David Laws' expenses

[longfingernailspaintedblue]

I really thought he was the very best of the Lib Dems.

Given his fortune he obviously doesn't need the expenses, but hiding his landlord/partner from the authorities is unacceptable, even if it was to hide his sexuality.

I'm completely shellshocked.

I meant half a mortgage each, but they both claim.

SGM, I'll defer to that! All I meant was that the housing benefit rules weren't applicable.

great summary by Kerry McCarthy. It's as plain as the nose on Laws's face

it's a veritable disgrace

exactly LeninGrad, rules are rules. People can't argue that laws don't apply to them, no one is above the law

Sadly, I predict that Laws will stay.

He is the most right-wing Lib Dem by quite some way, and there is no-one else who commands the trust of the Tories in the same way.

Who else in the Lib Dems could plausibly work in a Conservative Treasury? The only one I can think of is Nick Clegg himself, but that obviously isn't feasible.

Lawd knows Laws is a law unto himself. This is a test for Cameron. Has he got the power and courage to dismiss Laws?

LeninGrad - you're implying by the tax credits example that he was trying to gain extra money, which isn't the case.

Prolesworth

I think politicians are far more willing to be hypocritical than you give them credit for.

The calculation Cameron might make: will anyone really care about this at the next election in 5 years time?

Also, does Cameron even have the power to remove Laws? Will Clegg have a veto?

This is the seedy underbelly of coalition politics.

Laws is an ass, the sinner will probably turn up at mass. Yes Cameron should remove him, but longfingernailspaintedblue made a good point, does he have authority over the LibDem side? I hope he does otherwise this will undermine the integrity of the government.

longfingernails - would you have preferred a Conservative minority govt., out of interest?

So, bearing in mind that the homosexuality is a bit of a red herring (i.e most people couldn't care less if he is gay or not, it doesn't matter) and that he has claimed dishonestly, is he any worse than many of the others who have made dishonest claims but who have since paid the money back?

Not that I am condoning his behaviour (far from it), but just musing as to whether it is actually worth him losing his job over it, in the whole scheme of things, when many, many MPs have been abusing the system over the years.

vesela

No. The current arrangements are best. A minority government would have been very bad.

But there are serious problems with the coalition. Making the best of a bad job still leaves a bad job.

he is in such an important position at the Treasury that any financial shenanigans undermine his position and authority. I think his position is now untenable.

I probably would have voted for the "coalition" manifesto above the Tory manifesto, incidentally. Certainly if it was slightly more Eurosceptic.

But there are so many promises broken in this process, on all sides, that it is very hard to make it work.

Anyway, I have to go now but do keep my thread nice and warm