Can he stay or must he go?

Tiberius

If all the expenses transgressors had been kicked out, the country would have lost its governing class, which is hardly a helpful outcome. So the issue is not about expenses or sexuality.

I hope that Laws can stay, but the problem is whether he personally, and the government, can remain credible in delivering this cuts policy from a position that will inevitably be compromised.

If he does go, the return of Philip Hammond surely beckons, but it will be much more difficult to counter the juvenile opposition to cuts without a competent LibDem in the Treasury.

Mycroft

I fear that the Telegraph may have got his head; and no one should have any illusions about the matter, that is exactly what they must have been aiming at when they published the story at this particular time (after obviously having known about it for months). And the one must ask, what's their game? Obvious enough surely. Cameron had better watch his back very carefully, the worst dangers that are facing him at the moment are from his 'friends'.

For Laws himself this is desperately sad; also for the country, he is the right man in the right place to deal with the most serious problem facing the country.

And oh, the disgusting displays of self-righteousness that we will now have to put up with him.

chris as usual

I will repeat my previous comment on this subject: All MPs should repay unreasonable expenses claims and ALL the profit made on second homes. This was LibDem poicy in their manifesto. They will then be deemed honourable.

In these unlikely circumstances, Laws would have to resign, with a lot of others.

I think that we will have to work on the basis that these people are not honourable; but what we want is effective government which produces the results which are going to repair the damage of 13 years of horror.

That's it.

denis cooper

Remind me, how much has this actually cost the taxpayer?

Not the £40,000 over eight years, because presumably if Laws hadn't been claiming the rent on that room he would have been claiming the rent on some other accommodation in London necessary for the performance of his duties as the MP for Yeovil.

So why should he have to repay the full £40,000?

Jean Monnet

"He typically claimed between £50 and £150 a month for utilities and £100 to £200 for maintenance. Receipts were not provided to back up the claims. However, in April 2008, the rules were changed and MPs had to provide receipts for any claims above £25. Mr Laws's expense claims dropped sharply. For example, he claimed only £37 a month for utilities."

Not good.

GDT

This seems petty. If every single minister is going to be drip fed to the lions then until all MPS from the past decade are voted out or resign then this is going to get monotinous.
Laws needs to keep a low profile, apologise profusely and get on with his job. He is by far one of the most qualified people to do this job.

Salopian

I have a strong sense of Deja Vu. In many ways Laws is a key member of the Coalition, He led the negotiations, the coming cuts gain vastly in credibility if they are presented by a LIbDEm politician of his stature.

Laws departure would undermine perhaps irrevocably this essential component of the new Governments strengths.

So why the deja vu. The same thing happened 40 years ago.

Within days of the Conservative win Iain Mcleod died. He too was pivotal to the new Administration. His death, and his replacement with the ineffectual Barber was the harbinger of the failure of Heath's government and the return of Wilson

wrinkled weasel

In order to make sense of this one must try and separate the two strands of this story. But like DNA they are a double helix, of deceit and subterfuge.What many commenters are struggling with today is the inability of the issue to untangle the two strands; our heads tell us he is culpable, and must go, our hearts tell us otherwise.

roger

'Who would replace him?' John Redwood would be perfect.

Rhoda Klapp

I think they all ought to go when caught out. There was entirely too much hanging on in the last parliament, it does no good. Nor does erosion of standards. It is not OK to say they are all at it. If so, they must all go. We will not get honest politicians by accepting dishonest ones. What this shows is that they still don't get it. They never will until some of them go to jail, although in the case of Mr.Laws loss of office should suffice.

Vulture

It is precisely because he is the hard man implementing the cuts that he must go.

We can't have someone with dodgy personal financial arrangements - and who has deliberately deceived us over those arrangements - weilding the axe over the rest of us.

However brilliant he may be, Laws had just lost all credibility and gone from hero to zero.

If he hangs on, protected by Dave and George, especially with the Parlimentary Standards Inquiry hanging over him, this will do the coalition inestimable damage.

He may be 'indispensible' to the coalition, but as Clemenceau remarked, 'the cemeteries are full of indispensible men'.

Edmund Jerk

He should stay. Apologise, then stay.

Kevyn Bodman

If he was living with Jane rather than James would he have to go?

Yes,I think he would.Paying rent to a partner is not allowed.
So he should go now.

And quite a few people need to stop worrying about being accused of homophobia.
Being homosexual can't be allowed as a defence if caught breaking the rules.
And neither can his impressive performance in his first couple of weeks in office be reason enough to keep him on.
There are others who can do the Chief Secretary's job.

Laws has proved he can't be trusted with money.
Resign.

Maggie

The country needs him and we can't afford to discard his talents. He shared a house with his partner and instead of putting his name on the deeds/mortgage he charged his share of the expenses as "rent" instead. Presumably if he'd declared it as a mortgage that would have been ok? Its a question of semantics.

Jess The Dog

I think he can and will survive.

But I think the best course of action would be to stand down as a minister and MP, to stand in the by-election and, when re-elected, to resume ministerial office with a clean slate.

strapworld

Vulture is a commentator I usually agree with. I enjoy his blunt take it or leave it attitude which is usually spot on.

I do agree that there is no 'indispensible' person anywhere in life, Although Brown thought he was!

But as Salopian rightly points out, the death of Iain McLeod was a major loss to Heath. BUT Laws, who in this coalition in my view, is as important as McLeod was to Heath. Therefore I want him to remain.

As I have mentioned earlier. The cabinet is made up of a majority of people who abused the expenses system. Many apologised and paid back. A few fought it and had to pay back eventually. Some got away with it because 'it was within the rules' BUT not many, if any, are whiter than white!

I subscribe to the view that this is a definate plot by the anti-coalition Telegraph and others.

Personally I put Country before party and we are in a mess and we need the best for the job. Laws has proved already that he is up to the job. Goodness me do we really want Cable to be placed there? It cannot go to another Tory!

So let us bite our tongues and just get behind Laws (metaphorically speaking)and support him!

AAE

They all drone on ad nauseam about "fairness" so when will our parliamentarians grasp that what infuriates the public is that penalties for the transgression of laws are applied so unequally. If you don't disclose an intimate relationship and you are in receipt of benefits, you may find yourself in prison. Whatever David Laws is suffering today, he can console himself with the knowledge that he'll be spared that. How many people are locked up for non-payment of a TV license? Charles Moore was fined about £250. If I decided to pitch a tent in Parliament Square I don't think I'd get as far as hammering in the pegs before I'd be escorted to Charing Cross nick, so how come Plod turns a blind eye to the inhabitants of the Democracy Village for weeks on end? What is it with our Parliament, whose chief function is to draw absolute dividing lines between right and wrong, that it's members manage to find grey areas where the public can see only black and white. They can't write their own rules and stick to them. They can't see that the law itself is ridiculed.

denis cooper

OK, so suppose Mr and Mrs A are a married couple, and upon Mr A being elected as the MP for a constituency outside London they decide to live together in London while Parliament is sitting.

It happens that Mrs A has enough money to buy a suitable flat for them to live in. So should Mr A then be barred for claiming any expenses for his accommodation in London?

In that case, Mrs A will be paying for Mr A's London accommodation to enable him to carry out his work on behalf of the public, rather than the costs being borne by the public. Would that be reasonable?

Or should Mrs A keep her money in the bank, or invest it in some other property which she then rents out, while Mr and Mrs A rent a flat in London from a commercial landlord and Mr A claims expenses for the rent?

And should he then be allowed to claim for all of that rent, or only for his half of it? Because Mrs A's presence in London could be seen as not strictly necessary for Mr A to perform his Parliamentary duties.

Before we take a ultra-hard line on this and say:

"Mr and Mrs A are so wealthy that they don't need any help from the taxpayer and Mr A shouldn't expect it or claim it",

or

"It would be OK for Mr A to claim half of the rent, because he must have somewhere to live in London when Parliament is sitting, but there's no reason why the taxpayer should fork out for Mrs A to be there as well",

we might reflect that Mr and Mrs Cameron are in a not entirely dissimilar position with respect to No 10 Downing Street.

davidk

Vulture wrote:

"It is precisely because he is the hard man implementing the cuts that he must go.

We can't have someone with dodgy personal financial arrangements - and who has deliberately deceived us over those arrangements - weilding the axe over the rest of us."

_____________________________

That's the nub of the matter, right there.

Boudicca

The fact is, as an independently wealthy man, if Laws wanted to protect his privacy he could have paid his 'rent' without claiming it back from the public purse. He was just another MP exploiting the expenses culture which was exposed in the last Parliament. But so were 100s of others who have survived.

He should repay the money and apologise. Depending on the findings of the Independent Commissioner, he should offer his resignation to Cameron (who should consult Clegg) and it should be refused.

Laws is doing a good job as Chief Sec to the Treasury and he should be allowed to continue. Cameron will gain some leverage over Clegg by keeping Laws who, until this story broke, was rightly considered the star of the LibDem side of the coalition.

nonny mouse

My first thought was DC should use this to show to the LibDems, the Conservatives and the country that he was committed to making the coalition work by keeping him in place.

I'm a David Laws fan, and I dont want to see him go, but looking into the situation some more I cant see how he can stay. He definately broke the rules and would be a lightning rod for criticism in making the case for cuts.

I dont think his sexual orientation is relevant and I have sympathy for him wanting to keep his private life private. However, that does not excuse him from following the rules. If he was straight and having an affair with a married woman he would in the same situation.

I have no problems with him claiming the money, but as far as I can tell they have been 'living together and treating each other as spouses', which basically is a polite way of saying having a sexual relationship. The rules say he should have declared it as such and he did not.

Very unfortunate, but the show will go on without him. I'm sure David Laws will be able to come back after some time in the wilderness. This is not a career ending mistake.

As a replacement, by ability and background I would say John Redwood, but his face would not be politically acceptable. How about asking Ken Clarke to take the job for 12 months. It may be below his pay grade, but the country needs someone believable in this key role.

Losing his cabinet position is enough of a punishment for his transgression. Is it too late for David Laws to apply for the deputy leader post? Maybe bring in Simon Hughes to replace Ken at Justice to keep the LibDem cabinet numbers and stop him causing trouble.

SUSAN HILL

His country needs him. He has to stay. And the Opposition cannot start crowing - the words Jacqui and Smith just have to be employed.

biggestaspidistra

I may have had bad luck here but in my experience partners do ask for rent. And why would they not?

Let him stay.

TomTom

When this Cabinet formed it was said its members had repaid 50,000 in unwarranted Expenses.....it seems now the latest figure is 90,000....

Plus ca change.....

Dimoto

It comes to something when the Telegraph sees fit to quote Graham, the Labourite appointee who, as commissioner for standards etc. presided over the sleaziest government in modern British history, as some sort of "authority".

I wonder if Laws' reported decline of an invitation to join the Tories was due to his "being in the closet". Financial/sexual peccadilloes have been a way of life for the LibDems, who have been quite forgiving. As a Tory, Laws would have been given much more examination by the media/Labour dirty tricks unit.
But he must have known that a high profile ministerial post would lead to examination of his lifestyle and finances.
I hope he sticks it out, and Cameron stands by him, it could strengthen the coalition and earn Cameron some credits with Clegg.

Dimoto

Roger: John Redwood would indeed be a perfect replacement for Laws. Unfortunately, his (public) credibility has been destroyed by an unremitting and vicious campaign. Pretty much exactly what they are now running against Osborne.
The outlook will be dire indeed if Laws is also hounded out of office.

Dennis Churchill

Ignoring the ethics, isn’t this just another example of the appalling judgement of members of our political class? Whould any reasonably intelligent person expect to have got away with this?
Is it the limited background they are drawn from or the personality type attracted to politics that results in these cases?
I await being told that the glut, followed by the dearth, of properties on the market is a complete surprise following the changes to Capital Gains. And the next politician who comes to prominence but does not allow for the Telegraph having feed into its data base all claims against the biographies of MPs.

Richard of York

He has to go. The new politics has to have new standards. All the time people are being prosecuted and criminalised as benefit cheats for having a live-in boyfriend staying more than 3 nights a week then this is not acceptable.
His assertion that he was afraid of being outted as Gay is a non starter...Westminster has plenty of out and proud Gay's.
How could he stand at the despatch box and hold his brief while the nation looks on and shakes it's head.
He had planty of time to come clean and chose not to.
He has to go!!!!

Gawain

I would like to know how the Telegraph got this "scoop". If it was the result of a journalist doing the investigation and asking the right questions, then Laws has a great deal of explaining to do and his position is, in my eyes, too compromised to stay. If, on the other hand, the Telegraph were fed this story or pointed to it by Labour smear merchants (Campbell springs to mind) or by dissafected Tories or Liberals trying to break the coalition, then, in my eyes, the journalism is as compromised as Laws and repaying the money will suffice.

TGF UKIP

Susan Hill makes exactly the point that was in my mind except that the precedent I would cite is that of Flipper Darling.

However, just as damning as the rent claim are the utilities and maintenance claims quoted by Jean Monnet at 11.21 am. They are straightforward fiddling and obtaining money by false pretences - not a parliamentary crime as we all know but a crime nonetheless to us non-criminals.

However, he will not go for the fifth reason cited by David Blackburn. In the world of the Village, especially the Dave world, you can get away with owt if you happen to be gay. And anyway Lady Macbeth will not tolerate his departure. So he's quite safe.

Paul L

I thought we had moved on. The media justifies their excitement by talking about 'public anger', but what about public boredom?

We know the system was wrong, and the Telegraph proved its point - but do they have to keep on proving it?

nonny mouse

>isn’t this just another example of the appalling judgement of members of our political class?

Yes, but it does make you yearn for the days gone by where things like this were left unreported. The Telegraph care more about selling copies than the good of the country.

David Laws really didnt do anything morally wrong, he just didnt follow the rules. Labour cabinet members got away with a lot worse in the last parliament and stayed in the job.

London Calling

Blah…Blah…Blah…

Is there a degree in window dressing hypocrisy? had Laws been a Benefits cheat he would have been severely dealt with, no matter how talented he was…however he is a wealthy man who had no excuse for exploiting his position on any grounds sexual or otherwise…oh but we need him sticks in my throat along with the hypocrisy of support he has received…but then again birds of a feather stick together and this is one oil slick that is going to stick together for some time to come…the word honesty has fallen by the wayside and has been replaced with the words talented, dishonest hypocrites who are needed to run our country…yeh right…tell that to the pile of honest talented people currently lining up in our dole queues… Britain needs them not Mr Two Laws…

Lady Amelia

Can he survive? almost certainly.

Should he survive? Absolutely not.

regardless of his domestic arrangements, if he's to be the man weilding the scalpel over public finance, he has to have clean hands.

Tankus

Go...............!

Tim Carpenter LPUK

Would this be so readily excused if Mr Laws' partner was female? I doubt it.

Is it a shame that David Laws needed to cover up his lifestyle? Yes it is a pity. I would not have been bothered one jot if he were openly gay. In fact, for the reasons below, I would have been happier.

By trying to be private, David Laws set himself up for potential blackmail and that shows very poor judgement indeed. It was a very risky thing to do. The old laws on homosexuality was famously described as "a blackmailers charter" so clearly laid out in the film "Victim", for it institutionalised the need for privacy.

Further, the rent we paid remained within his personal domain and so there was a form of gain.

Cynic

Should he go? Yes, definitely. Will he go? I doubt it. Same old, same old.

denis cooper

I'm still waiting to be told how much this has actually cost British taxpayers, either through Laws' excessive claims for the expense of providing himself with accommodation in London - accommodation which is undeniably necessary if he is to perform his public duties as the MP for Yeovil - or through his misuse of his public position for tax avoidance purposes.

I increasingly suspect the answer to be that it has cost British taxpayers nothing extra, in which case they have no legitimate interest as taxpayers in the details of his domestic arrangements or indeed any other aspect of his personal life.

If the rules presently applied by the House of Commons say otherwise, then they should be changed.

Jez

Revolution please.

William Boyd

No idea what an 'Ecclestone moment' could be (let's hope that's not the same thing as a Mosley moment) but I do think he simply has to go. He showed shocking misjudgement in not doing something about this earlier when it was clear the mood of the public was not to turn a blind eye to expenses fiddling.

Absolutely sympathise with Mycroft in these comments and other in the same vein. It stinks and this is one stone I would much rather hadn't been upturned.

Let's hope The Daily Telegraph competitors hone in on the story tomorrow's papers. David Laws might just hack it if the DT's revelations were seen as an unprincipled attempt to embarrass the coalition with a story their coulson spooks have known for months and only now have decided was in the public interest to publish.

Point about Micky Gove well taken.

oldtimer

What I find incredible is the contention, by Mr Laws, that he did not consider Mr Lundie a partner - as defined by the HoC rule book. According to the DT account, he rented a room successively in two different flats owned by Mr Lundie and then extended the mortgage on his own (Laws`) house in his constituency to assist Mr Lundie to buy his present house. All along he claimed expenses. The problem for Mr Laws is that it seems that some of this has occurred after the new expenses regime was introduced. I suspect that the charge may be not that he claimed expenses, but that in putting his own interpretation on the definition of what counts as a "partner" (and not sharing it with anyone) he has misled the HoC authorities about the true status of his relationship with Mr Lundie and made an improper claim for public money as a result.

If this is the conclusion reached by the HoC enquiry, I do not see how he can stay. In this context the talk about homophobia is a red herring. The same case would have to be answered if his "partner" was a girlfriend.

Frank P

Nobody seems to want to recall Cameron's dictum on fiddling expenses prior to and during the election campaign. Laws would do well to resign before DC is forced to sack him; or not sack him - and by that default be shown to be a hypocrite; a weak one to boot.

Nicholas

Will he be the first victim of the Leftist rear guard and stay behind units which are working flat out to prevent this government from succeeding in any of its endeavours? This country is full of stinking communists who will do everything in their power to undermine, discredit and obstruct the coalition. One has to ask why this? Why now? Just after the cuts announcement and the general view that Laws is the man for the job.

There is a Leftist media bloc at work here, doing Labour's dirty work for them. But, since no amount of shame made anyone in the late and thoroughly unlamented Labour regime resign there is a precedent for Laws to brave it out.

TomTom

Didn't Jacqui Smith claim for a bedroom at her sisters ? They were not a "couple" it would have been illegal - but she did lose her seat

Snowman

For one I believe Laws saying he wanted to keep his sexuality secret. I’ve been around for a while, I know about this stuff; he must have felt he couldn’t do as well with everyone knowing, and am afraid he probably right. It was this, however, where he made a serious misjudgement, and the only reason for it may have been his thinking that he would never reach a high office and be under excessive scrutiny.

In regard expenses he will be exonerated, I reckon. Not only he didn’t claim excessively, he would have claimed the same, if he didn’t live with his partner.

For those of you occupying the high moral ground just one point. We all make judgements we come to regret later, often under peer pressure; one wants to be a member of a club, one follows the accepted rules of behaviour of that club. The rules on expenses were designed to almost encourage their breaking, many did, apologised, repaid, and moved on. He should do the same.

The two boys should back him fully, he should stay and get on with the job at hand.

John Wilkes

Tempted as I am to say he should stay just because R of Y says he should go I think, sadly, it is much more difficult than that.
It is a very bad (and hard) case. The fundamentals are that it is dishonest in the sense that he has taken money on what anyone would call a false basis i.e. that he was paying rent at arms length to his landlord. As many people have pointed out, this would not wash with a DWP claimant. One of the real problems that IDS has to wrestle with is the disincentive to people to declare the truth that they are living together as far as benefits are concerned - with the consequence of absent fathers. It can only make reform in that area more difficult.
There is also the fact of "living a lie". I do not underestimate the immense stress of living in the closet, but it breeds deception and that is part of its tragedy. But he no longer has an honest reputation.
However, things are even more serious than that. Almost everyone with any sense has been enthused by the presence of a liberal democrat in the cabinet encouraging economic freedom and the need to get the state of our backs and out of our pockets. Yet an allegedly conservative newspaper has exploited the dishonesty of his position to drive a huge wedge into the government at a time when, on the other side, disgruntled Liberal Democrats seem intent on plotting the collapse of the co-alition. Exactly what do they think we are going to get in it's place? Without wishing to descend to hyperbole, this is a very big issue. Either we carry on with a politician who will now forever have the label of hypocrite attached to him (sticking like dog s..t as it did to Jackie Smith) or we get the co-alition seriously undermined within weeks. It's very bad news._

biggestaspidistra

Nicholas says: There is a Leftist media bloc at work here

But wasn't this the Telegraph? Have I missed something?

Laws seems very talented. I understand his secrecy about his relationship may have caused him to discount it for what it was under the expenses rules. Most importantly he looks like a nice fellow. Handsome enough to work for the Spectator if all else fails.

Maggie

London Calling - You compare David Laws to a benefit cheat. I don't think a benefit claimant who only took half what he's entitled to would be described as a cheat by any sane person.

Maggie

Tom Tom. I don't think David Laws, unlike Jacqui Smith, is claiming his rented accommodation in London is his main home. He needs accommodation in London when he is in London so he pays rent for his accommodation in London. He mistake was to fall in love with his landlord. If he was paying this same rent to anyone else that would be perfectly acceptable.

JONNY

If Richard of York says he has to go.
He stays.

gordon-bennett

A large part of DL's argument is that he didn't want people to know he is a homosexual.

However, who has suffered these days by being openly gay?

mandelson, chris bryant, Alan Duncan, etc. etc.

Maria

Poor guy. It seem to me he was paranoid about being outed...even his family didn't know hes gay till now. If he hadn't claimed I assume he'd have worried people would wonder why he was living with this bloke. None of us know the personal and family circumstances which made him so desperate not to reveal his sexuality so it ill behoves any of us (Richard of York) to sit in facile judgement on whether or not he should have come out.

I truly dont think this is a case of snouts in the trough... I doubt very much he would have taken the risk of being crucified on expenses for £25000 in the current climate without a very good reason given he's a multi millionaire. He looks to me to be good at his job and he should stay in it. As for the Telegraph...well I'm pretty disgusted actually.

Kevyn Bodman

'But, since no amount of shame made anyone in the late and thoroughly unlamented Labour regime resign there is a precedent for Laws to brave it out.'

Paraphrased:
The other side were a bunch of duplicitous bastards and got away with dishomourable behaviour,so it's OK if my side does the same.

I very strongly disagree.

My view:if it was wrong for Labour to do it then it's wrong for the other side to do it.
And wrong it is.

Long the UK

I seriously hope Mr Laws stays in his position.

The intent was not fraudulent. He was in a pickle.

Let him be....

TGF UKIP

If he does go as many, if not most, CHers believe he should, the arising situation could be most interesting.

Going back a couple of weeks and the LibDems despite winning a mere fifty seven seats in an electoral performance nearly as dire as the Cameron Green party, were conceded a ludicrous five Cabinet seats as part of the Dave sell-out.

However, that was then, when Disaster Dave's driving desperate need was to get into Downing Street at all costs to save his miserable hide. However, he's there now and safe, especially if the parliamentary party are daft enough to enact the Save the Dave provisions of the 55% Five Year Bill. So why replace Laws with another LibDem particularly when that could very well mean the elevation of Way-out Webb or the arrival of Sly Si. Though on the balance principal of replacing one gay with another that would mean hello to the Hon Headbanger Hughes, unless of course Webb is gay as well.

Perhaps, however, given his well-justified sense of insecurity, Dave should grow a pair, tell Clegg and his bando weirdos they got far more than they should have, and get John Redwood on board to run the Treasury with Squeaky just doing the strutting and poncing about bit up front.

Steven

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". In a bye gone age Laws would have immediately resigned and it would have been accepted. Then in a subsequent age he would probably hold out for a few days and the PM of the day would fire him. In recent times he would resign/get fired get rehabilitated after a period of years/months and ultimately end up with a peereage. No doubt the "hard right" would prefer either if the first two options - Laws to resign or get fired - but then the hard right often live in the past. The need to be whiter than white is only necessary in a world of black and white. We live in progressive times, the world is a lot of shades of grey and all the colors of the rainbow. People can understand this. The DT action would appear to be a political act not an act if journalism. Laws actions appear to be stupid but not criminal (under the laws of the day). The right action is for Laws to offer his resignation and for the PM to refuse it. The country is at a crtical juncture. Laws has proven himself to be the right man for the job. The people arguing that he should go probably also supported Lehman being left to go under to avoid 'moral hazard'. Look where that got us. Sometimes the good of the country comes first. Failure to drive through cuts will severely impact everyone far more than giving the DT the victory that it has probably been planning for for sometime. DT should be brought before a select committee to explain the timing of this story. Witch-hunts belong in the 17th century.

lescam

"The cabinet is made up of a majority of people who abused the expenses system"

Exactly, which is why Laws should stay. Hardly anyone comes out of the expenses scandal whiter than white, including Cameron and Clegg. Nearly all of them have been at it, to a greater or lesser degree, at various times. And don't even get me started on "New" Labour, bath plugs, porno films, claiming for phantom mortgages, etc.

Laws is no worse than any of the above, has considerably more brains than most, and is the right man for the job. He should repay the money, apologise, and stay on. The government needs him a lot more than most of the others. I would be desperately sad to see him resign, and hope he doesn't.

As for the Telegraph, they appear to take great pleasure in sticking knives into those they consider not suitable for government, witness the attempts to assassinate Clegg just before the election. They have milked this expenses scandal for all it is worth, and I hope they are now satisfied that they have done their best to destroy Laws' career. Let him who is without sin...

Rhoda Klapp

Yeah, the telegraph's fault, filling in all those false expense claims and sending them to the fees office in the name of good honest MPs who didn't understand the rules. Or the meaning of probity, honesty or responsibility.

Tiberius

bigasp: what about Riddell and Porter?

And while Heffer is not of the Left, he wants Cameron to fail just because.

The DT cannot be relied upon to support the coalition as it tries to save the country from the consequences of NuLab, I'm afraid.

And as some others have suggested, is it not something of a coincidence that Campbell had gone to the trouble of taking a photo of Laws with him on to QT? It would be out of character for him to be caught out by mere chance.

davidk

I cant believe the amount of people defending Laws here. If this had been a Labour Treasury Minister siphoning off £40K to their partner the same apologists would be baying for blood.

Consistency, please.

john miller

Nobody batted an eyelid over the conduct of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made me pay for tax advice on how best to, ahem, arrange his affairs.

Does motive not count anymore? Or the consequences?

Unlike Darling, neither Laws nor his partner sought to become multi millionaires and neither did.

He actually acted according to his principles in the certain knowledge that what he did was not morally wrong.

Unlike the expense claims of very many of his fellow MPs.

jaybs

David Laws has been nothing but clumsy, but of course the Rants from such as "Mail" readers is only about robbing taxpayers of £40,000, can't they see if he had rented a property in his own name he could have claimed much more. Of course we have come to expect the homophobic comments and also the uncalled for gay attack headline.

charles hercock

How can anyone defend clear dishonesty however lofty the motive --in the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,for God's sake

biggestaspidistra

tiberius, my post re the telegraph was a request for information and not otherwise loaded.

I'm noticing a lot of political correctness, not to say authoritarianism from otherwise exemplary posters, now homosexuality has entered the room. (I'm looking at you in particular Rhoda, and you too Vulture). Very old regime. It is possible that Mr Laws' preference was libertarian in nature, and did not conform to the civil partnership mode of the adjusted thought patterns of the wider populace. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him the freedom to define himself personally and privately, in spite of sour busybodying from the left and from the right.

Seamus Ferguson

Laws should stay if only because he can make the cuts then soldier on until the next revelation (I was Laws rentboy or whatever) and then be axed. He is the perfect patsy. The media can be briefed that it was Nick who wanted Laws to remain while Dave argued against, smearing the Lib Dems in time for a new election.

Vulture

The Gay thing is a red herring.

Bottom line: the man who ripped £40,000 off the taxpayer is in charge of slashing the public purse. That is totally unsustainable.
If he doesn't quit or get sacked this will be brought up again and again. He is irretrievably tainted.

Much better that he quits and then - if he's as brilliant as everyone says - bring him back in a non-slashing Ministerial role in a year or two.

The fact that he lied about his domestic arrangements out of some Catholic guilt trip is irrelevant - the point is that his duplicity now makes it impossible for him
to act as Mr Axeman.

I don't believe that those Coffee Housers who want this to be brushed under the carpet because it damages the Coalition have calibrated their moral compasses recently. Laws is a petty thief - the fact that he's a hypocrite and a liar is really neither here nor there: most politicians are.

GeoffH

"He definitely broke the rules"

You see, this won't do. That's jumping to conclusions simply on the DT's say-so.

Firstly, it's not ABSOLUTELY CLEAR (my caps for emphasis, not shouting) that he did so.

Secondly, if the rules are oppressive or otherwise against 'natural justice' then, in law, they can't stand.

Look at this way, the sense that the rules forbid paying rent to a partner (no matter how defined) falls down as soon as an MP rents from a long-standing, but platonic friend which would fall within the rules.

So, it all comes down to if you 'd*p your w*ck', then no rent, but if you don't but he's been a pal for 20 years then OK, you can claim.

If so, then that's absurd.

Naomi Muse

It just brings back the 'if only!' 'if only!' scenario that the whole of the expenses scandal should have been dealt with properly in one go.

So many things still hang over and most citizens think that all profit made by MPs when using taxpayer's money should be repaid.

Whatever the right and wrong of it, with an appalling expenses system being as loose as it was, it was hardly likely that people working within that system would not have profited in some way however upright they were trying to be.

As to David Laws. I admire his abilities to do the job he's been appointed to. I heaved a sigh of relief on realising his professionalism. What other parties have anyone with such a track record and expertise at that level? - none!

The country needs him. However, with that error of judgement he should leave the post of Chief Secretary and take a more junior title whilst it is all being sorted out. His expertise is needed to be a guiding light on sorting out the mess that Labour got us into.

Lose his title, he should. Resign from doing the work, he should not.

GeoffH

"Nicholas says: There is a Leftist media bloc at work here

But wasn't this the Telegraph? Have I missed something?"

You clearly haven't been reading the Telegraph lately. The old assumptions don't apply any more. It's currently highly schizophrenic; ranging from the Loony Right as defined by Heffer to the Loony Left as defined by Mary Riddell.

That's why I've abandoned of for The Times.

Spectator take note, you've been straying close to the Barclay brothers'defined path lately. It's not good for your long-term health.

stephen

I hope Laws does not turn into a serial resigner like Lord Mandy!

Summer

Who has cost us more? David Laws or the Labour MP's still sitting in Parliment and on whose behalf the note telling us 'there was no money left" was written?

Who will help get the country back on its feet? David Lawes, or the Labour MP's who drove us into bankruptcy?

And, can someone remind me if Mr Speaker has repaid his 'generous' expenses - he who sits presiding over the Commons now?

And did we ever get to the bottom of the flipping Balls?

Was Chancellor Darling told he could not be responsible for the country's budget with his expenses record?

Do we still have that woman lawyer in the Lords who employed the illigal cleaner? And what of that Asian woman who claimed for the home she didn't live in - is she still in the upper chamber, along with a Lord Paul of the dubious expenses record?

Haven't I see a certain Alistair Campbell representing the Labour party on television on a number of occassions recently - didn't he doctor some papers that have led to scores of deaths? And wasn't this person waving around a picture of David Laws on Question Time last week because Mr Laws would not appear with Mr Campbell? Is there any connection?

My view is this. Why has this little plate been spun into the public ring and by whom, with what intent? Because I doubt it was because of public interest? David Laws claim may be wrong, is probably wrong - so let him pay it back and then put his heart and soul into getting the country out of the mess to make amends. If he goes then, to be fair, so should Darling, Balls the Speaker and many others, including a number of so called Lords (of missrule).

TomTom

If he continues he should forego his Ministerial uplift and receive only his pay as an MP

Frank P

He's on the horns of a dilemma. And not matter which horn he sits on, it is going to be painful - even for him! As for David Cameron - ouch! Well and truly buggered!

malone

Things become clearer if you look at the alternative option for comparison.

Would it be correct and fair for his partner to have fully subsidised David Laws London accommodation? I think not. Both are in work and both need to contribute to the roof over their heads. The exact extent and nature of those contributions being subject to all the multiple, varied and unique terms of engagement of any 'marriage'.

john miller

Summer, excellent piece.

Liz Brown

he must stay - he is amongst the brightest of the lot and we need him

TrevorsDen

I tend to agree with Mr Cooper in both his posts.
Parliamentary allowances are not means tested. this has not cost the taxpayers a penny. Unlike Say Jacqui Smiith who turned down a grace and favour flat and actually cost the taxpayer for police protection and her fake claims fore her own home.

Rhoda Klapp

biggestaspidistra, I don't think I mentioned gayness except to dismiss its relevance, andto say I don't quite understand the secrecy. But if the dip yer wick rule applies to benefit claimants, I don't see why it should not apply to MPs. To those who say it isn't certain he is guilty of anything, I say apologising and paying back is not a good strategy unless you are guilty. And yes, all those guilty should pay back, and lose office. Some should be tried. Regardless of whether I like them, their politics or their competence. I cannot understand why anybody here would suggest selective application of the law or the rules of the house. Just because the last government had no probity, that doesn't mean it has to be the case forever.

Rhoda Klapp

Naomi's suggestion of loss of office while keeping the job might work.

Minnie Ovens

strapworld
May 29th, 2010 12:05pm

I read this well argued point of view with interest.
I have to disagree, unfortunately.
Firstly there is no such thing as a indispensible person.
Secondly, the morals of this country have meandered downwards since the last war.
So goes Westminster so goes the country.
No longer is there altruism or the high minds of the victorian dissenters to set standards.
In 1963 we saw Profumo brought down because of his lies in parliament. He spent the next fourty years working in the East end.
During the last ten years we have seen some of the most louche louts working in Westminster both as MP's and as "advisors" (which in Cameron's case means hangers on, giving very bad advice), with few standards, except of the lowest level.
It is now up to this Government to set a very high standard after the appalling stench emanating from all political quarters, whether that be expenses, public enquiries or the hounding of whistle blowers
I like Laws, he seems to be an intelligent decent man, bar his extended dishonesty upon his utility charges.
It is therefore imperative, yet regretful that he has to go.
Cameron must regain the moral high ground and drag all those dreadful porkers with him. They need to know that one foot wrong and they are out.
Miilebands take note if you are to be the leaders of Labour in the future.

John David Barnett

Much ado about very little.

roger

DIMITO I'm not aware of any credibility problems with John Redwood. He appears to be extremely popular to me. Can you explain.

Dennis Churchill

Sounds like he has resigned.(Conservative Home)

Paddy

Summer: Exactly.

Tim Carpenter LPUK

If Cameron is for Rule of Law, he could refuse Laws resignation and suggest he steps aside pending the official review.

If Laws knows he is bang to rights and mortally wounded, then he can always re-submit resignation and then Cameron accepts.

In all of this we must not conflate the plea for privacy and the claims for funds.

Whatever happens this should be a lesson as to why being gay should not be considered something to hide. People can and will sneer at gays, but it is up to those of us who do not consider it an issue to state clearly what we believe so that such things do not happen again, especially if talent is lost.

stereodog

This is an extremely complex issue because it rather depends on what Mr Laws' relationship with his now partner was at the time. Living together as spouses isn't necessarily the same as being in a sexual relationship. If I might be indelicate for a second if I were to sleep with my landlord does that automatically make me a partner and not a tenant? As to what he should do surely his only option is to offer his recognition to the Prime Minister. If Mr Cameron then decides his services to the country are needed then he can refuse the resignation

biggestaspidistra

MK to biggestaspidistra, I don't think I mentioned gayness except to dismiss its relevance, andto say I don't quite understand the secrecy."

This is what you said on Mr. Liddle's blog a couple of hours earlier::

"And frankly comparing homosexuality to bestiality is disgraceful."

Ms Klapp: "Would it be naive to ask why? What makes one OK and the other outre? I can see them both being unacceptable, indeed I can remember the time. I can't see where the line is though."