The issue of David Laws' expenses claims is not his sexuality, it is honesty.
When the furore over expenses broke and the Legg letters were issued, Laws proudly announced on his website that he was cleared and had nothing to repay. He also rather piously made a point of being the first MP to declare his expenses in full, three months before other MPs were expected to do the same.
I have said on Twitter that I have enormous sympathy for Laws in relation to the dilemma that he faced. I cannot imagine how it must feel to live a lie and not be able to just be yourself, particularly with your own family.
However, Laws knowingly broke the rules. At some point, he gave his signature to declare that his claims were within the rules and thus, knowingly submitted fraudulent documentation to the House. At that point, Laws lied for financial gain. For that, he should be punished, just like wrongful claimants of Housing Benefit or anyone who has been caught fiddling company expenses.
The accusation that the left are attempting to make political gain through homophobia is wrong. Imagine that Laws had been in a relationship with a woman from whom he was renting a room. How much sympathy would he have been given then? Would anyone have accepted that he shouldn't have to declare the relationship and could continue his wrongful claim of tens of thousands of pounds? Let us not forget that Laws is extremely wealthy, a millionaire, if he wanted to maintain a secret life, I'm sure he could afford to do so, without the financial assistance of the taxpayer.
As an aside, remember how, in my post about Cameron & Clegg's marriage of convenience, I said that after Clegg had so obviously been wearing the trousers thus far, it wouldn't be long before Cameron wanted to flex his muscles a little and take them back. What could be a better way for Cameron to now show Clegg exactly who is boss?
Actually yes - I can see several other circumstances in which if someone was living with a woman it would not be acceptable to have to "out" yourself - say a Muslim from a conservative family with conservative friends shacked up with a nice Christian gal they would not approve of?
ReplyDeleteAnd actually - you're all making your criticisms worse by suggesting that he should have to fund his own "public service" because he's wealthy.
Fact is - the rules simply do not cater for the sort of privacy he desired, for whatever reason, and should have been afforded, without having to "pay for himself cos he's rich, like, innit".
"At that point, Laws lied for financial gain."
ReplyDeleteNo. He could have claimed much more money within the rules - say by claiming for a flat of his very own round the corner, which he had no intention of spending much time at. This would have been completely within the rules, but cost the taxpayer much more. Alternatively, if he and James Lundie had been happy to both be on the deeds of a house, they could have claimed towards their mortgage like David Cameron and many others do. Again, this would probably have cost the taxpayer more.
You are right that Laws could probably have afforded not to claim at all, but this is to effectively say that people who want to remain in the closet can't use the expenses system in the same way as other MPs. This doesn't seem to me to be a good principle to aim for.
Scarier you seem to be implying that the state should susidise employees who wish to remain in the closet. That does not seem to be a good principle to aim for.
ReplyDeleteThis is a typical rant from a bitter, blinkered,hypocritical Labour supporter.The coalition has an absolute financial mess to sort out from Labour's quangos and mismanagement.
ReplyDeleteLaws is undoubtedly a key figure in sorting out the mess but that priority is not important to the Labour faithful.Whilst he is guilty of an indiscretion,it is absolutely nothing compared with the full scale embezzling by Alastair Darling,Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper,Tony Blair,Ben Bradshaw,Geoff Hoon,Peter Mandelson and leader candidate Andy Burnham,among the most prominent figures.
If you had applied your argument for resignation to the above and many more,there would have been insufficient members remaining to even form a government.In particular Darling, because there is a direct correlation of their work posts.
Rather than allow the coalition to try and sort out the financial mess for the good of the country, left wing fanatics like yourself are happier trying to destroy any attempt to succeed.
I totally agree with your point regarding the real issue we should be concentrating on. Laws held a position where honesty is up there at the top of the list. To criticise him for that is nothing to do with him being gay or straight.
ReplyDeleteLaws did wrong. That is the point. This and your subsequent post following his resignation make the point perfectly. Well done.