David Laws resignation

[centurian]

Indeed.

But let's not forget one thing, he did not fiddle the taxpayer out of money. He was entitled to claim the same amount to rent accomodation somewhere else.

Mmm. Still not convinced about that. He had London based accomodation available to him (that of his partner's), so should not be claiming for accomodation elsewhere, or for that of his partner's.

I guess you could argue the finer points of interpretation of the rules, but this just winds me up even more, because during the election campaign, practically every LibDem MP was banging on hard about those that re-interpreted tax laws to reduce their tax bill - basically labelling them as crooks.

Then to hear the same LD MP's come out in defence of David Laws for his interpretation of the expenses rules.

[BolshieBastard]

So the pillow munchers been caught out siphoning wonga tax free to his boyfriend

He does the honourable thing and resigns but the papers are all about "praise heaped on Laws"

Have we as a nation lost all our morals?

Ah, but they weren't a 'couple' or some other lame excuse he mentioned.

It's because he's gay we're not allowed to criticise him.

The poor man was clearly a victim of society

Spot on.

[wobbegong]

For me, the fact that he is gay is utterly irrelevant.

He broke rules on expenses - siphoning 40K of taxpayers money into his partner's pocket.

All this codswallop about wanting to keep his relationship secret - surely someone as intelligent as himself could have found a way to do this, which didn't involve charging the taxpayer 1000s of pounds.

Stealing is stealing, he should pay it all back. If someone were caught "diverting funds" in a business environment they'd face fraud charges and a jail term.

[Doggy Styles]

Stealing is stealing, he should pay it all back. If someone were caught "diverting funds" in a business environment they'd face fraud charges and a jail term.

He may well pay it back, but to say it is stealing, or "siphoning 40K of taxpayers money into his partner's pocket" is rubbish. He is entitled to claim for rent. He cost us no more than any other MP.

What caught him out was that you couldn't claim rent paid to a partner, which he was already doing when they brought in that rule in 2006. He should have moved out and rented somewhere else, probably for more money, costing the taxpayer more.

[centurian]

What caught him out was that you couldn't claim rent paid to a partner, which he was already doing when they brought in that rule in 2006. He should have moved out and rented somewhere else, probably for more money, costing the taxpayer more.

No. He should have stopped claiming completely, because he had no genuine reason to make a claim because he had accomodation he could use (and did use) at no cost to himself.

If there had been no expense policy in the first place, would he have ended up paying money out of his own pocket - almost certainly not. It was an invented expense - that the taxpayers paid for.

He cost us no more than any other MP.

It shouldn't be a league table (although sometimes this helps weed out the piss takers). We should pay an MP whatever genuine out of pocket expenses they have. If 2 MPs in the same area have different pre existing personal circumstances, each MP should be paid expenses according to what they genuinely incur to do their job.

I could argue a whole raft of expenses that I could siphon through my LtdCo - and for longer than 24 months. Will MPs let me (as the lawmakers), no they bloody won't

[shaunbhoy]

No. He should have stopped claiming completely, because he had no genuine reason to make a claim because he had accomodation he could use (and did use) at no cost to himself.

So he should have just stayed at his mate's and not contributed anything then? You sound like one of these "live at home and let mum and dad foot the bill" freeloading types.