Expenses scandal - Now it's Danny Alexander's turn

[boyfriday]

He didn't claim it was his main home. Up until 2006, it was his only home.

 

I'm no sure what we're arguing about here, I'm not disputing that.

[Guest sibon]

Assuming that you're right; the fact they are resorting to inventing claims of immoral behaviour where there has not been any, strongly suggests that they already know they are losing.

 

I refer you to the posts above, which explain clearly why his behaviour could be viewed as immoral.

 

And the establishment very rarely lose.

[HeadingNorth]

I refer you to the posts above, which explain clearly why his behaviour could be viewed as immoral.

 

 

Actually no, they don't. All of the posts above - mine excepted - are talking about first and second homes, which are completely irrelevant to Alexander's position. Until 2006 he only had one home, so selling it in 2007 meant there was no CGT to pay. Whether he lived in Scotland for one year, ten years or twenty thousand years makes no difference whatsoever; nothing he has done can possibly be construed as immoral.

[cgksheff]

The Scotsman article seems to sum it up as follows:

 

Danny Alexander answers claims he 'dodged capital gains tax'

Published Date: 31 May 2010

By ANGUS HOWARTH

THE newly-appointed Chief Secretary to the Treasury moved quickly last night to issue a statement following allegations in the Daily Telegraph accusing him of "dodging capital gains tax" when selling a property he designated to Parliament as his second home.

 

Danny Alexander (pictured), MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, is reported to have owned the south London flat for six years before becoming an MP in 2005, when he told the parliamentary authorities it was his second home.

 

At around the same time he purchased a constituency home in Scotland.

 

Mr Alexander responded to reports in the Telegraph, that he claimed more than £37,000 in expenses on the flat before selling in June 2007.

 

Aides to the Lib Dem MP insisted he had never "flipped" designations and simply followed tax rules, meaning people are not eligible for CGT if they own two homes, but sell one within three years.

 

The newspaper said he was likely to have saved thousands of pounds as a result.

 

Mr Alexander, originally appointed Secretary of State for Scotland in the new coalition government, said: "I have always listed London as my second home on the basis set out in the parliamentary rules as I spent more time in my constituency than I did in London."

 

"I sold the flat in 2007 and moved to another flat but was advised that CGT was not payable because of the operation of final period relief, which exempts homes from CGT for 36 months after they stop being the main home. I paid all the taxes required but CGT was not payable on the disposal of my flat. I have already publicly declared that I will pay capital gains tax if the time comes for me to sell my (new] second home."

[hitch_1980]

So he followed the rules.....but the telegraph dont like him or the liberals, so creates an article to get people talking and putting doubts in there minds about the lib dems......mmmmmmm

[andyofborg]

I think the Lib Dems are already lost. I seriously do.Think it would be almost a straight fight between Labour and the Tories on a platform of one party providing strong national government. I think the Tories would gain a workable majority.

 

maybe, maybe not.

 

i can't see the tories picking up any additional votes from lib dem supporters or labour supporters.

 

if the lib dems play the "we tried to play fair for the good of the country, but were betrayed by the tories" card then their core vote would probably hold up, it might even increase if people think they really were badly treated by the tories.

 

also, i would imagine that all the other parties would play the "vote tory, get thatcher mk2" card

 

while they may not be particularly vocal about there are tories who despise thatcher with a passion and would have seen the coalition as heaven they might be tempted to vote tactically especially if cameron is replaced by someone from the right.

[HeadingNorth]

also, i would imagine that all the other parties would play the "vote tory, get thatcher mk2" card

 

 

Thatcher secured 44% of the vote in three consecutive elections, and handing a 44% share to Cameron by playing that card would hardly be a good idea.

[Greybeard]

I refer you to the posts above, which explain clearly why his behaviour could be viewed as immoral.

 

Morality should have no place in politics, nor does it usually.

[andyofborg]

I'm not sure that it is that simple. There are those in the Tory party that want the coalition to fail. These are a mixture of the old right wing and those with slim majorities over Labour. I think that we are witnessing the battle for the very soul of the Conservative Party, orchestrated by it's loudest and oldest voice.

 

possibly, but i imagine its the ones with slim majorities over the lib dems who are the most worried.

 

essentially leftish voters have two choices labour or libdem, if the libdems prove they have the ability then floating leftish voters will switch to the libdems leaving labour out in the cold. this is essentially the reverse of what happened in the 1920's as labour grew in power and the liberals faded.

[lizmachin]

So he followed the rules.....but the telegraph dont like him or the liberals, so creates an article to get people talking and putting doubts in there minds about the lib dems......mmmmmmm

 

I somehow don't think that he will be joining the 4 Labour MPs who are up before the courts over their expenses claims, not if this is their best shot.