David Laws: When Good People Do Bad Things

Now that David Laws has resigned, I must stress that I have not changed my opinion at all. I still feel incredible sympathy towards him and his loved ones; I still believe that he did wrong.

The histrionics that certain Lib Dem Tweeps displayed yesterday were ridiculous, so blinkered were they, by their own party tribalism that they refused to see past the fact that Laws was one of theirs and even consider the fact that he had acted wrongly. As someone who has previously criticised ALL who acted dishonourably in relation to parliamentary expenses, (of all parties) I appreciated the more reasoned response from the Tory people I follow on Twitter and whose blogs I read regularly, such as Parlez~me~'nTory who posted a very reasonable Tory perspective on this issue. The expenses scandal damaged politics incredibly, the trust and esteem in which politicians were held, plummeted. The politicians who were guilty of wrongful or excessively greedy expenses claims cost us all dearly.
 
With many Lib Dems accusing the left of homophobia, I also thought that it was the perfect opportunity to remind people of just the sort of attitude that leads people like David Laws to feel that they are unable to live freely and without persecution. Step up Chris Grayling, whose casual homophobic comments regarding bed and breakfast owners having the right to refuse accommodation to gay couples, is evidence of the undercurrent of prejudice that still exists in some pockets of society. For example, the Tory party, whose senior members all seem to have recently changed their minds en masse about gay rights, within the past few months.
 
I was accused of homophobia, I was blocked and unfollowed for pointing this out. It seems that if a gay Minister does something wrong, to expect him to be punished is homophobic. So had it been Baroness Warsi and we had all called for similar action to be taken against her, I suppose the Lib Dems would be calling us racist? No?

It is important to understand, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Laws' sexuality, religion, or any number of more trivial aspects to his life, is completely irrelevant. This whole situation was about honesty and integrity. There have been openly gay Cabinet Ministers for years and the Lib Dems are hardly an intolerant gang to be in. The issue of sexuality therefore boils down purely to how Laws - and his partner - felt about coming out to family and friends. That is completely separate to submitting a signature on a claim form, that declared the request was legitimate and fell within the (clearly defined) rules about who one may and may not claim rent payments for.
 
When one consciously takes the decision to knowingly break the rules, one should be punished.  It is a shame that someone who was held with high regard across party boundaries demonstrated such poor judgement. Yet again, the biggest losers are parliament and the British people.

Lies & the Lying Laws That Tell Them

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?

House of Comments

I really enjoyed recording the House of Comments Political Podcast last night. You can listen to Mark Thompson AKA @MarkReckons, Stuart Sharpe AKA @sshrpe, Darren Bridgeman AKA @Dazmando and Walaa Idris AKA @WalaaIdris on the House of Comments website.

We enjoyed a discussion about the Queen's Speech and the "swingeing cuts" that the ConDems announced. Of course, being the ONLY Labourite, I had some work to do - don't think I convinced them though! ;)

Also on the agenda was Diane Abbott and The Times' new website.

Hope you listen and enjoy. Thanks.

Cameron & Clegg, The Ultimate Marriage of Convenience

We should be getting used to hearing the phrase "Prime Minister David Cameron" by now, but I don't know about you, it still makes me shudder every time it pops out of my car radio or television.

The framework for the coalition government was agreed in a remarkably short time, probably because of media impatience. The UK press seemed to expect it to be sorted out like one would arrange who was bringing what, to a weekend barbeque. But of course, the media dictated and managed this whole election from the start. When the electorate didn't do exactly what Mr Murdoch, et al told us to, and elect a majority Conservative government, they had a tantrum and demanded the next best thing, the ConDemNation.

The fact that an agreement over coalition and sharing of various responsibilities was possible in such a short space of time, demonstrates that Clegg had already made up his mind and that most of the to-ing and fro-ing and allowing himself to be courted by Labour was for show. Clegg was ready to jump into bed with Dave and the act of stringing Labour along was purely PR to appease those Lib Dems who are positioned to his left.

That Cameron would concede the post of Deputy PM to the leader of a party that holds less than ten percent of all parliamentary seats shows just how much he would sacrifice, to get the power he had assumed would be his. In fact, the number of Lib Dems holding Cabinet positions is extraordinary. The Lib Dems hold five of the senior Cabinet posts, that's more than twenty percent of seats at the Cabinet table.

So, less than ten percent of parliamentary seats control more than twenty percent of the Cabinet. Plus, when Cameron takes his paternity leave, our acting PM will be the leader of a party that actually reduced its mandate to be in the Commons at the election and has just under 9% of total MPs.

One must acknowledge that this has been an enormous achievement for Clegg. To take his party, that let's face it, has some policies sitting to the left of Labour, and to be able to reach an agreement with a party that is at the opposite end of the spectrum on core issues such as Trident, reveals that either Nick Clegg is a fearsome negotiator, or that he, like Cameron, had his eye fixed firmly on the prize of power.

For a party that has long aimed for coalition as their foothold on power, Clegg has more than delivered. This isn't the sliver of power that they hoped for, this is a mighty wedge and if his party can live with forever being remembered as Tory bedfellows, Clegg has done them proud. It has at least proven one of the pre-election warnings from Labour: "Vote Lib Dem, get Tory!" and has done so with style.

There are many commentators predicting how long this coalition will last. I will not be dragged into timescales, I do wonder though, how long it will be before Cameron begins to resent the amount he has given and how much this has emasculated him in the eyes of the electorate. For during the courtship of this ultimate marriage of convenience it was very obviously Clegg who wore the trousers. Now he has moved into Number 10, it won't be long before Cameron wants them back.

The Flocking Election

This week I received a piece of Election toilet paper, in the form of a shiny leaflet from the BNP, not ideal but there's only one place it is going - I wouldn't want to contaminate my recycling bin. Following their success in the European elections, it is voters in the North-west and where I live, in Yorkshire, that the fascist BNP are targeting their lies and bigotry. They feed off casual comments about immigration and cook up a huge pot of hatred and fear.

This week, the word "bigot" has been on everyone's lips, but in my opinion, for all the wrong reasons. In all honesty, I personally think the media hysteria was ridiculous. This was quite simply, a bloke calling a woman a bigot for saying something a bit dodgy about Eastern Europeans "flocking in". I personally know many people like Gillian Duffy, normal, working-class people, who live in areas that have not enjoyed an easy transition to multi-cultural communities and who say things in the only way they know how. I don't think that at heart, Mrs Duffy is a bigot, I really don't. I think that she said something that demonstrates an inaccurate perception that needs to be addressed. THAT should have been the issue that was pursued, that is the issue that we need to work harder to make sure people understand the truth about and that is the issue that all three of the main party leaders should have been focused on.

Casual racism - especially if there is no intent to offend, or malice behind it - is easy to brush off and ignore. It is simpler to just pretend we didn't hear, or to imply tacit agreement by not challenging the beliefs that lead to comments such as complaining about immigrant groups "flocking in". The BNP commonly use the phrase "flooding in" - everyone I know condemns this, so what is the difference?

Many people will relate to Gillian Duffy and what she said, many people will agree with the basic sentiment she expressed. It is up to us to ensure that we explain why this is wrong, how our country is enriched by immigrants and what would happen if we did not allow immigrants into Brilliant Britain. I was lucky to grow up in a multi-cultural area. I had friends who were of immigrant descent, of all cultures, races and religions. It was the best social education I could have had, I gained an understanding and tolerance that didn't need to be purposely taught. Conversely, intolerance and prejudice IS taught, children are not born racist, they learn it.

It is by not challenging the casual racism in our society that children learn that they are better than Mr & Mrs Wolczek, who live across the road, or Mr Singh at the "Paki shop", they learn that skin colour is something to judge on, that a non-British accent is a sign of being less worthy. This is what we must challenge and this is the real change that we must all strive for.

This was originally posted at House of Twits on 1st May 2010

Why I Support Labour's Cancer Guarantee

As you may know, I owe my life to the NHS - without the speedy intervention, surgery and chemotherapy I received, I would not be here now, my children would be without their mother and my husband would be without his wife.

This is why I support Labour's Cancer Guarantee. It is vital to ensure that as many people as possible can fight cancer and beat it. Early detection gives the best chance of this and is an essential part of the process. Any cancer patient will tell you, the worst part is waiting, knowing there is something wrong but not knowing whether you have a life-threatening disease and worrying about the future for your children and family. The Cancer Guarantee means that this time is cut to a minimum, with a guarantee of test results within a week.

Tory front-bencher Philip Hammond claimed that the Conservatives also support the guarantee but this is in complete contradiction to the Conservative pledge to abolish government-imposed targets. Making a pie-crust promise is not what is needed in the fight against cancer, patient care demands targets for the detection and treatment of this cruel and indiscriminate disease. Labour have made it a legal right for a patient with suspected cancer, to be given a specialist referral within two-weeks. At the same time, it became a legal right to receive hospital treatment within eighteen-weeks of referral from a GP. Waiting times have fallen across the country, (you can check your local area here) and it is a fact that without this guarantee of fast referral, early testing and quick results, fewer of the women I met on my cancer journey would have survived.

Yet again this demonstrates which party can be trusted with our National Health Service - a service that Labour had to rebuild after 18-years of Tory abuse, of ward closures, neglected hospital facilities and a crumbling infrastructure. Time and time again, the likes of Dan Hannan show the Conservative Party's true colours; the reality behind Cameron's 'party-of-the-people' facade. The simple truth is that the Tories cannot be trusted to protect the NHS and ensure it continues to provide healthcare to all, irrespective of wealth or ability to pay: free at the point of need.

We should all be able to take the right to survive for granted. Make sure that we keep the Cancer Guarantee and ensure that more cancer patients are able to survive and watch their families grow.

I am here for my family because I could rely on the NHS to put my care first. You can too, let's make sure it stays that way. I urge you to please, tell as many people as possible about Labour's Cancer Guarantee.

This was originally posted at House of Twits on Monday 26th April 2010