David Laws

[Jon the Hat]

Well done the Telegraph. We have had months and months of revelations about thieving gits who have fleeced the Taxpayer left right and centre but got away with it because they were within the rules.

Now when you find a decent bloke, who is clearly a valuable member of the cabinet, who claimed a minimal 40 grand over 6 years for second home allowance, when he could have played the game and claimed 28 grand a year, who did not meet the letter of the rules because he could not admit to his mum he was gay, and you out him. fooking wankers. Decent people quit in these circumstances, and we just lost one. I hope they are pleased with themselves.

[Webbo]

It's not a newspapers job to make judgment calls. You can't report some and protect others. It's a shame because he seemed a decent bloke and I believe his explanation but at the end of the day he had to go.

[Jon the Hat]

It's not a newspapers job to make judgment calls. You can't report some and protect others. It's a shame because he seemed a decent bloke and I believe his explanation but at the end of the day he had to go.

It is bollocks. Please explain how it would be different if they had a shared mortgage and he paid the same amount or more?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Almost completely missed this - guess that shows you how good the Telegraphs circulation is these days! Is this a suprising move by the telegraph considering they are effectively attacking the goverment they support allbeit with a few strange faces sat on the front seats?

[Webbo]

It is bollocks. Please explain how it would be different if they had a shared mortgage and he paid the same amount or more?

Then he should have been honest. I was never that bothered about this expenses nonsense in the first place but if you get elected on a ticket of changing politics then you can't start making exceptions after less than 3 weeks in the job.

[Smudge]

The guy was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, his credibility is shot, no choice I'd say. Having said that he did seem like a firecracker and ambitiously wanting to decapitate big government, so it's a shame this happened.

[Head Honcho]

Well done the Telegraph. We have had months and months of revelations about thieving gits who have fleeced the Taxpayer left right and centre but got away with it because they were within the rules.

Now when you find a decent bloke, who is clearly a valuable member of the cabinet, who claimed a minimal 40 grand over 6 years for second home allowance, when he could have played the game and claimed 28 grand a year, who did not meet the letter of the rules because he could not admit to his mum he was gay, and you out him. fooking wankers. Decent people quit in these circumstances, and we just lost one. I hope they are pleased with themselves.

Oh ffs you can't defend what he's done!

He broke the rules end of get over it................................

......................................and all this bollocks about wanting to keep his sexuality private is just his sorry excuse.

[Flynny]

He broke the letter of the law but not out of greed - other ways of doing it within the rules would have been much more lucrative for him had he chosen to do it that way. If he was attempting to make money he was frankly shit at it. I find Cameron's perfectly legal arrangement worse than this (though neither actively offensive)

He's shown his honour by standing down anyway instead of attempting to cling on. Hopefully he'll be back, he doesn't seem the sort we can afford to lose from government, and was doing very, very well to counter the claim that the Lib Dem front-bench team weren't up to government.

[stez]

I presume the telegraph will keep digging until they find enough dirt on enough libdems to make the tory's working with them impossible.

[davieG]

I don't understand this - surely if he didn't make the claim his sexuality wouldn't have been at risk of exposure?

[Head Honcho]

I don't understand this - surely if he didn't make the claim his sexuality wouldn't have been at risk of exposure?

I'm not sure how much you pay a month on a £350k mortgage but let's just say that £900 willl pay a reasonable chunk off of it and anyone who thinks this wasn't for monetary gain is a fool too!

If it wasn't for the expenses scandal he'd still be claiming for it. Just like the rest of them would have been!

[l444ry]

Sexuality, privacy… codswallop.

This is purely about money as purely boringly and basely about money as all the rest of the duckhouses and moats. In this way, no one should be made to feel conflicted, guilty or, indeed, homophobic for frowning upon Laws's actions. Most would understand his dilemmas with coming out, even in this day and age.

However, sexuality is just a smokescreen for what is really going on here, yet another politician caught grubbing for expenses he simply wasn't entitled to.

One coalition tossbag down.....loads to go.

[FoxyPV]

He was using the money to pay rent on properties that his partner owned (not a second mortgage)- this sounds like a money scam to me.

[Webbo]

David Laws made millions in the city but gave it up for a job earning £15k p/a working for the Liberals before he got his seat. Even as a minister he could still have earned more in his old job.I don't believe he was motivated by money.

[davieG]

David Laws made millions in the city but gave it up for a job earning £15k p/a working for the Liberals before he got his seat. Even as a minister he could still have earned more in his old job.I don't believe he was motivated by money.

Which leaves him appearing thick and lacking judgement, hardly what you want from someone in his position.

[Webbo]

Which leaves him appearing thick and lacking judgement, hardly what you want from someone in his position.

I'm not sure if you're joking but in case you're not.

It might be thick wanting to serve your country but we'd be in a sorry state if the only people we could get to run the country were people who couldn't get a job doing anything else.

[davieG]

I'm not sure if you're joking but in case you're not.

It might be thick wanting to serve your country but we'd be in a sorry state if the only people we could get to run the country were people who couldn't get a job doing anything else.

Well i'm not joking.

If he wasn't after the money why on earth did he claim it, he wasn't entitled to it and rather than helping him conceal his sexuality it's drawn attention to it. Which makes me wonder what on earth was he thinking of or was he even thinking. So it seems fair to question his judgement.

I'm not sure how you get from what I said to people running the country that can't get a job doing anything else, surely there are some people out there prepared to do it that are also honest and of sound judgement.

[l444ry]

What's with this hypocritical bleating in sympathy for the wretched David Laws, a pretentious conceited little sod full of self importance and a classic case of a politician who is quite happy to admit that he can be bought. Along with the other senior LibDems he sold his soul for ministerial office; he didn’t bat an eyelid as he jettisoned so called sacrosanct policies like Trident and PR to gain office under the Tories who knew instinctively that they were dealing with a spineless bunch of disingenuous chancers.

We now have a blast of voices who are trying to tell us that this little swindler has done nothing wrong and could have kept his job! Absolute rubbish, they are trying to suggest he fell on his sword for the good of the country, aye right!

We know enough about this guy and his LibDem colleagues to know that they have no claim whatever to integrity and honour; they showed us that when they sold out to the Tories, to suggest that a man like Laws is “doing the right thing” and to claim that such a man is deserving of praise is an insult. To suggest as Vince Cable (another charlatan) does that he could have stayed on is a crude deception. If, as is claimed, he did nothing wrong and made no gain from his actions a man like Laws would never have walked; he does not do honourable; no Libdems do, he walked for one reason only, the grubby little shyster is guilty it’s that simple, good riddance to him.

[davieG]

What's with this hypocritical bleating in sympathy for the wretched David Laws, a pretentious conceited little sod full of self importance and a classic case of a politician who is quite happy to admit that he can be bought. Along with the other senior LibDems he sold his soul for ministerial office; he didn't bat an eyelid as he jettisoned so called sacrosanct policies like Trident and PR to gain office under the Tories who knew instinctively that they were dealing with a spineless bunch of disingenuous chancers.

We now have a blast of voices who are trying to tell us that this little swindler has done nothing wrong and could have kept his job! Absolute rubbish, they are trying to suggest he fell on his sword for the good of the country, aye right!

We know enough about this guy and his LibDem colleagues to know that they have no claim whatever to integrity and honour; they showed us that when they sold out to the Tories, to suggest that a man like Laws is "doing the right thing" and to claim that such a man is deserving of praise is an insult. To suggest as Vince Cable (another charlatan) does that he could have stayed on is a crude deception. If, as is claimed, he did nothing wrong and made no gain from his actions a man like Laws would never have walked; he does not do honourable; no Libdems do, he walked for one reason only, the grubby little shyster is guilty it's that simple, good riddance to him.

Well he may have done wrong but it's hardly restricted to LibDems is it, the bottom line is political parties of "all" persuasions are awash with self serving charlatans linking this behaviour with the formation of the coalition just brings out your blinkered pro-labour stance.

[l444ry]

Well he may have done wrong but it's hardly restricted to LibDems is it, the bottom line is political parties of "all" persuasions are awash with self serving charlatans linking this behaviour with the formation of the coalition just brings out your blinkered pro-labour stance.

To use your famous line, DavieG, "Who said it was?"

But it was the LibDems that demonstrated a holier that thou attitude about the expenses scandal during the election.

Furthermore, it wasn't just the £950 a month - that's the bit he is paying back. He also claimed £150 a month for cleaning the second bedroom, £150 for repairs and maintenance (the landlord's responsibility), utility bills, etc, etc. In total he claimed £90,000. The records are available as they publish the account details. You can see he stopped claiming for these extras the month he had to produce receipts. He was nearly up to the £20,000 limit.

So this is why I say he was driven by greed - because he couldn't both hide his sexuality and make the claim. He had to choose and, as a millionaire, he had a choice - unlike benefit claimants.

[davieG]

To use your famous line, DavieG, "Who said it was?"

But it was the LibDems that demonstrated a holier that thou attitude about the expenses scandal during the election.

Furthermore, it wasn't just the £950 a month - that's the bit he is paying back. He also claimed £150 a month for cleaning the second bedroom, £150 for repairs and maintenance (the landlord's responsibility), utility bills, etc, etc. In total he claimed £90,000. The records are available as they publish the account details. You can see he stopped claiming for these extras the month he had to produce receipts. He was nearly up to the £20,000 limit.

So this is why I say he was driven by greed - because he couldn't both hide his sexuality and make the claim. He had to choose and, as a millionaire, he had a choice - unlike benefit claimants.

Did I say differently? I said if it wasn't for the money then he was either thick of lacking in sound judgement.

They were all holier than though during the election, because they were nearly all guilty to some degree it became the subject that dared not speak, but it was across all parties and has no connection with the formation of the coalition.

[l444ry]

Did I say differently? I said if it wasn't for the money then he was either thick of lacking in sound judgement.

They were all holier than though during the election, because they were nearly all guilty to some degree it became the subject that dared not speak, but it was across all parties and has no connection with the formation of the coalition.

I rest my case Your Honour.....

Actually, the section you highlight wasn't aimed at you, so I don't understand what point you try to make doing so. I was adding a general comment to the ongoing discussion in this topic.

[Jon the Hat]

My position on this is basically if we are going to condemn those who have bent the rules to maximise their take, we should also recognise those who have failed to meet the rules but for reasons other than for financial gain.

That said his position in the treasury would have been difficult.

You can also argue that he could have not claimed anything, but there is no reason why he should be out of pocket just because he happens to be wealthy.

I do question why the rule should allow renting from a friend but not a lover. An anomoly which has led to a rather pointless resignation in the end.

[Webbo]

He'll be back next year.

[l444ry]

Resignation is not enough. Had this been a benefit fraud then Laws would be prosecuted and face a prison term. And Laws was in a position to determine the lives of many people who face the same dilemma as he apparently has.

He should be ejected from politics forthwith, never to return.

You tell me the significant difference between Laws and Croydon mother of 2 who was jailed for 18 months for a £40,000 benefit fraud? Yet, because he is an MP, he simply nods, says sorry and is then described by the Prime Minister as a "good and honourable man !!!!!"

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/1452625.mum_jailed_for_40_000_benefit_fraud/

Well, Mr Cameron, I think you will find that the courts would have a different description if Joe Bloggs stole public money.