Except Laws could’ve claimed more money if he hadn’t kept his relationship secret. So the taxpayer actually benefited from him trying to keep his sexuality private. Morally, there is nothing wrong with what he did.

Did he break the rules? Maybe, maybe not. The definition of “partner” is a bit of a grey area in the rules. When does a non-partner become a partner? After a drunken one-night stand? After a romantic walk on the beach? After three weeks of cuddling? There’s no obvious red-line. The worst thing you can say is that he may have used a grey area in the rules wrongly to keep his sexuality private, while not harming the taxpayer.

And yes, he is a rich man. So? There’s nothing about expenses that MPs are expected to pay out of their pocket, nor should they. Expenses are expenses. Either the taxpayer pays for them or we don’t. And means testing expenses would actually work against the poorer potential MP, as they would feel the need to use expenses, while wealthier ones would not. But if you think expenses should be means tested, that is a completely different debate about whether the current rules should be changed, not about whether Laws did anything wrong.

Oh, and does every political scandal have to be about Sunny Hundal and Iain Dale? People come here to read about politics form a liberal-left perspective, not to see you blogging to mummy about what that nasty Dale said in a twitter spat. Fucking children, the both of you.

But if I must comment on that argument, I would say that for obvious reasons that you are more likely to understand racial issues, and Dale is more likely to understand gay issues. There’s no need to get personal.

But there is an equally compelling point that Laws is a millionaire.

Indeed. Millionaires should not be sponging off the state. In effect, what he has done is claimed housing benefit without being means tested.

The rest of us are means tested whenever we try to claim a benefit and find that the levels are set so low that we are rejected even though a few quid extra a week will make a significant effect on our lives. Yet a millionaire is allowed to claim £1000 a month. Where is the social justice?

To give Dale some credit, he did call the Question Time ruckus correctly – which Andy Coulson (come on, Paul Waugh, don’t be so timid, we all know who your “source” is) won’t like at all.

But then, his behaviour in trying to make trouble for Mike Raddie is totally Out Of Order.

Sunny, is what you’re saying that Dale is right on Laws but wrong to downplay racism in the press?

If so I agree.

Alex @ 1

The definition of “partner” is a bit of a grey area in the rules. When does a non-partner become a partner? After a drunken one-night stand? After a romantic walk on the beach? After three weeks of cuddling? There’s no obvious red-line. The worst thing you can say is that he may have used a grey area in the rules wrongly to keep his sexuality private, while not harming the taxpayer.

I would suggest that living with someone for five years, may just sneak past the so called ‘grey area’? Or am I being harsh?

The fact is that lots of people have their relationship put under the microscope when claiming taxpayers money. Even Cameron recognises the ‘couple penalty’ in the benefits system. There are no grey areas here; as the advert clearly states, no ifs or buts, if you are living with someone you are deemed to be partners and the dole will photograph you coming out of the house in the morning if you are and drag you through the courts. These rules are rigidly applied with no exceptions.

Laws is a rich man, but yet still felt entitled to claim this money. Dale and other Tories were quite happy to drag the Labour Party through every hedge in the Country after every minor infraction of the rules. 16 quid worth of porn, for example, but when one of their own (in political ideology and wealth) openly does something dishonest and rips off the taxpayer, and out come the excuses. Imagine a millionaire politician having to live their lives according to the same rules as they expect the rest of us to! Why the very thought must bring them out in a cold sweat.

According to Dale, Laws has resigned.

“There is a view on the story, articulated quite well here, that David Laws should be pardoned because he wasn’t trying to screw over taxpayers but keep his gay relationship secret”.

It’s hardly a secret. And since when was this a defence “All I was trying to do was keep my relationhsip with miss whiplash a secret”

@ 1 “Did he break the rules? Maybe, maybe not. The definition of “partner” is a bit of a grey area in the rules”

No it isn’t. It says something like; in a civil parternship, co-habiting, or otherwise living as a couple. As others have said it’s a clear test, exactly the same test as for benefits

Make him face a by-election and see what his constituents say.

Interestingly the press took a hawkish approach to expenses under labour.
More excuses now under the coalition.
I wonder why ?

Dale is on BBC24 right now. I’d never realised just what a slimy cunt he it.

‘Is’ not ‘it’.

Then he goes on to say “I couldn’t care less about you” while constantly blogging about me. Dale is not only vindictive, but obsessed.

*irony alert*

Dale is a revolting little man.

He represents so beautifully the……..’ I’ve got mine, fuck you ‘ mentality that is so typical of the right wing.

And his little mate Timmy is just as bad. But what do expect from people that just copy the Republican play book?

Dale is just a Tory rent a gob

David Laws claimed on expenses the extra costs of having somewhere to live in London near to Parliament as well as his home in his constituency. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
He started renting a room which was cheaper for the taxpayer. After he started renting a room, he started a relationship with his landlord – not to my taste but none of my business; several years later, the rules changed and he thought that he could continue to claim the relatively modest cost – that is debatable but a simple reading would support that view.
So Iain Dale is upset because he thinks David Laws is being persecuted because he is gay. Well, perhaps – I suspect that being a LibDem who shows up the appalling state of the UK government finances was the more important reason for him to be persecuted.
You might like to get your links fixed – neither was to Iain complaining about you playing the race card – the first was to your rejoicing at Rush Limbaugh being admitted to hospital and the other was to your fury at being taken in by a hoax.
I didn’t start reading Iain until after I joined Liberal Conspiracy but if you keep making that sort of ridiculous mistake I might think he was more trustworthy than you.