Tuesday 1 June 2010

No, David, WE paid a high price.

From the BBC:
 

My latest blogpost: No, David, WE paid a high price.Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 14:39

13 comments:

DaveP said...

Just who the hell does he think he is? As far as I'm concerned he's just a greedy dishonest bastard, along with most other MPs, including his replacement.

1 June 2010 at 14:53
dearieme said...

What do you think was dishonest about his replacement, Dave?

1 June 2010 at 15:07
James Higham said...

The answer must await, Dearieme.

1 June 2010 at 15:36
DaveP said...

Danny boy is greedy bastard. Not only does he avoid CGT, by a "morally dubious process" but even claims for a packet of crisps bought at a rail station. The following link is worth a look. The guy is, if not legally dishonest, morally dishonest.

http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/11178/MP_s__A34700_food_bill_._._._and_99p_for_rubber_gloves.html

1 June 2010 at 19:00
Anonymous said...

DaveP:

Was Laws in breach of the rules? Well, maybe. His "we don't treat each other like spouses" line looks like a rather fine one to walk.

But greedy? If he was prepared to make his private life public, he would have been able to buy the house with his boyfriend/whatever, and claim much larger second home allowances.

1 June 2010 at 23:00
DaveP said...

anon @ 23.00 I'm talking about Danny; not Laws.

1 June 2010 at 23:19
Mark Wadsworth said...

Anon, that's a good point actually - would he have been able to milk more if he'd been married to Mr Lundie and financed a 'legit' second home?

As to "make his private life public", surely everybody who gets married makes their private life public, don't they?

1 June 2010 at 23:42
John B said...

@Dave P, there was nothing dubious about the process under which Alexander didn't pay CGT: the law says that a house that has been your primary residence in the past remains CGT-exempt for three years after you stop living in it. That's not a loophole, it's the whole intention and point of the law.

I also can't see why you're cross about him claiming for a bag of crisps. When I travel on business, I expense the food I'm consuming as a result of the travel. HMRC is completely happy that this is a legitimate tax-deductible expense for any other employer or contractor - why on earth should Alexander be treated differently?

@Mark, yes, Laws would definitely have been able to claim more cash if he'd been honest about the relationship - either if he'd been married to Lundie, or if he'd just been living with him and said so.

2 June 2010 at 04:35
Robin Smith said...

He would not have got that high position if he had revealed his private life. Der!

Anyway the big issue with the expenses was not the rent or mortgage interest paid by us. It was the capital gain on the property that goes to the landowner at our expense. About twice the expense claimed. £23k/year * 10 years, versus £500k capital gain

Remember. He is as much a victim of homeownerism as the rest of us. He is human.

I think he's done the honourable thing and we should admire him for that. He even plans to test the confidence of his constituents next. Look at the current parliament. Its still full of the dishonourable who ALL claimed for that massive capital gain, many with an increased majority. THAT is OUR fault. We re-elected them! We are the twats here.

2 June 2010 at 09:55
DaveP said...

John B.. It is the Lib Dems themselves who call this avoidance of CGT "morally dubious". As an ex constituent of Danny Alexander I have followed his expense claims with disgust. There seems to be nothing he wouldn't claim for.

As for Laws; he knew from 2006 that he should not claim expenses on renting his room from his partner. Laws made a false expenses application, and this makes him a liar and a thief.

2 June 2010 at 11:09
Robin Smith said...

As homeownerists or landlordists we are all robbers. Have been in the past. Or aspire to be.

Just because the law says its OK doesn't make it justice.

That society has lost its moral backbone in this way is evident all over the place. In all of us.

We are all complicit. To blame an individual will not help change anything. To blame the system will help a lot. Behead the system

2 June 2010 at 11:27
John B said...

@DaveP - Laws a liar, yes. Struggling to see how he's a thief, given that he ended up with less money that he'd've had if he'd told the truth.

2 June 2010 at 15:00
DaveP said...

John B.. Laws made a false application for expenses. Yes, he could have applied as if his lover was his partner, and perhaps got more money, but he didn't. It makes him a thief. If I went into a shop and stole a bar of chocolate, and ignored the £50 note next to it, I would still be a thief, all be it a rather stupid one.

2 June 2010 at 18:24

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)