Reader comments · Gay MP David Laws may be reprimanded over expenses · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay MP David Laws may be reprimanded over expenses

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Dan Filson 9 May 2011, 2:50pm

    If he rejoins the cabinet, hopefully that will push the useless Danny Alexander down a rung. Curious how long this decision has taken to emerge, and how the £40k reported in some papers has shrivelled down to an amount only worth a slap on the wrist. What makes a slap on the wrist so inappropriate was that his campaigning even in 2010 was on the basis of being ‘whiter than white’ on his expenses. If it was a female landlady who was his lover would we (this doesn’t include me) be so tolerant of his offence?

    1. Jock S. Trap 10 May 2011, 8:04am

      Have to agree about Danny Alexander. Watching paint dry is more interesting.

  2. Dan Filson 9 May 2011, 2:52pm

    And if you wonder why I loathe him so much, it’s because he, even more than Clegg if that’s possible, embraced in his 23 days in power (since which he has kept his head down in the hope people will forget his offence) with gusto the slashing of spending across the board, and will therefore have caused untold harm to health and education services and to community groups.

    1. How could you possibly know that? How do you know that he didn’t rein in Osbourne’s spending cuts?

      1. Dan Filson 9 May 2011, 6:08pm

        Easy to assert that he., and all the LibDems, was busy reining in the Tories, until you find areas where they and the Tories were making bigger cuts than either mentioned before the election or than necessary. His ambition was extraordinary and visible from afar, and certainly from the opposite side of Parliament Square.

    2. de Villiers 9 May 2011, 6:06pm

      Spending has increased in cash terms each year and will continue to increase in cash terms each year for the next four years.
      There is no actual cut in the total amount of government spending. There is only a cut in the rate of increase in the level of spending.

      1. Don’t know the figures or the accounting that’s involved but in my area the council has had to close half the libraries (some of the fairly new ones) and the tips are closed for half the week and have started charging. That’s all blamed on cuts from central govt apparently. It’s amazing how quickly the “cuts” have had an effect on services in my area. I’m sure others have the same stories …by the way my area has always been cons or lib dem..

        1. de Villiers 10 May 2011, 12:02pm

          Figures from the 2011 budget were that the government spending would increase each year from the £600 billion of the last year of the Labour government to a figure of £695 billion in 2014.
          This would require additional government borrowing of £485 billion over the five years of the current government. That is spending of £485 billion more than the government will receive in taxes. The government will run a loss every year for the next five years to the value of £485 billion.

    3. Don Harrison 10 May 2011, 6:41pm

      Watching you Dan the word which comes to mind is acid

  3. I’m always fascinated as to how this is a “gay” story. He fiddles expenses, and he happens to be gay. The fact he’s gay is completely unrelated, unless one is implying he fiddled expenses BECAUSE he’s gay (no doubt that what’s the insane scribblings of Rich and Skinner would have everyone stupid enough to listen to them believe). This is not different form a story entitled “gay person falls off bike”

    1. But he did “fiddle his expenses” because he’s gay, it was to hide the fact that the man he was living with was his partner not his landlord. Had he been openly gay and admitted that Lundie was his partner (or if he’d been in a relationship with a woman) then he could have claimed MORE money than he did this way.

      1. The fiddling of expenses is the bit here that’s key, not what he was doing with the expenses. The fact some gay lover is involved is just titillation for the Daily Mail unwashed masses.

    2. Will, try to see these reports as involving gay people in any way, whether directly or by association. Sometimes, even if the story has nothing to do with sexuality, it’s useful as an insight into the way it’s being reported elsewhere.

  4. greedy little sh1t

    1. Or rather, generous little… given he was claiming a lot less than he would have been getting if he’d been out about his relationship!

      1. They man is loaded he needn’t have claimed but it is MP’s culture to grab what you can.

  5. I think I read somewhere that he could be given a policy position, which wouldn’t be a ministerial position, because since Danny Alexander was promoted to Laws’ role the Lib Dems haven’t had a full time policy position which is arguably why the coalition government’s record has been so right wing, rather than centre-right.

    1. Me_The_Viewer 10 May 2011, 1:02pm

      But given how sanctimonious Lib Dems were before the election I doubt it. Before the election Clegg was mouthing off that none of his MPs had been claiming for second homes. [Another lie?]

      As others have said, the fact he is gay is irrelevant. Indeed, the fact mentioned elsewhere that Laws is a millionaire is also irrelevant.

      He was caught out, and WE – the taxpayer – have been subsidising Lundie’s home.

      It’s an old fashioned scandal and Laws should resign as an MP.

  6. David Laws should NOT be allowed back into the cabinet.

    I don’t care what his reasons for doing so were, but the fact remains he fiddled his expenses.

    He should be facing a criminal investigation.

    If ths Laws character is given his old job back then it just proves the utter contempt with which the government views the electorate.

    1. Ian Bower 9 May 2011, 4:03pm

      Indeed David.
      I cannot remember a Government which did not treat the electorate with contempt.

      1. de Villiers 9 May 2011, 6:07pm

        > I cannot remember a Government which did not treat the electorate with contempt.

        I am sure that I can.

        1. de Villiers 9 May 2011, 6:07pm

          > I am not sure that I can, it should have read.

    2. @ David

      Whilst I agree that many people who were politicians who fiddled expenses should be prosecuted and I am pleased to see successful prosecutions of some … I do think the investigations should be treated with the same merit of any potential criminal investigation with consideration as to public interest, mitigation etc. However, I think the CPS would conclude if this case was referred to them that the mens rea element of the offence might be very difficult to prove as Laws could have been worse off as a result of his actions – this I would contend would add significant weight to mens rea being incomplete.

  7. In a way it’d be good to have him back in the cabinet in that the entire story was something that only happened because of his sexuality and the culture of homophobia he grew up in.

    However, I’d rather see more of the left wing of the Liberals in the coalition cabinet. Especially now that their “phase one, show we can work with people we hugely disagree with” stage has come to an end and it’s back to Liberal / Tory “we’re on the left, they’re on the right” politics.

    1. Sorry but he wasn’t going to get thrown out on the street and end up homeless. He’s a coward

  8. Getting Laws back into the cabinet!…wouldn’t be my first choice to boost my party’s popularity..I suspect he’s more unpopular among straights than gays..anybody that got caught out on those expenses claims in such a high profile way can’t really be hopiing for a top job still?? I’d think his party be better off retiring him off in the next election

  9. Dan Filson 9 May 2011, 6:05pm

    Laws kept the location of his flat and his relationship as secret as possible – believe, if you will, the ‘protecting his mum’ defence, but his landlord/lover was also a paid lobbyist. Did Laws declare any interests in respect of his financial relationship with a paid lobbyist?

  10. de Villiers 9 May 2011, 6:09pm

    I had read in the newspapers that although David Laws had claimed expenses incorrectly, he could have claimed more than he did within the rules had he acknowledged the relationship. Although he ought not to have claimed in the way that he did, what he did receive was less than that to which he would otherwise have been entitled.

    1. De·ceit  the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating: Once he exposed their deceit, no one ever trusted them again ???.
      He did not claim expenses wrongly…!
      For what ever reason, there is the fact of deception or does that not matter ?

  11. Jock S. Trap 9 May 2011, 6:38pm

    Personally I think he would be good back in the government but he must be dealt with properly if he has done wrong and that does include missing out on ‘promotion’ just like anyone else.

  12. I feel sorry for the guy. But who cares if he returns. The Lib dems will probably get less votes than the green party in the next election.

  13. Everyone keeps missing what seems to me the main point – someone who fiddles expenses for something he wants to hide is an idiot. Letting him back into government is a bit like giving a monkey a hand grenade.

    1. de Villiers 10 May 2011, 11:57am

      We all make mistakes.

      1. and your MISTAKE is to trust this cheat ?

    2. de Villiers 10 May 2011, 12:03pm

      > Letting him back into government is a bit like giving a monkey a hand grenade.

      Are you sure that you are not exaggerating?

      1. Perhaps, but I think it’s an arresting image. How about ‘…a monkey a screwdriver.’?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.