Danny Alexander was already doing a job crucial to the Coalition's success

denis cooper

Thanks to the impatience of the Telegraph in breaking this story now, rather holding back for a couple of months until after the emergency budget, taxpayers could potentially be landed with bills for billions of pounds of extra interest on the hundreds of billions of pounds that the government will have to try to borrow in the coming years.

In compensation for which, Laws has repaid £40,000 now rather than in a couple of months. And possibly in the end it may even be decided that he need not repay the full amount.

The sheer stupidity of this beggars belief.

Jean Monnet

From Danny Alexander's website, under "Experience":

Director of Communications, European Movement, 1996-99

Head of Communications, Britain in Europe, 1999-2004

Head of Communications, Cairngorms National Park Authority, 2004-05

Eight years spent telling Britain to join the euro, two years spent telling people to go for a walk. Superb. Ideal man for the job.

And in case anyone is still defending Laws's probity:

"Laws typically claimed between £50 and £150 a month for utilities and £100 to £200 for maintenance. Receipts were not provided to back up the claims. However, in April 2008, the rules were changed and MPs had to provide receipts for any claims above £25. Mr Laws's expense claims dropped sharply. For example, he claimed only £37 a month for utilities."

That sort of thing may well have been widespread but it wasn't honourable.

Walsingham's Ghost

And the saddest irony is that there is now mounting speculation that David Laws was 'outed' by his own Party, with Simon Hughes currently being touted as the prime suspect.

Perhaps there was more truth to those rumours that Hughes was 'spitting blood' at not being given a Ministerial role in the Coalition than at first thought...

WG

djw2009

A camp attack by Simon Hughes?

Tankus

Hughes is going to do to the coalition , what brown did to the blair government.

Its a pity he didn't loose his seat at the elections ..

Kirsty Richards

What is Cameron thinking giving such an important role to this idiot Alexander? Why are the Tory party allowing this to happen? He has spent most of his adult life advocating, strongly, that Britain join the Euro. If we had, our economy would be on it's knees right now and we would have broke the Euro just like we broke the ERM before. Not me saying this but John Redwood in the Times the other day. This coalition cannot go on we need another election so the Tories can get a majority and govern this country right. When one looks back at Treasury teams in the Governments of Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Osborne and Alexander are a disgrace and national embarrassment. The economy is the most important thing in politics the Tories have spent the last 13 years out of office because they lost the trust and confidence of people, on the economy after Black Wednesday ERM etc. The Lib Dems are now the weakest link, it is time to do what is in the interests of the Tory party and the Country.

Kirsty Richards

I wonder if the Lib Dems can survive this coalition. The minute they are put under any kind of scrutiny, like the other two parties constantly are under, it all falls apart. There is obviously two wings in their party and they are are vicious.

Nash

It is an interesting ethics debate: Should Mail have "outed" Lord Treisman and cost England the World Cup? Should the Telegraph have "outed" David Laws and cost the UK a compotent Secretary to the Treasury at such an important time?

Nevertheless, it would have been better if both men have been personally honest and not made the mistakes they both did.

John Bracewell

In the initial revelations by the Telegraph, there was a service to the country in telling us what our politicians were up to. In the latest information about Laws' expenses, the Telegraph appears grubby, it has got its story but has destroyed the reputation of a man who looked as though he would do a good job in the financial interests of the country. The Telegraph had the information last year and could have broken the news along with the other expenses information, when it would have done far less harm, but has only decided to reveal it now for their own commercial gain. I hope people boycott the Telegraph instead of their readership increasing, it has done no good with this story. I think it is a technical breach of the rules by which Laws did not benefit financially and the taxpayer got a good deal for rent in London. It comes in the category of 'silly expenses claims' rather than the more serious categories of phantom mortgages, CGT evasion and 2nd home flipping.

Marvin

Unfortunately it seems that Danny Alexander is just yet another serial
expenses abuser.

During May 2005-March 2009 he claimed £13,975 in “food” expenses, at up to
£400/month, without supporting receipts.

When the new system came in, he regularly claimed the similarly abusive sum of £25/day for “subsistence”, again without providing receipts.

As you can see from the analysis below, Alexander made large “food” expenses claims, including for periods when Parliament was not sitting. For example, in 2008 Parliament was in recess from 22 July 2008 to 6 October 2008, yet he still claimed for food during that period. Likewise in previous years.

He also claimed for several “big ticket” items, which are shown below.

Danny Alexander – Period 2005-2006 – “Food” claims

6 May 2005 – 1 June 2005: £300.00
5 Jun 2005 – 4 Jul 2005: £350.00
5 Jul 2005 – 1 Aug 2005: £125.00
2 Aug 2005 – 5 Sep 2005: £125.00
6 Sep 2005 – 3 Oct 2005: £150.00
4 Oct 2005 – 1 Nov 2005: £350.00
1 Nov 2005 – 1 Dec 2005: £350.00
1 Dec 2005 – 1 Jan 2006: £300.00
1 Jan 2006 – 1 Feb 2006: £300.00
1 Feb 2006 – 1 Mar 2006: £300.00
1 Mar 2006 – 31 Mar 2006: £300.00

Total for “food”, without receipts: £2950.00

Other items in this period:
Sofa and armchairs: £2000.00
Boiler replacement: £2143.25

Source:
http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/danny-g-alexander/Danny_G_Alexander_0506_ACA.pdf

Danny Alexander – Period 2006-2007 – “Food” claims

1 Apr 2006 – 30 Apr 2006: £225.00
1 May 2006 – 31 May 2006: £375.00
1 Jun 2006 – 30 Jun 2006: £375.00
1 Jul 2006 – 31 Jul 2006: £350.00
1 Aug 2006 – 31 Aug 2006: £150.00
1 Sep 2006 – 30 Sep 2006: £150.00
1 Oct 2006 – 31 Oct 2006: £375.00
1 Nov 2006 – 30 Nov 2006: £375.00
1 Dec 2006 – 31 Dec 2006: £375.00
1 Jan 2007 – 31 Jan 2007: £375.00
1 Feb 2007 – 28 Feb 2007: £300.00
1 Mar 2007 – 31 Mar 2007: £375.00

Total for “food”, without receipts: £3800.00

Source for 2006-2007:
http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/danny-g-alexander/Danny_G_Alexander_0607_ACA.pdf

Danny Alexander – Period 2007-2008 – “Food” claims

1 Apr 2007 – 30 Apr 2007: £300.00
1 May 2007 – 31 May 2007: £400.00
1 Jun 2007 – 30 Jun 2007: £375.00
1 Jul 2007 – 31 Jul 2007: £300.00
1 Aug 2007 – 31 Aug 2007: £75.00
1 Sep 2007 – 30 Sep 2007: £50.00
1 Oct 2007 – 31 Oct 2007: £275.00
1 Nov 2007 – 30 Nov 2007: £300.00
1 Dec 2007 – 31 Dec 2007: £300.00
1 Jan 2008 – 31 Jan 2008: £325.00
1 Feb 2008 – 28 Feb 2008: £325.00
1 Mar 2008 – 31 Mar 2008: £375.00

Total for “food”, without receipts: £3400.00

Other items in this period:
Two alcoves: £1140.00
Removals: £1438.87

Source for 2007-2008:
http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/danny-g-alexander/Danny_G_Alexander_0708_ACA.pdf

Danny Alexander – Period 2008-2009 – “Food” claims

1 Apr 2008 – 30 Apr 2008: £225.00
1 May 2008 – 31 May 2008: £300.00
1 Jun 2008 – 30 Jun 2008: £400.00
1 Jul 2008 – 31 Jul 2008: £375.00
1 Aug 2008 – 31 Aug 2008: £75.00
1 Sep 2008 – 30 Sep 2008: £200.00
1 Oct 2008 – 31 Oct 2008: £400.00
1 Nov 2008 – 30 Nov 2008: £400.00
1 Dec 2008 – 31 Dec 2008: £350.00
1 Jan 2009 – 31 Jan 2009: £350.00
1 Feb 2009 – 28 Feb 2009: £350.00
1 Mar 2009 – 31 Mar 2009: £400.00

Total for “food”, without receipts: £3825.00

Source for 2008-2009:
http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/danny-g-alexander/Danny_G_Alexander_0809_ACA.pdf

Danny Alexander – Period 2009-2010 – “Subsistence” claims

1 Apr 2009 – 30 Apr 2009: £225.00 (9 nights)
1 May 2009 – 31 May 2009: £275.00 (11 nights)
1 Jun 2009 – 30 Jun 2009: £400.00 (16 nights)

Source for 2009-2010:
http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/danny-g-alexander/Danny_G_Alexander_0910_PAAE.pdf

Tiberius

WG: there's this too, courtesy of a DT poster.

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/05/developing-story-who-shopped-david-laws.html

Is Campbell being fed by these wreckers?

And there was I worried about the 1922 committee!

Austin Barry

Simon Hughes is a loathsome creature and the allegations that he outed fellow-gay Laws is in line with his paradoxical anti-gay stance to bugger Peter Tatchell's chances in the 1983 Bermondsey by-election.

But the gay witch-hunt aspect of this matter is overstated: Laws is a multi-millionaire found with his hand in the public till - good riddance.

Walsingham's Ghost

@ Tiberius

Thanks for that - looks like this story still has legs...

WG

alexsandr

surely all those in the last parliament will have skeletons in the cupboard? Wonder why they went after laws.
Problem is, all the politicians with any nous are tainted by the expenses scandals. So who is left to run the government?

Snowman

Shouldn't we leave the politicians to deal with the nation's finances?If we are not careful we'll get MKII of the expenses scandal instead, and sink, all and together.

strapworld

Well, if Hughes, Ashdown or Kennedy are behind the anti-coalition destabalising unit only CLEGG as the leader of the Liberal Democrats can ascertain.

Perhaps he should call in each one to see him and ask them directly. They will, I am sure, deny such involvement. He should then ask them to write him a letter assuring him that they have done nothing and will do nothing to create problems for the Liberal Democrat government ministers and the coalition.

Then, when and these things always rise to the surface, evidence arrives. Have them disciplined by the National Executive with a demand that they have the Liberal Democratic whip removed.

Clegg cannot ignore what is happening and he has got assert himself. By doing this he must also speak to all his parliamentary colleagues and ask them for similar assurances and request them to vote for a Deputy Leader who fully supports the coalition!

Let us see what Clegg is made of.

I have always found Hughes quite disloyal and untrustworthy.

TrevorsDen

Give it up Marvin - every MP claims for expenses - shock horror, we have to pay MPs and we had rules for determining the costs for them working in London and their constituency.

Why even employees of the BBC make expenses claims.

Why not grow up instead of pissing in your nappy.

We can rest assured that Alexander will be a better secretary than Byrne and Osborne will be a better chancellor than Brown. Not difficult I know.

What is clear from the exchanges over the last couple of days is the country as represented by its self appointed media guardians (and the pomposity in the blogosphere) is not even remotely interested in creating a sound economic future.

Laws saved the taxpayer money living with his friend, he did not cost it more money.

paul holdstock

I must confess i was genuinely impressed with laws' performance at the treasury thus far, and so think his resignation is a loss to the coalition government.
However, he is a man of some personal wealth, and did not claim for the dubious expenses out of need, just greed.
After all, if the story had not been published, he'd still have the £40,000, and his position.
As a senior treasury official, any whiff of financial impropriety is utterly unacceptable.
All the many utterances of praise for his 'integrity' are totally disproved by the facts of the case.
Rather like the situation of Browns microphone gaffe, had it not have been left switched on, he would have still said what he said, but neither been exposed for the comments, nor been so contrite, indeed, no apology at all would have been proffered.
Jntegrity would be demonstrated by NOT over-claiming on expenses, NOt insulting members of the public, and A|LWAYS being truthful.
The fact that despite his failings, he is supposedly a person of high integrity illustrates how low the moral standards of parliament, and most members of it, have fallen.

TGF UKIP

What this confirms is what most observers have long known - that the relationships between senior LibDems are by far the most viperous and rancorous of all three main parties, worse even than Labour.

It also underlines how foolish this coalition is and the utter desperation on Cameron's part that drove the Tories into it especially on such ludicrous terms.

The unforgiveable thing is that the LibDems had already so discredited themselves by their duplicitous secret double-dealing with Labour during the negotiations that Cameron could have gone into minority government, gone to the country in October/March and destroyed the LibDems in southern England for at least a decade.

Unfortunately, Dave's desperate self-preservation militated against any course other than to get himself into the shelter of No 10 regardless of price or cost to Tory Party or country.

2trueblue

The coalition is beginning to dictate who can be considered for specific posts and that is the problem. Cameron said he would never gaurantee not shifting Osbourne so why should he be held to preserving any post for a Lib Dem? The post should have gone to someone else who was free to take it up, not someone who had just been posted elsewher.

Dimoto

Curious that this thread has gone off on a wild goose chase after the LibDems.
With the DT now going after Alexander, isn't it obvious that this is an unholy alliance between the DT headbangers and their Brown supporting owners ?
The headbangers have a well-defined suicidal streak, and we all know what Labour's agenda and methods are.
Cameron and Clegg will have to learn that if you give the anti mob a sacrifice, they'll just move on to the next target.

JohnAnt

Do you really think that Danny Alexander, who lives with his family in pretty Aviemore, and represents the gizza-mentality eco-proud constituency of Inverness/Nairn which scarcely notices the House of Commons except for the relevant handouts - he's going to be able to firmly stand behind cuts to the public sector?
No, he won't.

Cuffleyburgers

It is little shor f a tragedy that we lose the servics of a man like Laws - however, he made a mistake, a very serious mistake, and failed to take corrective action while he still could.

I think it is wrong to blame the telegraph for publishing the story. It was all ok when it was labour who were suffering most...

I hope that by resigning promptly and honourably (what a blessed relief after those squalid drawnout labour calvaries) the way has been prepared for a return later in the year.

Also rather bows a hole in Clegg's campaign which semed to seek to imply that the libdems were subsantially whiter than the tories or labour - looks like it was only Cameron who took effective action over the expenses business, something which will also stand him in good stead should a further election be necessary soon.

Mycroft

Since the DT is going after Alexander this morning, it is clear enough what their game is. Wonderfully pompous leader about Laws, as if he had just fallen from the sky with them having nothing to do with it.

My good feelings about this coaltion are encouraged by the fact that it has all the right enemies, and I hope it will bring about a complete change in the direction of British politics.

emil

meanwhile when the markets go down the toilet next week the Telegraph will be wondering who to blame. sigh

2trueblue

John Bracewell, technical or not it was not within the rules. The fact that Laws is very capable is irrelevant, he made a bad choice in hiding facts about his expenses. I could not care less about his sexuality. It mattered more to him to hide the facts than to ensure that his accounting methods were accurate.
The job should now go to the most capable person and Cameron should forget about designating posts for specific parts of the coalition and get us the best man. If he is a Tory so be it.