David Laws has spoken of his relief now that his sexuality has been revealed, and explains his motivation was privacy rather than profit.
From the Daily Mail:
We were conscious this was a much more expensive way of managing our lives than if we had just been honest about our relationship, because if we had, we could have claimed a significantly greater amount of money than we did.
We would often say to ourselves ‘this is ridiculous’, as a consequence of having this bizarre private life, we are costing ourselves far more than if we had just been honest about things.
To me in particular it seemed that was a price worth paying to protect our privacy.
To me, what is really important for people to understand is that none of the things that we did were done to make financial gain. They were done to protect our privacy.
I guess it was pretty stupid really, because all of the people I have spoken to since have accepted it without hesitation: my parents, family and friends. Not being honest with them has meant a huge price over recent years.
David Laws also said that he used the money from his City career to fund his political one:
People assume that I am incredibly rich, but actually the money that I had earned in the city went to pay for my living costs after I left the city and went to work for the Lib Dems on about £14,000 a year, and when I was the prospective candidate here in Yeovil I lived without any income at all when I was working alongside Paddy Ashdown.
Read the full story here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
Peter Hirst
Peter Davies
Peter Chambers
34 Comments
“People assume that I am incredibly rich, but actually the money that I had earned in the city went to pay for my living costs after I left the city and went to work for the Lib Dems on about £14,000 a year …”
I don’t think that statements like this are really going to help matters. Certainly not in the eyes of people who have to survive on £14,000 a year – or less – _without_ the help of the accumulated savings from a high-flying City career.
Likewise, I’d say it’s probably not a brilliant idea to stress the financial sacrifice he was making by claiming _only_ £900 a month to rent his partner’s second bedroom.
Are the Mail responsible for the (pre-moderated) comments? Because there’s one referring to Lundie as a rent boy, which really isn’t on.
@Laura – There’s a “Report abuse” link below each post (which I’d just made use of before reading your comment)
Yes, I’ve just reported that comment. It’s a clear breach of their house rules since it is defamatory and insulting (Rule 5).
It’s less than he’d have been claiming if he’d been honest about his relationship. This is significant.
I too have reported abuse on the Maldives commenter. I am glad Mr. Laws feels he is no longer living a lie and I am not surprised to learn he is not as wealthy as reported (why couldn’t he also have contradicted this much earlier?).
Andrew, Mr. Laws accepts it was a partnership even if shrouded in secrecy and the rules were clear from 2006. He does not explain why his claim for other expenses went down once receipts were required nor why he didn’t seek advice during the expenses scandal. I don’t think we can’t have a society were the rules applied to politicians are completely different to those applied to benefit claimants just because politicians have friends in high places to make the case for them.
Really glad to hear that David is adjusting. Hopefully he’ll be back soon, should the commissioner find he has committed no egregious mistake.
“We were conscious this was a much more expensive way of managing our lives than if we had just been honest about our relationship, because if we had, we could have claimed a significantly greater amount of money than we did.”
The point which needs repeating. Again, and again and again.
Encouraging to see a politician choose a personal relationship over his political career. Just makes him seem more normal to me.
The Mail piece seems to be quite heavily truncated. There’s a fuller transcript in ‘This is Somerset’.
Link: http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/news/Secret-brought-Treasury-star/article-2265585-detail/article.html
““We were conscious this was a much more expensive way of managing our lives than if we had just been honest about our relationship, because if we had, we could have claimed a significantly greater amount of money than we did.”
The point which needs repeating. Again, and again and again.”
Yes it does.
There is some people arguing that this is like saying that it is ok to rip the tax payers off, because he could have ripped them off more and did not do so. The point is that this supports David Laws’ statement regarding his intention being to sustain his privacy, and not to rip the system off.
I must say I don’t actually understand the point. Surely if he had been honest about his relationship he wouldn’t have been able to rent from Lundie at all?
Presumably what’s meant is that they could have bought a property together and he could have claimed “far more” than £900 a month in mortgage payments. But aren’t the Lib Dems supposed to be against the taxpayer funding the acquisition of property by MPs, and hasn’t Clegg pledged that his MPs will refund any capital gains on second homes?
It’s not much of an argument to say “I could have made far more money by doing something which would have been within the rules but which my party considers to be wrong and has pledged that its MPs won’t benefit from”.
@Anthony “I must say I don’t actually understand the point. Surely if he had been honest about his relationship he wouldn’t have been able to rent from Lundie at all?”
He could have rented in his own name and claimed the whole rent? And what does renting have to do with CGT?
Andrea
“He could have rented in his own name and claimed the whole rent?”
No, obviously that can’t be what he means, because he _did_ start doing that in 2009, while still keeping his relationship secret.
@Anthony Aloysius St – I think the problem was that he believed that he could not suddenly change landlords when the rules changed/were clarified in 2006, because the timing would have given the relationship away. Switching in 2009 left enough of a gap between the rules changing and making the move, since by then it would not be so obvious. This may not even be realistic, as evidently he has discovered being “out” is not such a disaster for his personal life too, but the issue is did David Laws think that it would give them away, not how accurate he was to think so. It can be terribly easy to be over cautious when you are keeping a secret like that.
RCM
I was commenting on Laws’s own statement that the arrangement was “costing [him and Lundie] far more” than if they had been honest about the relationship, and on comments above along the lines of “It’s less than he’d have been claiming if he’d been honest about his relationship”.
Obviously he wouldn’t have been able to claim at all for rent to be paid to Lundie if he had been honest about the situation. So both he and others presumably have some alternative arrangement in mind. The only one that springs to mind is that they could have bought a property jointly and Laws could have claimed for his mortgage payments. That was what I was commenting on above.
Incidentally, I think the continual use of the first person plural in that article – “this was a much more expensive way of managing our lives”, “we could have claimed a significantly greater amount of money”, “we are costing ourselves far more”, “none of the things that we did were done to make financial gain” and so on – do highlight the extent to which he identified his own financial interests with Lundie’s. I really don’t think the “we didn’t really consider ourselves partners” defence will wash in the light of that.
Anthony Aloysius St
Ok, sorry if I misunderstood what you were getting at. I think there are several ways that David Laws could have been claiming more expenses if the relationship had been open knowledge, including claiming for a mortgage yes, and as far as I know that would have been within the rules. I do not know if the Lib Dems are officially “against” this practice, and either way it has nothing to do with CGT.
I don’t think you can read all the “we”‘s and “us”‘s as a give away that David Law’s is lying. He said that he thought they would not count as a married couple until 2006, then after that, he realised that they would be, but at that point if he had suddenly switched landlords, that might have exposed the nature of their relationship.
I admit that I could be wrong, and that David Laws may actually be a big expenses cheat. I do not think it is a good idea to believe that he is based on the Telegraph deciding to accuse him of it. I do not think that the man is a saint, but based on what we know so far, and who has said what, I am finding his behaviour and explanations a lot more plausible and realistic than the Daily Telegraph’s version.
@Anthony Aloysius St “No, obviously that can’t be what he means, because he _did_ start doing that in 2009, while still keeping his relationship secret.”
Compare the Green Book 2006 to that of 2009. One mentions “spouse or partner”, the other goes into MUCH more detail and followed the expenses scandal. The 2006 version is NOT at all clear. The 2009 version is more detailed, especially the second version: http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/
Furthermore, Laws also made clear that Lundie also never made use of any of the spousal privileges that he would have been entitled to, because the relationship was not official. The rules are by no means anywhere near as clear cut as many people seem to believe they are.
@Anthony Aloysius St
Furthermore, had he wanted to “fleece” anyone they would have merely had to out themselves. They would then have been entitled to have their mortgage covered:
“Members are not prevented from taking out a joint mortgage but only joint mortgages with a Member’s spouse/civil partner/partner will be fully covered by PAAE”
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-finance-office/greenbook0309.pdf
Andrea
Sorry, but you post so many non sequiturs that I can’t help wondering whether you’re deliberately trying to confuse matters,
David Laws implied he could have claimed far more money if he had been honest about his relationship. I said I presumed he was talking about claiming for his share of a joint mortgage (and even though I’ve asked, no one – including RCM – has so far suggested any alternative way he could have claimed far more money).
You suggested he might have meant instead renting a separate property on his own account. So I pointed out that he couldn’t have meant that, because he’s done that anyway last year, without being honest about his relationship.
Got it?
@Anthony – I don’t think we actually disagree there, though I see what you mean about moving out. AFAIK he only, under the pressure of the now clarified rules and the increased scrutiny from the media through the expenses scandal, ended up moving out in 2009.
The point is, still, that for him to end up “coming clear” about what at that point he would likely have realised may have been a “wrong” (albeit lower) claim, WOULD have involved him outing himself rather publically.
RCM
“I do not know if the Lib Dems are officially “against” this practice [claiming for a mortgage], and either way it has nothing to do with CGT. “
Andrea was the one who mentioned capital gains tax. I didn’t.
The point is that Nick Clegg pledged that Lib Dem MPs would refund any capital gains that resulted from the taxpayer funding mortgage payments on second homes. That may not imply disapproval of publicly-funded mortgage payments per se, but it does imply the party thinks it’s wrong for an MP to profit from the appreciation in value of a property when the public has been paying his mortgage. So against the idea that David Laws could have claimed far more public money if the circumstances had been different must be set the fact that he would potentially have had to make a large voluntary payment to refund his share of any capital gain in the property.
And please don’t put words into my mouth. I haven’t said David Laws is “lying”, and I haven’t called him “a big expenses cheat”.
But I do think it’s clear from those quotations that he thinks of himself and his partner very much as a “we” in financial terms, so he would be ill-advised to sugggest that his was not the kind of relationship the rules were meant to apply to.
And while we are talking about whether he was a saint or a sinner, I think it’s important to remember that we’re not just talking about the £40,000 payments to cover the rent he was paying to James Lundie for the second bedroom, but also the £30,000 other payments made under the Additional Cost Allowance over a four-year period. I’m sorry, but my impression is that David Laws did have a sense of “entitlement” about these payments, and his comments about how it was “ridiculous” that their secretiveness was preventing them from claiming far more do nothing to dispel that impression.
And in fact, I don’t think it would have been possible for him to claim “far more” – I think I’m right in saying that he claimed up to within a few thousand pounds of the limit for ACA – at least before the time when receipts were required to be submitted.
@Anthony: “Andrea was the one who mentioned capital gains tax”
Only in response to your post: “and hasn’t Clegg pledged that his MPs will refund any capital gains on second homes?”
Pardon for assuming you were on about capital gains tax, this was a case of someone renting so how on Earth Capital Gains comes into it is up to you to explain surely?
@Anthony “The point is that Nick Clegg pledged that Lib Dem MPs would refund any capital gains that resulted from the taxpayer funding mortgage payments on second homes.”
No mortgage payments of David Laws’ was ever in question, because he only ever rented property on expenses and never claimed anything on his primary home in Yeovil.
So what is your point? It seems to bear NO relevance whatsoever in relation to David Laws.
Andrea
“Pardon for assuming you were on about capital gains tax, this was a case of someone renting …”
The key thing is to read the comments you’re responding to. If you’d done that you’d have understood what I meant.
Andrea
“So what is your point? It seems to bear NO relevance whatsoever in relation to David Laws.”
Sorry, but this is getting really tedious. For heaven’s sake just read my comment above, and then you’ll understand:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/david-laws-speaks-frankly-about-privacy-acceptance-and-low-lib-dem-pay-19827.html#comment-126886
@Anthony “Sorry, but this is getting really tedious. For heaven’s sake just read my comment above, and then you’ll understand”
Sorry but no, had they declared their relationship they could have put the mortgage in BOTH names and had it funded by taxpayers. End of.
Andrea
Well, that is (more or less) what I was thinking of in the first place, before you posted no less than _seven_ messages asking me what relevance capital gains would have, as we were only talking about renting (!), and so on, and so forth.
@Anthony Aloysius St “And please don’t put words into my mouth.”
“I haven’t said David Laws is “lying”,
Excuse me, but what does ” I really don’t think the “we didn’t really consider ourselves partners” defence will wash in the light of that.” mean, if not that he is being dishonest?
“and I haven’t called him “a big expenses cheat”.
No, you did not, and I did not say that you did. I said that I accepted that it is possible that he is.
Where did I put words into your mouth?
RCM
“Excuse me, but what does ” I really don’t think the “we didn’t really consider ourselves partners” defence will wash in the light of that.” mean, if not that he is being dishonest?”
Let’s try to be grown up about this. There are gradations here, and putting forward an argument to mitigate your actions that doesn’t really hold water is not really the same thing as “lying”.
What I’m saying is that, while it may be true that they had separate bank accounts, that doesn’t mean very much, because it’s obvious from this interview that he very much saw them as an “item” financially.
Similarly, with regard to whether he was an “expenses cheat” or not, it’s silly to try to express things in such loaded terms. The whole problem with the expenses issue is that many MPs viewed the Additional Cost Allowance as a kind of legitimate perk of the job, rather than a system that was meant to cover actual, identifiable expenses. I think that’s the category David Laws fell into, and I think the best thing now would be for him to draw a discreet veil over the issue rather than telling us that he and his partner could have claimed far more money if they had organised things differently.
David Laws also said that he used the money from his City career to fund his political one.
He’s not the only one of our MPs to have used wealth from another career to fund his/her political career, but that’s a bit troubling. Maybe you don’t have to be rich to be a Liberal Democrat MP, but being rich certainly seems to help put you on the track of being one.
One of the main reasons I’ve abandonded my political career is that I couldn’t afford it. My paid job as a university lecturer was suffering because of the time I was spending on politics, and I couldn’t afford to live in London on a councillor’s allowance alone, nor take the risk of breaking my career with any sort of political job which might come to an end after a few years, leaving me unable to re-enter the academic world and so jobless. I couldn’t have lasted even the time I did as a councillor, certainly not with the commitment involved in being leader of the largest minority group, were it not for the fact I don’t have children.
There are equal opportunities issues here which our party is just ignoring, with its constant emphasis on the idea that the only thing that matters in making our party more representative is having more women and ethnic minority councillors and MPs. Well, that’s easy isn’t it – just find more female and ethnic minority millionaires to pay their own way to becomig MPs for us.
@Anthony Aloysius St – I am still stuck for where I put words into your mouth. We do appear to have a difference of opinion regarding use of the word “liar”, since you seem to believe that a person can offer an explanation for their actions, which they themselves do not believe is true, and still not be a lying. I do not, so that was a case of using my own usual application of the word liar in interpreting your post.
@Matthew Huntbach, There is the hope of changing the electoral system, I realise that does not solve anything overnight, but I do see it as a chance to smash some political glass ceilings whenever we do get to it. Also, better funding and the party being in all ways stronger would help, but the prospects for that are all tied up in the fate of the Coalition now.
We won’t know until Laws is investigated about the full extent of his guilt/naivety/desire for secrecy/innocence [delete whichever fits your view point].
What is interesting though is how ‘tribalist’ and hypocritical a lot of these comments seem in their defence of Laws.
If it were a Labour, BNP, SNP, UKIP or Tory politician one can’t help wondering whether the defense would be so wholehearted, or indeed attempted.
We heard the cry ‘just because they could claim, doesn’t mean they should claim’ a lot during the original expenses expose. Accusations of greed and sleaze were levelled at MPs who didn’t break the law or even the rules.
But of course, they weren’t Lib Dem were they ?
There is more questioned today about the high level over 15 months of his mileage expenses on top of rail fares.
Again, hopefully these will be investigated.
Defending a politician just because he is a Lib Dem is as tribalist as anything fervent Labour supporters can be accused of. It is embarrassing to see how many Lib Dems cannot see that.
The New Politics is supposed to be about change. Laws behaviour represents the old politics.
No amount of crying homophobia blah blah will change that simple fact.
Lib Dem voters in the ‘real world’ seem a lot more clear about Laws’ actions than his on line defenders.
Many friends and relatives are repulsed and shamed that their party’s first high profile minister in many, many years has been hoist on his own petard. Let’s just hope there are no more Lib Dems with expenses secrets.
ODE TO A LAND WITHOUT LAWS
Of Laws what is writ?
The hubris of a banker
preaching public thrift?
What of the watchman
o’er the nation’s treasure
who took from the hoard
to steal private pleasure?
Fools may proclaim
a Kingdom ingrate
to waste the wits
of this Man of State.
Yet far better gone is he
who took his duties light
to fritter our wealth
on another sodomite.