Saturday, May 29, 2010

David Laws

I'll just cut and paste something I've said about the man on another blog.

I like Laws, he is one of the prime movers in bringing the Lib Dems to a more coherent position and he had been the best performer in the first month of the new government.

However he has to resign as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, how can he be responsible for administering the necessary but painful cuts in public spending when he has been so profligate with the public purse? Telling people they have to accept pay restraint after claiming £40000 he should not have done means that he isn't credible.

6 comments:

Pat said...

I've been given to believe that had he declared his relationship, he would have been entitled to more money. It was unwise of him to attempt to conceal that which must be found out- but financial gain was not his motive.

Ross said...

If that is so then it does put a different light on the matter.

Matthew said...

I'm in two minds about it all, but I'm not sure one can say 'financial gain was not his motive' if someone (knowingly, I think, although he did suggest he was uncertain about the definition of partner) claims money they aren't entitled to.

The defence that he could have got more money doesn't really work beacause to have done that he would have had to do something he wasn't willing to do, so for him it wasn't an option. There was a third option which didn't break the rules (if he did, but his resignation statement perhaps suggests he thinks he probaly did) and didn't declare his relationship - don't claim it at all.

JuliaM said...

"There was a third option which didn't break the rules (if he did, but his resignation statement perhaps suggests he thinks he probaly did) and didn't declare his relationship - don't claim it at all."

But he was entitled, you see, and it's not fair and discriminatory that he had to hide his relationship and blah blah blah...

Matthew said...

Also according to the Telegraph he is now claiming for flat he doesn't actually use, which does seem rather at odds with the spirit of 'expenses'.

Ross said...

"There was a third option which didn't break the rules (if he did, but his resignation statement perhaps suggests he thinks he probaly did) and didn't declare his relationship - don't claim it at all."

Good point.