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.

rasputin, yes sack him. Who knows what else he might do? We have to have some standards otherwise the whole system becomes a farce.

Oh dear God.

I hope his replacement isn't Vince Cable - that would be an utter disaster for Britain.

Vince Cable is basically an old Labour dinosaur masquerading as a Lib Dem.

The Tories really trusted David Laws.

They will certainly not trust Vince Cable one iota, especially after he lost the argument on the timing of cuts so comprehensively.

Vince Cable is now utterly discredited, having been forced to flip-flop on the big issue of the deficit after events in Greece and elsewhere in Europe.

Vince is untouchable - too left wing.

Prolesworth, great article, anyone would think he was whiter than white. He speaks with forked tongue. How many more have been given a whiter than white record. I'm beginning to think it all works by nudge nudge wink wink until they upset someone or outlive their usefulness

What an utter twonk.

If his only motivation had been to be discreet about his private life, he could have left the expenses alone.

Good grief.

There were plenty of front page Telegraph stories last year where politicians of all parties were raked over the coals for issues surrounding second homes and families/partners/spouses.

For example, for the Tories you had Bill Cash. For Labour Ian Gibson. For the Lib Dems Andrew George. And many many others.

For David Laws to boast about his own expenses probity, with all those other stories swirling round, makes the story seem far less likely to be an innocent mistake, and far more likely to be a deliberate coverup.

exactly edam, which is why that wasn't his motivation. He was a wealthy investment banker. But we know what some of those are like, say no more, say no more.

Isn't a system which states you can claim the rent you pay to the landlord of your second home - unless you are having sex with them a bit odd and intrusive?

Should independently weathly MPs claim for their second home? - I don't have a problem with that as we want to avoid the perception that you need to be wealthy to subsidise being an MP.

I'm sorry Ian Gibson went, he didn't seem to have done much wrong as far as I can see. And he'd been a very effective chair of the science and technology committee. Labour hierarchy just chose to make him a scapegoat.

Laws, on the other hand, clearly has done wrong and had the cheek to boast about his probity!

it is the sheer brazenness of these politicians which is so shocking. No repentance at all, just arrogant spinning and more lies. No "it's a fair cop guv", just the behaviour of a scoundrel trying to evade justice. It's as if they think it is their due and that they are above us mere mortals

jackstarbright - those are the rules that MPs decided to inflict on benefits claimants. If it's good enough for the general public, it's good enough for parliament.

edam

I personally think Ian Gibson was wrong in his expenses, but certainly not as bad as the others sent to Labour's "star chamber". He got rough justice only because he was a critic of Gordon Brown.

But that wasn't my point anyway. My point was that it was obvious at the height of the expenses scandal that families/partners and second home money could very easily give the impression of irregularity. David Laws obviously knew this because it was happening to so many other MPs, in all parties.

It was therefore pretty dishonest of him to declare that he had a perfectly clean record on expenses.

I think Laws should have studied his Machiavelli before pointlessly and vindictively releasing the info about Liam Byrne's parting letter.

"the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge. "

yes there was no need for it. It was a schoolboy type joke, a sort of Kilroy was here thing. I'm sure they all do similar things. These things are usually done in confidence, and Laws didn't gain much by humiliating Byrne.

He's a millionaIre. HE was claiming £90,000 including the 'repair bills' which only disappeared when he had to provide the receipts - so it was greed and not hiding that he was gay - as if we care. Why rush cuts in two weeks? Just to look tough and send 'shockwaves' through Whitehall. As if! Whose been hurt? 10,000 kids without an opportunity to go to university - how is that good value!