Lib Dem Voice polled party members registered on our members’ forum today asking them whether David Laws should resign following the Telegraph’s allegations over his expenses. Over 350 members responded, and here’s what you told us …
LDV asked: In the light of allegations made against Lib Dem chief secretary to the treasury David Laws and his expenses claims, what do you think should happen next?
Here’s what you told us:
59% – He should stay put in his job 29% – He should step down temporarily pending the findings of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner 12% – He should resign immediately (Excluding Don’t know / No opinion = 6%)
Here’s a selection of party members’ comments:
He has already said he’s paying it back immediately, sad to see his private life aired in public, he may have made a mistake but could have claimed much more & the country can NOT afford to lose him. On balance I regret to say he should resign. He has broken the rules (though in personally unfortunate circumstances). If he stays, he will not have the same authority as he had last week, especially in telling others to cut public expenditure. He could come back again in the future. What has happened is unfortunate but there should be no distraction from his job of dealing with the deficit/spending cuts.He is the right one for the job,period. What he has done is techincally against the rules, which makes his position in such an important job very difficult to maintain. I have a great deal of sympathy with him as I think the situation brings this rule into disrepute as he has done nothing from which he who his partner has benefitted (presumeeably his partner would have found a different tenant), and he has actually SAVED the tax payer money by this arrangement I dont want him to but I do think to keep the integrity of the party (I mean Lib Dems not the coaliation) he needs to. Just….. why, oh, why, oh why? Surely he knew that subletting off someone he was sleeping with was plain wrong, whether or not they regarded each other as “spouses” – he’s a multi-millionaire, it was a completely obvious and unnecessary bad move. The Torygraph say he should have treated Mr Lundie as his spouse – which is nobody’s business but theirs – and at the same time criticise him for claiming less money than he’d have been entitled to in a joint mortgage if he’d, er, treated Mr Lundie as his spouse. This is homophobic dirty tricks, pure and simple. I think the allegations are not serious enough to justify resignation. It certainly isn’t a case of corruption – David’s arrangements actually cost the taxpayer less than if he’d done it another way. However, he possibly should have considered in the wake of the expenses revelations last year whether he should have looked at his arrangements and ensured that they stood up to scrutiny if they ever became public. But given his desire for privacy, it’s understandable if that didn’t happen. I am extremely frustrated and angry about this, and surprised that David (who everyone agrees is very intelligent) didn’t see this coming and take steps to avoid it. I am also even more appalled than usual by the sanctimonious Daily Telegraph. As a gay man, I am fully aware of what mind set someone like David Laws might have regarding his sexuality. I know we live in enlighteded times but there is still much discrimination out there, particularly in the financial world. You have only to see how Lord Browne of Madingley, ex chairman of BP was treated when he was outed just three years ago – he felt he had to resign; disgraceful. David Laws has been foolish but I don’t think he is dishonest and I think we need him in the post he currently holds for the sake of the Country. I know I am not alone in my views, both inside and outside the party. I do appreciate he was not trying to profit, but keep his personal affairs private. It appears that he did break the rules however. As a person who claims disability benefits I have had to endure the invasion of my privacy, this is the norm for someone claiming from public funds. However I feel there is a witch hunt going on from the right wing press, who want the coalition to fail. While I can see how he ended up in this predicament, I still think he did the wrong thing, and in order to calm the waters he should step down temporarily. I really hope he is not forced to resign. It seems ridiculous that he should lose his role based on a silly technicality that means he claimed rather less in expenses than he might otherwise have done
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1529
Liz Saville Roberts to Give the David Lloyd George Memorial Lecture at Gwyl Cricieth Festival
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
theakes
Kira Collins
Peter Martin
Gordon Lishman
Roland
61 Comments
Although David Laws is obviously a very capable guy and his skills will be missed in the government, there is one thing that those who keep calling him an honourable and honest man seem to be missing…HE LIED!
In a recent interview David Laws was asked if he was in a relationship and he said he was not.
A desire for privacy is one thing, telling a downright lie is another.
How can someone who is a known liar (never mind the expenses bit) continue in such a high profile position?
Of course he had to go…
Just goes to show that David is rather cleverer than most of the rest of us!
I’m very disappointed that the first scalp the media has managed to claim is a lib dem. The Telegraph was always going to be gunning for senior lib dems at this point, and it is sad that they have managed to target such a gifted politician so early in the day. I feel a great deal of sympathy for David Laws, and hope that he will be able to return to a government position, and that he will continue to play an important role in the party in the meantime.
But, it is inescapable that he did not follow the rules as laid out in 2006, must have known that he had not, and that this would come back to bite him at some point.
He has a right to a personal life and it is of no interest to me what any politician does to any other consenting adult. But it is disingenuous to argue that he was not in a long-term relationship and living with his partner, when this was clearly the case. He does have a right to privacy, but not to underwrite that right with taxpayers money. It has been said that all partners share housing costs. This is true, but most do not claim from the public purse to do so – they pay it from their own salaries. That other politicians do the same or worse does not make it right, or acceptable given the whiter than white image we had thus far successfully defended…
I am disappointed, and was choked when i read the news last night – the timing has been calculated by the telegraph for political reasons. But at this point, particularly in light of the particular position he held, his position was untenable. I hope he can return soon, but for now his resignation was the only possible choice.
Don’t mistake this for anything other than a carefully timed and orchestrated attack. They’ve been sitting on this story for months in order to release it at the moment of maximum damage.
Agreed with Dom. I have every sympathy for David Laws, but he broke the rules and cannot expect to continue in his current position.
It’s not impossible that the manner and timing of David Laws’ outing was carefully plotted by several media partners in crime.
When a certain BBC TV programme, aided and abetted by a particular guest who used to be a government ‘adviser’, failed to snag their prey, a well known broadsheet stepped in for the kill.
Immaculately executed – although, it is of course all pure supposition on my part…allegedly
@Kirsten – Hear Hear – Campbell’s flouting of David Laws’ photograph at the end is about as condemning as Byrne’s note
Is it too late for David Laws to be nominated for deputy leader?
This is genuinely a bit scary.
Of course, it was always the case that he’d have to resign if the Standards Commission didn’t accept his version of events.
But right now, everything people are asserting as a matter of fact has not been investigated. The benefits claiming comparison is still valid – but cases do go to the DWP tribunal, apparently, turning on exactly these sorts of questions about what constitutes a partnership (there was an interesting piece by Martin Sewell on Conservative Home about this.)
Are we liberals who believe in due process or not? What is the Standards Commission for if it’s not allowed to do its job? Why don’t we disband it and just let editors make decisions about guilt or innocence?
As a point of comparison, even Sir Alistair Graham, the Labour party chair who is always quoted with his former Chair of the Standards Committee hat on, only said Laws ought to step aside pending the investigation!
David Laws resignation is obviously bad for the coalition.
BUT
He stole 4X my annual salary for the benefit of his boyfriend.
I, like the majority of people out in voter land, had hoped that all of these expense scams were over now. Obviously Laws managed to keep his scams under wraps.
I hope, for the sake of regaining belief in these politicians, that he gets prosecuted for the very simple charge of stealing £40000 from the taxpayers, and if he goes to jail, so be it.
The fact that David Laws has been forced to resign over this is an absolute bloody outrage. What about:
– Lord Ashcroft – not resigned, despite avoiding around £10 million of UK tax
– Ed Balls – not resigned, and standing for Labour leadership, despite fiddling his mortgage arrangements so that he and his MP wife Yvette Cooper could fleece the taxpayer
– David Cameron – not resigned, despite being one of the richest men in the country and a distant relative of the Queen, yet still claiming the absolute maximum from the taxpayer for his mortgage at £22,000 per year
– William Hague , not resigned despite claiming £61,000 for his second home despite earning a salary of £800,000 per year in the private sector
– Caroline Spelman , not resigned despite claiming £40,000 for her second home which was designated as her husband’s main house
This is a pure hatchet job from the Telegraph… which is incidentally owned by the Barclay brothers, who last paid UK tax, er.. when exactly?
i have to say I am extremely disappointed that such a talented man could be so foolish. It is clear that had he been open and honest about his circumstances he would have been beyond criticism and could have claimed even more money, however it is also obvious from the comments above that acting as he has he would be seen as ‘having his nose in the trough. Another victory for the owners of the Telegraph who are desperately anxious to undermine our democracy. .
@Alix et al – I’m as sickened by this as anyone, but from the sound of it he wasn’t forced to resign, he did so more for personal reasons than anything else. Apparently Osborne wanted him to stay and Cameron advised him to wait and see and told him it would probably blow over in a day or two. Listen to Nick Clegg’s statement – he emphasises that the most painful element of this whole mess for David has been his loss of privacy.
He’s been forced to come out to his family and close friends in the worst possible circumstances, and if he’d stayed and toughed it out the media would’ve raked over every detail they could find of his personal life as well as his partner’s. I imagine he hopes that by stepping down quickly he can spare himself and James some of that intrusion and it also gives him space and time away from the limelight to talk to his near and dear.
I expect him to be back relatively soon, after the standards people have decided on the case. My only real fear is that the publicity might take too much out of him personally – he’s always been ultra-reserved and I don’t think it’s just due to his sexuality, he really doesn’t like personal attention. I read his resignation letter with trepidation, especially the bit about having put his commitment to public service above the people he loves for too long. Of course I can understand his feelings and wouldn’t blame him for walking away permanently to refocus his life around the people he most cares for, but if that happens the government and the country will have needlessly lost one of the most talented and honourable MPs we have.
Sad but unsurprising that so many people feel they have the right to act as judge and jury. Laws may have broken the rules, but we don’t know and that’s for the commissioner to determine. It’s clearly a grey area.
I think he probably did need to step aside pending investigation, but I am really sad about this … much sadder and much more upset than I would have predicted, particularly for David Laws himself rather than for any political fallout for the party.
In my opinion, he showed a lack of judgment. However, having said that, it seems that he did not claim any more than would have been permissible had there been a joint mortgage. From his statement it also appears that the tenancy pre-dated the relationship. And I hope he does return to the political frontline soon, once he has licked his wounds and been cleared of serious wrong-doing by the relevant authorities.
@trurojoe
I agree that it’s an outrage that the people you list are still peddling their wares around Westminster and think that they should have all been sacked. On that basis, I think David Laws should too, what has all the messing around been about?
If he worked in the private sector, or worse, it was housing benefit, he would be facing hell at the moment – I would say moving to the backbenches is pretty good in comparison.
The real shame about this was that he couldn’t be replaced with someone who had a clear political identity as a LibDem rather than just one of Clegg’s AlmostTories.
@Sagaris
“The real shame about this was that he couldn’t be replaced with someone who had a clear political identity as a LibDem rather than just one of Clegg’s AlmostTories.”
It’s bad enough that this has happened and someone classed as talented by both the LDP/CP has gone, but the last thing the coalition needs right now is a LD civil war. He has been replaced by someone from your party, can’t you just be happy with that for a while?
Andrea Gill: “Campbell’s flouting of David Laws’ photograph at the end is about as condemning as Byrne’s note”
Trying to blame Campbell is ludicrous. It was No 10 who pulled Laws out of QT and hence set him up for ridicule by Campbell.
If you want to float conspiracy theories, it’s much more plausible that the Torygraph would be plotting with the Tories rather than anybody from Labour. Be realistic. Does anybody here seriously believe that Cameron and Osborne will be upset about yesterday’s turn of events? It’s my guess that they were both having a jolly good laugh at Laws’ expense last night. I told you from day 1 that the Tories would already be planning how to get rid of the Lib Dems, and the Torygraph story is just the start of it. This ought to make Lib Dems think twice about the wisdom of backing Cameron’s “55%” plan.
But really, it’s just silly to blame the Telegraph or Campbell or Labour or anybody else. Laws is the agent of his own destruction. It was Laws’ choice to continue his living arrangements when he knew they were against the rules – if privacy were so important to him he could have simply changed landlord and stayed within the rules. It was Laws who then chose to mock the voters by publicly boasting about how clean and transparent his expenses claims were – which is something he ought to be issuing a public apology to the peple of Yeovil for.
David Laws did the decent thing & has asked for privacy, I take that to mean that we should stop raking over his life & actions. 150 + comments is enough surely ?
I thought I was a pleb, but it’s only three times mine (although I’m on JSA now).
A highly capable and likable man, but he did hoist himself on his own petard when – more than a year ago, now – he called on all MPs to publish their expenses [1]. Worst of all, he clearly didn’t think this was even questionable. I would have been more amenable had he ‘fessed up when all around were loosing their heads, as there was nothing “somehow wrong”: separate bank accounts are common for non-married (or civil partnered) couples; and the separation of social lives appears more to do with his desire for privacy.
On the last point, as a het who has been the victim of homophobic abuse, I sympathize entirely for his desire for privacy but the public purse is not for maintaining that.
Of course The Telegraph released this strategically (and I strongly suspect Alistair Campbell would have sprung it on him had he appeared on QT), but the “all within the rules” plea rightly didn’t work for Labour and Tory MPs, and it shouldn’t work for LibDemmers.
What Parliament needs is Dickie Attenborough to reprise his role in Guns at Batasi for new recruits: “Oi, any of you little beggars even think of having a sniff at the cookie jar, it’s Traitors’ Gate for you. Now! We don’t wants you, the public don’t wants you. You’ll be out and forget about a severance fee!”.
[1] Did Clegg think his co-opting in public rage during the Leadership Debates didn’t apply to his Party? LibDem MPs should be going over their expenses with fine-tooth combs.
For those of you up in arms about The Telegraph, did you show the same level of outrage when it was Conservative and Labour MPs in its sights? Or did you agree with Norman Baker MP, who wrote on 10th May 2009
“So we have MPs criticising The Daily Telegraph and wanting to call in the police, as if shooting the messenger is the answer to this mess.”
Is shooting the messenger ok when it’s a Lib Dem on the receiving end?
Having said that, I agree with Paul Barker. I thought Laws should resign, he has (unlike some of the others who should have done so last year), and I don’t see much point in pursuing him further.
@Stuart Mitchell
Agree with the point about not blaming Campbell and also extend that to the DT.
Disagree on the likely instigator being Cameron and Osborne. There were plently on the CP side who were more than happy to see him in the job, in fact the joke doing the rounds was that they may have to use Osborne to hold him back a bit. I think it’s more likely that the left of centre were unhappy and felt they had more to gain – that’s my version of the conspiracy theory anyway.
However, there is another theory, being that the DT et al are now going to go over everything (past, present and future) with a fine toothcombe. Yesterday you didn’t sell papers, today you do and that is one of the prices for being in Government.
@Chris, although I agree that Cameron is unlikely to have initiated this (he happily instated another LibDem), but – although Hughes wants to shadow departments which the LibDems don’t have ministers – I doubt the Centre Left is quite so reckless to have ousted Laws.
Look further to the right, such as Redwood and Davies or that other Opposition Party: the movers and shakers in the 1922 Committee.
Teeth don’t have hairs, coarse or fine. 😉
Layton C
Presumably you have never been put in the position where your sexuality has had to be hidden from other people because you are straight. I personally have had to deal with this problem and it is a dreadful dilemma. I too have been forced to ‘lie’ as you put it, simply because announcing I was gay would have caused me significant problems at work. And that was not even in high profile job.
I imagine you are straight and have never had to deal with any problems faced by gay people, still less even considered what you would do under the same circumstances. So get down off your bloody high horse and think about things from other people’s perspective for once in your life.
This whole thing is ALL about the Barclay Brothers and their tax avoidance agenda. They and all their mates hate the idea of having to pay their fair share – which is what Lib Dem policy is about – and this is payback time. Pure and simple.
Let’s send the Royal Navy to blow up Sark!
Robert C: “I too have been forced to ‘lie’ as you put it, simply because announcing I was gay would have caused me significant problems at work.”
Robert, I have sympathy for Laws’ personal predicament. I just don’t see what it has to do with his expenses claims. It is simply not the case that Laws had an unavoidable choice between (a) making dishonest expenses claims and concealing his sexuality, and (b) making transparent expenses claims and revealing his sexuality. As many people have pointed out, he had several other options open to him which could have allowed him to maintain his privacy while remaining within the rules.
It really is no excuse. I know of at least one other senior member of the cabinet who keeps his sexuality secret, but AFAIK this person has not made any dodgy expenses claims. It CAN be done.
If David Laws was so brilliant how come he got himself in such a mess? If he was so indispensible why didn’t Cameron and Clegg do more to save him?
Chris_Sh: “Disagree on the likely instigator being Cameron and Osborne.” I agree, I just floated that as a more plausible theory than blaming Campbell. I’m sure this is a matter purely for Laws and the Telegraph.
Having said that, it’s interesting timing that within hours of Laws’ resignation, the papers are full of stories about how Osborne is planning to make “concessions” to the Tory right and make his budget more rich-friendly than had previously been suggested. Were it not for Laws, this story would be dominating political discussion today. As it is, it’s been buried.
I see Ben Bradshaw has been mouthing off with some partisan style ranting dressed up as closetphobia.
I really expected better of him, he’s just turning into a pink hypocrite.
I have no doubt that the Telegraph has been sitting on this information for a while and acquired it the same way it has acquired all its other revelations, but don’t let’s be fooled, the Go order will have come from the Tories. Maybe not from Cameron but from whomever within the Conservative ranks thinks they have most to gain from bringing down effective Lib Dems.
I really do hope the coalition will succeed, but we mustn’t be naïve. Even as a junior partner, out party is a threat to the vested interests that run this country and the right-wings of business, the Tory party and the press are not going to call off the attack just because Cameron has called a truce. Quite the opposite. This is war.
Meanwhile, a pleb is gaoled for housing benefit fraud:
http://redstarcommando.blogspot.com/2010/05/one-laws-for-rich.html
Robert C
You presume much too much.
Nothing in my comment mentioned sexuality.
My understanding is that David Laws was asked if was in ‘a relationship’ (without qualification), and he said he was not.
THEREFORE HE LIED!
Anyone saying the Conservatives would have wanted to bring down Laws is deluded. Laws was one of the cornerstones of the coalition, do you really think Cameron would want to erode the coalition for no reason? It’s not like the Tories have gained from this.
@Stuart Mitchell
“Laws is the agent of his own destruction. It was Laws’ choice to continue his living arrangements when he knew they were against the rules – if privacy were so important to him he could have simply changed landlord and stayed within the rules.”
I doubt if there are many single people who able to function without a degree off emotional support from those closest to them. DL clearly had a demanding job, is it reasonable to expect him to live apart from the person who provides this support for him – because of the system for claiming expenses?
It does seem that his primary purpose was to conceal the fact that he is gay.
He was entitled to claim for rent if he had had no relationship with his landlord. If he had not claimed the question arising would be ‘why is his landlord allowing him to use the rooms for free?’ – a close personal relationship could be the only conclusion.
If MPs are entitled to a private, private life – the expenses system should allow this to be the case.
He want’s to conceal he’s gay – fair enough live elsewhere.
If he were stright there’d be no defence and there gay arguement does not stack up unless you believe there is something unique about a gay relationship that makes it exempt from the rules.
The bloke was caught rule breaking and given his position he had to go. Sadly for those who dislike his right wing economic views I’m 100% sure he’ll be back (nd quickly) but no way is position be tenable now.
David Laws should remain the hugely respected Liberal Democrat politician and media public ambassador that he has rightly become over recent years that includes his truncated time as Chief Secretary.
I am a grassroots advoate of the `Coalition Government’ as I believe it is in the best interests of the Liberal Democrat Party and most importantly best interests of the Country to do it and make it work over 5 years .
The fact is that all Cabinet Members and those with the talent to inhabit high public office live in a 24 hour bubble of coverage in the forensic glare of relentelss media casts and thirst for news.
The constant turning wheel of the media should at all times act as a check and balance on the public conscience of the ordinary British family and man or woman in the street or standing at the local bus stop.
I believe that David Laws decision to stand down should be respected as being a measure of how much he has applied moral propriety and potential doubt in the public conscience to the magnitude of the job that he was about to underake.
The Liberal Democrats are the leaders of the `New Politics’ and must set the highest standard of public office . .
I hope that David Laws is soon able to return to high office as he clearly was valued by all sides as someone uniquely suited to the most important task of Government to fairly bring under control the `National Deficit’.
@ VG
“It’s not like the Tories have gained from this.”
But it’s pointing at the Tories and a Tory paper. We’ve looked at the facts, used our rational brains and have thrown things around looking at research-past and present.
But I also think it’s pointing at some senior Lib Dems who wanted Danny Alexander in who is very Cleggy and Laws out, who was actually more Tory.
The whole thing is about power, politics and games.
Reading about the place the public are just upset because this guy was worth millions but he STILL took out expenses, so it then became a rich vs poor story and Laws in the publics eyes had to go. Unfair but true. This became something symbolic and with Ant & Dec flouncing about the place with silly honeymoon grins on their faces saying this was all ‘new politics’, Laws had to be the man to show it is indeed ‘new politics’.
The bottom line is that all politicians and political parties are as bad as each other. If onlt political parties wouldn’t loudly b*tch about each other,aided by the media, to score points with the public, stuff like this wouldn’t be a big deal. You should argue why your policies or politics work, not why your sh*t don’t stink because it WILL come back and bit you in the arse.
What I’m also interested in is why take expenses? I’m on a very low, low income and I can take expenses which would help me but I’ve never done so because the company I work with isn’t wealthy. Why do MP’s claim so much expenses?
Very few of them came from low incomes….
Are they forced too? Is it come praliament cultuarl bullying that makes them greedy?
“DL clearly had a demanding job, is it reasonable to expect him to live apart from the person who provides this support for him – because of the system for claiming expenses?”
I’m sorry, but you can’t have everything just as you want it in this world.
In fact he had plenty of options that would have allowed him to remain within the rules. He could have lived with his partner, been open about the situation, and claimed for a joint mortgage if that’s what he wanted to do. Or he could have lived with his partner and not claimed public money. Or he could have done what he has in fact been doing since last year – claimed for separate accommodation and divided his time between the two addresses however he wished.
Laws himself has acknowledged that what he did was wrong. It’s getting more than a little tedious to see people here portraying him as some kind of martyr who is the victim of an unfair system. In fact his behaviour has been foolish at best, and he really has no one but himself to blame for the trouble he’s caused to everyone concerned.
As for all these conspiracy theories – by all accounts Laws’s sexuality has been very much an open secret for some time, and well known to journalists. Given his prominence over the last few weeks it was bound to come out sooner or later. There’s really no need to look for any explanation other than the obvious one.
This below is for some of you who know your Centre Right political history cause I don’t and wonder if anyone could shed more light?
“Interesting mind for the future of the centre right coalition that The Daily Telegraph, who are campaigning against CGT chose to release this particular story in the last few days – I wonder what other skeletons are in the ‘Orange Book’ closet?
Actually the right wing press have form here. Didn’t they ‘out’ bachelor boy Jeremy Thorpe in the mid 1970s to destabilise the liberals and temporarily prevent them entering into a coalition with the minority Labour government?”
Some commenter wrote this on obv a David Laws post!
Thanks!
@Stuart Mitchell
“the papers are full of stories about how Osborne is planning to make “concessions” to the Tory right and make his budget more rich-friendly than had previously been suggested”
You got my attention there, but now having had a chance to look I’m not convinced that it is totally about helping the rich (or I’m not looking at the same thing as you), I assume that we’re talking about the CGT issue? It’s not that easy an area, entrepreneur for some is the people who take risks to start businesses etc – we probably need more of those at this time than ever. However, it could also mean people who are willing to risk their own money in such small/startup companies. As the banks seem to be in a bit of a bind and are not lending as much to these companies we probably are going to need these people to risk even more of their own money.
The second part is shares/second homes, again I don’t think that is totally straight forward. I don’t think that I could be classed as rich even in my own wildest dreams, but I have tried to diversify my retirement nest egg and part of that was in shares (no second home though). So should I have to pay CGT on that when I’m actually trying to take care of myself and (hopefully) won’t be to much of a burden on the tax payer when I’ve retired in 20+ years? For this sort of thing are they not talking about tapered relief – something like 50% year one, 40% year 2 and so forth?
But, having said all of that, the main gist I get is that they are talking to lots of people prior to making their mind up.
@Anthony Aloysius St
“I’m sorry, but you can’t have everything just as you want it in this world.
In fact he had plenty of options that would have allowed him to remain within the rules. He could have lived with his partner, been open about the situation, and claimed for a joint mortgage if that’s what he wanted to do. Or he could have lived with his partner and not claimed public money. Or he could have done what he has in fact been doing since last year – claimed for separate accommodation and divided his time between the two addresses however he wished.”
Technically, what you say is true of course, however, it does have deeper ramifications for the Nation.
Certainly in recent times, the most able have chosen to work in the private sector where they can earn significantly more and their employer, within reason, is unconcerned what they do in their private lives. If the most able have to both earn significantly less and their private lives have no protection – isn’t it inevitable that the Nation will be denied the services of these people and, at critical times like these, have to make do with the less capable?
John
What you seem to be saying is that you think Laws was hard done-by because the system of MPs expenses didn’t allow him – specifically – to rent a room in his partner’s house at public expense.
It would have allowed him to have a joint mortgage with his partner at public expense, or it would have allowed him to rent a flat of his own at public expense and stay with his partner whenever he pleased, or it would have allowed him to rent a room from his partner provided he didn’t expect the state to pay the rent.
Quite frankly, if people consider that a hardship they need to find out more about how ordinary people have to live in the real world.
@Anthony Aloysius St
“It would have allowed him to have a joint mortgage with his partner at public expense”
So you’re saying that he could have claimed exactly the same amount of money (or probably more) under a different rule, without anyone even suggesting that it wasn’t legitimate. Or, in other words, he didn’t cheat the taxpayer out of a single penny, and you’re just quibbling about a technicality that he may or – more likely – may not have been in breach of.
@Richard
“The real question is, why was he claiming he expenses, I can see why some less wealthy MPs would claim expenses, but a multi-millionaire?”
All MPs claim expenses, regardless how personally wealthy they are. I’m not rich, but I support that practice, because the alternative will be candidates effectively buying power by presenting themselves in elections as the cheap choice – “I’m rich enough not to claim any expenses – vote for me!”. Most people can’t afford to pay for two homes for themselves. That shoudn’t disqualify them from winning a seat in parliament.
@Anthony Aloysius St
“Quite frankly, if people consider that a hardship they need to find out more about how ordinary people have to live in the real world.”
I think if you read my comment you will see that I am suggesting that we are not discussing ordinary people, we are discussing some who are very talented people and who are likely to be lost to politics if their privacy is undermined by the expense system.
This may be a necessary cost, although clearly the expense system could be rearranged [a fixed amount for those whose constituencies are more than x miles away] but it is an issue worth considering if the desire is to get the most able into the Nation’s government – consider the quality of some of the Ministers in the last administration!
@ Catherine
The whole system simply needs to change that’s all because if it doesn’t, stuff like this will keep on happening on and on and on.
Good, hard working public sector workers are going to be sacked in the name of prudent financial management. Does it look good if the bloke doing the sacking has broken financial rules?
Best case… gutless in trying to hide his sexuality from the world. Worst case… snout in the trough.
Either way lets not put him up there on the moral high ground.
Those who question the Telegraph’s timing should first ask, why not while there was an election on? Why only now?
The answer has to be, because they and their allies weren’t that bothered about influencing an election. There’s something else now, something new, that bothers them.
That something must be the Con-Lib coalition.
Step forward then the obvious culprits, the enemies of Cameron within the Tory Party.
(PS I don’t defend Laws, he made a mistake and had to resign for it.)
“you’re just quibbling about a technicality”
I’m not “quibbling” about anything.
I’m pointing out that there were several options open to David Laws that didn’t involve breaking the rules. And of course, the rule he broke – about not renting from a partner or family member – is there for a very good reason.
John
“I think if you read my comment you will see that I am suggesting that we are not discussing ordinary people, we are discussing some who are very talented people and who are likely to be lost to politics if their privacy is undermined by the expense system.”
But as I keep pointing out, his privacy wasn’t undermined by the system. He had plenty of options within the rules.
His privacy was undermined by his own actions in breaking the rules.
“he didn’t cheat the taxpayer out of a single penny, and you’re just quibbling about a technicality”
No. You are making a fairly strong case in mitigation of the offence. But offence it was. Because of the offence, he had to go. Because of the mitigation, he can and should expect it is likely he will be able to come back at some point.
Fortunately he had the sense to resign quickly and avoid a long drawn out struggle. Had he strung things out and waited for the inquiry, he’d have given himself no chance of ever recovering.
Incidentally, I presume that in the circumstances one of the things the Commissioner will be investigating is how the rent of up to £950 a month compared with the going rate for a bedroom in a flat in that area at that time. Obviously that’s the kind of comparison that would need to be done before we could say that it didn’t result in any additional cost to the taxpayer.
@Anthony Aloysius St
“But as I keep pointing out, his privacy wasn’t undermined by the system. He had plenty of options within the rules.
His privacy was undermined by his own actions in breaking the rules.”
Yes he could have arranged his life differently in order to fit within the rules. However, if he wanted to keep the fact that he is gay private [for whatever reason] his only option would have been to rent or buy accommodation that he did not use or rarely used and create some diversionary tactics, each evening, in order to return to, what he considered home.
As far as I can see, the other options available would all indicate that he was living with a male partner. This tiresome form of existence might be unacceptable – something which could be avoided with some rule changes which could also be beneficial in other ways.
I am not defending DL’s actions, I am suggesting rule changes might be made to attract to, and keep the most able in, politics.
This whole business of when does your landlord become your partner reminds me of an occasion in 1987 when I worked for a multi national pharma company. The company in its ‘modern thinking way’ had decided that company car drivers could choose to put ‘partners’ on the car insurance, when previously it had just been married spouses.
We had a young team of young, intelligent graduates who were constantly hopping in and out of relationships.
The manager who was relating the new rule was sure his young team would welcome the news – as indeed they did. However the company had not thought it through properly. There was a caveat that they should be ‘serious relationships’. Obviously the insurers didn’t want one night stands on the company insurance list.
Our top sales girl who was well known for having a series of medium term relationships of 3 – 6 months had recently finished with her last man and was just starting with the next.
Will my new man qualify she asked?
How long have you been together the manager replied?
Oh, about 2 weeks she said
I dont think that qualifies replied the manager ,in front of the whole sales team.
Well, came the immediate retort.
How many times does he have to shag me (she actually used a more direct expletive) before he can go on the insurance.
Red face from the manager !! Laughter from the sales team.
59% of the those in this reported poll need to throw out their carpets.
In an early Sat hours coment to Fri evening’s post i asked: “Where’s the love? Is it the love that we fool ourselves with, as i have irresponsibly [done} and so not solely at my own cost?”
David Laws has now acted responsibly to love’s call and done his duty to his true self, his partner, his family, his constituents, and our governance.
Our response should be to welcome him back to the fold which recognises the human condition, wish him well in upholding what he has publicly recognised and acknowledged he holds dear too, and get on with what we should be doing in his formal absence from the coalition’s executive by accepting his abilities are not unique, albeit that he like all individuals are.
His case has yet to be heard. It is to be hoped that the outcome serves the common good. In between is a benchmark test of just governance in future and in which we can not afford to fail him and ourselves.
I don’t think he will let us down henceforth. Let’s make sure we don’t either.
To David, recognise the guilt if you wish to put it behind you. If you do so publicly it will help as all and you will not want for help in return. Moreover, in stepping down for now, you can still help Danny step up to the plate to be his own man too.
PS Our societies are what we owe each other.
PPS Keith Browning – LOL!
PPS Keith Browning – LOL!
Seconded.
This case has arisen as the truth will out. In looking for the silver lining that does not cloud judgement, i suggest we should be thankful it is David Law’s and not another token scoundrel being put up as a sacrificial lamb whilst preserving the status quo in another cloaked form, as his case should re-open a door the political establishment had hoped was safely closed behind them as they re-entered the winner’s enclosure at Westminster.
If you will, go to Jane Merrick’s piece in the Indy (link below) and therein NeilM639’s comments on the necessity for a full investigation of the 2005 – 2010 Westminster parliament’s fiddling on our account, its cause and remedies, including those Neil advocates in recognition of past haste and some further thoughts of my own following my earlier comment.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/final-hours-at-1030-came-the-fax-that-changed-it-all-1987130.html
I think this in the Independent gives a balanced view of the affair.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/a-personal-tragedy-and-a-national-loss-1987524.html
I wonder if the expenses system should be designed in such a way that it is likely to ‘out’ gay MPs who do not wish their sexual orientation to be known. If DL were married and was having an extramarital affair with a man or woman – what he did would have been within the rules.