David Laws is not in judgement for being gay – that is hardly a scandal these days for MPs – though this might be the case for Premier football players. I accept he wanted to
have a private life and not tell all and sundry about his lover James Lundie. But what people don’t like is when MPs who have been caught out trying to manipulate the meaning of words in the rule book. In this case, that word is “partnership”.
The Daily Telegraph today exposed the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for claiming up to £950 a month for eight years to rent rooms in two properties owned by his partner which could be against parliamentary rules governing MPs’ second home expenses, and are subject to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.
Paddy Ashdown speaks in defence of David Laws and says he was caught out by the “unprecise meaning of the word partnership”. I don’t believe the definition of “partnership” is anything to do with sharing bank accounts or social friends which Laws refers to, but whether two people share a bed together and the intimacy this involves, particularly over a sustained period, which is what seems to have happened here. Lots of married couples could have separate banks accounts and friends, and surely Laws knows in his heart whether he regards Lundie as a partner or not.
At a time when the new coalition government is making great progress, this makes very uncomfortable reading and leaves the public feeling we have gone forward six giant steps in recent weeks, and now taken ten steps back. Despite this, I actually feel he should stay in his position and could do a great job in the Treasury.
*Iain Dale says on Twitter that David Laws has just resigned. I admit I feel saddened about this, though it was maybe inevitable if the government wants to win back public trust and respect. It’s the kind of story that would run and run….
Why, oh why, is it still so hard for MPs to confess publicly they are gay?
As the saying goes: there’s nowt so queer as folk!
Have a lovely weekend ~ ah but will you get Monday off?? btw I hope this isn’t spam but,having put in some recent research, I posted up (yesterday) a potted history of opium/heroin 3500BC to the present, which I thought you might find interesting… I have come to the uneasy conclusion that far from wanting to eliminate drugs, everywhere America invades appears to burgeon with the things! First Vietnam and the Golden Triangle, now Afghanistan and the Golden Crescent… didn’t they interfere in South America, too..? Also my research flagged up NORTH KOREA as a major producer of methamphetamine and heroin ~ yet somehow we never hear about that!!
I don’t think there would have been any respect or trust to win back for the Government, i think public sympathy will be with David Laws who has frankly worked bloody hard, and there will be nobody better than him to do the job of Chief Sec. And just to note, i am a tory.
The press are making much out of the ‘gay’ aspect of this scandal. Its simply about money and Laws claiming £40,000+ seemingly against Parliamentary rules. My big concern is the partner being a political lobbyist. For whom? What issues? Is there a conflict of interests with laws being a Minister?
Of course the big thing for me, is what Lundie actually sees in the wrinkle faced, older, yet Millionaire, cabinet Minister, Mr. Laws?
Oh and speaking as a member of the Fabulous Federation myself, Lundie is in no way the sexy young buck he has been labelled being. Posh and rich, but very plain.
How unfortunate and sad this has happened I thought he would make an excellent Chief Sec. BUT how could he have been so stupid and naive to think this would not surface and having used expenses to fill his partner’s pocket he had no choice but to resign.
It’s good to know that David Laws could be back in the Cabinet at some stage. They have a saying in Greece that however clever you are, you are just as stupid.
The issue, Ellee, was not the gayness but the fraud.
It was certainly harder than giving £1000 of our money to his boyfriend every month for six years.
Not his spouse? Pah, what a fool.
Ian Laws feels like he has been exposed as gay and resigned for that reason, whereas he has commited an expenses offence, which is a real reason to go.
“Unprecise”…? Isn’t the expression generally “imprecise” ~ where do these gay boys go to school~??!?
Why didn’t the Telegraph publish this before the election?