More sleeze oozing up between the cracks in the pristine foundation of the new politics edifice, are we surprised? I don’t think so, not if one was paying proper attention.

Is this tawdry episode really an attempt by disgruntled elements on the Tory right to undermine the coalition and a crucial, key member of it, before coalition becomes too firmly established and effectively pushes the Thatcherite rump towards the margins and the dustbin of history?

Craig’s correct, of course, he usually is, when he openly states, using his own words… “…that there is no point to the Liberal Democrats…”

Laws has denied that he broke the rules.

“At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules…”

So far as I can tell, he has accepted only that his actions, and the rules, are “open to interpretation”.

(Full statement here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10188408.stm)

He’ll have to go, of course. Any leniency now sets a precedent, and at this point, that would be an especially awful one.

@ writerman

be brave and go launch you’re own blog rather than spread your fatuous bile around others.

anyway well summed up by Craig. Laws is a great talent but that talent needs to stand down and repair his life and contribute from the backbench for a few years. No other way!

Matt -

Thanks for the clarification. Though that raises the puzzling question of why, if he says he neither broke the rules nor did anything wrong, he should be paying money back.

Wouldn’t it be appropriate if this LibDem thief becomes the first MP to be “recalled” under the LibDem scheme for reforming politics?

He shouldn’t be paying money back, but owing to the cynical bile whipped up by stories like this in the Telegraph, he has done the decent thing.

It’s important to remember that this whole story rests on the interpretation of the words ‘treat each other as ‘spouses”. Personally, I would not consider a person to whom I was paying rent a spouse. Clearly, neither did he.

It’s also important to remember that every single other method of paying for his second home would both have cost the taxpayer more, and would inevitably have revealed his sexuality. The Telegraph has tried desperately to make this look like he has been caught out with his hand in the public purse, but in fact he has behaved in a very responsible manner, paying well below standard rents in London, and claiming only £40,000 over 6 years, compared to the £120,000+ he could have claimed.

What the Telegraph have basically done here is to ‘out’ a very private man in a crassly cynical way. It amazes me that people still buy this rag, which is now no better than the Daily Mail.

for a minute there I thought I was going to get to 10am without slapping my forehead and rolling my eyes, luckily Tom King has come to my rescue.

Tom,

I am sorry – really, because I desperately wish this hadn’t happened – but I understnad he has lived with the man for nine years. To argue that he did not consider him his partner just sounds weird.

I quite agree that this was not the kind of income maximising ploy that Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls indulged in. But it is still, on any normal interpretation, against the rules. If he were the deputy minister for transport it might be survivable. But as the front man for public spending cuts? Really?

I think eighteen months on the back benches are needed to maintain the reputation of the government.

He lived with him before they were lovers. It is actually fairly commonplace for those sharing a house to end up romantically involved, and equally commonplace for them not to consider themselves ‘partners’ or ‘spouses’.

This story merely encourages the perception that the Telegraph has a attitude towards ‘non-traditional’ lifestyles that could charitably be described as ‘prescriptive’.

Tom – in what way does the gender of his partner make any difference? He was paying his long term partner, whose home he shared, rent money courtesy of us the taxpayer. It doesn’t matter if his partner was male,female or even from Planet Vulcan, it was a scam.

It makes a difference because this was the only way he could maintain the level of privacy he wanted. And that’s why the gender of his partner makes a difference.

It’s a strange sort of scam that takes less from the taxpayer than the alternative arrangement.

Tom,

I think the Telegraph plainly has a “break up the coalition” agenda, and has become more loopily right wing than ever. But I think it is much more motivated by a desire to protect its readers second homes from capital gains tax, than by homophobia.

None of which is relevant to the facts of the case. The old common law definition of “sharing bed and board” is I think the one which chimes with people’s instincts. And they had been doing that for years.

I honestly think Laws will do himself great harm if he resorts to technical arguments like this. If Lundy was not his partner, what description would you use? Landlord and occasional lover? Can’t you see that Laws defence is going to lead down a very sordid path and reinforce anti-gay sterotypes?

Why should he care about anti-gay stereotypes? In any case I don’t really think he lives up to many of them.

I’m not sure we can say with any certainty whether they were ‘sharing bed and board’. It’s a strange sharing that has one person paying rent to the other person. There are semantic shades to all words in this context, but to quote from a blogpost I’ve just read:

“To say ‘partner’ would beg the question of Laws’ innocence, since the rules used the term. ‘Lover’ doesn’t do it justice. ‘Long-term boyfriend’, perhaps: this was a long-term relationship but not one of a united household.”

You should take a leaf out of Craig’s book – he engages with the facts as they stand.

brian – You’re right, he could have done that. But then he wouldn’t have maintained his privacy, would he? His sexuality would have been obvious to everyone.

Like your philosophy Tom.

So according to your principle, even though I opt to live with my family and claim no benefits, because if I chose to live apart from them my family and myself could claim thousands, it’s OK for me to claim a few hundred I’m not entitled to.

Nice one.

Sorry my mistake, I’d misunderstood Tom’s point.

What you’re saying is it’s right for the taxpayer to cough up thousands of pounds so that someone’s sexuality can be hidden.

Am sending an invoice to the DWP on Monday claiming for 15 years back rent owed to my partner so that my sexuality can be disguised.

brian – we clearly take different views on privacy and sexuality.

But what I’m saying is that if his sexuality had been revealed it is likely that the taxpayer would have had to pay more.

I don’t believe that MPs should have to fund their second home living arrangements out of their own pocket, whether they’re rich or poor. That way lies a return to a House of Commons full of people who have paid their way in. The barriers for entry should be low, or else the word ‘Commons’ becomes even more inappropriate.

That does not mean I don’t think the expenses were exploited and abused. I just don’t think they were in this case. Laws is said to have put his own money into this house. Would you prefer he had claimed for the mortgage from the taxpayer?

Tom – why are our views on privacy and sexuality different? Why should I pay to keep his sexuality secret?

He claimed when he had no right to claim, therefore he was dishonest and took money he was not entitled to.

If he had taken out a mortgage he didn’t need to and then claimed within the rules then he’s not dishonest, just money-grabbing.

As married people OR civil partners OR people living together as if in a relationship are unable to claim state benefits by hiding their relationship, which could lead to prosecution if they were found out, David Laws should be prosecuted and forced to resign.

His excuse for hiding the circumstances is pathetic… I was born before him yet I live an openly gay lifestyle these days. The reason he hid his, I suspect, is that he and his partner had too much to gain from the mutually beneficial arrangement paid for by the taxpayer.

I sympathise with him wanting to keep his private life private, and I suspect that like he said he wasn

Why is he paying the money back? Well, it’s same kind of financial flagellation many MPs have been engaging in to make tricky questions go away. It just shows the depth of the mire of the expenses scandal, really. There have been clear breaches of the rules, of course, but more than this there have been claims which were clearly spurious but seemingly justified within the rules. It’s these that MPs seem to be rushing to pay back. To me that just seems to dodge the big question of why did they do it in the first place? That’s the question we’re not having properly asked or answered in the midst of all this and I feel it’s a crucial question in understanding exactly what happens within institutional systems like this.

Legg virtually codified the system of voluntary financial martyrdom by asking MPs to pay back money for claims which were seemingly justified within the rules. Again, this just avoids the question – if they’re so horrified at having claimed the money now, so penitently willing to return it, why did they claim it? Is it a sense of entitlement? A real feeling they are underpaid? I don’t know if I’m likely to agree with those sentiments, but if that’s how they feel, I want to know – we can’t discuss reform sensibly without knowing what it is that MPs think they need and are entitled to.

David Laws has compounded the matter by raising the issue of privacy. Fair enough, but his suggestion that he didn’t think the other gentleman a spouse comes perilously close to suggesting a different definition of partner where homosexuals are concerned. At this point, I’d be most willing to believe that Laws knowingly twisted (or broke) the rules, to a minor degree, and a degree not then out of the ordinary, it seems, in order to protect his privacy. It would still constitute apallingly bad judgment on his part, and would be a resigning matter, but I could at least believe it was true. His explanation as is, as you say, just begs more questions. I’m not interested in a witch hunt, but let’s get it out in the open.

Do these MPs think they’re entitled to the money or not? “Yes, but I’ll pay it back anyway,” is not an answer. Expediency is not truth.

Come on guys if this had been a ‘Labour’ MP you would of been cock a hoop, shouting from the rooftops ‘resign’. Because it is one of your ‘own’ you feel there is some justification in lying to receive not only housing expenses and all that goes with it protect his sexuality, something he is obviously not comfortable with, otherwise he would of been honest and disclosed this not only to the house but also to his electorate. To sit in the closet for years and come out ‘only’ when your caught out is no excuse. If you are in a ‘relationship’ under the same roof’ whether or not you share a ‘bedroom’ relates to a partner. Not having bank shared bank accounts is the norm – to disclose you re-morgaged your property to enable you partner to move is evidence enough that he was ‘sharing’ the costs, at our expense. This has got to stop – single parents are not allowed to have their partner or whatever stay overnight without losing their benefits, why should we be paying for the privaledge of him shacking up with his – sheesh you could not make it up, if you read his constituency web page you will see he is apt to change his mind quite regularly, so much for a upstanding respectable MP.

Kaze no Kae is being very sympathetic indeed. Poor David having to pay out £950 a month rent from his basic meagre MPs salary would be too much…

Why did he think the press wouldn’t be able to find him out?

Being Gay in today’s world is not what it was, even if he is very shy about it.

I earn a mere £21k a year, my partner has been unemployed 2.5 long years. We have had NOTHING in state aid, after the first 6 months Job Seekers’ Allowance ran out, to help us.

As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he MUST resign. He knew what he was doing is against the law. Ignorance of the law is no defence from its effects…

It seems that David Laws has been breaking laws! If one reads the Fraud Act 2006 it will become quite apparent to you that Mr Laws falls foul of that act in two ways. 1. Making a false representation for gain. 2. Failure to disclose information for gain. There may be mitigating circumstances but these are for a court of law to judge. He must be investigated by the police and, if there is sufficient evidence, which there appears to be, prosecuted. The House of Commons ‘Rules’ do not take precedence over the law.

JohnM

Writerman is one of our greatest assets here John. Sorry but the truth really does hurt. The Tory right are obsolescent, not required in a brave new Britain evolving out of the stark realisation of the atrocities of ‘war’ that murdered children and continues to slay innocent citizens with myopic, dumb killing machines – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-acknowledges-mistaken-attack-on-afghan-civilians-1986587.html

I live with my partner (in fact husband as of recently), in a house that is in my name only because it was my house when I lived as a single parent following an earlier divorce.

If I claimed working tax credit as a single parent, saying that my partner was in fact not my partner, but just living in my house, I would be committing fraud!

This would be no different really from the sort of thing Laws has done. He says he wanted to keep the relationship, and his sexuality secret. For one thing he has NO RIGHT to take tax payers’ money to keep a relationship secret. But secondly, by saying this he is admitting that it is a relationship, and therefore that the other man is in fact his “partner”. Going against any argument that they weren’t living together as partners! He will be making a big fool of himself if he tries to push the “not living together” argument. And the fact that he has apologised and agreed to pay the money back shows that he knew it was wrong.

And the government talk about “benefit fraud”.

He must go.

As I’ve said on other blogs, I don’t understand the entire “expenses fiddling” part of this story.

Didn’t David Cameron claim £20,000 a year in expenses on a house owned by himself and his wife? How is this different from David Laws claiming £11,000 a year in rent, paid to his partner?

How many other cabinet ministers claimed similar amounts? Someone mentioned Michael Gove flipping his home for Capital Gains Tax.

Are people upset just because he kept his relationship secret? What exactly is the resigning issue here?

The “Resigning Issue” here is that he knowingly broke the law in claiming expenses, from 2006, by living in his partner’s property and claiming rent for doing so.

I see no criminal wrongdoing here.

horatio nelson

I see no criminal wrongdoing either. But the bar for a ministerial resignation must be a good deal lower than that.

yes, I did get the joke horatio

hoho Horatio!

Indeed Thomas, a cleverly pointed comment that reflects the obsequious nature of Cameron in his speeches.

The stage has been prepared for a savage cut in government help to the poor and disabled of Britain, while our Prime-Minister has skirted the pointing finger on use of public money to bolster his own lavish life-style.

I repeat your implication Thomas:

What exactly is the resigning issue here?

I suppose it depends to an extent by what’s meant in the rules by the term “spouse”. Does a legal contract, wedding vow, legal partnership etc have to be in place for that term to apply?

Would independent impartial observers regard these two as a couple, an item or partners or just two guys who share a residence?

This incident is unfortunate and highlights the stigma of homosexuality even in these apparently liberated times.

I am gleefully reminded of the exploits of “Jack-Boot” Jackie Smith and her claim for living at her sisters gaff with an armed police guard stationed outside 24/7. (and of course the two porno films but…) There was obviously a culture of doing no-wrong in the Commons and this seems to have been common to all parties to greater and lesser extents.

I expect like Mandy he will have to go for now only to emerge for brighter things in future years when the dust has settled.

the resigning issue is he claimed thousands from the taxpayer for a room in his partner’s house

I’m afraid I don’t believe this “hide his sexuality” line, though the people in question have probably convinced themselves of this.

The people handling the expenses are duty bound to treat personal information with discretion, and who would note an MP not claiming ?

Had he wished to hide his sexuality he could have bought or rented a place himself claimed for it but still visited his partner. He must have known that if the press were going to out him they would, whatever he did, I doubt it would be via the rather obscure route of the details of his expenses.

To be brutally frank he should not be ashamed of his sexuality, if other people have a problem with it they have a problem, not him, and as a public figure he has a duty to take a stand if he believes in equality. He has to accept there are some things you give up when you seek power and influence, and some things you acquire.

I think this is an example of a convenient blind spot when it comes to balancing basic principles against personal gain.

Just heared Paddy Ashdown describe Laws as “Mr Integrity” and that it was a grey area!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10189533.stm

If your aware something is iffy you either ask someone or don’t do it, it’s not rocket science is it?

Posted by brian, “the resigning issue is he claimed thousands from the taxpayer for a room in his partner’s house”

David Cameron claimed almost twice as much money to pay off the mortgage on a house he lived in with his wife.

Should David Cameron resign as well?

Thomas

I don’t think David Cameron made the payments to his wife.

So the end justifies the means – I don’t think so. Time to go Mr L

Thomas – If cameron claimed the money on the basis he was paying sam cameron to rent a room from her, and that they weren’t partners, then yes.

Whatever, the argument would be that cameron should resign, not laws shouldn’t resign because cameron got away with it.

I am uneasy about the whole expenses witch-hunt. Maybe it would be better if as a society we were more easy-going about this sort of thing. There is too much self-righteousness around for my liking. I say, let Laws apologise and pay back what he owes. then change the rules back to what they used to be.

Posted by Craig, “I don’t think David Cameron made the payments to his wife.”

Given that they’re married, that’s exactly what he did do. And, what are you trying to say with this point anyway?

You seem to be implying that what David Laws did was “bad” because the money went to his partner, but what David Cameron (and many other MPs) did was “fine” because they personally profited. Eh?

David Cameron claimed twice as much money as David Laws, benefited from it personally, and hasn’t paid the money back.

But don’t take my point in the wrong way, I’m not saying David Cameron should resign. Here’s my original point:

—

“As I’ve said on other blogs, I don’t understand the entire expenses fiddling part of this story.

Didn’t David Cameron claim £20,000 a year in expenses on a house owned by himself and his wife? How is this different from David Laws claiming £11,000 a year in rent, paid to his partner?

How many other cabinet ministers claimed similar amounts? Someone mentioned Michael Gove flipping his home for Capital Gains Tax.

Are people upset just because he kept his relationship secret? What exactly is the resigning issue here?”

In the Social Security Act section IV the definition of a ‘partner’ is clearly defined in ‘member of a couple’ N.B. ALL of the conditions need to be met.

In most cases lengthy, costly investigations by surveillance to obtain evidence have been made, usually mitigated by separated parent’s rights to share in their children’s upbringing but obviously NOT applicable to Law’s accusations.

Thomas – he paid his partner rent at taxpayers’ expense. If the authorities had known the rent he was claiming would go to his partner, he would not have got it.

If I told the social I was renting a room in my girlfriend’s house and that we were not partners in order to get housing benefit to pay to my girlfriend I would be liable for prosecution for fraud.

The daft thing is that he didn’t actually need the money! Retired at 28 as a multi-millionaire from the City. This whole expenses debacle came from Mrs. Thatcher’s government not wanting to increase MP salaries as it wasn’t a good idea at the time but allow them to claim reasonable expenses as a top-up. The problem with such an open scheme as that is it’s likelihood for abuse. Hopefully the whole issue of MPs pay is finally being sorted out properly.

Reading between the lines Mr Laws bent the rules to provide himself with some compensation for his London living expenses. Although technically it may be wrong it was within the culture that operated at the time. Many other MPs got away with far more and didn’t pay it back or faced prosecution.

brian posted, “If I told the social I was renting a room in my girlfriend’s house and that we were not partners in order to get housing benefit to pay to my girlfriend I would be liable for prosecution for fraud.”

That’s entirely true.

But it’s also true that if you applied for social benefits to pay for a mortgage on a very expensive London property, they’d also tell you where to go.

By saying what David Laws did was wrong, you also say that any MP who claimed for mortgage payments on second homes was also wrong.

No, it would not have been wrong for Laws to claim for funding for his mortgage. It would not have been wrong to claim for renting a room in one of thousands of properties in London. It was wrong to claim rent for a room in his partner’s house.

This was posted on New Statesman comments.

Devious buggers, the lot of them.

“jeremiah

29 May 2010 at 13:54

This must have been why he did not appear on QT.

Downing Street must have known this was going to break. They used Campbell as an excuse to get Laws out of it!”

Craig – you write: “The difficulty is that the Commons rules stated quite unequivocally that an MP could not claim to rent a room in a home owned by their partner. In 2006 a specific amendment was made to make that crystal clear. Laws does not deny he broke the rules, and is paying the money back.”

What you are glossing over, in common with many today, is that from what we know, and due to the circumstances we know very little, it appears that Laws’ relationship is not so clearly that of a partner. Basically he is having a relationship with his landlord. It has lasted a long time, but it does not seem like they are partners. He states that they have separate social lives, and clearly, if they have kept their relationship quiet for so long, it is hardly a normal spousal relationship.

As far as I can see David Laws has done nothing wrong apart from his apology and his offer to pay back the money. He has actually saved the taxpayer thousands of pounds, not ripped us off. He needs a London home as a Somerset MP, and the rules are that the taxpayer will fund this. He has claimed for a below market rate of rent (it appears) so what harm has he done.

No, this case is all about the prurience of the press and nothing whatever to do with financial misdoings.

David Laws is just one/small element of a very diseased system of government here in the UK.

Nigel,

But that is part of the story I just don’t buy at all.

Millionaire MP needs second home in London (where he already worked for years). Does millionaire MP get his own self-contained flat? No, he rents a room in the home of some bloke. Unbelievable.

Then he later starts sleeping with the bloke, to whom he was not close when he started to live in a room of his house. He then contributes very many thousands of quid for the guy to buy himself a bigger house, but the guy is still only his landlord, except they have the odd shag. Unbelievable.

Frankly Nigel the man in the street will not believe that bollocks and neither will I.

Dear All

What has happened is unfortunate but Laws broke the rules, Craig is right to speak out and I have blogged on this point.

He knew what he was doing, to rally round the flag and attempt to keep him would be a severe misjudgement for him, the Lib Dems and the coalition.

His position is untenable.

He should resign off his own bat, either that or Cameron should sack him.

The argument fronted by him is bullshit.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

This despicable man should go, he won’t but he should. He is an abomination!

Craig, what irritates me about this discussion is that intelligent people, like yourself, try to defend the indefensible to support your bias views. Read the Fraud Act 2006 but with your eyes open. Forget the Green Book Rules they are irrelevant when a crime is suspected. This is a matter for the police, a judge and a jury. As for contributors to this site who admit they don’t understand the issues; they should make the effort to find out before spouting their unresearched opinions. The label- Horatio Nelson – may apply to you and many others.

As I have said before: there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

‘As I have said before: there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.’

Doug Scorgie

You should go and seek help before the tories privatise the NHS.

Eye treatment will work out very expensive when they do.

Law’s has got to go. Taking and using public money to conceal his sexuality from a man in his position as Chief Tory Axeman in the Treasury is totally unacceptable. Who the hell does he think he is? He should do the decent thing and resign. How can he be trusted? He can’t!

Let this whole affair be a good lesson to those Lib Dems who have aligned themselves with the Tories in their grab for power. NEVER TRUST A TORY as it appears that Laws and the Lib Dems have upset the Tories by insisting that Captial Gains Tax rises to the level of income taax. The Tory’s were never going to accept that and the Telegraph by exposing Laws “litle lie” have shown to what lengths the Tory Party will go to defend the interests of those who stand to lose a lot from this policy. Laws is the “sacrificial lamb” on the Tory high alter of filthy lucre.

Laws has to go I’m afraid and this should be a signal now to the Lib Dems to quickly dump the Tories as a coalition partner before it’s too late. Don’t go blindly on believing in Clegg/Cameron’s “New Politics” garbage. New Politics, New Rubbish I’m afraid.

Ditch the Tories NOW and save your party from annihilation and destruction at the hands of the Tories.

Lib Con = Con Dem!

Never trust the Tories!!

Good grief, I can’t get past Brian and Tom’s hairsplitting without slitting my wrists.

This is an intelligent, well educated, extremely wealthy man who didn’t need to raid the public purse to hide his sexuality. He knew what he was doing, taking the piss would be too moderate an expression, and his ethics must now be questioned; not his sexuality, his proximity to his lover when they were sleeping or his fear of coming out (using that particular excuse is simply diving for cover under labours PC security blanket) but what else will he get up to with public money to feather his own nest. The man has to either resign or be sacked, sadly he wont be the last as I suspect the Telegraph are simply keeping their powder dry and picking off individuals they deem a candidate for sacking this month. This raises the question of disclosure, the Telegraph has the right to apply for information now but surely it doesn’t have the right to simply use it for its own benefit. Isn’t it about time, in the age of the Internet, that information received is made publicly available in its entirety.

Sorry if this has been addressed in earlier posts, like I said I was beginning to lose the will to live.

‘As I have said before: there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.’

Doug Scorgie

“You should go and seek help before the tories privatise the NHS.

Eye treatment will work out very expensive when they do.”

Posted by: at May 29, 2010 5:08 PM

The thread of this discussion is about David Laws MP. It is supposed to be an itelligent dialogue about serious political and legal issues. Anonymous skitty remarks like that above show intelectual retardation and cowardice.

Oh no!

I made the mistake of reading John Henry’s post.

“NEVER TRUST A TORY”

So, a labour government embarks on an illegal war and de regulates the banks despite the clear evidence from the 1930′s that regulation was necessary to control these parasites and you make that statement. for the sake of brevity I have not gone into all the other blunders these incompetents have made but I can’t conceive of a more incompetent, corrupt, stupid and self seeking organisation in the country with the possible exception of the BNP.

I’m not keen on David Laws’ economic policies but I think his point that it wasn’t a partnership may be valid. I don’t think the laws say – and they shouldn’t – that MPs should never have sex with a landlord or landlady. I’ve never felt that benefit claimants should be deprived of benefits for starting a sexual relationship – having sex with someone isn’t the same as being in a partnership. I’m prepared to extend that point to a government minister with whom I disagree.

Why do we expect that Lib dems should act differently to any other party when it comes to self serving and/or mepotistic tendencies to defraud the taxpayer. After all they are merely a cross section of the whole of society with good and bad included.

As long as there will be regulations made for our so called representatives expenses, these will be broken and undermined by loopholes. The more complicated they are, the more words are bent and tested against histories other learned fatalities.

The disturbing noises about electoral reform, with many Tory reactionaries opposed to any referendum, it all looks like a constant battle of policies, instant positioning, rather than a coalition.

Mr. Laws should find himself reprimanded, demoted even, why should such ignorance of facts go unpunished.

Moreover, this explains his advertisement/desperation for a spin doctor on a hefty salary, it can now be understood, seen under a different light. He can square that 50K+ expense with the taxpayer, but we have to face cuts in services and pay for their selfserving follies.

“Nick Clegg was meant to have carried out an audit of his MPs in the last parliament. These things should have been out in the open,”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10190326.stm

“The minister said he extended the mortgage on his Somerset property to help Mr Lundie purchase the new property.”

GUIDO POSTED THIS:

“UPDATE : Punters have raised the probability of Laws being the first Cabinet member to resign from 6% to 15% this morning. Guido thinks he will probably survive because he is too important to the coalition…

UPDATE : The probability of Laws exiting the cabinet has been rising steadily all morning, punters are now giving him a 30% chance of going. Declaration of interest ?” Guido just put £500 on him surviving.”

Laws has just resigned.

Guido loses again….

‘Lib Dem Scottish Secretary Danny Alexander will take over the post, Downing Street has announced.’

Secretary of State for Scotland, Danny Alexander, who just days before his appointment was campaigning for that same post to be abolished.

All I shall say about Redders ridulous response to my post is that I have got nothing to do with the Labour Party and do not wish to defend them in any way.Let them do that. I thought this site was about David Laws’ “little lie” exposed by The Telegraph and his position (untenable) as Tory Axe Man at The Treasury. However he has resiged admitting that he was at fault and has been replaced by another Con Dem Stooge.

Cheerio Laws. You came and went. Now you’ve got time to spend your millions that many people that you would have condemned to misery and the dole have not got. What a silly little man with a double first at Cambridge. Obviiosly a double last in decency and common sense.

When will the Lib Dems learn? Still going to be doing the Tories Dirty Work. I’m looking forward to next round of Telegraph revelations on a stupid Lib Dem MP.

Get out now is my advice!!

Let’s face it, quite simply, Mr Law has lost the trust and his integrity to continue as a member of the ruling elite of the LibDem Coalition government. He should do the right thing and resign from the Cabinet.

All the tardy arguments of the right and wrongs of the Parliamentary Rules are just so much wriggling nonsense and smoke screens to justify his skeletons in the cupboard.

The very thought that the security services didn’t know of his preferences does not wash, unless, that is if all public servant are now trusted with ‘state secrets’ without firstly being vetted. I don’t think so.

I agree with Craig: he should do the decent thing.

David Laws:

Voted strongly against introducing ID cards.

Voted strongly against introducing foundation hospitals.

Voted moderately against allowing ministers to intervene in inquests.

Voted moderately against greater autonomy for schools.

Voted very strongly against a stricter asylum system.

Voted strongly against Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.

Voted strongly against introducing student top-up fees.

Voted for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

Voted moderately for a wholly elected House of Lords.

Voted strongly for equal gay rights.

Voted very strongly against the Iraq war.

Voted very strongly for an investigation into the Iraq war.

Voted strongly for the hunting ban.

Voted moderately for laws to stop climate change.

Voted moderately against introducing a smoking ban.

Voted very strongly against replacing Trident.

Voted a mixture of for and against a transparent Parliament.

Voted moderately for more EU integration.

eh – in Conservative right wing circles

he had to go!

David Cameron:

Voted strongly for laws to stop climate change.

Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.

Voted a mixture of for and against a transparent Parliament.

Voted moderately against more EU integration.

Voted moderately for greater autonomy for schools.

Voted strongly against introducing student top-up fees.

Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.

Voted strongly for an investigation into the Iraq war.

Voted moderately against allowing ministers to intervene in inquests.

Voted moderately for equal gay rights.

Voted very strongly against the hunting ban.

Voted strongly against introducing ID cards.

Voted against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

Voted moderately for a wholly elected House of Lords.

Voted strongly against introducing foundation hospitals.

Voted strongly against Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.

Voted a mixture of for and against a stricter asylum system.

Voted moderately against introducing a smoking ban.

Mark Golding. A crook is a crook.

You are all fools – Cameron – the bloody war monger – MI5 agent – and Friends of Israel stooge has paid back a few dimes!

Laws was going to pay back £40,000 – the rules were ill defined – four have already be indicted – Laws had not!

What do you want folks – a house full of children killers that even a UN enclave could not protect!

Who’s next then Nick Clegg? or Vince?

Wake up friends – this is a ‘clean-up act’ on behalf of the elite!

William Hague mute on ‘Freedom Flotilla’ despite letters and emails from concerned activists campaigning for the safety of passengers on board the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.

Israel has tasked its Navy with intercepting the relief convoy of nine ships which is set to break the Tel Aviv-imposed siege of the Gaza Strip.

A number of Israeli warships were deployed on Saturday to confront the Freedom Flotilla, which is to depart from the Cypriot coast for the impoverished coastal sliver, The Hindu reported.

Tel Aviv has imposed a land, air, and sea blockade on Gaza since mid-June 2007, when the Palestinian resistance movement of Hamas gained control of the territory. The restrictions have deprived the enclave’s nearly 1.5-million people of food, fuel, and other necessities.

Israel has threatened to either jail or deport activists and politicians onboard the ships, should they reach the strip.

Laws is gone. What a pity the Torygraph doesn’t do the honourable thing and **** off themselves.

Storm meet teacup. David Laws – £40K. The banking sector – untold billions. Please, focus on the real criminals.

Tom,

I don’t understand how, if Laws hadn’t claimed any money for housing expenses whatsoever, anyone would know about his sexuality.

Are you saying that him claiming money that he wouldn’t be allowed to claim if they were romantically involved was a double bluff? (ie. Of course they aren’t together, he’s claiming expenses?)

Opinion seems to divide on whether you follow the spirit or letter of the law. The spirit of the law is that expenses payments for the house you are living in are perfectly fine, even when sharing that with a spouse or family. The letter of the law is that you cannot make payments to a relative. Obviously these two potentially contradict. There is a formal right way and formal wrong way of going about it, and Laws went the wrong way. Possibly he might scrape through on a technicality on it not being the wrong way, which just goes to demonstrate the foollishness of the whole situation.

Bringing social security payments into this is a total red herring. Social security specifically prevents people claiming money if they live with someone else who could afford to pay for them. MPs expense, if anything, do the reverse. You are eligble for more for for your officially recognised spouse.

So do you believe the letter of the law must be obeyed, or do you believe in fair treatment and justice?

ODE TO A LAND BEREFT OF LAWS

Of Laws what is writ?

The hubris of a banker

preaching public thrift?

What of the watchman

o’er the nation’s treasure

who took from the hoard

to steal private pleasure?

Fools may proclaim

a Kingdom ingrate

to waste the wits

of this Man of State.

Yet far better gone is he

who took his duties light

to fritter our wealth

on another sodomite.