David Laws will bounce back from resignation, say senior Conservatives | Politics | guardian.co.uk .
If there’s anyone mourning the end of one of the shortest cabinet careers ever I think they need to seek professional help.
David Laws fulfilled all my expectations of the Orange Book Liberals: cold, ruthless, uncaring willingness to inflict harm on the ordinary people of this country in pursuit of a bankrupt mantra based on economic ineptitude: extreme in the nineteenth century; unpalatable beyond imagination now.
Worse than that, the excuse offered for his deception is clear evidence of a cold, calculated and deliberate abuse based on fine reading of the rules and the use of the mindset of the tax avoider: that the spirit of the law may be legitimately abused.
I am delighted this man has been exposed for such abuse.
May any others who have done the same follow in his path.
This mentality needs to be consigned to history – and this government with it.
His excuses reveal he must have known what his doing, and it is inconceivable that a man of his training did not: he deserves the certain destruction of his career that will follow.
This government knows the harm it plans to unleash on this country: they deserve the same fate.
9 Responses to “Not beyond the Law”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m not condonig Laws’ behaviour (and I am not a Lib Dem supporter), but your language / glee / condemnation seems a tad over the top. Laws’ landlord did provide accommodation and Laws is entitled to recover the cost of providing a second residence in Westminster or his constituency, so the idea that the tax payer is necessarily worse off is inaccurate.
The purpose of the particular regulations is to ensure that the payment of tax payer funded rent is not paid to a “connected party”, such as a spouse, civil partner or similar. In a more reasonable world any housing cost incurred up to a preset limit would be allowed, subject to it being at market rate to prevent any unjust enrichment, but since “market rates” are subjective, the prohibition on renting from “connected parties” is a reasonable substitute, although far from in fallible – nothing prevents an MP from renting from a friend or colleague and some do.
Laws’ mistake was to assume that his landlord was not a ‘partner’ within the meaning of the regulations. To be honest, I have no idea what that term means these days, but I suppose that like tax avoidance, you know it when you see it. Laws’ fault was to not clear his position with the parliamentary authorities, and to rearrange his affairs if they did not approve.
For someone who states that he is a Committed Christian, I cannot understand how you can reconcile your faith with the bile and bitterness that you extend to those whose views are different from yours. Your joy in the resignation of Mr. Laws is repulsive. Do not get me wrong – I believe that his decision to resign was the correct one as he had broken the rules. You do yourself no favours with such an approach and risk being branded an extremist.
But amazingly it was OK for Ed Balls and his Yvette Cooper to each get a second house allowance.
And your comment about this is?
#1 and #2
Hang on a minute, when the expenses story came out, there was a deafening baying for blood on all sides. People were ‘delighted’ when MPs were shamed, sacked or resigned. People were disgusted when some MPs defended their postions.
Cameron and Clegg both campaigned as leaders of parties that would throw out the old rot and replace with transparent honesty.
I read that the ‘glee’ is aimed at the fact that the New lot haven’t changed a bit, and like many of the Old lot, they are led by the nose by greed, and not by aligning personal morality, especially in the light of it’s historical close proximity, with the conviction policies that would improve the country.
At least with some politicians that openly advocate “..a bankrupt mantra based on economic ineptitude: extreme in the nineteenth century; unpalatable beyond imagination..” you would expect a fiddle, but in this Coalition, so soon?
All wrong-doing must be quickly purged. Isn’t it good when Bad Things get caught?
That isn’t extremist.
@Richard
Jesus was a bloody awkward character so unwilling to compromise on issues that mattered to him he died for it
And he got very angry with corrupt financiers
Faith is not an option for softies
It’s an act of courage that requires you to say what’s right and wrong
Not on inconsequential man made issues – which much of sexual morality is – but on things like honesty
David Laws cheated.
If he did not know he cheated he is incompetent.
If he did not check in the light of all the scandal and publicity of late he was reckless
Or he just cheated and hoped to get away with it
For any of these reasons he is unfit at this time to hold high public office
He and his Tory colleagues have shown no remorse
If and when he does then he can be rehabilitated
Not until
That’s justice
And you’re saying a Christian should not defend justice. Or oppose hypocrisy? Or corruption?
You’ve got a lot to learn about what faith means
And let’s l;eave faith aside entirely – you’ve got a lot to learn about right and wrong and the need to live by common ethical standards I suggest
I know neoliberalism demanded that ethics go out of the window – it makes no sense in an ehical context after all – but that’s also the reason why it too has to be rejected
And why apologists such as “Alex” (a man who is so dishonest he will not even admit who he is) has so much to learn – and whose comments are so repugnant as a result
@Justin
I disapprove
But it was legal, open and permitted
Which makes it a million miles from David Laws
Alex
The guy was well aware of the scrutiny about the use of expenses. He was probably honestly scared of the reaction if he declared his true personal situation, and that shows how we are still backward socially, but the whole denial psychology is not a good trait for someone who is reported to have many other skills. Transparency, remember.
It’s tough on the chap, he’ll be back, but why should he be treated any less harshly than the others?
As for the Balls’, i can’t reconcile them in my head. A bit like Mandelson – although Mandelson is brilliant political telly, he’s very good at what he does. Those debates with K Clarke were entertaining.
Not my politics, but there you go.
What the Hell has religion got to do with this?
Its hard enough discussing political, ethical, and moral subjects without bringing religion into it!
We atheists have morals too!