The big question is how many more.....and who is helping the right wing press....with friends like these....http://redrag1.blogspot.com/2010/05/red-rag-so-who-will-next-lib-dem-to-be.html

You cannot keep a man in a post such as Mr Laws' after such dishonesty in a governemnet that claims to be squeaky clean. No matter how you dress it up, at best he has been economical with the truth and at worse has deliberately lied. As I have posted elsewhere, there are many couples of all sexual persuasions who retain separate bank accounts and don't socialise together, that does not justify fiddling the system, claiming money you shouldn't and it's an insult to the intelligence of the general public to try to do so.
To admit being together since 2001, to say that he remortgaged a house to contribute to his partner's new one suggests a great deal of committment to each other.
He has a right to privacy and his sexuality is his alone to discuss but you cannot be knowingly gay around westminster village and in a partnership and then justify a claim for rent money on the basis that it's not really a partnership. He has left himself wide open to being outed by the nature of his claims. The media isn't the one harassing a member, the general consensus of public opinion is that his position as Chief secretary to the treasury has become untenable given the nature of the job he has to do and the claims he has made.
Yahoorsur is right, if he had justified a benefit claim in such a way, his benefit would be removed, he would be prosecuted for making false claims and face a custodial sentence as well as being ordered to pay back the money that had been claimed. Benefit claimants live below the poverty line and have to pay the consequences for deception, so should the far wealthier Mr Laws and paying back the wrongly claimed money is not enough, he should be removed from his post.

On his own website on June 18 last year he said, "I have rented a property in London, rather than buying one, so I have made no gain from buying a property with help from the taxpayer." Only he gave a chunk of money to his partner to enable him to buy the property, and then paid him rent to help him be able to afford the mortgage. I think that most people would question the statement that he hadn't benefited. David Laws is wealthy former stockbroker, some say a millionaire. So why didn't he buy a property and take rent from his partner as a lodger - no bending rules, keeps his privacy?

How would his excuse stand up if he was claiming benefit as a single person (who was actually living with someone else)? A benefit claimant would be hammered through the courts and even face prison..Just food for thought

Very little homophobia that I can see. As an example, my statement would stand if the guy was homosexual of straight. This is simply a question of right or wrong and sexuality does not come into it

Lots of axes being ground here. This is my take on it:
http://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2010/05/bedroom-farce_29.html

Why would his not claiming living allowances have suggested to anyone, anything about his private life? He is extremely wealthy and it would have been unremarkable.... except that extremely wealthy people always seem to go for everything they can get and then rabidly attack those on £65/week job seeker allowance for being scroungers and work shy!

And on a question of appropriate sentence, Laws would face in the Crown Court, for offences involving £40k of fraudently claiming money from the State a term of imprisonment of around 18 months; his actions justify an equal deterent.

For a man that has done nothing wrong, how come he missed his normal Saturday constituency meeting this morning?

David Chaytor, ex MP for Bury North, is accused of "dishonestly claiming" £1,950 for IT services and further sums of £12, 925 and £5,425 relating to rent on properties which he and his mother allegedly owned. He is facing criminal proceedings. He was suspended from the parliamentary labour party after much call from, amongst others, a Mr David Cameron. Mr Laws is alleged to have claimed 40 thousand pounds for rent he was not entitled to claim and there are allegations that his utility claims dropped enormously after the change in parliamentary expenses to those claimed before. (From The Telegraph today - "Mr Laws’s claims for a series of other expenses are also now expected to come under scrutiny. Between 2004 and 2008, he submitted regular claims, in rounded figures, for service and maintenance, repairs, utilities and other items.
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".)
If Mr Chaytor faces criminal proceedings for a smaller amount then surely so should Mr Laws and at the very least he should be suspended, as Mr Cameron called for with the Labour MPs.
I recognise that an investigation has to be held before deeming the claims to be of a criminal nature but Mr Laws should not remain in office whilst such an investigation takes place.

Most sane people understand and sympathise with the difficulties facing homosexuals who wish to keep their lifestyle private. What they don't sympathise with is someone using their sexuality to excuse their wrongdoing. If David Laws wished to keep his sxuality private, as he had every right to do, why didn't he simply rent a room round the corner? Instead he chose to live with his partner, and allowed the taxpayer to foot the bill for the rent and also utilities - though the regular claims of £200 dropped dramatically when receipts were required. This smells. Moreover, Laws' partner subsequently sold the house and trousered a profit of £198,000!! One suspects that Laws chose to live with him in order to contribute substantially, through his allowances, to the mortgage and to his partner's property speculation. While it is true that many MPs have behaved in an equally shabby way and escaped with mild or no punishment, that doesn't excuse Laws' behaviour. And his deception is particularly offensive as he is the minister in charge of cuts. He really must go.

Treasury statement from Laws sees him resign as Chief treasurer. Thank you Mr Laws.
Danny Alexander taking over.
In future it would be great to think our MPs will be squeaky clean, and I would like to think that they all will be, but if they aren't and they get caught, then they should immediately say I was wrong, I will pay the money back, I have referred myself to the Parliamentary Standards committee and I resign my position with immediate effect.
A little mea culpa goes a long way with.

Absolutely right that he should have resigned, it's not got anything to do with him being gay; he was a cheat and he got caught out; simple as that. But let this not be the end of it, the public (whose money he allegedly defrauded us of)have a right to see it's properly investigated. But whoever said about the equally worrying factor over that clown Osborne in charge of our finances raises a valid concern.

It was probably a Cameron stitch up to get rid of him (maybe that's stretching it!). So wonder what will happen about electing his replacement....now there's an interesting thought.

Abdul, just because people disagree with you does not mean they are homophobic.

This must have been why he did not appear on QT.

Downing Street must have known this was going to break. They used Campbell as an excuse to get Laws out of it!

should be out ,replaced by vince

that'd make waves

If a single parent had embezzled £40000 in housing benefit,you can be bloody well sure that her feet would not have touched the ground on the way to Corton Vale,the absolute hypocrisy of the man beggers belief,he was in a relationship with James Lundie from 2001,he claimed over a 5 year period,if he had any principles whatsoever he would resign both from govt and as an MP,the more I read that statement and hear from other mp’s about what a great public servant he is,the more angry im becoming,it’s 3+ bloody years wages for me and he stole,yes stole from the public purse,begone you scoundrel.

COALITION DUCKHOUSE UK BLOG: http://tinyurl.com/pknlxn he really should go and this is why....

No one mentions that his covert gay lover is a powerful spin doctor with the american Edelman compaq
ny

I think the biggest disgrace is still that he had to take the decisions he did to keep his sexuality and privacy actually private. I like David Laws because he's a good politician and appears to be an honest guy.

He has only just told his family . . .

I'd give him chance, removing him now will not actually help to solve the problem that there clearly is.

And @ Faith Waterhouse: Why should his sexuality have to be public? He's in a job that people seem to believe we should know everything about them, just so we can class them as "honest". MP's are MP's for a reason, no matter the party, they join to try represent a certain group of people, make their voices heard. I don't see where David's sexuality comes into this at all.

New politics for me is not the govt. kicking members out of the cabinet out of the fear of being harassed by the media. I hope Cameron grows a pair and realises that the new politics we keep hearing about actually is new, fair and equal.

rant over.