If my understanding is correct, he could have rented/bought a flat for say £2500/month, lived in it with his partner in a civil partnership or alone and claimed the whole expense. Just like every MP does who has a wife and family.
This arrangement, actually saved the tax payer money. If I rea drhe figure right, he only claimed up to £950/month which is far less than the maxmum allowed. I say, look beyond the story and who stands to benefit.
The thing that annoys me is that this story was clearly fed to the media by someone who stood to gain. The press just printed it up.
Is there anyone in the lobby journalists who is actually interested in the big issus of the day like getting the public deficit down, how we deal with the pension deficit, how we deal with a banking system that is on the verge of collapse, how we deal with reforming social security? No. They are not interested because all they want to talk about is whether there is a 'spit' in the coalition. Its pathetic.
The tone was set in the first 'Rose Garden' press conference with Clegg and Cameron. The journalisst were clearly not interested in the policy issues or the hugely brave and historic step the Tory and Lib Dem leaders had made.
I dont think David Laws should resign. He did not profit from this and if he pays the money back he will have in fact claimed only a small fraction of the expenses he could have legitimately claimed if he had been conventionaly married.
Look again at who has the most to gain from this and ask whether that is good for the country or narrow party/personal political interest. This constant drip talk of the coalition splitting makes me sick. I am not interested in seeing David Laws step down. I hope Cameron stands firm.