General Election

[Yngwie]

Lastly, I repeat, will Danny Alexander, as Secretary of State for Scotland do as he said he would in his election address and abolish the position of Secretary of State for Scotland?

He simply doesn't have the power to do that. With that in mind, maybe he has taken the view that if you can't beat'em, join'em, which is the pragmatic stance the LD's took regarding the coalition.

You mentioned earlier that they had choices. They didn't. There was only one offer on the table.

Perhaps things might have been different if Brown had accepted defeat and stood down a few days before he eventually did.

[Sorted]

Lastly, I repeat, will Danny Alexander, as Secretary of State for Scotland do as he said he would in his election address and abolish the position of Secretary of State for Scotland?

He simply doesn't have the power to do that. With that in mind, maybe he has taken the view that if you can't beat'em, join'em, which is the pragmatic stance the LD's took regarding the coalition.

You mentioned earlier that they had choices. They didn't. There was only one offer on the table.

Perhaps things might have been different if Brown had accepted defeat and stood down a few days before he eventually did.

They had a very clear choice.

Quite simply the could have easily refused to enter government with the Third Reich, forcing Adolf/David/Norman to form a minority government with Clegg and Co sitting on the opposition benches, backing a positive legislative programme but refusing to back areas that were clearly out with their manifesto e.g. Trident. This choice had nothing to do with Brown's procrastinating but was a simple one between formal power complete with ministerial cars/titles and real power as part of a balancing mechanism which would always ensure that the Tories behaved. As always with the LDs the need for the former wins!

As for Daft Danny, it is debatable if he has the "formal power" to abolish the position but he certainly has the influence to start the ball rolling if he has the political will. It is hypocritical enough to ignore his pre stated election campaign but the sheer hypocrisy of accepting the position defies belief.

No doubt this Tory/LD love in will help the LD's to be seen as more acceptable in the right of centre middle/south of England. It does however, ensure that any hope they ever had of winning Labour marginals is gone and that in Scotland, they will be remembered next time round and not for the right reasons.

Appreciate it's hardly MORI, but we had a BBQ at the weekend with about 25 folk of voting age. Of the group 17 admitted voting LD, 12 for the first time based on the impact Clegg made on the TV and viewing them as a left of centre option. Of the 12 none had ever or would ever vote Tory. Of the 12, none will ever vote LD again. I think is fairly typical of the reaction in Scotland.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Sorted

[starchief]

SNP never said they would back Labour before the election. Quite the opposite! Yet, before the ink is dry, Salmond's offering himself up. Why? Because Labour had the biggest mandate in Scotland, just as Tory had the biggest in the UK. So why aren't you attacking SNP for not declaring their interest? I'm sure there are many people voting SNP as a means of dislodging Labour.

LDs are and have never been in favour of unilateral disarmament. Trident was based both on cost and the outdatedness of the system (terrorism now not the Cold War). As it is, they LDs will NOT be voting for Trident under the pact. They have an opt-out. But it doesn't really matter what they do, as both the major right-wing parties, Labour and Tory, will vote for it. An overwhelming majority. No loss there I can see.

The pretense is that it is their desire to see the "liberal agenda" promoted but in reality, their unquenched thirst for power is what drives them.

If it was that, they wouldn't have joined the LDs in the first place. More chance of power with either the right-wing parties. It surely can't be lost on you that the LDs are in favour of coalitions. They're in favour of parties of all persuasions getting together. Their solution to the debt crisis was to get all three main parties together. LDs have as much in common with Cameron's Liberal Tories as they have under New Labour (Old Tory). But, they didn't join an SNP government when they had the choice. They didn't think it was in the country's interest. Perhaps that's your biggest gripe.

LDs have got huge concessions from the Tories. Way more than I ever thought they could get. The only real concession was when to start cuts - and, to be honest - I don't think a government controls that. It's the markets. Trident, as I've said, is supported by both Labour and Tory so it's a moot point. LDs are in favour of referenda, so even though they desire closer EU integration, they also wanted a referendum on both Lisbon and Maastricht treaties.

The SNP wouldn't have been able to persuade Labour to give a vote on independence - their core aim. Nor, others like abolishing the House of Lords or nuclear disarmament. So why not attack on the SNP for offering themselves up to their biggest rival?

Quite simply the could have easily refused to enter government with the Third Reich, forcing Adolf/David/Norman to form a minority government with Clegg and Co sitting on the opposition benches, backing a positive legislative programme

You're probably from the Thatcher generation like me. It stops me voting Tory as I remember the 80s but times change. I know people that still won't vote Labour as they remember the Winter of Discontent and the extreme socialists of earlier times. That's hardly Blair and New Labour. As it stands, much to my shock, I see Cameron as a bit of a Eurosceptic Liberal. More a cross between Heath and Blair than a successor to Thatcher.

I also don't think there would be anything like as progressive a government if the LDs had stood back. Cameron would have been deselected and the Tories would lurch to the right-wing, probably winning a majority later in the year. No fairer tax system. No referendum on voting. No change to banking. No stable government in a time of crisis. It's best for both the Liberal agenda and the country.

As it stands, I don't expect the Liberals to do well in the next election, certainly not the Scottish elections. But for now, they have more power than they have had in the last 80 years. And they're using it wisely.

Here's another poll. YouGov conducted one which gives David Cameron?s approval rating as Prime Minister at +42, Nick Clegg?s approval rating is similar at +44 (believe me, those are high ratings - higher than either got in the vote), whilst 63% think the coalition partners are working well together.

[Sorted]

Enjoying this discussion.

Have no gripe with the LDs for not joining up with the SNP at Holyrood as the result has been, despite occasional difficulties, pretty much consensual politics with a left of centre agenda. In essence, pretty much what the vast majority of the Scottish electorate (over 80%) voted for.

As for the nuclear debate, don't be so sure about Labour's continuing support. If they are to make any serious ground over the term of this parliament (fixed by default ) then they are going to have to reclaim their old ground as, you rightly point out, the ground once the bastion of New Labour belongs to the CONDEMs. As the candidates for Labour leadership, Milliband Snr excluded, have already started to distance themselves from all things military, their may be a strong shift to come.

Moving on to the SNP approach, you are right to say it wasn't stated that they were willing to co-operate with Labour in advance. This, as far as I am concerned remained the position as the only offer was to be part of a broad based left of centre coalition which only excluded (SF self excluded) the Tories and the Unionists (wee theme there eh?). This is perfectly reasonable and would be viewed as such by voters in a legitimate attempt to keen Adolf out.

I marched against Thatcher, marched for the release of the"terrorist" who's interment in Robin Island she supported, marched against the war in Iraq, supported the miners (despite Scargill) and despite getting older and wiser (OK, matter of opinion!) the hatred in my body for all things Tory remains and always will. It's all very well to say time moves on, but for the communities and generations destroyed by Thatcher reality is considerable different from the playing fields of Eton. This new breed of Thatcherite is just that, Thatcherite. Don't forget.

So when the good old fashioned, respectable, well meaning Liberal sit's done and reflects, how do they feel when the realise that the party they bore has paved the way for The New Order? Choking in their green tea me thinks.

I sound bitter because I am.

Nick Clegg - What A Catalyst You Turned Out To Be?

Edited May 26, 2010 by Sorted

[Yngwie]

I sound bitter because I am.

I think we'd all reached that conclusion a couple of days ago!

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the fact that Nick Clegg has aristocratic ancestry, went to the exclusive and expensive Westminster School, then Oxford Uni where he joined the Tory Society.

[starchief]

Labour...to make any serious ground over the term of this parliament...then they are going to have to reclaim their old ground...their may be a strong shift to come.

So we have a Tory government that has significantly moved towards the progressive, with Labour shifting towards the left. Perfect outcome. Far better than supporting right-wing New Labour in a dead duck minority government, with the defeated Tories shifting to the right.

Moving on to the SNP approach, you are right to say it wasn't stated that they were willing to co-operate with Labour in advance. This, as far as I am concerned remained the position as the only offer was to be part of a broad based left of centre coalition

I see New Labour as no more left-wing than the Tories. This probably our biggest disagreement. Blair's as much a successor to Thatcher as Cameron. A party that pushed for the Iraq War, let the banks do what they like unhindered and wants to introduce ID cards is right-wing. Whether the LDs chose one or the other is based on how progressive and meaningful a coalition. I think they got it right.

And to add, I wish the LDs had gone into a coalition with the SNP. The two parties have probably got more in common than with either of the big two (in fact, I think Labour and Tory have far more in common than either have with the LDs). It's just that one big question that gets in the way...

[Sorted]

Labour...to make any serious ground over the term of this parliament...then they are going to have to reclaim their old ground...their may be a strong shift to come.

So we have a Tory government that has significantly moved towards the progressive, with Labour shifting towards the left. Perfect outcome. Far better than supporting right-wing New Labour in a dead duck minority government, with the defeated Tories shifting to the right.

Moving on to the SNP approach, you are right to say it wasn't stated that they were willing to co-operate with Labour in advance. This, as far as I am concerned remained the position as the only offer was to be part of a broad based left of centre coalition

I see New Labour as no more left-wing than the Tories. This probably our biggest disagreement. Blair's as much a successor to Thatcher as Cameron. A party that pushed for the Iraq War, let the banks do what they like unhindered and wants to introduce ID cards is right-wing. Whether the LDs chose one or the other is based on how progressive and meaningful a coalition. I think they got it right.

And to add, I wish the LDs had gone into a coalition with the SNP. The two parties have probably got more in common than with either of the big two (in fact, I think Labour and Tory have far more in common than either have with the LDs). It's just that one big question that gets in the way...

For me, New Labour died when Blair departed the scene. Brown is a decent man, despite his loyalty to Blair over the years, who if given the chance by Middle England (no chance - Scottish and a socialist despite his mistakes) would have moved the Labour Party to a much more acceptable agenda for people like me. We don't disagree on this really other than the fact that you saw a continuation of Blairite governing under Brown as the road forward and I saw a transition back to something more akin to his roots. This is why I would have been comfortable with the SNP joining the rainbow alliance.

Moving on to Holyrood, I tend to agree with you but remain content with the outcome nevertheless. There is something quite refreshing about a minority administration having to work with people rather than block vote.

As for Nick Clegg, he is immersed in privilege and opportunity, probably of some Germanic aristocratic lineage (related to the Queen perhaps?) and far from leaving the Tory Society of his youth has cleverly moved the LDs to a position that gives him more comfort. Almost genius isn't it?

As a side note isn't it interesting that many of the more established liberals have distanced themselves? From a sober Charlie questioning his party's wisdom in public to an obviously flustered Simon Hughes talking to Adolf in the commons about "his government"!

Edited May 26, 2010 by Sorted

[Sorted]

Great week for the CONDEMs.

First they take the huff as they can't pick the panel for QT and refuse to go on with Alister Campbell (is their intellect that limited that the semi retired spin doctor merits such a stance?) then, the rising star of all things DEM, with behaviour traits more CON, grabs all the headlines.

David Laws, a pathetic excuse for anything liberal or democratic. Caught with his hand in our purse, to the tune of ?40,000 (cheques payable to: My Boyfriend) the squirming multi millionaire justifies his behaviour as "a decent man in a desperate desire to hide his sexuality." What bollocks!

All he had to do was not take the money. Full stop, end of. His sexuality was protected, his privacy safe and no intrusion. But no. The greed took over. Despite his significant wealth, his need for public funding was greater than his need for privacy.

As an individual, I show no homophobic tendencies but I hope that this despicable individual is ripped apart by as many third rate tabloids as possible, his life dissected in front of us all and that the DPP (think that's what the PF in England is?) ensures that he is prosecuted for fraud. After all, paying back is not enough for a benefit cheat, why should it be enough for a CONDEM Minister?

None of my desire for humiliation stems from his sexuality. It is the lying, manipulative cheat I want pursued. Anyone in any doubt should read the press release he issued on MPs expenses when others were being attacked. Hypocrisy anyone?

[ictchris]

Great week for the CONDEMs.

First they take the huff as they can't pick the panel for QT and refuse to go on with Alister Campbell (is their intellect that limited that the semi retired spin doctor merits such a stance?) then, the rising star of all things DEM, with behaviour traits more CON, grabs all the headlines.

David Laws, a pathetic excuse for anything liberal or democratic. Caught with his hand in our purse, to the tune of ?40,000 (cheques payable to: My Boyfriend) the squirming multi millionaire justifies his behaviour as "a decent man in a desperate desire to hide his sexuality." What bollocks!

All he had to do was not take the money. Full stop, end of. His sexuality was protected, his privacy safe and no intrusion. But no. The greed took over. Despite his significant wealth, his need for public funding was greater than his need for privacy.

As an individual, I show no homophobic tendencies but I hope that this despicable individual is ripped apart by as many third rate tabloids as possible, his life dissected in front of us all and that the DPP (think that's what the PF in England is?) ensures that he is prosecuted for fraud. After all, paying back is not enough for a benefit cheat, why should it be enough for a CONDEM Minister?

None of my desire for humiliation stems from his sexuality. It is the lying, manipulative cheat I want pursued. Anyone in any doubt should read the press release he issued on MPs expenses when others were being attacked. Hypocrisy anyone?

What a pathetic post.

[TopSix]

Laws going was a case of Cameron showing his ruthless streak and setting out wha's in cherge.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Top Six Next Year

[Sorted]

Great week for the CONDEMs.

First they take the huff as they can't pick the panel for QT and refuse to go on with Alister Campbell (is their intellect that limited that the semi retired spin doctor merits such a stance?) then, the rising star of all things DEM, with behaviour traits more CON, grabs all the headlines.

David Laws, a pathetic excuse for anything liberal or democratic. Caught with his hand in our purse, to the tune of ?40,000 (cheques payable to: My Boyfriend) the squirming multi millionaire justifies his behaviour as "a decent man in a desperate desire to hide his sexuality." What bollocks!

All he had to do was not take the money. Full stop, end of. His sexuality was protected, his privacy safe and no intrusion. But no. The greed took over. Despite his significant wealth, his need for public funding was greater than his need for privacy.

As an individual, I show no homophobic tendencies but I hope that this despicable individual is ripped apart by as many third rate tabloids as possible, his life dissected in front of us all and that the DPP (think that's what the PF in England is?) ensures that he is prosecuted for fraud. After all, paying back is not enough for a benefit cheat, why should it be enough for a CONDEM Minister?

None of my desire for humiliation stems from his sexuality. It is the lying, manipulative cheat I want pursued. Anyone in any doubt should read the press release he issued on MPs expenses when others were being attacked. Hypocrisy anyone?

What a pathetic post.

Which piece?

The piece criticising the CONDEMs for refusing to sit on a panel with a busted flush?

The piece criticising the CONDEMs for trying to dictate the membership of the QT panel?

The piece seeking prosecution for fraud in the same manner that a "benefit cheat" would be subject to?

The piece questioning the need for cash over the need for privacy?

The piece reminding people of Laws sanctimonious press release attacking every MP who every misappropriated public funds whilst he happily swindled the tax payer out of ?40k?

Or all of it?

Would be interested in hearing the counter argument as opposed to why ....... because!

[ictchris]

Which piece?

The piece criticising the CONDEMs for refusing to sit on a panel with a busted flush?

The piece criticising the CONDEMs for trying to dictate the membership of the QT panel?

The piece seeking prosecution for fraud in the same manner that a "benefit cheat" would be subject to?

The piece questioning the need for cash over the need for privacy?

The piece reminding people of Laws sanctimonious press release attacking every MP who every misappropriated public funds whilst he happily swindled the tax payer out of ?40k?

Or all of it?

Would be interested in hearing the counter argument as opposed to why ....... because!

All of it is pathetic. You sound like a complete political illiterate, who is in the midst of a classic internet tantrum because you didn't understand that the Liberal Democrats under Clegg have more in common with the Conservatives than with the Labour Party under Brown. Your reaction to this is a foaming mouthed, keyboard smashing binge every time the coalition does anything. There are members of Parliament and members of the government who committed worse offences than this under the old expenses regime - the Defence Secretary recently paid back tens of thousands of pounds, for example.

The most pathetic part of your post, though, is where you state

As an individual, I show no homophobic tendencies but I hope that this despicable individual is ripped apart by as many third rate tabloids as possible, his life dissected in front of us all

Lovely. So it's not enough that he'll pay the money back, that he's lost his job, that he's been outed against his will in front of his family and friends but you want to get your sweaty mitts on the scurrilious details of the mans life? You sound like a creepy pervert to be honest.

Oh and anyone who ever says "I'm not racist/bigoted/homophobic BUT" invariably is.

[PullMyFinger]

Oh and anyone who ever says "I'm not racist/bigoted/homophobic BUT" invariably is.

That in itself is a bigotted statement.

bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

[ictchris]

Oh and anyone who ever says "I'm not racist/bigoted/homophobic BUT" invariably is.

That in itself is a bigotted statement.

bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

No it isn't.

Another point to mention is that David Laws could have claimed just as much money if he'd been open about his private life. It was the fact he didn't want to reveal details of his sexuality that lead him to breach regulations.

[Sorted]

Which piece?

The piece criticising the CONDEMs for refusing to sit on a panel with a busted flush?

The piece criticising the CONDEMs for trying to dictate the membership of the QT panel?

The piece seeking prosecution for fraud in the same manner that a "benefit cheat" would be subject to?

The piece questioning the need for cash over the need for privacy?

The piece reminding people of Laws sanctimonious press release attacking every MP who every misappropriated public funds whilst he happily swindled the tax payer out of ?40k?

Or all of it?

Would be interested in hearing the counter argument as opposed to why ....... because!

All of it is pathetic. You sound like a complete political illiterate, who is in the midst of a classic internet tantrum because you didn't understand that the Liberal Democrats under Clegg have more in common with the Conservatives than with the Labour Party under Brown. Your reaction to this is a foaming mouthed, keyboard smashing binge every time the coalition does anything. There are members of Parliament and members of the government who committed worse offences than this under the old expenses regime - the Defence Secretary recently paid back tens of thousands of pounds, for example.

The most pathetic part of your post, though, is where you state

As an individual, I show no homophobic tendencies but I hope that this despicable individual is ripped apart by as many third rate tabloids as possible, his life dissected in front of us all

Lovely. So it's not enough that he'll pay the money back, that he's lost his job, that he's been outed against his will in front of his family and friends but you want to get your sweaty mitts on the scurrilious details of the mans life? You sound like a creepy pervert to be honest.

Oh and anyone who ever says "I'm not racist/bigoted/homophobic BUT" invariably is.

Your analysis of my personality and character is considerably off beam. And, as a tolerant, well balanced individual, I take no exception to your personal insults but put it down purely to an inability to sustain/support an argument/discussion with factual material.

Let's try one more time.

At no point in time have I protected Brown's government or refused to castigate those who have pilfered the public purse. Irrespective of any individual's political colour it is, in my view, criminal. I think I am clear on this issue.

What is particularly offensive in the Laws case, is that he sat back and said nothing whilst the review was being undertaken. Worse than that, he attacked, in writing, a number of fellow MPs who had breached the rules (committed a criminal offence in the real world) whilst painting himself as whiter than white. Some of the individuals he attacked (including Oliver Letwyn) are now his colleagues in the CONDEMs. This is a totally unsustainable position.

The other angle is Laws use of his sexuality as a means of attempting to justify his crime. This is particularly pathetic coming from one who is a member of a party that was founded on liberty, freedom of expression and tolerance. It is a smokescreen and nothing else. Laws, without doubt, is a highly intelligent and articulate individual who chose one path over another. If his priority had been to protect the integrity of his relationship he could have done so quite easily by choosing not to claim the allowance which prohibits payment to a partner. They are partners and to attempt to say they otherwise is insulting to their relationship.

The rules are clear. The individual chose to break them and was caught.

Your stance on protecting intelligent, well rewarded individuals is surprising. I stand by my desire to see those who exploit public cash for personal gain be subject to prosecution. They cannot use their lack of resource, intelligence or need as an excuse. It is peculiar, to say the least, that you wish to exempt such form punishment. Our society prosecutes those who cheat the benefit system, Repayment is not enough for them. Why should it be enough for the privileged?

As for your final paragraph, I suggest you read it again. My desire is to see all cheating MPs subjected to full scrutiny and retribution. If our legal system won't do it then the media must. I have no interest in any of their sex lives, I leave that to you.

[ictchris]

The other angle is Laws use of his sexuality as a means of attempting to justify his crime. This is particularly pathetic coming from one who is a member of a party that was founded on liberty, freedom of expression and tolerance. It is a smokescreen and nothing else. Laws, without doubt, is a highly intelligent and articulate individual who chose one path over another. If his priority had been to protect the integrity of his relationship he could have done so quite easily by choosing not to claim the allowance which prohibits payment to a partner. They are partners and to attempt to say they otherwise is insulting to their relationship.

"insulting to their relationship" - what does that even mean? Your entire post reads like a 16 year old trying to sound intelligent in an English essay, pure word salad.

Laws claimed the allowance he did because he didn't want to declare that he was living with his gay partner, for his own personal reasons. If he had declared that he was living with his partner he'd have recieved just as much allowance, probably more.

As for your final paragraph, I suggest you read it again. My desire is to see all cheating MPs subjected to full scrutiny and retribution. If our legal system won't do it then the media must. I have no interest in any of their sex lives, I leave that to you

What you actually said was "As an individual, I show no homophobic tendencies but I hope that this despicable individual is ripped apart by as many third rate tabloids as possible, his life dissected in front of us all". That's a clear reference to Laws personal life. If you didn't have any interest in his sex life, why did you prefix your statement with 'I'm not homophobic BUT'?

[Sorted]

The other angle is Laws use of his sexuality as a means of attempting to justify his crime. This is particularly pathetic coming from one who is a member of a party that was founded on liberty, freedom of expression and tolerance. It is a smokescreen and nothing else. Laws, without doubt, is a highly intelligent and articulate individual who chose one path over another. If his priority had been to protect the integrity of his relationship he could have done so quite easily by choosing not to claim the allowance which prohibits payment to a partner. They are partners and to attempt to say they otherwise is insulting to their relationship.

"insulting to their relationship" - what does that even mean? Your entire post reads like a 16 year old trying to sound intelligent in an English essay, pure word salad.

Laws claimed the allowance he did because he didn't want to declare that he was living with his gay partner, for his own personal reasons. If he had declared that he was living with his partner he'd have recieved just as much allowance, probably more.

As for your final paragraph, I suggest you read it again. My desire is to see all cheating MPs subjected to full scrutiny and retribution. If our legal system won't do it then the media must. I have no interest in any of their sex lives, I leave that to you

What you actually said was "As an individual, I show no homophobic tendencies but I hope that this despicable individual is ripped apart by as many third rate tabloids as possible, his life dissected in front of us all". That's a clear reference to Laws personal life. If you didn't have any interest in his sex life, why did you prefix your statement with 'I'm not homophobic BUT'?

Referring to Laws behaviour as - "insulting to their relationship", is perfectly clear, I would suggest. For clarity I believe it merits this description as he saw it fit to hide his partner as it suited his desire for financial gain. This, I would suggest is insulting. Certainly if I was to ask my partner that I deny their existence as it suited my pocket or lifestyle, they would feel insulted.

As for "word salad", I bow to your linguistic genius.

For the record, I prefixed my statement to avoid being accused of being homophobic. How ironic it is that I should now stand accused of such traits simply for wishing that a thief be exposed for what he is. His sexuality is irrelevant.

Perhaps you would now wish to comment on why Laws and the others who "worked the system" should be exempt from prosecution unlike the rest of the public? Simply put, why should a young woman in Edinburgh be prosecuted for claiming benefit on the basis of not having a partner as it suits her lifestyle to do so yet an MP who claims allowances on the same basis be exempt?

[ictchris]

Referring to Laws behaviour as - "insulting to their relationship", is perfectly clear, I would suggest. For clarity I believe it merits this description as he saw it fit to hide his partner as it suited his desire for financial gain. This, I would suggest is insulting. Certainly if I was to ask my partner that I deny their existence as it suited my pocket or lifestyle, they would feel insulted.

He did not gain financially by hiding behind his partner. He claimed the wrong type of allowance - he would have been perfectly entitled to claim other allowances had he made the relationship public. There are perfectly obvious reasons why he didn't want to make his relationship public and gaining financially (which he didn't do) wasn't one of them.

For the record, I prefixed my statement to avoid being accused of being homophobic. How ironic it is that I should now stand accused of such traits simply for wishing that a thief be exposed for what he is. His sexuality is irrelevant.

What did you mean when you said that you wanted to see his 'life dissected in front of us all' by 'third rate tabloids'? Do you think that his sexuality would be considered irrelevant in that dissection?

Perhaps you would now wish to comment on why Laws and the others who "worked the system" should be exempt from prosecution unlike the rest of the public? Simply put, why should a young woman in Edinburgh be prosecuted for claiming benefit on the basis of not having a partner as it suits her lifestyle to do so yet an MP who claims allowances on the same basis be exempt?

I don't think you should prosecute someone like David Laws for what he did - he didn't financially gain from it, it needs to be investigated by the proper authorities first and at the end of day he claimed the wrong allowance rather than fradulently claiming. He certainly isn't in the same league as Margaret Moran, Elliot Morley, Jim Sheridan et al who certainly deserve to be prosecuted.

I don't think it was wrong that he resigned - he couldn't carry on in his job while being investigated for this. I hope he's backin government soon.

[Sorted]

Referring to Laws behaviour as - "insulting to their relationship", is perfectly clear, I would suggest. For clarity I believe it merits this description as he saw it fit to hide his partner as it suited his desire for financial gain. This, I would suggest is insulting. Certainly if I was to ask my partner that I deny their existence as it suited my pocket or lifestyle, they would feel insulted.

He did not gain financially by hiding behind his partner. He claimed the wrong type of allowance - he would have been perfectly entitled to claim other allowances had he made the relationship public. There are perfectly obvious reasons why he didn't want to make his relationship public and gaining financially (which he didn't do) wasn't one of them.

For the record, I prefixed my statement to avoid being accused of being homophobic. How ironic it is that I should now stand accused of such traits simply for wishing that a thief be exposed for what he is. His sexuality is irrelevant.

What did you mean when you said that you wanted to see his 'life dissected in front of us all' by 'third rate tabloids'? Do you think that his sexuality would be considered irrelevant in that dissection?

Perhaps you would now wish to comment on why Laws and the others who "worked the system" should be exempt from prosecution unlike the rest of the public? Simply put, why should a young woman in Edinburgh be prosecuted for claiming benefit on the basis of not having a partner as it suits her lifestyle to do so yet an MP who claims allowances on the same basis be exempt?

I don't think you should prosecute someone like David Laws for what he did - he didn't financially gain from it, it needs to be investigated by the proper authorities first and at the end of day he claimed the wrong allowance rather than fradulently claiming. He certainly isn't in the same league as Margaret Moran, Elliot Morley, Jim Sheridan et al who certainly deserve to be prosecuted.

I don't think it was wrong that he resigned - he couldn't carry on in his job while being investigated for this. I hope he's backin government soon.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Reading the thread back, I accept I appeared a tad over zealous in my desire to see Laws humiliated. You are correct to point out that his sexuality would have become the issue within the tabloids and this would have been wrong. My need for retribution comes from being sick and tired of our elected representatives quick simply taking the ****! David Laws is the straw that broke the camel's back, particularly his self righteous condemnation of others when he was guilty of similar.

No matter which way you look at it, he did gain financially. To the tune of ?40,000. If he was, and he may well have been, entitled to other allowances he should have claimed for these accordingly. In the benefit system it is still a crime to claim the wrong benefit even if your need is justifiable and your claim amounts to a similar entitlement from another pot. Incorrect claiming is no defence. Ignorance of the law is no defence. Sorry guv I didn't know it was a 30? More than that, he is a highly intelligent, articulate man (who is a huge loss to the government) that should and did know what he was doing was incorrect.

Done.

[Laurence]

I don't like arguing politics

But the last election seems to me,

that turkeys voted for Christmas.