First casualty of the coalition

[mummymonkey]

David Laws falls on his sword:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10191524.stm

Rather a shock all this. Not that he is outed as a gay person, but I had thought he was a very wealthy man and didn't need to fiddle his expenses. (Which despite his protestations this is). Also he is by all accounts a very clever man; but he has done a very stupid thing.

 

[Rolfe]

I wonder how many of these very wealthy people got that way by not passing up the odd £40,000 any time they saw the opportunity?

So, Hello Danny, Goodbye Danny.

Michael Moore? A kent his faither. And him, when he was a wee boy. I've given my opinion of LibDems earlier, he's no exception. And never was.

Poor David Mundell, my heart bleeds - not!

Rolfe.

 

[Delscottio]

Reading the article is a bit weird, all the quotes comment on him being "outed" not the fact he paid his partner £40k. Cameron hoping he'll serve again - eh? After whats gone on in the last 18month to be doing this sort of thing is utterly stupid and greedy.

 

[Rolfe]

I heard Ming Campbell on the radio dementing on about what a great guy Laws was, the utmost probity and all that.

Meh.

If he'd just wanted to stay in the closet, well, don't claim any money. That way nobody will look. He just couldn't resist a bit more loot. That's how these guys get rich in the first place after all.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

I wonder how many of these very wealthy people got that way by not passing up the odd £40,000 any time they saw the opportunity?

So, Hello Danny, Goodbye Danny.

Michael Moore? A kent his faither. And him, when he was a wee boy. I've given my opinion of LibDems earlier, he's no exception. And never was.

Poor David Mundell, my heart bleeds - not!

Rolfe.

He might have an even shorter reign than Laws:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10195707.stm

And I agree with you that most people who get rich do so by "playing the system" to its maximum, which is all that Laws did until 2006, after 2006 it was simply fraud.

 

[Darat]

I am disappointed that the claimed "new style" of government has quickly shown that they are not a change, I would have been very pleased and would have given credit to Cameron if he had simply sacked Laws with the explanation that anyone who behaves in such a manner has no place in the "new" British politics.

And the idea that Laws' actions were motivated by wanting to keep his homosexuality "private" is nothing but a smokescreen, friends and political colleagues knew he was gay, it was no big secret in political circles (so that means the media also knew). Even more so when the evidence is overwhelming that homosexuality is no longer an obstacle for a successful, high profile political career in the UK.

 

[Rolfe]

I simply can't understand the queue of the Great and the Good lining up to support Laws and say he's a man of extreme probity and they truly sympathise with hs position and so on.

He was on the take, and that's all there is to it.

Rolfe.

 

[Cuddles]

I am disappointed that the claimed "new style" of government has quickly shown that they are not a change, I would have been very pleased and would have given credit to Cameron if he had simply sacked Laws with the explanation that anyone who behaves in such a manner has no place in the "new" British politics.

Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? Hell no.

 

[Ocelot]

I've got mixed feelings about this.

Apparently if he was married to his partner, or in a civil partnership he could claim for the mortgage on their second home and this would typically be jointly owned. Effectively he'd get a half of the £40k in equity and the partner would get the other half.

However the arrangement they put in place was that by paying rent to his partner he was effectively paying the mortgage but the partner gets to keep it all.

Is this the first expenses scandal where someone was disgraced for paying someone money that they might have been entitled to keep for themselves?

 

[Puppycow]

Is gay marriage legal in the UK? And is it called "marriage" or "civil partnership" and what is the difference?

Since boyfriends and girlfriends do not have the same legal obligations as spouses and partners, I don't see why they should be entitled to the same benefits.

 

[Darat]

Is gay marriage legal in the UK? And is it called "marriage" or "civil partnership" and what is the difference?

...snip...

There are civil partnerships for same-sex couples, in many ways it a matter of "separate but equal" approach, however there are differences, for example adultery by one civil partner is not grounds for a dissolution of a civil partnership as it is for marriages.

 

[Fiona]

There are no differences in the financial rights and obligations so far as I know?

 

[Darat]

There are no differences in the financial rights and obligations so far as I know?

None that I know off that would effect what happened in this instance.

 

[Darat]

I've got mixed feelings about this.

Apparently if he was married to his partner, or in a civil partnership he could claim for the mortgage on their second home and this would typically be jointly owned. Effectively he'd get a half of the £40k in equity and the partner would get the other half.

However the arrangement they put in place was that by paying rent to his partner he was effectively paying the mortgage but the partner gets to keep it all.

Is this the first expenses scandal where someone was disgraced for paying someone money that they might have been entitled to keep for themselves?

This is why I said earlier that all Laws did until 2006 was to "play the system" to maximise his personal gains from but after 2006 it was simply fraud. In an earlier report I read a statement by him that claimed that they were not a couple because they didn't have a joint bank account and had separate social lives. Yet at the same time he was willing to extend his own mortgage on a property to help his "non-partner"'s purchase a property they would both live in. I wonder how many other "non-partner"s he did this for?

His claim that his motivation was to keep his homosexuality secret just doesn't add up since his actions made it much more likely that his "non-partnership" would become more widely known.

 

[Fiona]

In an earlier report I read a statement by him that claimed that they were not a couple because they didn't have a joint bank account and had separate social lives. Yet at the same time he was willing to extend his own mortgage on a property to help his "non-partner"'s purchase a property they would both live in. I wonder how many other "non-partner"s he did this for?

That is breath taking. Is he aware that this does not fly in the social security system and that people are successfully prosecuted for social security fraud on far less evidence of cohabitation? One law for the rich.....

 

[Darat]

That is breath taking. Is he aware that this does not fly in the social security system and that people are successfully prosecuted for social security fraud on far less evidence of cohabitation? One law for the rich.....

I've just checked that I've not misrepresented what he said and I didn't:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10189421.stm

...snip...

His defence is he did not regard Mr Lundie as his partner, as far as the rules were concerned.

The parliamentary rules state MPs are banned from "leasing accommodation from a partner".

A partner is defined as "one of a couple... who, although not married to each-other or civil partners, are living together and treat each other as spouses".
Secret relationship

Mr Laws said Mr Lundie did not qualify. They did not share a bank account, they had separate social lives.

...snip....

But the case against him appears to be a strong one. Mr Laws and Mr Lundie have been in a relationship since 2001.

Most people would class that as a serious relationship. Mr Laws admitted he increased his mortgage at one point to help Mr Lundie buy a new house.


...snip...

From his full statement: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10188408.stm

...snip...

In June 2007 James bought a new home in London and I continued to claim back my share of the costs.

I extended the mortgage on my Somerset property - for which I do not claim any allowances or expenses - to help James purchase the new property.

...snip...

At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as "one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses."

Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses - for example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social lives.

...snip...

 

[Undesired Walrus]

One laws for you, one laws for me.

 

[Rolfe]

And yet commentators are lining up to say that what he did wasn't wrong, and he could have claimed even more money legitimately if they'd been in a civil partnership, and he's totally misunderstood and an honourable man and upright and of the utmost probity....

Meh.

Rolfe.

 

[Fiona]

Funny they don't say things like that when they are talking about people who make mistakes of that sort when claiming income based JSA, ain't it?

 

[Darat]

Funny they don't say things like that when they are talking about people who make mistakes of that sort when claiming income based JSA, ain't it?

That's because they are worthless* people trying to scam money from the hard working tax-payer, Laws on the other hand is a person of great integrity** and honour*** who simply wanted to keep his privacy.



*worthless = net assets less than £500,000.

**integrity - net assets more than £1,000,000 - see entry for "Aiken" for further details

***honour - net assets more than £2,000,000 - see entry for Archer (Lord) for further details