More on Laws

NB. This should have been posted on Sunday morning but there was no internet access to be found!

Our Prime Minister speaks.
“You are a good and honourable man. I am sure that throughout you have been motivated by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else. I hope that in time you will be able to serve again as I think it absolutely clear that you have a huge amount to offer our country.”

And the man in question had stated, “My only motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality”.

“Good and honourable man”!
Good and honourable men do not defraud the taxpayer from copious amounts of money, David(s). Good and honourable men do not try and pass such actions off in the manner that Mr. Laws has done so. Good and honourable men, when they have been found to be dishonourable, stick their hands in the air and say, “It’s a fair cop Mister”.

On Radio Four yesterday morning they were actually debating whether David Laws should resign or not. It was actually debated and discussed with a considered view that there was an option.
Why? The man took £40,000 of public money to pay his lover for sharing his home with him. The man broke the parliamentary legislation and guidelines on this. His credibility was shattered. You cannot possibly have a man in the position of tightening purse strings when he has pocketed such vast sums of public money. Whatever his reasons, he would have lost all ounce of respect by carrying on and pretending he could simply draw a line under the whole proceedings.
He pocketed £40,000 or if he didn’t pocket, the man closest to him did so.

I didn’t think we’d get a scandal quite this early. It’s a little pathetic not to get to the end of the first month of government without some major crisis. I almost feel sorry for Cameron who must be sitting there thinking that the world seriously does not want him to be Prime Minister. Firstly, the electorate don’t actually give him the absolute mandate to govern. Then he has to negotiate and contrive a coalition with people that he has probably seen as pinkie lefties for most of his parliamentary career and now he has to contend with the stupidity of the ever so sensible and trusted Mr. Laws.
Of course, Cameron could argue that Laws is not one of his. He is on the other side of the coalition. He can, to some extent, wipe his hands and saw, “Phew, I’ll leave that one to Nicholas”. But he can’t do that. He made the ultimate choice to have Laws in a highly prolific role.

Anyway, at least my gaydar is still in working order, not that it was a particularly difficult spot, and it was an open secret in Westminster that Laws was gay. That being the case, then why on earth did the man think that he could use the excuse of trying to shield the press and everyone else from his sexuality as a reason as to why he defrauded public funds in this way?

I always try to see a different perspective and how ever many ways I go around this case, I am flummoxed and left with the sad and disappointing conclusion that Mr. Laws thought he could get away with it. No doubt at one point, there was a decision to claim for rent as a mask on his sexuality.

Just for a minute, let’s just imagine the situation.

This man has moved into the home of another prominent albeit unelected Liberal Democrat. They find some common interests, values etcetera and soon they become sexually attracted to one another. In fairness, they do not want to go back to the Commons committee for expenses just yet in case their relationship is a mere flash in the pan. However, after two years of being together you would think that might constitute a settling in period.
By 2006 when the rules were “clarified” about paying rent etc to spouses, there must have been a conversation in the household and they must have made the decision to continue to keep quiet. Neither of these men was apparently “out” with their families and our gutter press could easily have got hold of information about them.
But then I would suggest that the conversation would probably have turned to probability and risk assessment. David Laws was a member of the Liberal Democrats; a party that was highly unlikely to ever be at the forefront of British politics. However brilliant this young man might be, he was never likely to hold office in government and I would suggest that it was this that drove these two men to continue with their charade whilst pocketing a tidy sum in the process.

So, at what stage did this good and honourable man find his conscience? Was it in 2006 when the Commons claims procedures were changed? Clearly not. Was it during the expenses scandal when journalists were shifting around and coming up with manna from heaven as far as disgracing dodgy MPs? No, apparently Mr. Laws did not squeak at this time either, other than to criticise those who were claiming astronomical amounts of money for feeding the family bunny rabbit. Was it during the election debate where any politically astute person could see that there was a high possibility that the Lib Dems may hold the balance of power in a hung parliament? No, this intellectually brilliant bloke still kept schtum. Perhaps it was during the discussions with little Willie and his brigade from the Blue side when Laws began to realise that power was coming his way? No, still there was silence.
And so it went on, and the trench was dug deep.
Laws, quite frankly, must have known he was well and truly fucked at this stage but once you are that far into a lie it becomes a reality by default. It is that person’s reality at least.

Enough said. Why did he not go to the chief whip or the party leader and have a quiet word about his expenses, explaining the situation, stating that he needed to claim to hide his sexuality? At this point, something could have been suggested rather than the fraudulent behaviour that ensued. He was in the Liberal Democratic Party for heaven’s sake, a party that has – guess what – liberal tendencies when it comes to sexuality. Whilst we are on that subject, David Laws is a pink Tory (in more ways than one). It appears that the only reason he joined the Liberals rather than the Tories was his abhorrence for Clause 28. Didn’t somebody twig then or did they not twig when they looked at his voting pattern on homosexual law?

As I said, enough said. Contempt breeds contempt. Greed breeds greed. Money breeds money from whatever source you can grab. This is a dog eat dog world where those that have will probably always have and those that haven’t just sit in stunned shock at the stupidity of some people.

And all of this before you get onto the subject of how pathetic we are as a society that it requires someone in high office to hide their sexuality. Our societal dishonesty about sex is appalling, be it homosexual or heterosexual.
We can’t cope with sex. We don’t like to talk about it openly and we probably think about it more frequently than we dare to admit.
This is 2010. If a man cannot stand up in public and admit that he is gay, then it is a sorry indictment on us all. On the positive side though, it could be a gross misjudgement from the man himself. There is a possibility that people are just not bothered by his sexuality.

Whatever the pros and cons, the ins and outs, the for’s and against’s, David Laws must be sitting there wondering why he got the call so wrong. Stupid, naive, power-driven, ineptitude.
When will these politicians learn that they are not invincible?