David Laws, could he come back?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Unknown_Quantity, May 30, 2010.

  1. Yes

  2. No but stay in government

  3. No and leave government. Thief.


Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Unknown_Quantity

    Unknown_Quantity War Hero Moderator

    We all know what David Laws has done and we all have our own opinions on it but what next? If he decides to remain in politics would you as a member of the public accept him back or would it be as dodgy as the many returns of Peter Mandleson?

    To get started I would like to see him back. He seems a capable and knowledgeable individual who is not a career politician. He made a serious error and should be rightly chastised for it but I think that he is well suited to his former role.

    So, over to you...
  2. He should resign his seat and offer himself for re-election, if he's returned then he's back.
  3. I'd have him back tomorrow. He's a man of true talent and the man we needed at the Treasury.
  4. He is a tea leaf! At least he did what he should have done and fecked off!
  5. I agree!

    Why did I not think of this eminently sensible move? Oh! I know why - no need to proffer answers thank you all the same!
  6. It's Mandleson all over again. Personally I had high hopes for the man but he's let everyone down. In the run up to the election Cameron and Clegg spouted a line of no tolerance - this isn't a paltry sum, it takes most taxpayers 2 years to earn the £40k he's stolen. They should have called him in and made an example of him, he's brought shame and disgrace to the Government and to the principles it was founded upon. Rather than wait for his consituency to recall him, Clegg should have withdrawn the Whip immdiately, told him to resign and never to stand again. The 2 of them should then have held a press conference told us that he's gone and apologised for the embarrasment he has caused.

    A great waste of a huge talent but we deserve better from our MPs and that's what this Coalition promised us. To condone his actions by admitting him back is a betrayal. This Coalition has no ballocks and weak leadership - no better than the last lot. I'm appalled.
  7. Not really. He hasn't tried to call in favours to get a mate a visa, or conveniently forgotten to declare a third of a million pound load from a friendly businessman.

    What makes the difference for me was that he wasn't taking the p!ss - no "buy a second home, refurbish, sell on, and make a packet" (didn't TCH do that?), no "pay an inflated rent to a sibling for a flat where you don't live". He paid a reasonable rent (AIUI - others please correct me) for a flat in which he actually lived.

    Daft sod for not being absolutely scrupulous about declaring the relationship, mind you...
  8. Spot on!
  9. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    Exactly, sniper. Cameron's eulogy makes him complicit on Laws' fraud; clearly nothing has changed except that a different set of grafting crooks have their snouts in the trough.
  10. Seems he's already considering whether to jack in politics for good - or is he playing a game of sulks in the expectation of getting people to beg him to stay on, which is already happening? I'm inclined to think, though with no evidence, this might indeed be the case.
  11. link

    Definitely, because he's a financial genius.

    The ability to reduce his utility bills from £150 to £37 per month (a 75% saving) and his maintenance & repairs bills from £200 to less than £25 per month (nearly a 90% saving! ) after receipts became necessary means he's wasted outside the cabinet.
  12. I don't see that he has done much wrong. If he had declared the relationship then he could have claimed for mortgage payments. What he did was not very open but a bid to protect his privacy rather than rob us blind IMO.

    It would be a shame if we lost a talented guy just because he did not want to disclose his sexuality.

    Good idea. That would remove any question of protecting their own.
  13. At the very least, otherwise exactly what is different about the new lot
  14. This may sound a bitter comment from someone who has resigned and is attacking his former party, but it is not.

    The Lib Dems fought the election with one of its promises being that any MP caught with his hand in the till should answer to his constituents in a by-election. Laws should have the honour to give his constituents that chance.
  15. For once you and I agree :D This is perhaps a time for some absolutes in political life and not mealy mouthing. He is a thief but if his constituency want to vote him back in then that is up to them. But they should be given the chance.