Sorry, but I disagree. From the way I see it, the man knew that he was in a relationship and set out to pay rent to his partner when he obviously knew that MPs were not allowed to lease accommodation from a partner since 2006. Perhaps Mr Laws did not profit - but his partner did with Mr Laws full knowledge that what he was doing was against the rules. He could have still hid his sexuality and not bothered claiming - I doubt that anyone would have questioned why he didn't claim for his lodgings.
Just another expenses scandal to highlight MP's "holier than thou" attitudes.
I have no faith in any of them - their sense of public duty is only to themselves and to feather their nests with our hard earned money!
Report this post

I agree with Tracey, the only person who seemed to think his sexuality was an issue was him and he felt unable to tell people he was gay, but this is was not a problem for him when he needed an excuse for what he had done. What we should not loose sight of is he broke the rules, and he has to accept the consequences, like any of us do. We also have to ask the question, why did he not tell him party leader his concerns about his expenses at the time of the original scandal
Report this post

Have I totally misunderstood this 'scandal' did he resign because of his sexuality - NO he resigned because he had been caught at the very least bending the rules to seek a profit for his lover (whatever sex). I agree with Tracey. This story has nothing to do with the private life of the individual and everything to do with ethics, behaviours and, in terms of leadership of the public purse and the country, the ability to command trust and respect - for me the building blocks of leadership. IF MP's are ever to retrieve any respect they have to act as leaders that the common man aspires to be or become. Skills are not enough they have to be great and be trustworthy. If I bend the expenses rule in my company I face the sack for theft or fraud ...... why are politicians (at any level) any different.
Report this post

If David Laws had genuinely wanted to hide his sexuality, couldn't he have refrained from claiming altogether? I think his claim about sexuality is almost as bad as people playing the race card when it suits. He has succeeded in distracting commentators from the real problem by throwing in the issue of his sexuality so people are more ready to excuse him and are too afraid to say the truth for fear of 'discrimination.'

If his partner had been female would he have claimed he hadnt 'realised' he was in a long-term relationship. No he wouldn't. He is playing on that element of doubt some people have that homosexual relationships somehow aren't real or as legitimate as heterosexual ones. He has shown himself to be a real insult to gay people everywhere fighting tooth and nail for genuine equality.

One other very obvious point as well - if you are gay and want to stay in the closet, don't go into politics. He will have known this - again more proof he is using the issue of sexuality as a smokescreen. Shame on him!
Report this post

There are some interesting points here but I definitely can't agree with the comment that if you're gay and want to stay in the closet you shouldn't go into politics. Why not? Everyone has a right to a private life.
Report this post

I have to say I do feel the language of the original Telegraph headline ("Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim") was intended to be provocative and has undertones (if not overtones) of homophobia. Would the word “lover” be used if the partner was female? The phrase “secret lover” would probably only be used to refer to a female partner if he was having an extra-marital affair. Therefore its use here implies a salacious element that makes me feel uncomfortable.
Report this post