Did David Laws get off lightly over expenses?

The suspension from Parliament of MP David Laws for breaching expenses rules has been met with approval from the media, which has also sympathised with the Liberal Democrat's explanation that his transgression stemmed from a wish to hide the fact he is gay.

Laws, who resigned after 17 days as chief secretary to the Treasury in May last year after newspaper reports that he had claimed more than £40,000 in expenses to pay rent to his partner, was suspended for seven days and forced to apologise to Parliament after being found guilty of breaking the rules.

The sanctions imposed on Laws have probably put an end to any hopes he may have harboured of returning to a role in the Cabinet of the coalition government any time soon, although he was widely regarded as being one of the Lib Dems' brightest talents.

But has Laws really been punished enough? Opinion is sharply divided between the Westminster village – politicians and journalists – and the man in the street.

Yes, David Laws has been punished enough
Media commentators have expressed compassion for Laws's claim that his primary concern was to hide the fact that he is gay. An Independent leader says that "no one disputes that Mr Laws' motivation was fear rather than profit; the fear that his homosexuality would be exposed if he admitted that he was in a relationship with his landlord. This was a spectacle that inspired sadness, rather than condemnation." The paper concludes: "This was not a trivial offence. And the punishment does, just about, fit the crime. But Mr Laws has now been punished enough."

And he ought to make a swift return to the Cabinet
The Times says it has been "sympathetic to Mr Laws's swift return to frontline politics" and would prefer the prime minister to "err on the side of leniency" in rehabilitating a man of "high intelligence and executive competence". In a leading article it adds: "The Cabinet - particularly its Liberal Democrat component - is not so well stocked with political and administrative talent that it can afford indefinitely to spurn such an able man."

But not that swift...
Will Heaven, in the Daily Telegraph, points out that the injured parties here are really Laws’s Yeovil constituents, who he told when campaigning at the last election that he had claimed less in expenses than any other MP in Somerset or Dorset. "It was to his credit, then, that David Laws chose to apologise first to his constituents, and then to parliament. Now he should recognise that it must be for them to decide his future. To wipe the slate clean, David Laws must win his seat again at a general election."

Hang on – haven't some expenses-fiddling MPs been sent to prison?
Indeed - and there is evidence of a severe disconnect between ordinary people on the one hand and their elected representatives and the media on the other. Users of Twitter – a bastion of liberal opinion – think Laws has been lucky, and there is little sympathy for his attempts to conceal his homosexuality. GrumpyOldGay writes: "The fact that he's gay is nothing to do with it. He fiddled fifty grand off the taxpayer. Other former MPs are in prison for less." His lenient treatment by the panelists on the BBC's Question Time debate show also attracted criticism. "Annoyed at Question Time punters oozing support and oily excuses for David Laws when others are jailed for same thing," wrote Moira_Mckeecons. However, not all of the 'political elite' are on Laws's side. Former home secretary and Labour MP David Blunkett was afforded the honour of 'top tweet' on Twitter for his observation – given on Question Time – that "if you're a millionaire, why claim [expenses]?" ·