New Education Secretary (not David Laws, but Michael Gove)
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: New Education Secretary (not David Laws, but Michael Gov
The David Laws expenses scandal was v. disappointing as his CV looked so perfect for the role into which he had been slotted.
I still don't understand why he didn't either 1) not claim for the rental expenses or 2) declare that they were being paid to a boyfriend, partner, whatever he liked to call his partner ...... better to tell your Mum face to face than leave her to read it in the papers some day
Someone earlier up the forum suggested that he made the claim and made it clear who the rental was paid to (but without saying that it was his boyfriend) in order to try and make it seem as though his partner was not his partner. i.e. he money was not the motive for making the claim, but concealment of his relationship was the sole purpose of the claim. If this was the case, he could have made a much smaller claim.
The other thing I don't understand is why the Telegraph disclosed this when they did - presumably they had all the info pre-election to have done it then the way they did to many other MPs (from all parties) prior to the election. One can only come up with lots of different theories but never really know the truth. Anyhow, it is a great shame that he was not squeaky clean.
So what do we think of the new Education Secretary? Back to the OP?
I still don't understand why he didn't either 1) not claim for the rental expenses or 2) declare that they were being paid to a boyfriend, partner, whatever he liked to call his partner ...... better to tell your Mum face to face than leave her to read it in the papers some day
Someone earlier up the forum suggested that he made the claim and made it clear who the rental was paid to (but without saying that it was his boyfriend) in order to try and make it seem as though his partner was not his partner. i.e. he money was not the motive for making the claim, but concealment of his relationship was the sole purpose of the claim. If this was the case, he could have made a much smaller claim.
The other thing I don't understand is why the Telegraph disclosed this when they did - presumably they had all the info pre-election to have done it then the way they did to many other MPs (from all parties) prior to the election. One can only come up with lots of different theories but never really know the truth. Anyhow, it is a great shame that he was not squeaky clean.
So what do we think of the new Education Secretary? Back to the OP?