Not if you want my vote

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
As a life-long Tory, Cameron will struggle to get my vote at the next election if he reinstates that Laws creature. If he lacks the political judgement to appreciate how unwelcome Laws would be and the political skill to keep him out because of it, we may as well let Millipede and his cohorts finish the job Gord and St Tony started. What does he think he's playing at?

David Laws to return to 'big government job' within months - Telegraph
 
#2
Wow lost your vote bet he is crying into his beer
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#3
As a life-long Tory, Cameron will struggle to get my vote at the next election if he reinstates that Laws creature. If he lacks the political judgement to appreciate how unwelcome Laws would be and the political skill to keep him out because of it, we may as well let Millipede and his cohorts finish the job Gord and St Tony started. What does he think he's playing at?

David Laws to return to 'big government job' within months - Telegraph
Trying to find enough half competent Lib Dems to occupy cabinet positions seems to be a bit challenging......especially as they appear to be a bit "accident" prone.....
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
If he loses my demographic at the next election, he will certainly be crying into something and reinstating someone who was bang to rights for fiddling expenses is a pretty good way of going about it. My point was general about Cameron's political ability on the basis of a specific observation - I apologise if you were challenged by the subtlety.
 
#5
If he loses my demographic at the next election, he will certainly be crying into something and reinstating someone who was bang to rights for fiddling expenses is a pretty good way of going about it. My point was general about Cameron's political ability on the basis of a specific observation - I apologise if you were challenged by the subtlety.
How much did his fiddling cost the taxpayer?
 
#6
Funny how quiet he kept his first visit to Saudi Arabia, press kept at arms length and all. Didn't want the journos to see the bung I suppose!
 
#7
'F_F' - I answered my question by reading your last post. That said, trying to keep the Lib/Dem twerps 'happy' must be an extremely tiresome business. I'll wager that Cameron wishes he had 'gone to the country' a month or so after the last General Election. The chances then were we, the electorate, would have seen the errors of our ways, and voted in a large Tory majority.

The despatch of Huhne in some way will help the nation but it is sad that the other arch-clown Cable is still in post doing as much damage to business as his little socialist brain can think of.

We MUST reverse ALL of the objectionable Huhne's stupidities and embark, with alacrity, on a programme to build nuclear power stations. Difficult though as the bunny-hugging idiot Davey has vowed to continue with Huhne's 'green' energy policies - dear God, preserve us.

PS: Are there any Lib/Dem MPs NOT in the government?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
#9
I think £40,000+ was the rent paid to his partner in breach of the rules.
In actual fact he could have legitimately claimed 30,000 more than he did and still be in the cabinet because by claiming the extra thirty grand he would have stayed within the rules. So rather than ripping off the taxpayer he saved them money.

"The report says: "I believe that it is right to recognise that Mr Laws's ACA claims were below the maxima provided by the allowance . . . and I recognise his evidence that, had he claimed for his Somerset property, and had he wished to do so, he could have claimed considerably more."

If he had allocated his constituency home as his second home he would have still been in the cabinet, having claimed £30,000 more."

New Statesman - Laws is guilty of poor judgement, not avarice

But not to worry, you "thinking" something is close enough.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
In actual fact he could have legitimately claimed 30,000 more than he did and still be in the cabinet because by claiming the extra thirty grand he would have stayed within the rules. So rather than ripping off the taxpayer he saved them money.

"The report says: "I believe that it is right to recognise that Mr Laws's ACA claims were below the maxima provided by the allowance . . . and I recognise his evidence that, had he claimed for his Somerset property, and had he wished to do so, he could have claimed considerably more."

If he had allocated his constituency home as his second home he would have still been in the cabinet, having claimed £30,000 more."

New Statesman - Laws is guilty of poor judgement, not avarice

But not to worry, you "thinking" something is close enough.
That title should be "Laws is guilty of lying because he didn't have the balls to be open and is incapable of learning from the multiple gay scandals that have hit the Lib Dems." And anyway, who the hell wants someone with poor judgement as a cabinet minister?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
'F_F' - I answered my question by reading your last post. That said, trying to keep the Lib/Dem twerps 'happy' must be an extremely tiresome business. I'll wager that Cameron wishes he had 'gone to the country' a month or so after the last General Election. The chances then were we, the electorate, would have seen the errors of our ways, and voted in a large Tory majority.

The despatch of Huhne in some way will help the nation but it is sad that the other arch-clown Cable is still in post doing as much damage to business as his little socialist brain can think of.

We MUST reverse ALL of the objectionable Huhne's stupidities and embark, with alacrity, on a programme to build nuclear power stations. Difficult though as the bunny-hugging idiot Davey has vowed to continue with Huhne's 'green' energy policies - dear God, preserve us.

PS: Are there any Lib/Dem MPs NOT in the government?
The astonishing thing is that, even though he wants Lib Dems in the Cabinet, surely Clegg must know how toxic Laws is.
 
#12
Trying to find enough half competent Lib Dems to occupy cabinet positions seems to be a bit challenging......especially as they appear to be a bit "accident" prone.....
And that's the basic problem the Lib-Dems face. They've been able to indulge the rather 'eccentric' and odd wing of the political spectrum for decades, safe in the knowledge they will never come under the harsh light of public scrutiny.

Well, they've gotten into government now with the predictable outcomes.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
In actual fact he could have legitimately claimed 30,000 more than he did and still be in the cabinet because by claiming the extra thirty grand he would have stayed within the rules. So rather than ripping off the taxpayer he saved them money.

"The report says: "I believe that it is right to recognise that Mr Laws's ACA claims were below the maxima provided by the allowance . . . and I recognise his evidence that, had he claimed for his Somerset property, and had he wished to do so, he could have claimed considerably more."

If he had allocated his constituency home as his second home he would have still been in the cabinet, having claimed £30,000 more."

New Statesman - Laws is guilty of poor judgement, not avarice

But not to worry, you "thinking" something is close enough.
So at what point was the claim he actually made compliant and why did he therefore resign as a result? In your case 'thinking something' is nowhere near close enough. I presume that having been so aggressive and smug, you will be able to provide an accurate answer. After all, on your own evidence, he could have properly claimed a reduced amount for the correct property and not cost the tax payer any extra if that was his intent.
 
#14
So at what point was the claim he actually made compliant and why did he therefore resign as a result? In your case 'thinking something' is nowhere near close enough. I presume that having been so aggressive and smug, you will be able to provide an accurate answer. After all, on your own evidence, he could have properly claimed a reduced amount for the correct property and not cost the tax payer any extra if that was his intent.
On my own evidence he could have properly claimed an increased amount. The reason he didn't was because this country still has a large number of people in it who believe that there can be "gay scandals".

Your original post about the "creature" Laws was full of righteous indignation fueled by your belief that he had cost the taxpayer money that he wasn't entitled to. While strictly correct it took no account (because you didn't know) that he could in fact have claimed more.
You can bluster all you want, that is what your original post was based on.

Further, it's a bit rich calling someones post aggressive when you are quite happy to call people you have never met a "creature"
 
#15
In actual fact he could have legitimately claimed 30,000 more than he did and still be in the cabinet because by claiming the extra thirty grand he would have stayed within the rules. So rather than ripping off the taxpayer he saved them money.

"The report says: "I believe that it is right to recognise that Mr Laws's ACA claims were below the maxima provided by the allowance . . . and I recognise his evidence that, had he claimed for his Somerset property, and had he wished to do so, he could have claimed considerably more."

If he had allocated his constituency home as his second home he would have still been in the cabinet, having claimed £30,000 more."

New Statesman - Laws is guilty of poor judgement, not avarice

But not to worry, you "thinking" something is close enough.
So a man who could have claimed more legally, but chose to deceive family and his constituency instead, wasn't intelligent enough to do it through the system, and cannot pick the right form for his lease agreement is just the sort of person we want in charge. But only because he cheated for less than he could have, an interesting take on things.

What about a man who is rather tightly wound and incompetent at managing his own admin, and makes poor decisions regarding his own life? It is as well he got out of business, I suspect he would have been sacked for gross misconduct.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
On my own evidence he could have properly claimed an increased amount. The reason he didn't was because this country still has a large number of people in it who believe that there can be "gay scandals".

Your original post about the "creature" Laws was full of righteous indignation fueled by your belief that he had cost the taxpayer money that he wasn't entitled to. While strictly correct it took no account (because you didn't know) that he could in fact have claimed more.
You can bluster all you want, that is what your original post was based on.

Further, it's a bit rich calling someones post aggressive when you are quite happy to call people you have never met a "creature"
My original belief was that he resigned because he had acted dishonestly - if you have evidence that he didn't and you can explain why, being blameless, he felt the need to resign, please feel free to expatiate. I think you'll struggle with the assignment but please press on. I always gave Whet and Ashie a chance so I'll do the same for you: Did he act honestly or not? If not, why is it OK to reinstate him and do you honestly believe that there will be no fall out?

Edited to add: I never met Hitler or Stalin but they were creatures too. He's in public life, or was, it goes with the territory.
 
#17
So a man who could have claimed more legally, but chose to deceive family and his constituency instead, wasn't intelligent enough to do it through the system, and cannot pick the right form for his lease agreement is just the sort of person we want in charge. But only because he cheated for less than he could have, an interesting take on things.

What about a man who is rather tightly wound and incompetent at managing his own admin, and makes poor decisions regarding his own life? It is as well he got out of business, I suspect he would have been sacked for gross misconduct.
You seem to think I am arguing that he should be in post I'm not. What I am doing is calling someone on their lack of knowledge behind what happened. In my opinion the points you raise are more reason for him to be out of the cabinet than the spurious knee jerk "he ripped off the taxpayer" what "creature" lack of thought opinions from the OP.

I have sympathy with Laws trying to keep his personal life personal, because like it or not there are still plenty of "gay scandal" lovers out there. The problem I have is how incompetently he tried to do it.
 
#18
My original belief was that he resigned because he had acted dishonestly - if you have evidence that he didn't and you can explain why, being blameless, he felt the need to resign, please feel free to expatiate. I think you'll struggle with the assignment but please press on. I always gave Whet and Ashie a chance so I'll do the same for you: Did he act honestly or not? If not, why is it OK to reinstate him and do you honestly believe that there will be no fall out?

Edited to add: I never met Hitler or Stalin but they were creatures too. He's in public life, or was, it goes with the territory.
You smug much?
You can wriggle all you like, you thought the "creature" Laws was ripping off the taxpayer, I proved he wasn't. I'm not going to change your mind so thanks for the kind offer of allowing me the honour of proving my point, but I don't think I'll bother.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
You smug much?
You can wriggle all you like, you thought the "creature" Laws was ripping off the taxpayer, I proved he wasn't. I'm not going to change your mind so thanks for the kind offer of allowing me the honour of proving my point, but I don't think I'll bother.
He misclaimed for forty thousand pounds - matter of public record. I don't blame you for ducking out though - even Laws didn't try to defend it.
 
#20
One of the best questions I ever saw on Question Time related to Laws and his expense fraud. "Had one of Mr Laws' constituents fraudulently claimed £40,000 in housing benefit, would the MPs on the panel be arguing for similar leniency to be shown?"

The best response the panel could muster was "That's a very difficult question."

Every year, "single" mothers who are found to be cohabiting with boyfriends are prosecuted for sums totalling far less that £40k. I know of a number of armed forces officers, including one RN captain, who have lost their careers, pensions and who have ended their service doing drill in Colchester for less than Laws did.

Forget a return to the cabinet. The fact that Laws is still an MP is a disgrace. His treatment merely reinforces the attitude that MPs are above the laws that apply to the rest of us (no pun intended btw).
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E The NAAFI Bar 3
Jip Travolta The Intelligence Cell 13
PartTimePongo Current Affairs, News and Analysis 4

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top