I do have a certain amount of sympathy for David Laws, given the circumstances which led him into this mess.
There is no precise analogy with a straight or indeed out gay MP. I am a bit irritated at the claims that he is an intensely 'private' person; 'private' people don't tend to put themselves up for public office. But I feel a bit uncomfortable writing that, because there's obviously a very good reason for him wishing to be 'private'.
That having been said, it's not the sole domain of gay people to value their privacy above office - I can't think of any minister (past or present) and doubt there are many, if any, women MPs who have children by 'father unknown' or 'father did a runner pronto', even though, reportedly, it's rife throughout the nation1.
My instincts tell me that this case is unlikely to meet the requirements of 'beyond reasonable doubt' required by Criminal Justice, but an employee breaking the rules of expenses claims in such a way would be subject to an internal disciplinary to be decided 'on the balance of probabilities'. Even though the charge would be the euphemistic '(Gross) misconduct', the nub of the matter would be fraud.
I don't feel any great need to defend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who will be implementing a massive cuts programme, even though that wasn't in his party's manifesto and would be going ahead irrespective of which personality happened to be holding the job. (I also feel disinclined to defend a rich banker who appears also to be greedy). I was attacked by a Lib Dem supporter who stated:
Hey, Labour women, gloat about Laws in your homophobic way. When Tory anti-abortionists get overall majority, you may be sorry.
Even acknowledging that that was a 'Friday night special', it was still bizarre, to say the least. I don't really see the connection between alleged expense fiddling - or indeed economic liberalism - and abortion rights.
I find extremely objectionable the implication that the only area of public policy women should concern themselves with is abortion; and in any case, abortion bills are customarily on a free vote because the pro-choice/anti-abortion split goes right across party lines.
When this rant was followed up by a comment including the words 'Your pin-up Hazel Blears' I knew that enough was enough and I blocked that person. You see, there is political debate and then there is personal attack. And the great thing about Twitter, as opposed to newsgroups, it's possible to ignore someone entirely without then having to tolerate disjointed conversations.
The Lib Dems really have to wake up to the realities of being in power. It does take time to adjust, I remember that from 1997. It probably is true that the Telegraph was motivated to release this story because of its dislike of the proposed rise in Capital Gains Tax.
I happen to support the rise in CGT and am bewildered it has been so low for so long2, but I think it is entirely legitimate for the Telegraph to campaign against it.
It isn't exactly noble to do so by unearthing this story3 but there is a harmony in exposing how someone is profiting from a second home whilst reducing the rights of many others to profit from their second homes.
And, in general, it is correct for the Press to scrutinise the actions of politicians - as politicians - even if I believe they often go too far in invading personal lives: I felt it entirely unnecessary for downmarket newspapers to publish photos of the Cameron's stuff being carried into a removal van, including a mattress for crying out loud, and I have argued repeatedly that extra-maritals or unusual 'arrangements' are not in themselves subject to scrutiny or cause for resignation.
I'm inclined to feel that if this situation had ceased after last Spring and the Great Expenses Scandal, I would have been fairly relaxed. It was an opportunity to stop claiming with no fuss. When I read that Laws was putting out propaganda highlighting how squeaky clean he had been over expenses, I felt weary. And I think it is entirely disingenuous for LibDems to state that if he had rented a flat commercially, it would have cost the taxpayer more. That is almost certainly true, but it's never a valid defence, not for benefit claimants nor for employees caught being creative with their expense claims.
By the way, a couple of years ago when Jimmy was unemployed we had a conversation about whether he should claim benefit on account of being my 'lodger' rather than be entitled to nothing as a result of sharing his life with me. The answer was no, not least because I dread the 11th Commandment (thou shall not be found out). I expect we could have got away with it and been a few thousand pounds better off. But we didn't. We don't share bank accounts either and arguably have very different social lives.
It's unusual for a CSttT to be so under scrutiny, in a way that hasn't been so since the Thatcherite cuts in the 80s. I know that the 'second homes' issue is a thorny one and I certainly wouldn't wish to return to the bad very old days when MPs were expected to meet out of their private income or personal fortune the necessary costs of being in both London and the constituency. I also recognise that David Laws chose not to be out and I'm glad we no longer have malicious outing for its own sake. But the message after last Spring is that people really resent some others enriching themselves while others are losing their jobs or having to suffer paycuts.
As for Hazel Blears, I've only ever said one nice thing about her, and that was about her stepping aside to let me pass when I was carrying a coffee. Her practices were dodgy and unethical, to say the least, but as far as I know she didn't break the rules at the time (which we all know were crap). Furthermore, she stood before an electorate who were in knowledge of the facts, and even though it's very difficult to imagine Salford being anything other than Labour, safer seats have fallen. And in any case, one could argue that Hazel is fully representing the spirit of Salford by being on the make4.
1 I may be wrong; I haven't studied the circumstances of every single woman MP, especially not the new ones, but even if I am wrong and there are women MPs like that, I don't think it invalidates the point
2 I expect a decision was made that the political cost of sustained attacks from the right-wing Press on the rights of middle-classes to make easy profits was disproportionate to the financial gain; I happen to think that's wrong.
3 by the way, some people have questioned why now, others have suggested it would have been 'ethical' to keep it under wraps because of the ramifications. It's possible - though unlikely - that maybe they did keep it until now for precisely those ethical reasons.
4 I'm kidding, right; there are plenty of honest people in Salford.
