough respect that he will be back once he has ‘served his time’ on the backbenches.
As a member of his constituency I believe that his apology to his constituents will be wholeheartedly accepted. I’m sure the town will be behind him and look forward to having him back as a full time constituency MP, hopefully only on a temporary basis, as he has too much talent to be out of the government for very long.
If by “private” you mean “make it completely obvious that this relationship was of a form similar to that implied by the rules, and hence announce his sexuality to everybody” then yes.
If, on the other hand, you mean that he wanted people not to realise what was going on, then he didn’t have any particularly good options.
@Shawcross – thank you. The only (very thin) silver lining that I can find in this sad affair at the moment is in reading the mostly supportive comments on ConservativeHome, and the warm words in David Cameron’s letter accepting David’s resignation. I’m still uncomfortable with several policy aspects of this coalition, but I’m beginning to feel better about our coalition partners. Not about their supposed newspapers though – perhaps we can find a new nickname as “Torygraph” doesn’t seem appropriate anymore. I hope your leader doesn’t need telling to watch his back – they’re determined to torpedo this government…
Three personal observations.
A. The Telegraph is a POS operation as is 90% of the UK press. If people get the media they deserve, the people of the UK are paying back some really bad karma.
B. Even I can see that claiming these expenses under these circumstances was not a very bright thing to do. As others have said, whatever made him believe that he could shuffle this under the radar especially given the media the UK is ‘blessed with’ ? The gay part of the equation is a complicating factor but the principle is the same. He consciously skirted around the regs. Mistakes do have consequences.
C. Resigning at once was the best option at this point. After a slap on the wrist and a suitable time in exile, I’m pretty confident he will be back in some form later in the term. Hanging around would have been a feeding frenzy.
All that said, when it comes to media people, I often wish for a Dalek to show up at their office for an interview.
It may be that Danny is doing it until we see whether David is exonerated. David’s “offence” seems similar to Liam Fox – a clear technical breach of the rules, but with no loss to the public purse.
There is a difference between keeping things private and keeping things secret. Nick Clegg keeps his children private. He does not keep them secret. Whatever David Laws decided to do, it was too clever by half and he seemed to have met himself coming back.
However in the end he did the honourable thing by going quickly and by doing so he has minimised the damage to the coalition. Vince Cable should have got the job of course!
@Catherine – you’re very welcome. I have to say that I feel very protective of this new Government on an emotional level, and believe that the Lib Dem half is vital because of your laser-like focus on civil liberties, and the economic expertise which a number of your MPs possess. There is one further silver lining, though: no minister in the Labour Government would have resigned over this matter – David Laws has proved that we really do believe in a higher standard. And, with a little luck, we’ll be seeing him back in the Cabinet in the not-too-distant future…
@ Saz Lavender “I think in making such a dignified exit he has maintained the integrity of the lib dems in government and left with enough respect that he will be back”
I agree. By going quickly, the damage to the coalition, and to his reputation, has been limited. The obvious pain he is suffering may make him a more sympathetic person to the general public.
The real damage to the coalition is in his absence, because he has been such a key figure.
– He was the key figure in our negotiating team.
– Osborne lacks economic expertise, which Laws made up for.
– He is a devastatingly effective public performer, a quality we will desperately need when the cuts really start to bite.
– The Tories trust and admire him, as do we.
Normally, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a relatively low profile cabinet position. But, because of his many qualities, David Laws was becoming one of the key four figures in the government.
I’m sure he’ll be a very helpful supporter from the backbenches. But I hope he’ll still be able to contribute in a formal way, perhaps by serving on cabinet committees.
And leaving aside what is in the interests of the country and the party. I hope this period on the backbenches will be helpful to him personally in dealing with what must have been an awful experience.
@ Shawcross, if only more people could see it the way you do, but it seems to me too many people will let a newspaper tell them what is true, as if that newspaper really has their best interests in mind. I cannot see who they thought they were helping, except themselves, and I think that they have their judgement wrong even there.
@ Donald, I understand your feelings, freedom of the press is vital, and but who holds them accountable? I think Shawcross has the solution for it though, the individual people can reject what is being done to them, by refusing to buy the “damned rag again” (Shawcross, I hope you don’t mind my quoting you), whichever one it is.
@ All the Lib Dems, would some support for Danny Alexander be in order here – he could be good up there too, no?
Shawcross
Purloining £40000 straight to your boyfriend’s pocket by spinning a web of deceit somehow shows that “you” collectively “believe in a higher standard”. A little higher perhaps than Jeremy Thorpe.
I do wonder whether, if David Laws was a Tory, the Telegraph would have run this story.
Andrew
“If by “private” you mean “make it completely obvious that this relationship was of a form similar to that implied by the rules, and hence announce his sexuality to everybody” then yes.
If, on the other hand, you mean that he wanted people not to realise what was going on, then he didn’t have any particularly good options.”
What nonsense. He terminated the arrangement last year by renting a flat of his own, and nobody even noticed. If he wanted to keep the relationship secret when the rules changed, there was nothing to stop him doing that then.
@Shawcross – yes, good point, I think a lot of people will respect his honourable actions in stepping aside so quickly, and fingers crossed he’ll be back very soon. Let’s face it, we need him. No offence to Danny Alexander who I’m sure will do a good job in difficult circumstances, but David will be an incredibly tough act to follow. Cameron’s letter did leave a very wide open door for his return.
Right, I’m off to have a consolatory glass of wine with my totally unpolitical partner, who thinks all MPs are pointless (though even he says he sympathises with David Laws at the moment). He owes me a glass of wine, what with the ridiculous rent he charges me… 🙂
Pure nonsense. It was shared payments on a mortgage, it didn’t go into anybody’s “pocket”. If Laws had been living alone, then he’d have still claimed them and there would have been no breach of the rules. If they had been living together and the mortgage had been in Laws’s name, then he’d have still claimed them and there would have been no breach of the rules. If they had been married and the mortgage had been jointly held between them, he’d have claimed exactly the same amount and there would have been no breach of the rules.
It’s not theft, or deception, or a lack of integrity. It’s a bookkeeping blunder.
@RCM
Sadly, while a boycott would lose the paper a little money, I doubt enough of us would do that really hurt them. I’ve never bought the paper anyway.
I long to see a politician really stand up to the press and not be bullied.
I love what Paddy Ashdown did when the story of his affair broke – he promptly admitted and scuppered the journos hoping for a cover-up they could expose. But that was in gentler times compared to today where have fed a corrosive cynicism about politicians to a gullible public.
Donald
“Renting a flat of your own” does not indicate anything about your relationship. It just shows that you want to move.
“Ceasing to claim expenses when the only thing that has changed is a new rule about payments to partners” can only be explained by the fact that you are partners.
@Donald and others – please stop blaming the press. The Telegraph’s holier-than-thou ‘we never meant to expose his sexuality’ is hard to stomach but, in the end, David was in the wrong, and he has been caught out. He was especially wrong in my view to claim that, by renting instead of buying, he was not making any personal gain, while all the time knowing he was paying his own partner. He has done the right thing tonight – unlike many from other parties (and some from our own) in the past – and we should applaud that at least. He may well be talented enough to return at some point.
Andrew
How many times. The rules state you cannot pay rent to a partner, so if they wished to carry on with their relationship they had three options. Stop taking the money, get a joint mortgage, or tell lies about the relationship so that you can continue taking tax payers money to fund your secret co-habitation. The third option was fraud and deceit and the price is now being paid. No sympathy and no dignity, he was caught.
He’s done the right thing! The honourable thing! Now chill out some, tend to your family life, write a book about “say” social justice in a time of austerity, be a good constituency MP and start winning back support there, and be a thrilling back bencher. And in a few years make a glorious return to the cabinet.
I for one thought Huhne would be the replacement and somewhat disorientated by Danny’s placement!
OK, he broke rules – as I understand it the rules from 2006 onwards. The story is about him claiming from 2001, onwards, well before the rules.
A simple question about any event – who benefits? Another question why now?
Is the DT’s action in the public interest? I think not. Is it in the country’s interest. I think not. The only interest I can see is to those who wish to harm the coalition. The action of the DT stinks of politics not journalism.
Donald
@ All those who are gloating, or really think this was a serious scandal,
Have you not seen David Cameron’s letter? Laws could well be back before this Government is over. David Laws has his privacy back, the Lib Dems have another talented person already doing his job, and the only threat is to the stability of the Coalition. Who do you believe will benefit from the breakdown of the Government right now? Labour do not have a leader, the economy is in bad enough shape as it is, the Telegraph might, of course sell a few more copies if they can force another election this year…although I am confused by Labour supporters suddenly thinking that the Telegraph is on the same side as them!
I really am disturbed at some of the comments from Liberals on here supporting the golden boy.
He may have a high intellect and perfect for swinging the axe – but he has demonstrated serious flaws in judgement and a depth of deceit which IMHO makes him unfit for public office let alone the high office he held where he was obviously wide-open to blackmail.
There is much more to this than meets the eye – why oh why was he so determined to hide his sexuality. Once that is revealed then things will become clearer. Could he actually be bi? Will a distraught and ‘wronged’ female now be paraded by NoW.
Or does it go back to expense claims prior to when receipts were required – is that where the ticking time bomb lies.
Quite simply if Laws believed he was innocent then why is he paying back the money? As to him returning to the Front Bench – yea that would be possible if this was only about his sexuality but by the time the whole truth is revealed I doubt if he’ll remain even an MP.
Btw I’m Scottish and I really don’t think that Danny boy is up to the job and he most certainly couldn’t compete with Laws in terms of ability and, of course, Vince is far too wily a bird to don the Butcher’s apron.
@Donald, “I long to see a politician really stand up to the press and not be bullied/”
Yes, so do I.
I think Cameron and Clegg would not even have minded trying to do that this time, but David Laws felt that he wanted some time away from the scrutiny, do not forget that he was just subjected to a hostile outing. Plus, the critics might be enjoying their notion that they have won here, but I think they just lost their case about the “new politics” being just like the old.
Andrew
““Renting a flat of your own” does not indicate anything about your relationship. It just shows that you want to move.”
That was precisely my point. All he had to do was stop paying rent to his partner, and instead rent a flat of his own in 2006 when the rules changed. There would have been no need to break the rules, and no one would have been any the wiser about his relationship.
I other words, your claim that he had no option but to break the rules was sheer nonsense.
Well, a resignation prior to the investigation can be taken two ways.
Traditionally it would be taken as an indication of guilt, but this is the new politics (apparently) so I think it sets the marker by which all MPs should be judged.
Therefore, what the principles behind any sanctions to be applied to David Laws should also be applied to Liam Fox and Alistair Darling – to name but two other figures lurking on the green benches who claim the protection of the Green Book.
If we are going to be fair and even-handed we cannot be selective about who we deliver justice to.
At the rate of dodgy MPs the public may be inclined to recall, we may actually have a mini-general election of as many as 100 or more by-elections within a year – now that would be a positive event!
I am deeply sorry to hear this news. The Cabinet has lost one of its most talented, intelligent and ariculate members, as well as a great crusader for liberalism.
He was someone who – as he alluded to in his dignified resignation speech, and as he demonstrated with his tour de force in the Commons last week – was ideally suited to the Chief Secretary role, temperamentally and intellectually. He had made an excellent start in what is at this time a post of more than usual importance.
And he was a huge asset to the coalition and widely respected by our coalition partners, as is clear from the response from Tory commentators both before and after this affair.
All I will say about his expenses transgressions at this stage is that (a) he may have been in technical breach of the rules since 2006, because his relationship with James Lundie may have amounted to heir being ‘partners’ under the Green Book definition; BUT (b) he did not profit from this arrangement, indeed could legitimately have claimed a much larger amount if his name had beenon the deeds, as was the case with other MPs; and (c) it is quite obvious that his motivation was to protect his privacy and keep his sexuality secret.
I think all fair-minded people will have a large measure of human sympathy for him; I certainly do.
Some have argued that the fact that he immediately decided to repay the money should be taken as an admission of guilt. I don’t see it that way, but rather as an acceptance that his actions could and would be construed badly and a desire to prove his point that he was not seeking personal financial gain.
Judging by his statement – “I cannot now escape the conclusion that what I have done was in some way wrong” – he now sees that he could and should have handled the situation differently so that there was no question of his breaking any rules. That is the painful reality of the situation that his admirers, like me, have to accept.
In this respect he fell short of the standards that the public have a right to expect: politicians need to be beyond any reproach on this toxic issue of expenses. But his was a misjudgment, not fraud or immorality and certainly not something for which he should be excoriated. I think history (and hopefully the parliamentary authorities and his constituents) will accept this, and see that he is fundamentally a man of integrity.
I had hoped his resignation could have been avoided, but I fully understand his reasons for doing so. The main political reason why it may have been necessary was the first he lists above:
“I do not see how I can carry on my crucial work on the Budget and Spending Review while I have to deal with the private and public implications of recent revelations. At this important time the chancellor needs, in my own view, a chief secretary who is not distracted by personal troubles.”
And, at least while his case is being investigated by the parliamentary authorities, his own authority in his current role would inevitably have been compromised, at least to a degree.
Nonetheless it is a wrenching personal tragedy, both that the private life and that of his partner should have been exposed in this way and in these circumstances, and because he was so ideally suited to his role in government and saw it as a vocation. I found this passage very poignant:
“I hardly need say how much I regret having to leave such vital work, which I feel all my life has prepared me for.”
It is good to see that David Cameron wrote him such a warm, generous and understanding reply, and that he and Nick Clegg have held out the possibility that he could return to government in due course. I sincerely hope that is what will happen once this mess is cleared up and he has found peace in his private life.
Obviously I meant to write ‘articulate’ in my second sentence. Too many glasses of wine…
Who will be Scottish secretary now? The job should stay with a Lib Dem to maintain the 5 cabinet seats. How about Alistair Carmichael, as he was the spokesman up to the election.
Vince and Chris probably wouldn’t/didn’t fancy being Cut Meister General! Fitting it should go to Nick’s r-h man. Glad to see other parties are underestimating Danny, though 😉 Better than being overestimated, eh?
Ming Campbell for Scots Secretary? He’d certainly add ballast. We could do with a well known ‘name’. Don’t suppose CK would want the job! Plenty of choice north of the border, anyway, unlike our Coalition partners.
I gather it’s Michael Moore. Good choice – authoritative speaker in Parliament – even if not so well known in the country. (No, not THAT Michael Moore…!)
Interesting that quite a few Tories are upset about the way Laws was forced out and are even threatening a boycott of the Telegraph:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/05/donal-blaney-it-is-time-for-conservatives-to-boycott-the-telegraph-anybody-with-me.html
What has his private life got to do with anyone??? He is not breaking the law and this whole media driven 24 hour crapfest needs to be capped now.
This is an honourable man and puts some of the other libdems to shame, as well as the BBC (who abuse our license fees with scandalous expenses), the Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith’s of the world, the bankers who laugh at us from on high as they get bailed out, and the criminals who come hear from other countries with blood money, and pretend to be honourable ‘business people’. Look at our footbal clubs and media, and streets of Chelsea & Kensington to find these scum!
Someone like David Laws should be held on high, and not held out to dry.
My thoughts are with you & your partner David
So shocked at Dvid being pushed out by The Telegraph (total scum!). Poor man, and my thoughts are with him.
A former banker and great for this job.
And what the heck is Danny Alexander being given the job of Chief Sec to Treasury. A former press intern he has no banking or finance background, and this is a bigger mistake than getting rid of David.
Yes David laws broke the rules. Yes he had to go. Yes he has to go through the due process of the PSC. Yes he has been foolish and should have known better. And yes I do understand why he wanted to keep his private life private.
But when it comes to troughing what an amateur. £40,000 over 5 years, that’s £8,000 a year. Didn’t he realise he could have had at least £20,000 a year all legal and above board – that £100,00. Throw in flipping a house or two and he could have doubled or tripled the take. There are plenty still in the Commons who have done it.
I will be impressed by the Telegraph if they start a league table of MP’s tax free profit from flipped house sales.
I won’t repeat many of the sentiments already expressed above. Just wanted to add that this is going to put so many people off standing for public office. Going to bed sad and dejected.
David Laws if you are out there – do what you need to do, get some rest for there will come a time for your light to shine again very soon.
@Jon
“There is much more to this than meets the eye – why oh why was he so determined to hide his sexuality. Once that is revealed then things will become clearer. Could he actually be bi?”
FFS, why don’t you go and out yourself, you queer baiting troll, that really was just despicable. The man was nearly in tears and you come with that garbage. Fie, shame on you.
It is a credit to David Laws that rather than fight this from the front bench and risk it distracting him, the rest of the cabinet and the country from the tough agenda the country faces in its public finances that he has chosen to step down now.
Many are applying 20:20 hindsight vision to what’s occurred (including David Laws perhaps), lets wait for the independent investigation. I do hope David stops being too hard on himself and that those around him can comfort him in this dark hour. He is clearly a very intense, private and driven person.
The matters have been referred to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. Let’s see what he says.
Best wishes David, put your life back together and come back stronger – WE NEED YOU!
I am a committed Lib Dem and huge admirer of Laws but he knowingly broke the rules over a sustained period of time when there was absolutely no need for him to do so, to the monetary benefit of himself/his partner. In his particular role, it was clear – not least to him – that his position was 100% untenable. It is a huge loss to Party, Coalition and country and apersonal tragedy for Laws but if standards of probity in public life are to be maintained, we have to apply them universally – if this had been some useless Labour backbencher, we’d have been all over him -admit it. We cannot afford moral relativism based on peoples’s ability.
“What a tangled web we weave…”
I assume that the new man, Danny Alexander, will be mentored by Laws, who will remain active albeit not in government. The New Politics has to mean what it says. We made a tremendous fuss durng the election about being the Mr Cleans alone among the main parties. This affair is a cardinal test of our sincerity. Laws could easily have been a Tory and perhaps would have been were it not for clause 28 of the Local Government Act. Don’t blame the Torygraph. They do what all campaigning newpapers should do-expose hypocracy and make people with power explain themselves to the rest of us who have little or none
What a tragedy! My fear is that with an inexperienced replacement for David Laws the cuts will bear a more Tory stamp to the cost of the vulnerable.
“They do what all campaigning newpapers should do-expose hypocracy and make people with power explain themselves to the rest of us who have little or none.”
I do not think so, I think they are doing what many people do to wield power over people, by manipulating their thinking, they are not trying to enlighten anybody. To leave people believing that they are offering some kind of protection to the powerless is much more affective than being open with the truth about their intentions, some people would call that the hypocrisy.
As a “Tory” supporter it is a tragedy for everyone that David Laws got himself into this mess. A very talented individual who was impressive in the short time he had in office. The key question is how do we the electorate expect to have a government made up of very able people if they feel their affairs will be open to such assaults. The scrutiny is counter-productive. I would call the Telegraph torpedoing him outside of the public interest and a disclosure to far. A much better way of dealing with the reality that politicians are human and often those with great talent come with at least one Achilles heel, needs to be found. Overbearing scrutiny has its own disadvantages. In David Laws case I imagine this evolved over time as originally the payments were allowed, as the rules changed he was in something of a trap as to stop claiming would have opened his partnership up, I agree with the comments that is is surprising in this age that he would have been concerned but the fear he felt must have been very real and powerful, maybe I just live in a very liberal bubble and we as a nation are still extraordinarily homophobic. I guess also he was not thinking about becoming a member of the government at the time.
@lance, I basically agree with you, the DT is not providing a service to the country here. I am absolutely certain that David Laws would have paid back the money, if there had been a way to do so without his orientation becoming public knowledge. Homophobia somewhere, even if it was this nation’s historic homophobia, combined with the vague rules for M.P.’s in the first place, and ended up costing the tax payers 40,000 pounds, via leaving David in an unusual predicament. This is not an expose of some corrupt M.P., it is a far less shocking revelation that even Cabinet Ministers are human beings, and they all come with faults. If too many people prefer to claim this opportunity to play moral judge and jury at the Telegraph’s beck and call, the country is the real loser, but in a democratic country with a free press, if the consequences of choosing that are what the majority want, it is what we shall all have to live with.
What a shame, Lib Dem enonomic right finds its star player breaks a leg just as the Lib Dems finally get themselves into the political World Cup finals.
Is Laws some poor victim here? No.
Sorry mate, I don’t care who you have sex with but I do care that the man responsible for sacking thousands of public sector workers in the name of financial prudence is squeakily clean in his own finances.
Loss of talent… there is a great deal of lost talent on job seekers allowance.
As for homophobia… I have no problem voting for an openly gay man but I have a big problem voting for a gay man who makes his sexuality an issue by feeling the need to keep hidden. Does that make me homophobic or just someone who hates deceit?
_roll eyes_
Jeez guys, he just SHOULD’NT have taken the 40K expenses! He was a millionaire! No one cares if he’s gay and if you’re the type of character to want to cheat the system, yes maybe YOU shouldn’t try and run for government.
Anyway, hilarously b*tchy comments about D Alexander from the Mail! With friends like this!?
This is funny tho:
“So what are his qualifications to run his part of the Country and Government?
I wanted to be a doctor, but need qualifications BEFORE starting.
I did put on my CV… “quick learner and willing to take on new tasks, quick to pick up the role of being a doctor”… but the hospital wouldn’t allow me into the operating theater.
We’ve had one person learning the role as he went along, but now he’s gone back to Scotland and left us in a mess.
– toto kubwa, Cyprus, 30/5/2010 6:38
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282582/From-national-park-press-officer-saving-economy-years-Can-Danny-Alexander-it.html#ixzz0pQSIsrZV “
@rantersparadise, In order to avoid harming people, doctors are required to demonstrate an ability to think before they act, whereas of course you can carry on just posting irrational rants on political discussion websites without needing any such ability.
@Kevin Colwill “I have no problem voting for an openly gay man but I have a big problem voting for a gay man who makes his sexuality an issue by feeling the need to keep hidden. Does that make me homophobic or just someone who hates deceit?”
Personally I think it is most likely that you hate deceit. Some could argue that you do not understand the intense pressure some gay people feel under to hide their orientation, but if you really have a strong preference for openness, you are probably going to feel deceived whenever situations like this one become exposed. Personally I just cannot bring myself to be interested in M.P.’s (or anyone else’s) private lives, I cannot fathom why it would be anyone’s business except that of whoever they are getting into bed with.
@ Paul McKeown
”FFS, why don’t you go and out yourself, you queer baiting troll, that really was just despicable. The man was nearly in tears and you come with that garbage. Fie, shame on you.”
What a strange rant – there is nothing in any post I have made that would even remotely suggest I have any problem with the sexuality choice of a consenting adult and that is quite simply because I don’t have any problem.
What seems to have upset you is one comment that there is the possibility Laws might be bi and that News of the World could dredge up a ‘wronged’ woman. How that turns me into a ‘queer baiting troll’ is beyond me and to use such terminology I would suggest discloses much about your own attitudes. As to his tears, well I would be crying too if I had been caught, in high office, fiddling my expenses and lost my job. Difference between Laws and I, is that I wouldn’t have done it. As a Labour voter it would be easy to rejoice in the coalition probs but believe it or not there is the national interest to consider and I really do feel that Alexander just doesn’t have Laws abilities and won’t cut the mustard.
My comment was used in the context that I don’t believe for one minute that Laws did what he did to hide his sexuality. In any case as time passes it has become obvious that a number of people appear to have known of his personal prefererence for a same-sex partner. Obviously Libdem politicos can’t fess-up or Cameron would string them up lol.
I really am puzzled by what appears to be the obsessive secrecy that Laws seems to operate under and I’m not just talking about his sexual activities here. It is almost Walter Mittyish – could this all be simply down to a lack of cash. Perhaps the tales of being able to retire at 28 after six years in the City are a tad over-egged and maybe the money has quite simply been running out.
I have no doubt that it will all come out in the wash eventually – it usually does.
Nice to see when Alexander took over he pledged to follow in Laws footseps – now I see he’s ended up in his shoes with the latest DT revelation about his CGT soft-shoe sfuffle over his taxpayer-funded London flat.
I can still see Clegg sermonising on the TC debate how the Libdems were whiter than white and Labour and the Tories were the only fiddlers in town. I think Cameron will be marching Libdem MPs through his star chamber this week to find out how many more rotten apples there are – or perhaps he’ll just leave it to the DT.
So now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, is someone who campaigned with that other EU-fanatic Ken Clarke to join the Euro! What a mammoth mistake that would have been, as the Liberal Party – unlike the LibDems – realised at the time.
Do Danny Alexander and Ken Clarke both still want to give away such an important instrument of independent economic policy adjustment? What a couple of either economic ignoramuses or political tricksters they must be! The Eurozone will eventually either break up or become one country called Europe.
Do the majority of you LibDems really still want to lose our country in a country called Europe? Or might some of you be open to a bit of a rethink these days? I do hope so.