The Treasury Secretary, his secret gay lover and the coalition’s first scandal

DavidDP

It's a shame he felt the need to hide his sexuality, which was clearly part of the motive in this case at least. But no doubt he needs to go.

Alex

It would be sad to lose David Laws over this matter and I would prefer he just apologised - reimbursed - stayed in place and got down to the job at hand.

If Labour get nasty over this, then the blogosphere should expose the high profile Labour MPs still in the closet (which probably includes those who married their PR Advisers and got hot and bothered about Section 28).

Nevertheless, a lesson to everyone - be honest about your sexuality and your relationships - 'cause it is going to come out if you aren't!

call me dave

"fluid domestic arrangements"
there's too much innuendo in the spectator - will the editor whip it out?

Martin McKenna

At a time when he is doing the tories dirty work for them ie putting people on the dole or threatening to cut benefits it beggars beleif that he knowingly deceived the electorate privately and in manifesto pledges he has to go

Jock Coats

FrankP - do you have a clue how Wikipedia works? The mention of his partner was added *after* the Telegraph's article was public. Also the Lib Dems elect their deputy leader (which is merely a parliamentary party position, and has no constitutional role outside the parliamentary group) every parliament, so Cable's "resignation" was automatic, he just decided he should not stand for it again - he will be over seventy b ythe end of this parliament if it runs its course and a Secretary of State with a big brief. You are reading far too much into that.

Tankus

he is starting to bald ....!

"Voted strongly for equal gay rights." thats ok then ...!

Avudale

Is it justified to dismiss Laws for transgressing rules because societal norms cornered him into a situation of secrecy?

What does that say about us as a country where homosexuality defines an individual, whereas heterosexuality does not, and an effort to thwart such colourisation results in rule-breaking and punishment?

That's not a very pleasant thought.

Sir Francis Burdett

Once again the odour of a mixture of scented faeces and KY jelly pervades the corridors of power. Uggghhh!

Gurl, what is your problem?

You were making some sense and then Bam, we were no longer on the Spectator but in a Youtube thread.

Man With a Very Hot Bladder

Here we go again.

canonalberic

I think frankp needs to take a cold shower - cant stand it but cant stop talking about it eh? Just leave him alone. Who cares. It all makes sense to me and whilst being somewhat sad it doesnt indicate a level of true scandal that should force yet another talented homosexual into shameful withdrawal from public life.

I hope Cameron backs him up and moves on.

Jane

We are very weary of all expenses stories. I tend to believe David Laws regarding the interpretation of spouse and do not question his integrity. After all, he could have rented or purchased his own property during the period which would have cost the taxpayer more.

My views of him have not changed. He should pay back money that is deemed wrong and get on with the job which the country wants him to do. The end....

TomTom

we do not share bank accounts

Nor David Laws do some married couples. Not a definition worth making I am afraid.

Let Laws stay in his job on half pay to atone. BUT drop all pending and future cases against benefit fraudsters. What is save for the goose is sauce for the gander, and leading by example means that benefit fraudsters should be admonished but not punished. HMRC should cease to pursue tax miscreants and all legal cases for non-payment of TV licence should be dropped.

David Laws has done a great public service in highlighting just how intrusive such rules are in preserving private family life.

Daniel Dare

Last year a number of MPs referred themselves to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for clarification over issues relating to their expenses. At that time however, David Laws chose to remain silent over any doubts he had over his own expenses.

In their undignified rush to form a coalition government with the Conservatives, Nick Clegg and the LibDems have failed to carry out due diligence on the suitability of one of their candidates for high office.

Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg promised the electorate a new era of government, but this expenses skeleton from the old parliament must now see David Laws stand down from government within the week. An apology and an immediate repayment of wrongly claimed expenses are not enough. Resign!

JohnW

Frank P"The fact that he's a member of the LibDems and a bachelor is almost sufficient to nail that; if not, surely the fact that in his Wiki entry his 'domestic partner' is shown as James Lundie might have been a freaking clue?? "

The Wiki entry was added yesterday.

Lady Amelia

He will have to go.

The government is going to face a hard battle over cuts; it has no credibility at all if those cuts are instigated by someone who clearly broke the rules and has, instead of immediately resigning, come away with some dribbling self justification of an excuse involving protecting his partner. The same partner who's in his Wiki entry?

Yes, he's good at his job, yes, he's come across as a professional and heavy hitting pragmatist and the Lib in the Treasury - but yes, he's defrauded the very taxpayer who he's going to turn to to bear the brunt of cutting costs. It won't wash. And if he had an ounce of integrity he would have resigned on the spot (actually, if he'd had an ounce of integrity he wouldn't have been defrauding the taxpayer...)

Break out the whisky and the pearl handled revolver, Carruthers...

Y Rhyfelwr Dewr

Wait a second -- you just want to wink at £40,000 and blatant corruption, just because the sleazeball happens to be on the right side? If they're serious about restoring the public's faith in politics, we need politicians who behave with a reasonable degree of honesty.

Laws has been flagrantly dishonest. Resignation or dismissal may be inconvenient, but he's not the only minister available.

He's running the treasury, for crying out loud, and he can't be trusted with money? In what field other than politics would somebody who had been found to have embezzled £40,000 even be considered a suitable trustee of an institution's finances?

andrew

Laws wanted to keep at least part of his life private. As a result he has transgressed the expenses rules. He should have known that the tabloids would be sniffing around. He will have to repay the money. But he must definitely NOT go. He is far to good to lose and we need all the talent we can find.

Roger Davies

He has to go, there is no room in Gov. for anyone with such a stain on his CV. He had the chance to set the record straight and clear his name, but thought he would get away with it. Shame a very able man.

John Moss

Got to go.

Paul B

Frank P has it right all on levels. This is just mess. A big Great Danes worth of stinking mess. He cannot in all conscience stay on. Its a shame but he has to go. Lets reverse it and say his partner was female, would he be given playing the same excuse. Hes playing a "Gay" card. "Just cause I is gay" Ain`t good enough, you want equality, but then, when it suits, to opt out. Fine keep your relationship secret,(although I think it makes no difference nowadays apart to small section of society) but don`t do it at my expense pal. Now toddle off into the sunset.

AndyinBrum

Alex Massie asks whether this is any worse than any others.

Sion Simon, George Osbourne, David Cameron, nick Clegg, balls, darling, Cooper, Jaquie Smith or Brown

don't think so but the sex angle makes it newsworthy.

So is the torygraph sat on anymore of these until slow news days?

Kennybhoy

"Once again the odour of a mixture of scented faeces and KY jelly pervades the corridors of power."

Pass the brain bleach!

Chuck Unsworth

This is Clegg's baby. Let him step up to the plate.

Mycroft

This whole business has a vey unpleasant smell. The Telegraph must have known about this for months, but they did not reveal in their original coverage, or even at the time of the LD surge during the election, when it could have done real damage to the LDs. Why not ? Presumably because it would have been just too nasty and cruel at a human level. Laws was plainly just not trying to maximize his profits (he could have been a much wealthier man if he had not become an MP, and his claims have not in fact been high) but because he wanted to keep his private life private. And whn one sees what is happening to him now, who can blame him? But now the Telegraph reveals this, just when it is likely to do the most harm to the coalition. One can only assume that that is precisely waht they are trying to do, and that despite the fairly reasonable line that they have taken in editorials etc., therir long-term aim is to destabilize the coalition in the interest of 'pure' Conservatism. So they start a campaign about the capital gains tax increases and then set out to destroy one of the most prominent figures in the coalition. I hope they are feeling pleased with themselves. It really makes one despair about the future of Conservatism in the future, as do so many of the vitriolic anti-Cameron and anti-coaltion comments that one finds here. Please. please, will people get it into their minds that it is just not possible to win a majority here with rigid right wing policies, especially since the Conservatives have been extingusihed in Scotland (as a direct result of the party become so ideological in the Thatcher era).

Parlow

For the past 13 years we've seen ministers staying on, claiming that they've none nothing wrong, when it has been clear as day that they've been dishonest (main home as the sisters back bedroom springs to mind). David Laws has to go, either voluntarily or to be fired by David Cameron. It's a shame because I've been impressed by him.

Tankus

@Y Rhyfelwr Dewr

agree

Got to go

Wight Tory

I can't help but think that Ali Campbell had gotten wind of this prior to QT and intended to "out" Laws on air, why the photo otherwise. The rouse didn't work and the newspaper did the story instead.

If I'm wrong, so be it, but nothing surprises me any more about politics and how much more grubby it gets.

Laws clearly is wrong on this, if my thoughts were correct, did No.10 know about this? and if so, it would explain the whole issue of why they didn't want to front up to him (after all, the 5h!t wouldn't stick on a Labour MP) and Campbell would slink off doing a last good deed for the party.

Tankus

I wonder if Lundie will get a nice holiday ...

"Bunnies can and will go to France"

oldtimer

His excuse for not considering his partner a partner sounds like sophistry to me. I am ready to let the investigation proceed and await the result as determined by Parliament`s own rules.

In the meantime I do wonder if we have yet heard the whole story. At face value, his reasons are threadbare. Whatever Parliament may decide, I do not think it passes the test of public scrutiny. Laws is badly damaged by this. His fate will tell us much about the "new politics" we have been promised.

The Sucre Guerdon

£40,000.0 for a secret lover is pretty damned serious corruption and is incontrovertible proof of unfitness for public office.

It's vair vair intairrestin' though that homossexuality has become sacred cow that it is being used as a rationalization of, or a justification for malfeasance and nonfeasance.

Peter From Maidstone

If Laws is independently wealthy they why did he need to claim for this expense at all, apart from wishing to maximise the income for his partner if not for himself. He could have kept his private life private by not claiming. I doubt his partner would have thrown him out of the house. £950 a month for A room seems rather a large amount of money in any case.

Victor Southern

It makes one despair of ever achieving clean government again. Laws' sexuality is unimportant - his offence would have been the same if he were living with a woman - deceit for personal gain.

Despite his undoubted political and technical ability he cannot remain in high office. Question - the LibDem cupboard is a bit bare of talent. One can readily think of at least 4 Tories who could do the job but who has Clegg got on the shelf of his limited MPs?

Y Rhyfelwr Dewr

This is more, far more, than just another dodgy expenses claim. Even under the expenses rules, he wasn't allowed to claim for renting from his partner.

That he wanted to keep his homosexuality secret is not an excuse, and nobody was forcing him to claim the money. Strained interpretations of the rules -- that he didn't have a joint bank account and therefore didn't consider that he had a spousal relationship with the person he was living and sleeping with -- is too absurd for serious consideration.

Let's call this by its real name -- embezzlement. There is no excuse for it, and there isn't a field outside politics in which it would be tolerated for a moment. In any other organisation, this would result in instant dismissal, and probably a referral to the police!

Can you imagine the chief accountant of British Airways, or the finance director of Norwich Union charging £40,000 over four years for expenses that he wasn't entitled to, and being permitted to remain in his job? You cannot have a crook in charge of the money -- however good his sob story.

strapworld

How very sad. BUT before the moralists on this page go overboard, please remember that Maude, Fox, Cameron, Osborne, Letwin and others are very much part of the cabinet and in terms of actual amounts Maude takes the biscuit. At least Laws has apologised. I cannot recall Maude apologising?

So fellow tories CALM DOWN!

I have sympathy with Laws in that he was keeping his sexuality a secret. But I have no sympathy with his lying to his electorate, and the wider public by virtue of his website.

The country is in a great mess and Laws has shown he has great talent. It would do Cameron and Clegg well if they PUBLICLY forgave Laws, as long as he has now been fully open and honest and that there are no more dark corners to be revealed! I would want that in writing prior to a public support!

Such forgiveness would ensure they have a loyal hard working member of the cabinet.

Let's face it none of the cabinet are exactly whiter than white!

Some of the comments, thus far, and the way the article has been written by Mr Blackburn are, frankly, regrettable.

angela

If society was not always so horribly cruel to gay people, however much tolerance is purported to exist, this sort of situation would not arise. Unpleasantness against gay people extends to their families.

Look at what Lord Browne had to endure at BP, when his private life became public. This has probably all come out because people are jealous at how brilliant he is. It is out of order. Anyway, loads of people who fiddled their expenses for pure greed are still in their jobs.

We need David Laws. Accept his apology, accept it was not all his fault, let him keep his job and drop this claptrap about the moral high ground, it is total hypocrisy.

Andrew SW18

Coincidentally, Laws eclipsed Osborne with his Commons performance this week.

anne allan

I do wonder about the timing of this revelation. Given that Westminster is gossip central, I can't believe that the DT didn't know something about this a good year ago.
Those who know their history will remember what happens when a country is run by saints and ideologues.
The expenses story has run its course; any cases should be dealt with and a terrible lesson should be learnt by all involved.

jon dee

Well worth a listen to an impressive defence of David Laws by Jeremy Browne on Today.

Under loud and sustained attack from Humphrys, his more reasoned and human response to Laws demise is worth serious consideration.

I hope Laws survives - the nation needs his undoubted talents and experience as never before.

Tory Tim

Let the "new politics" to be tested with a recall in his constituency and if they back him then let him carry on.
He is clearly one of the leading lights of the Coalition and is not in politics for money but has a genuine agenda driven by conviction - let the people of Yeovil and not the media mob decide his fate

James

I had had quite enough of the Telegraph’s hypocritical, they-are-all-in-it-for-themselves approach to every MP last year, without the need for them to start knocking down members of our new government.

This only ‘looks bad’ because it is being presented that way by the media, Telegraph first in the pack. All the guy did was to pay rent to his boyfriend, because it was his boyfriend who had paid for the flat. Apparently the flat was bought for £550,000. So assuming a rental yield of 5%, I would expect to pay:

£550,000 / 20 / 12 = £2,292 in rent a month.

Assuming he had ‘half’ the flat, rent at £950 seems about right.

No fiddle. No problem. For goodness sake, let’s acknowledge he did what any other right thinking person would have done, and let’s get on with life.

Snowman

What’s key here is Laws’s desire to keep the same sex relationship secret, and all this at a time of a wholesale abuse of parliamentary privileges, virtually everyone at it, the temptation to join in irresistible. So much so for the claim that homosexuality has now been accepted by the society at large. Seems it hasn’t been by many homosexuals themselves.

cannot join the many of you calling for his head. Would have if the others were any better. They aren’t, and his motive feels less greedy that that of most of the others, he should repay, apologize, show contrition but stay; am siding with Andrew @ 7.43 on this one.

Y Rhyfelwr Dewr

strapworld @ 9.43: "It would do Cameron and Clegg well if they PUBLICLY forgave Laws, as long as he has now been fully open and honest and that there are no more dark corners to be revealed!"

That's what we do with embezzlers and frauds, is it? If the chief accountant of Barclays Bank was found to have claims tens of thousands of pounds in expenses to which he had no entitlement, over a period of YEARS, he'd just have to fess up, and all would be well.

Is this government trying to restore the public's faith in politics or not? A good place to start would be zero tolerance for unscrupulous behaviour that would never be tolerated in any other field.

Let's face it, it's only because we EXPECT politicians to be dishonest that anybody feels any sympathy for him at all!

Tiberius

I presume Frank P's post has been taken down.

Mycroft: it is hard not to imagine Heffer bouncing round his bathroom this morning, punching the air.

This is a tragedy. Laws has been head and shoulders above any other LibDem politicswise for years. But I can't see how he can stay on, though.

JONNY

Just gloomily thinking of Iain McCleod's heart attack in 1970, which crippled Heath's new government before it even started.

chris as usual

If he knew he was 'doing wrong' by not declaring his partner, to protect his privacy, which he is now putting right by telling everybody and repaying the money, why did he not make it much simpler by not claiming the money on his expenses in the first place? Privacy would have been maintained, and he wouldn't have bothered the taxpayer.

Although I have the greatest sympathy for his predicament, this is another example of why all MPs should pay back all their incorrect claims AND their total gains on second houses.

Which was of course LibDem policy in their manifesto.

wound-up

I am deeply deeply sorry for David Laws. He seems a man of integrety and unusual ability.

On balance I don't think the bastards who shopped him should prevail. It'll do Cameron nothing but good to stand up to this particularly siniister attack.

However, the old debate about the vulnerability to blackmail of some gay men desperate to conceal their sexuality is here particularly apposite. Laws does(did) look potentially vulnerable to "extortion".

The bullies (and worse) only prevail where gay men and women continue to believe they have something they think it's important to hide.

Tarquin Superbus

I realise everyone is falling over themselves to say that Laws' sexuality is not relevant, but there's a definite whiff of homophobia in the Torygraph article - I'm not convinced that the paper would have described a female partner as a "secret lover", which tries very hard to imply wrongdoing where none exists.

I'm actually not convinced Laws has done anything wrong. He rented a room from a landlord for two years and *then* became romantically involved with said landlord. If the arrangements didn't change, why should he stop paying?

denis cooper

As a taxpayer I ask myself whether I have good grounds for complaint about this, beyond the apparent breach of a possibly ill-conceived rule set by the House of Commons.

Has Laws been charging the taxpayer for excessively luxurious accommodation, to a standard which goes well beyond the reasonable minimum required for him to perform his Parliamentary duties?

Has he been falsely charging the taxpayer for rent which is greater than the rent he's actually been paying, either acting alone or acting with the landlord in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the taxpayer?

Has he been charging the taxpayer for accommodation which is unnecessary for the performance of his duties as an MP, which he has then rented out to somebody else for his personal gain?

Does it matter, and is it any of my business as a taxpayer, if he and his landlord have social and sexual transactions, provided that the financial transactions are in the clear?

Should I assume that if any MP has anything other than an arms-length relationship with anybody else then there must be some kind of financial fiddle going on, which will be to my detriment as a taxpayer?

Wouldn't it better if an MP could go along to the expenses office beforehand and explain in complete confidence that for various reasons he wanted to make some special arrangement about his accommodation in London, and get it cleared as not imposing unnecessary costs on the taxpayer?

Rhoda Klapp

Not quite seeing why he had to 'hide his sexuality' in a world where being gay is acceptable pretty much everywhere. There are plenty of out MPs. They have been ministers in the past. What's the problem? Unless it made it easier to fiddle his expenses, there was no need to deny it or hide it. Oh, did you notice he did fiddle his expenses? Not overclaiming based on a true statement, but making a false claim based on a self-serving interpretation of a pretty clear rule.

He must go. We cannot have ministers hanging on when caught with their fingers in the till. If he goes now, he'll look like a victim and he'll be able to be rehabilitated later. Paying back is not enough.

jaybs

I find it equally sad how low debate can stoop at times! there is no doubt that David Laws has made a most serious error of judgement. Did he not even think when Clegg stood there with the holier than thou attacks on David Cameron?

David Laws had so much to offer, but I feel he may have to fall on his sword, I would rather he do that than have to be sacked.

Vulture

No-one minds him living with his rent boy.

What they mind is paying the rent.

Got to go.

Fergus Pickering

I take it the Telegraph sat on it because they didn't think there was anything in it. Now they bring it out because they are in a lather about rich people getting taxed on capital gains. Is there anything in it? We shall see but I doubt it. The coalition must have Laws. Is there any other Libdem to replace him? No there bloody isn't? Replace him with a Tory? Are you QUITE mad? Of course I understand that some of you don't like homos much, but you'll just have to lump it. Don't forget, at least THREE Tory PMs were homosexual or bisexual. And two of them were quite exccellent men.

Tarquin Superbus

Thanks for that progressive and enlightened statement, Vulture.

And to everyone who says that homosexuality is accepted universally, Laws was raised as a Catholic and his mother is a Catholic - not only that, but he worked in the City for some time, hardly known for being the most progressive industry on the planet. Lying gets natural.

Chuck Unsworth

Laws has referred himself. It might be wise to await that outcome. Nonetheless he's done immense damage to himself, his fellow LibDems and possibly to the coalition government.

Cameron could quite easily and simply tell Clegg to deal with it. That would distance him from the the fallout, and I really don't see that it should be down to Cameron anyway. After all, until the past few weeks Laws has been The Enemy.

Due diligence? Well, maybe Cameron ought to have insisted that the LibDems in Government posts were vetted by his own team, but I doubt that the LibDems would have agreed to that.

Let's see whether Clegg is up to the job.

David Ossitt

Vulture

"No-one minds him living with his rent boy.

What they mind is paying the rent."

Vulture’s succinct observation is sadly absolutely correct.

One further observation; gays who are camp, or very feminine, in effect; out themselves constantly by their actions and appearance and almost all appear to revel in their sexuality, and this for many would appear to be their raison d'être.

But those homosexuals who’s manner and appearance is much more main stream often seek to hide or keep quiet their penchant for buggery with others of the same sex.

Could this be; because they are a little ashamed?

Got to go.

Alcazar

How many people posting here know Laws well enough to comment on his probity etc?

How many even knew who he was 6 months ago?

Many MP's referred themselves well before the Election to clarify certain arrangements - but Laws did not.

He has only referred himself now that he has been exposed.

His Election campaign literature was chock-full of info about what a low-claimer he was and how whiter than white he is.

He also claimed up to an extra 200 quid a month for maintenance - until he had to submit receipts and suddenly these claims vanished down to a trickle of 37 quid a month.

I would not be so sure the Telegraph knew all the details as his claims during 2006-2008 would not have yielded his relationship. the Telegraph have been digging for the past few days - and I wonder if pulling Laws from Question Time was more related to this matter, and the fact that Alistair Campbell would have no problem skirting out the accusations at Laws.

He has to go. You can't loosen the noose around his neck just because we - mistakenly - feel he is a decent chap doing an important job. He lied and had chances to refer himself much earlier and deal with this more quietly but he chose not to. Lord Pantsdown has been on the airwaves this morning defending him. That should seal the deal.

Give the job back to Phil Hammond who should have been doing it in the first place.

Alcazar

... and he even helped the boyfriend buy the new place by remortgaging his property in Somerset.

Now if they are not full partners....... that would have been a strange thing to do.

It stinks to high heaven.

And David Ossitt - is it true you are also a closet case? You speak so eloquently of the psychological dimensions of campery.

Frank P

Heh, heh, heh.

Charles

I was very surprised when I read Laws description of his relationship. It was kept secret from friends and family, and the two of them have separate social lives. It seems to me that this is more like "friends with benefits" than a real partnership, so I can understand perhaps some of the confusion (and the same sex element is not relevent here).

That said, Laws has clearly made an error of judgement in claiming.

However, I do wonder whether there should be some other sanction other than an immediate sacking cry from the media? The problem is that he is doing an incredibly important job and, so far, appears to be doing it very well. A public apology and repaying the mis-claimed money would be a good start, but perhaps there should be something else that falls short of a straight sacking?

Flash Gordon

I imagine he'll get away with this, despite the flagrant corruption.

People will find it easier to sympathise with a man who acted in the interests of love than if he had acted in the interests of his ducks.

Rhoda Klapp

A lot of commenters here and on the other threads seem to have discovered their morals to be just a little flexible in this case, becuase he is supposed to be competent at his job. It does not stand examination, we can't apply the rules differently depending on whether we like him or not. All the cheats should be punished. All of them. None should retain office, some should be tried.

Simon Cawkwell

I am not expert on the law relating to MPs' expenses and find myself confined as regards relevant recital to this morning's DTel.

It is perfectly clear that Mr Laws's behaviour would be improper were he treating Mr Lundie as a spouse. Since there is no evidence yet presented as to whether Mr Laws's so treated Mr Lundie any speculation as to Mr Laws's guilt is simply silly.

I think it is a pity that he failed to emphasise this and to insist that any opinion should await the opinion of the PSC. Indeed, the reported apology by him and offer to refund the monies received seem entirely unnecessary and, because unnecessary, weaken his case/position.

I incline to the view that the DTel have been tempted to hammer-expand their original and excellent enquiry into MPs' expenses merely by way of overhead recovery. Does today's DTel constitute investigative journalism in the public interest? I doubt it.

I hope that Mr Laws stands his ground. (For what it is worth - probably not a lot - I am heterosexual and way to the right of the political spectrum.)

Simon Cawkwell

TGF UKIP

So the censor's been at it again with Frank P as his victim this time and all to protect the delicate sensibilities of us early teen Coffee Housers.

How prissy and priggish the Speccie is sometimes.

Nice one though call me dave at 1.39 am.

Frank P

Alcazar

"It stinks to high heaven".

They took my post down when I said that. Perhaps it was because I qualified the smell!

Marcher Baron

I thought David Laws was an intelligent man, but it seems he's not just stupid but greedy as well. As for wanting to keep his relationship a secret - this is 2010 not 1960. Mind you, in 1960 he would have resigned immediately.

Fergus Pickering

No one minds him living with his rent boy? But the chap isn't his rent boy. Wash your mouth out with soap.

Mycroft

Alcazar: the Telegraph may not have known all the details before, but 'have been digging for the past few days'. That is assuredly possible. But why, pray, should they have been digging unless they were looking for information that they could use to knife him at just this time? If the Cameron and Co have friends like this, why do they need any enemies! A certain kind of Tory now seems to have to have the same death-wish that the ideologically pure on the left wing of the Labour party once had.

David Ossitt

Alcazar

“And David Ossitt - is it true you are also a closet case? You speak so eloquently of the psychological dimensions of campery.”

Alcazar; no I am neither in nor out of the closet, what I am is a septuagenarian father and grandfather, however I do forgive you the impertinence of your question as you kindly tempered it with a reference to my eloquence, thank you.

Frank P

Jock Coats

"..you are reading far too much into that."

I was merely posing questions to the editorial staff. Rather than answer them, they have decided to censor (nay - take down) my post. They have previous for that.

As for the Wiki entry, your disingenuous suggestion that I am ignorant of how Wiki works is silly, you obviously don't know me. Your explanation of what happened begs another question: who modified the Wiki entry, when and why? Perhaps someone would like to cough to that? And I still suspect Laws' cop-out of the QT programme last Thursday was not according to the explanations proffered (DC taking a stand against the Beeb being one of them). Laws was being ambushed, knew it and expected to be outed - and his 'mistake' revealed - by the Campbell-Morgan elephant trap. Hence the ready prepared (and framed) photo that Campbell produced from his lap at the end of the programme - why was that not edited? The problem with these debauched shitz is that they think the public is completely stupid and that they can now get away with anything and intimidate everyone into submission by producing threats of legal sanctions of various spurious 'phobic varieties. They are wrong. In my experience, most of the punters are on to them and despise the whole bunch of bastards. Unfortunately we are no longer represented in the corridors of power, so resort to reverse samizdat as necessary.

Sir Francis Burdett,

Your sobriquet indicates that you are familiar with the great reformer who would hardly have noticed the whiff to which I referred at that time, considering the miasma that hung around the HoP from the running sewer outside in his days. Perhaps you are the last in line? In which case, my apologies M'Lord, don't wish to offend your servants.

But to put it all in a nutshell, I don't give a s**t (scented or otherwise) who or what The Treasury Secretary shafts sexually (man woman or beast) as long as he doesn't shaft the taxpayer financially; that, on his own admission, is what he has been doing (if not - why 'apologise'). For that reason he should go! And Cameron - given his erstwhile professed hard line on fiddled exes - should apologise for not completing due diligence before agreeing to his appointment.

Now, Sir Francis, if that is the sort of comment one finds on You Tube, perhaps I should visit it more often - as you clearly do. Slumming for research I suppose? Bit like those celebrities, when they get caught ogling the kiddie-porn sites? :-)

Paul B

Rhoda K & Frank P. My dream ticket.

TrevorsDen

I am not sure the Telegraph did know about this. If they did then they stand exposed as being partial in their choice of stories.

its not clear to me that the taxpayer has been swindled in any way; indeed they have probably saved on the deal. Laws' lover did receive payment - but the service returned - accommodation - was legitimate.

Do people like this idea? I think it revolves around a question of judgement and Laws has been found lacking. But he is surrounded in parliament by people who have done similar.

Edwin Smith

Whatever the rights and wongs of Mr Laws action, one can commend him for the swiftness of his response in stepping down while an investigation into his probity occurs. I suspect that had a New Labour minister been in Mr Law's position they would instead have dug their heals in while bleating on about being a victim of press homophobia. What a breath of fresh air Mr Laws has turned out to be.