The news that David Laws, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was ripping off the tax-payer by paying tens of thousands of pounds of rent to his partner, Jamie Lundie, takes political hypocrisy to a whole new level.
On the one hand Laws was apparently living a lie – deliberately covering up his sexuality.
On the other, he chose to lecture us and Whitehall on the need for fiscal prudence when he was lining his own nest with tax-payers’ money.
However, the whole issue raises the question as to whether he was covering up his sexuality simply in order to cover-up the fact that there was rather more to the relationship with his landlord than he would have liked the fees office to have known.
There is a sub-text within this coalition government that is all about populist “progressive” posturing – but, deep down, there is no substance or ideological decency about it.
There is next to no social stigma associated with homosexuality any longer – especially in metrosexual Westminster. The fact that Laws chose to cover-up an important part of who he is as a person (possibly for the dubious reasons outlined above) highlights very clearly the populist/personality disconnect in modern politics. Decency and ethics are suppressed for the benefit of public perception – or to cover up inconvenient truths.
Our political culture is now defined by people who should simply not be defining it. This 40-something, well-heeled, Metropolitan clique is suppressing all that is good about adversarial politics.
David Laws should resign – and quickly.
“However, the whole issue raises the question as to whether he was covering up his sexuality simply in order to cover-up the fact that there was rather more to the relationship with his landlord than he would have liked the fees office to have known.”
I doubt it. He could have claimed an awful lot more by declaring his relationship and then claiming second home allowance for a family home. He was actually saving the taxpayer money.
“he was lining his own nest with tax-payers’ money.”
He claimed about 40k in expenses over several years, which is not bad by comparison with most other MPs and far less than David Cameron.
“On the one hand Laws was apparently living a lie – deliberately covering up his sexuality.”
Is it really anyone else’s business who he bonks behind the bedsheets? If people stopped venerating politicians as celebrities, the world would be a much safer place. MPs are there to do a job – and while they should never lie, neither should they feel the need to declare things extraneous to their work.
Shane, the guy is a multi-millionaire former banker.
I’m a heterosexual, that doesn’t mean to say that I expect you to fixate on my bonking technique. What’s Laws problem with us knowing he’s gay in a society that permits gay marriages? Conservative Central Office has more openly gay men than straight!
What’s his problem?
Jeff, it’s true that the guy is filthy rich. So are the rest of Cameron’s clique, but it doesn’t preclude them from milking the taxpayer. The requirements for claiming expenses need to be urgently and radically reformed. Until then, we have to look at these claims in a comparative context. Compared to the expenses claims of David Cameron and most other MPs, Laws comes off rather well. I object to the way this has been protrayed so sinisterly by the press. Had Laws been up front about his sexuality, he would have been entitled to claim even more money. If Laws resigns, so should most other MPs.
I am also a heterosexual but I don’t think I would go around identifying myself as one, at least not in the ostentatious way many gays do with their sexuality. Laws may have wanted to keep his sexual affairs private for any number of reasons. I don’t think we can read into it.
He’s like the only gay in the Westminster village who seems entirely unaware that he’s surrounded by them. Perhaps he wanted to keep it private – but at no point did he ever think to himself…”Hmm, this may be a tad problematic if it ever gets out that I’ve been billing expenses for the room I rent in my gay lover’s pad…might look a bit iffy if the Telegraph splashes it all over its headlines”? Apart from anything – if the guy wanted a quiet, private life – why did he go into politics?
Jeff, I’d imagine that very few of those politicians who claimed extravagant expenses, such as duckhouses or moattes, anticipated that they’d be exposed in a national newspaper either.