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.

The idea that any Tory was behind this is ludicrous. Especially Osborne, who tried so hard to get Laws to defect to the Tories a while back.

The Tories were, universally, rapturous about David Laws. He was the single best thing about the coalition deal in their eyes.

This story has been leaked either from the left of the Lib Dems (Cable, Hughes, Webb, etc) who are unhappy that Laws has seen the light on deficit hawkery - or more likely, from Labour, angry that Laws was making a total mockery of them.

In any case, how the story came out is interesting, but not the main point. The main point is the story itself.

it's hubris. He thought he was untouchable. He didn't think that his enemies could touch him. He may be good at banking but he is not street-wise. It was similar to Osborne betraying confidences about Mandelson, Rothschild and Deripaska. Mandelson is clever but also street-wise and Rothschild taught Osborne a lesson.

good point longfingernailspaintedblue, Laws was more Tory than the Tories, so there was little benefit in removing him for the Tories.

being in a relationship for 9 years
raising money on your own mortgage to buy a house for that person, which you then move into and claim expenses on the "rent" you are charged.
oh COME ON.

I like the bloke too, and I was very much hoping he would be given education (that was the rumour). but really. COME ON. If this had been John Prescott, Peter Mandelson, Michael Gove, Teresa May.... they would have been crucified.

harpsichordcarrier

Yes, if there is a silver lining to this mess, it is that the Lib Dem sanctimony will be well and truly buried.

Hopefully they will quit their holier than thou preaching now.

thanks, Prolesworth. Still trying to work out the comparison, but Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls both claim allowances, don't they?

I fear the LibDems will become even more sanctimonious with Laws leading the charge. They have no shame at all.

LeninGrad - the point is that it was Laws' decision as to how he classified him because it made no difference to the taxpayer. The taxpayer wasn't worse off as the result of the classification.

vesela

That isn't what the rulebook says.

The rulebook says that partners are to be treated differently in the expenses system.

It is not allowed to rent from partners. Whether that is right or not is a matter for debate (though not much debate, in my opinion) - but since 2006 that is the way it is.

If he is not in a committed relationship with the other person (i.e the other person has other relationships, although Laws doesn't....), does that have any bearing?

It is all a bit complicated when this relationship obviously doesn't fit in with the 'rules' for expenses as they now stand.

then instead of paying money back, maybe Laws should claim even more money off the public. Watch this space that's probably what will happen in the House of Common (Criminals)

I agree with others that it is the greed that is the crux of the matter. He did not need to claim the money: he could have paid his friend a peppercorn rent.

I had a colleague who always referred to his partner as "my flatmate" to those he didn't know very well, and that was his absolute prerogative. None of anyone's business. BUT - there's a giant leap if you're doing this in order to make financial gain from your statement.

Leningrad - he did exclude himself from the definition of partner, for personal and not financial reasons.

Re. Cooper and Balls - I wasn't talking about flipping, just the fact that they both claim allowances, which under the housing benefit comparison that has been made here wouldn't be allowable.

Laws, makes them and breaks them. Long as there's bucks to be made, he takes them.

Haven't read the whole thread but I'm with LeninGrad. Laws should go. He's clearly abused the expenses system. Good riddance.

David Laws is our local MP and he's been brilliant.

Very supportive of children and families, has helped out lots of people I know with housing issues and other worries.

He has been very popular in his constituency.
I think lots of people wondered if he was gay, but I don't think it will be a big issue for his contituency.

His track record has shown him to have a lot of integrity- what an idiot to make this kind of error, just to cover up his sexuality (he doesn't need the money).