By most people's definitions, they were a couple. They'd been seeing eachother since 1999, and Laws had actually mortgaged his house to help his partner buy this new property. That more than qualifies as a couple in the sense that most people would understand the word. Saying that they didn't have a joint bank account or that they had "separate" social lives is such a feeble excuse... my mum and step-dad only got a joint bank account a few weeks ago when they got married, but they definitely still would've called themselves a couple before then.

 

The Parliamentary Commission WILL find him to have been in breach of the rules, I guarantee you. It's very similar to what Jacqui Smith did, and she was found to have breached the rules. The only reason Smith got off lightly is because she was acting on bad advice from the Fees Office; Laws has no such excuse.

Laws moved in to his home in 1999 but at that time he was just a tenant. The relationship started later.

Laws moved in to his home in 1999 but at that time he was just a tenant. The relationship started later.

 

..And? As soon as the relationship became more defined as partners rather than Landlord/Tenant, that was the time that Laws should have stopped claiming expenses, Although, I question the necessity for him even doing it to begin with seeing as how he was a Merchant Banker who had made a quite a bit of money in that career.... Either way, he's still fiddling thet system... Look what happens to people who claim housing benefit if they dont declare that they have a live-in partner mate... No "ifs", "ands" or "buts" in those circumstances, they get fukked, so why should it be any different for someone like Laws....?

Tell me again Scott, how many fukkin Labour crooks resigned from office during the last administration for doing far less? Good to know that in 2010 homophobia in the media still rules. Calling him a c**t is as fukkin low as you can get IMHO.

 

Nice to see you so forgiving Rich... So, does this forgiveness extend to a single mum who claims housing benefit letting her boyfriend live with her....? Hmmmm, I wonder..... :rolleyes:

 

Nice to see the "two wrongs make a right" argument coming into play again... :rolleyes: I repeat (because obviously you and a few others haven't exactly been paying attention) WHERE HAVE I EVER, EVER DEFENDED MPs MAKING FRAUDULENT CLAIMS... Go on, quote me, trawl back through the pages and pinpoint the place, EXACTLY, where I have defended MPs making false claims..... I rather think (unless I'm going senile) that I've pretty much been consistently saying that they're ALL a bunch of crooked c/unts who should be on criminal charges ever since this whole thing hit the news in the first place, I also repeat - I DONT GIVE A SH!T WHO LAWS IS SLEEPING WITH, I DO CARE THAT HE'S SHAFTING THE BRITISH TAXPAYER.... Laws is one of the worst offenders as he's been doing sh!t that for any working class person would see them up before a judge for benefit fraud.... And no one even seems to be attempting to answer a couple of fundamental questions here - ergo - just why the fukk were these "expenses" never Means Tested to begin with....? Or, why is it that an independantly wealthy MP such as Laws who made his money in merchant banking even feels the need to claim expenses in the first place....?

 

If half the MPs in Parliamnent have been making dodgy or fraudlent claims, then half of them should've been up before the court, and not just picking three or four individuals to serve up on a platter to sate the public, because you KNOW as well as I do that this is what they'd do to ALL of us if we got caught out fiddling our taxes or making false claims on the dole/housing benefit...

Well Scott will be over the moon.

 

As I would've been if it had been any 'Nu Labor' scumbag who got what was coming to him or her, and whether or not they're straight, gay or bi... Absolutely.... Unlike you, Rich, I dont discriminate... ANY MP from ANY party who's been committing fraud is fair game, whether it's a Party I support or voted for or not... In fact, ESPECIALLY if it's a party I support or voted for.. All it takes is one rotten apple to spoil the whole lot.... So, the rotten apple should be chucked away before that happens... Or maybe you dont think so....

 

As far as I'm concerned those who make the rules and the laws of the land which they expect the rest of us to follow and adhere to ought to be above reproach and be seen to be doing the right thing by "we the people"... And that has nothing to do with sexuality, and everything to do with how they conduct themselves as honest human beings, and it's every bit as important to be honest with yourself. If one cannot be honest with ones-self first and foremost, then how can you be honest towards others, it doesn't work, as has been proven here.....

Right decision, at least he has gone quickly as opposed to grubbily clinging to office like Mandelson and Blunkett

 

He should be up before the beak though on theft charges and I do hope that this will be investigated by the police, simply apologising and handing back the money isn't enough, if someone robs a bank should they get away with just apologising to the manager and giving the money back ?

 

Yep, that's pretty much spot on mate.... And, I somehow doubt it would work for the "Shameless"-types fiddling the dole either, which is a more pertinent point I feel, seeing as how both parties would be defrauding the taxpayer....

 

As I would've been if it had been any 'Nu Labor' scumbag who got what was coming to him or her, and whether or not they're straight, gay or bi... Absolutely.... Unlike you, Rich, I dont discriminate... ANY MP from ANY party who's been committing fraud is fair game, whether it's a Party I support or voted for or not... In fact, ESPECIALLY if it's a party I support or voted for.. All it takes is one rotten apple to spoil the whole lot.... So, the rotten apple should be chucked away before that happens... Or maybe you dont think so....

 

As far as I'm concerned those who make the rules and the laws of the land which they expect the rest of us to follow and adhere to ought to be above reproach and be seen to be doing the right thing by "we the people"... And that has nothing to do with sexuality, and everything to do with how they conduct themselves as honest human beings, and it's every bit as important to be honest with yourself. If one cannot be honest with ones-self first and foremost, then how can you be honest towards others, it doesn't work, as has been proven here.....

 

:rolleyes:

 

What a load of bull$h!t.

 

I'll refer you to today's editorial in the Independent:

 

A personal tragedy and a national loss

Independent.co.uk

Monday, 31 May 2010

 

The resignation of David Laws needs to be seen, first and foremost, as a personal tragedy. The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury has become the latest victim of the long-running Parliamentary expenses scandal, yet his behaviour does not appear to have been motivated by personal greed or entitlement, but fear. Mr Laws was apparently faced with an invidious choice between making public his sexuality, something he had gone to great lengths to keep secret, and breaking the letter of the rules on expenses which forbid MPs from leasing accommodation from partners.

 

Mr Laws apparently convinced himself that since there was a degree of ambiguity in his relationship with his landlord, James Lundie (they are not civil partners or a couple in social circles), the arrangement remained within the rules. That was a misjudgement, as Mr Laws now accepts. But any fair-minded person examining Mr Laws's conduct would conclude that it was an understandable one.

 

Perhaps the saddest aspect of this affair is the fact that Mr Laws felt that he could not be open about his sexuality. That fear of being "outed" evidently paralysed his better judgement. Mr Laws must, of course, take personal responsibility for his mistake. And he has done precisely that with his speedy resignation from the Government. But this business can hardly be said to reflect well on our society. Mr Laws will not be the only public figure who is petrified by the prospect of coming out as homosexual. The unpalatable truth is that the forces of bigotry and intolerance still exist in modern Britain.

 

Mr Laws's departure is a serious and untimely blow for the Government. He has been the most effective Cabinet minister in the brief life of this coalition. As Mr Laws said in his resignation statement, Chief Secretary to the Treasury was a job for which his whole life seemed to have prepared him. He had the economic experience, the intellect, and the determination to accomplish the serious work of repairing the national finances. Indeed, Mr Laws had begun to make his boss, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, seem like the junior figure at the Treasury. His evident competence in the job was also helping to bind the two wings of the coalition together.

 

But, crucially, Mr Laws also appeared to have the social conscience and principles to reduce the deficit in a manner that would look after the interests of the most vulnerable. This was, we should remember, someone who gave up a lucrative career in the City of London to become a lowly adviser to the Liberal Democrats at a time when a role for the third party in Government was an unlikely dream. All politicians can claim to be motivated by public service to some degree. But Mr Laws's claim is stronger than most.

 

Danny Alexander, Mr Laws's Liberal Democrat colleague who will replace him in the Treasury, should not be underestimated. Though he may lack much of a public profile, his role in helping to broker the coaltion deal is testament to his abilities. And we should not forget that few people had heard of Mr Laws before last month. Nevertheless, Mr Alexander will surely find it difficult to fill the shoes of his predecessor.

 

Already, there is talk of a return for Mr Laws. This is understandable. This is not a Government so blessed with talent that it can afford to shed its best people without considerable regret. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, have expressed the hope that Mr Laws could come back to the Cabinet in time. It is to be hoped that the relatively mild nature of Mr Laws's offence and the honourable manner of his departure will hasten that day.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

And today's Guardian editorial:

 

David Laws: felled by a creditable but misplaced sense of shame

guardian.co.uk

 

This man of exceptional nobility has been broken: if not for entertainment, then because of a process no one seems able to stop.

 

Just before the election a group of up-and-coming politicians played a macabre game over dinner. They tried to guess which of their generation would be the first to resign from government and why. Would their nemesis be sex, drugs or money? One sin might be survivable, they decided. It was the combination that would prove toxic in the media.

 

So it was for poor David Laws. Contrary to the huffing and puffing today from those ghastly self-appointed Madame Defarges of modern political morality – Martin Bell and Sir Alistair Graham – he didn't have to go over his expenses.

 

Of course, it looked terrible: the chief secretary in a government devoted to cuts busting the rules because he could not bring himself to reveal that he loved his landlord. Every hack in the land can preach about the hypocrisy and the tragedy and how a meteor has shattered and why, in the end, he had to quit because voters just wouldn't stand for it. But that amounts to a judgment about appearances, not the proper penalty for his error – the media deducing his fate from the predictable nature of its own reporting and then blaming the public for taking a view it might not, in reality, hold.

 

There was something awful today about hearing people say they hoped he would be back soon, a coward's way of saying they don't really think he needed to go in the first place.

 

Other cabinet ministers have done stupid things too, kept their jobs and deserved to. Liam Fox twice lost appeals over a £22,000 claim. Peter Mandelson was allowed to exist for years in his own world of pantomime morality, yachts and Russians buzzing round him like flies while we all just laughed it off. Even saintly Alistair Darling flipped his second home four times in four years. The fact that Laws was the first to be hit after the election and was a Treasury minister made his survival harder, but that judgment was for the prime minister and his deputy to make – and they didn't want him to go. Laws himself told friends that he could have got through this if he had tried, and he was right.

 

What pulled him down was a creditable but misplaced sense of shame. The horror of what has just happened is that a man of quite exceptional nobility has been broken if not for our entertainment, then because of a process that no one seems able to stop. Politicians good and bad have been destroyed in this search for some perfect morality. The canker started in the Daily Telegraph, a paper that professes to support national institutions but whose tax-exiled owners have discovered that they can grow richer by purchasing outrage than by judging facts fairly. But the disease has infected us all: the new parliament hiring spin doctors who cost more than MPs to explain to the press the nature of the tortures that will be inflicted on any MP who spends too much on stamps.

 

Even so, Laws would have endured if he had not found his sexuality blasted into the public domain – the Telegraph running a blurred snatched photograph of his partner. Some people will dislike the argument that sexuality had anything to do with his downfall, as if gay men are asking to be excused from rules that apply to others. But Laws did not ask to be excused. He simply ended up in an awful mess. People do, sometimes.

 

It is easy, after the weekend's events, to wonder why he did not come out – easy to wonder too why it is the most liberal of parties whose MPs often seem to have found the public announcement of their sexuality difficult. Had he done so, he could have claimed more in expenses for both of them and we would all have chirruped what a tolerant country that showed us to be. But we are not, in every regard, a tolerant country – and to keep your sexuality private is not the same as being ashamed of it. Ben Bradshaw diminished himself yesterday by suggesting as much. He might have directed his scorn instead towards those many gay MPs who have felt it necessary to marry. Or, better still, just stayed silent.

 

Much will be said about Laws's character – the shy man who proved, so briefly, brilliant at communicating; the millionaire city trader who took on a job as a Lib Dem researcher; the person who can list "visiting desert regions" as his pastime in Who's Who (that last fact enough in itself to fill this columnist with admiration).

 

But however miserable the individual loss – and Laws's resignation statement on Sunday was achingly sad – the greater harm is to the cause he represented. His resignation was a precision-targeted missile tearing into the coalition. The loss of almost any other minister would have been better. He was the one man all Conservatives saw as preferable to any of their own, and the one man who could stand alongside George Osborne at the Treasury and strengthen him. Osborne's own description – "it was as if he had been put on Earth to do the job asked of him" – was spot on. What began as two parties in one government is already closer to just two parties now.

 

Too much is being asked of Laws's replacement, Danny Alexander – there because he is a Lib Dem, not because he is the best choice. Cameron and Clegg should have settled on the Tory minister who had been preparing for the job, Philip Hammond. I'd like to delude myself all this can be unwound, and Laws brought back in the autumn. But there was a grim finality to the end of his statement. Meanwhile, the coalition mourns.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

All I can say Scott is that my Christian values (which you so disrespect on all too frequent occasions) give me a sense of compassion which you are clearly don't have. Maybe you should think about the fact that your views on this subject match those of the poisonious Alaistair Campbell and the Daily Telegraph owners The Barclay Brothers who of course have several legal disputes with the (Channel Island) government of Sark over privacy matters; and a long running tax battle with the UK Government over these billionaires (alleged) tax avoidance. Indeed it was a 2005 threat by the Labour Government which led to them successfully finding a whistleblower for the newspaper that they own.

 

Oh as for it having nothing to do with his sexuality ...... really!!!!!!! As an example Scott can you tell me how many UK Professional footballers playing today are gay? Thought not. Homophobia exists in today's society, but I guess you are too blind to see that you have helped to perpetuate it with your attitude in this story.

 

I'm just glad I have the same views as The Independent & The Guardian & theof a majority of callers on Radio5 Live this morning.

 

Because the bottomline is he did not defraud the British taxpayer one penny. He was entitled to claim for the cost of a second home in London, and he was entitled to claim the amount that he did, but he wasn't entitled to claim it in the way that he did (that is, as rent going towards his partner's mortgage rather than a joint mortgage with his partner, the latter of which would have been within the rules). I agree that what he did was wrong, but I can't regard it as even remotely similar to the actions of MPs who claimed for mortgages that didn't exist, and still hung on to their jobs in Government. But I guess none of them were homosexuals were they?

All I can say Scott is that my Christian values (which you so disrespect on all too frequent occasions) give me a sense of compassion which you are clearly don't have. Maybe you should think about the fact that your views on this subject match those of the poisonious Alaistair Campbell and the Daily Telegraph owners The Barclay Brothers who of course have several legal disputes with the (Channel Island) government of Sark over privacy matters; and a long running tax battle with the UK Government over these billionaires (alleged) tax avoidance. Indeed it was a 2005 threat by the Labour Government which led to them successfully finding a whistleblower for the newspaper that they own.

 

Oh as for it having nothing to do with his sexuality ...... really!!!!!!! As an example Scott can you tell me how many UK Professional footballers playing today are gay? Thought not. Homophobia exists in today's society, but I guess you are too blind to see that you have helped to perpetuate it with your attitude in this story.

 

I'm just glad I have the same views as The Independent & The Guardian & theof a majority of callers on Radio5 Live this morning.

 

Because the bottomline is he did not defraud the British taxpayer one penny. He was entitled to claim for the cost of a second home in London, and he was entitled to claim the amount that he did, but he wasn't entitled to claim it in the way that he did (that is, as rent going towards his partner's mortgage rather than a joint mortgage with his partner, the latter of which would have been within the rules). I agree that what he did was wrong, but I can't regard it as even remotely similar to the actions of MPs who claimed for mortgages that didn't exist, and still hung on to their jobs in Government. But I guess none of them were homosexuals were they?

 

So, where is your "christian compassion" for the working classes who do a bit of work on the side and may not tell the dole about it then Rich...? Where is your "christian compassion" for the people on Incapacity Benefit...? I rather think you've been on the side of the fence that the majority of people of IB are committing fraud going by some of your past posts....

 

I'm not making any arguments in favour of scumbags who've ripped off the public on mortgages which dont exist, and you cant say I have... They should ALL have been sacked.. I'm not the hypocrite here, you and Suedehead are for coming away with spurious arguments which have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Laws was very clearly conscious of the fact that he KNEW what he was doing could be interpreted in a certain way, and frankly, I'm still to be convinced that this wasn't the case; it is very clearly a conflict of interests when you're having it off with your landlord/landlady and then claiming supposed "rent" off expenses, and if you cant see that there is a conflict of interests then you're an idiot frankly.... "Honourable" people dont do what Laws did, they come clean and to hell with the consequences.....

 

This, and the fact that he's the bloody Chief Secretary to the friggin' TREASURY, and he's telling US how we should act.... Oh, come on, that's just totally rich that is (no pun intended on the name there dude...), how can he seriously go to the chairman of Goldman Sachs and tell him what he's doing is unethical and wrong. While it may be all "perfectly above board" (whatever that means) for MPs who are independently wealthy (as Laws is) to claim expenses, one must look into the actual ethics of this if one is indeed an "honourable person", put it this way, if I was as well off as him, I'd've paid my own way with my own salary (paying bills, mortgages, rent, etc, errr, kind of what a salary is for, one would think... :rolleyes: ) and this whole situation would NEVER have arisen in the first place.... In short, he didn't have to claim these expenses, seems to me that he just did cos everyone else was, so, yeah, that makes it alright... NOT....

 

I wont defend the Telegraph as a newspaper, but, sh!t, they're hardly the only ones running with this story, and if they didn't someone else would have.... It really stinks of Political Correctness that we apparently cant criticise someone's questionable ethical actions because of his sexuality... And here was me thinking you were against PC...... There may be homophobia in society, but Laws certainly would not be the first gay MP, not even the first Lib Dem gay MP...

Nominations have closed, with everyone but McDonnell through to the ballot paper.

 

Think I'm sticking with my Ed Miliband pick for now, but I'm happy Diane Abbott has gone through - the leadership debate desperately needed someone coming from the hard left to shake it up.

Nominations have closed, with everyone but McDonnell through to the ballot paper.

 

Think I'm sticking with my Ed Miliband pick for now, but I'm happy Diane Abbott has gone through - the leadership debate desperately needed someone coming from the hard left to shake it up.

Which is why MacDonald should have gone through, he is old school Labour, and is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in, being banned from the House of Commons for a while because of his protest against the Third Runway. He was praised by a broadsheet (I can't remember which one now) for his honesty and integrity, during the MP expenses scandal. He has been a great MP for Hayes & Harlington for a good 13 years now. I'm gutted.

Edited June 9, 201015 yr by Daniel Gleek

^MacDonald pulled out to back Abbott.

^MacDonald pulled out to back Abbott.

I didn't realise this, but I'm still disappointed he isn't running himself.

Diane Abbott for the win, time to break the mould.

Diane Abbott for the win, time to break the mould.

 

Looking quite silly here...

tbh, I think what she's said is awful and has really alienated a lot of people who can't afford to send their children to private schools and it's effectively saying that independent education is better, so she's not really supporting what Labour've done over the past 13 years in schools, which I'm told is a lot :P.

 

But yeah, to say that 'west indian mums will go to the wall for their children' probably will alienate voters and I think it's quite an offensive statment to make.

 

+ I suppose somebody so far to the left and a believer in a strong state isn't really supporting that by giving her children independent education :P

I don't blame her for sending her kid to a private school. ALL the schools in Hackney where she is an MP (and presumably lives) are awful, so she didn't really have a choice. She believes in everyone using state education in an ideal world, but only when all schools have reached an acceptable standard (which certainly ain't happening anytime soon with the Tory cuts).

 

I don't know what to make of her "West Indian mothers" quote though...

I don't blame her for sending her kid to a private school. ALL the schools in Hackney where she is an MP (and presumably lives) are awful, so she didn't really have a choice. She believes in everyone using state education in an ideal world, but only when all schools have reached an acceptable standard (which certainly ain't happening anytime soon with the Tory cuts).

 

I don't know what to make of her "West Indian mothers" quote though...

Her son got a place at my old secondary school. A school with 50%+ pass rate, good OFSTED report and where I achieved 8 A*s and 3 As at GCSE so err nah they ain't all awful. How someone could be an MP for one the most underprivileged and poor wards in the country and send her own child to private school highlights succinctly her lack of vision, faith and values to the people she is fighting for the most. She's just a climber, look at her various TV appearances. Rapped up in the glamorous side of things. Tony Blair'2010 I feel...

Her son got a place at my old secondary school. A school with 50%+ pass rate, good OFSTED report and where I achieved 8 A*s and 3 As at GCSE so err nah they ain't all awful. How someone could be an MP for one the most underprivileged and poor wards in the country and send her own child to private school highlights succinctly her lack of vision, faith and values to the people she is fighting for the most. She's just a climber, look at her various TV appearances. Rapped up in the glamorous side of things. Tony Blair'2010 I feel...

 

I went to an independent secondary school and I doubt my results will be that good :o I'll have to wait and see on August 24th :kink:.

 

 

Ed Miliband looks to be picking up steam after getting the backing of the second biggest union in the country (Unison) and rumours are he'll also get the backing of the biggest (Unite). I've thought from the beginning that he was going to win this, and I think it would be best for Labour if he does - he has EASILY the most electable platform imo. Unlike David, he's actually a good communicator, and if he can combine his pledges for a living wage, higher taxes for the wealthy and a graduate tax with some Obama-style inspirational rhetoric, he can really get the Labour member base, the young and the working-class fired up in his favour. Plus, he's indicated he'll do a U-turn on Labour's current position on civil liberties, which could open the door to attract loads of disillusioned Lib Dem voters.

 

So I think Ed M will be the best bet for Labour, although I expect David M and Burnham could both win the next election by default as well. I'd be worried if Balls or Abbott somehow win the leadership contest though.

Both Milibands can easily win the next election, Burnham could if the public has a burning desire to continue New Labour.

So, with leadership papers being sent out this week, the race is finally heating up at last, with all the New Labour heavyweights, panicking that their preferred candidate David looks set for a possible defeat, have come out in force to try to destroy Ed M. We've already heard from Mandelson and Alistair Campbell as well as the "coincidental" leak about Cameron apparently fearing David the most, and apparently Blair is going to attack Ed in an interview later this week.

 

Imo it would be a HUGE mistake for Labour to elect David and just offer a remicrowaved version of New Labour. The public wised up to how generally vacuous it was in the end. Their culture of timidity completely stifled them, and imo is one of the reasons they lost - I really think they could've won this year's election (or atleast got the most seats) if they'd offered something more radical, pledging to make the rich bear the burden of paying off the deficit and offering a living wage for instance - but instead they went for a Tory-lite manifesto, saying they'd be having big cuts but just not *quite* as much as the Conservatives. Saying that the opponents are ultimately right isn't going to win elections - which is why we saw that strategy that Cameron employed backfire when the election came.

 

And the idea that taxing the rich would cost Labour more votes is utterly ridiculous - believe it or not, Labour actually lost five times as many working-class voters between 1997 and 2010 than middle-class voters - and even of that 1m middle class voters that they lost, the vast majority of them weht to the Lib Dems due to disgust at Labour positions on Iraq and civil liberties. They actually lost more voters to the Tories from the working class than they did from the middle class (presumably due to immigration), as well as a few again to the Lib Dems and unfortunately quite a few to the BNP. That's why Labour's vote actually fell heavier than anywhere else in the North East. That's why the party needs to move to the left, firstly to re-attract those lost working classes and secondly to match the Lib Dems' positions on civil liberties and foreign policy - either to vacuum up Lib Dem voters at the next election, or to attract the Lib Dem MPs themselves to abandon the Coalition and enter an electoral alliance with Labour.

 

I don't know, I've been pretty confident all along that Ed would won, but with this New Labour smear attack, I'm starting to have doubts... hopefully it'll backfire... Mandelson and Blair aren't exactly popular in Labour circles.

Edited August 30, 201014 yr by Danny