David Laws has fallen

**Furunculus** · 05-30-2010, 10:05

It is just comically sad that he rejected the offer to become a Tory MP because he felt they had an insufficient balance of social liberalism to go along with the economic liberalism, and thus chose to be a Lib-Dem MP instead, only to be the first Lib-Dem Minister of Government ousted from power in 100 years because fear of insufficient social liberalism prevented him from being honest about his sexuality.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 05-30-2010, 10:15

Originally Posted by Furunculus

It is just comically sad that he rejected the offer to become a Tory MP because he felt that had an insufficient balance of social liberalism to go along with the economic liberalism, and thus chose to be a Lib-Dem MP instead only to be the first Lib-Dem Minister of Government ousted in 100 years because of fear of insufficient social liberalism.

Quite, though the iliberalism is really on his own part, not so much his parties.

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Correct. Although it is rather sad that an MP still feels that he ought to hide his sexuality, it has no bearing on why he has had to resign. He made an extremely foolish mistake, and given that he is rather well off whilst having the job of cutting public expenditure harshly - costing many people their jobs - his position was untenable.

The really refreshing thing is that here we have a man who, realising he'd been an idiot, resigned promptly. Without weeks of excuses, lies, evasion and craven begging. Without leaving claw marks on the door jambs of his office. Unheard of.

I'm not so sure it wasn't to do with hiding his sexuality, it rings true for me. As this was not against the rule until 2006 he may have felt this was an easy and legal way hiding his relationship. Clearly he was afraid of coming out, and people have serious lapses of judgement when afraid.

**Pannonian** · 05-30-2010, 10:59

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm not so sure it wasn't to do with hiding his sexuality, it rings true for me. As this was not against the rule until 2006 he may have felt this was an easy and legal way hiding his relationship. Clearly he was afraid of coming out, and people have serious lapses of judgement when afraid.

Didn't he cross the line when he claimed the money back? Isn't that the offence which he's resigning over?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 05-30-2010, 12:07

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Didn't he cross the line when he claimed the money back? Isn't that the offence which he's resigning over?

Yes, absolutely! However, the question of his motivation bears directly upon his role in Public Life. this is the sort of thing that, in times gone past, the Editor of the Telelgraph might have kept quiet in order that a competant public servant could remain in office.

**tibilicus** · 05-30-2010, 13:20

The other thing is he isn't the only gay MP to "come out" about his sexuality via such a media storm. The "moment of madness" anyone? All this points me to the view that whilst those who represent us are more than happy to harp on about social equality; is there still a view that within the "establishment" of Westminster, it's much better to play the straight man than be openly gay. I just can't work it out. On the one hand the proportion of MPs not being honest about their sexuality is has been noted as quite high by some sources. Yet on the other hand, being openly gay never stopped Mandy "the prince of darkness" from being one of the most ruthless MPs to roam the corridors of Westminster.

It will be interesting to see the coalition carry on from here. I doubt they can afford to loose another high-profile head so it pretty much all depends on whether Vince Cable stays or gos.

**Vladimir** · 05-30-2010, 14:02

Originally Posted by Beskar

Indeed. He wasn't ran out of office for being homosexual. We aren't America, you know.

Originally Posted by Beskar

I watched that Top Gear episode and read the press when Senators have "came out", they usually are not re-elected after that.

Originally Posted by Beskar

Why are the lib-dems being attacked because he wanted to be private about his homosexuality? It was probably to hide it from his parents and family friends or somesuch.

What's up with this guy? Maybe he's a closet American and afraid his parents would reject him.

Don't be ashamed Beskar. We love youuuuuuu!

But, back on topic: What's up with Hamster's hair lately? He's gone all hippie.

**Pannonian** · 05-30-2010, 14:04

Originally Posted by tibilicus

The other thing is he isn't the only gay MP to "come out" about his sexuality via such a media storm. The "moment of madness" anyone? All this points me to the view that whilst those who represent us are more than happy to harp on about social equality; is there still a view that within the "establishment" of Westminster, it's much better to play the straight man than be openly gay. I just can't work it out. On the one hand the proportion of MPs not being honest about their sexuality is has been noted as quite high by some sources. Yet on the other hand, being openly gay never stopped Mandy "the prince of darkness" from being one of the most ruthless MPs to roam the corridors of Westminster.

It will be interesting to see the coalition carry on from here. I doubt they can afford to loose another high-profile head so it pretty much all depends on whether Vince Cable stays or gos.

I don't think anyone woud care if he was gay or not, open or in the closet. But if any ordinary person had been fiddling their tax and expense claims as he did, I'd imagine the Inland Revenue would be interested.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 05-30-2010, 14:51

I have to agree that fiddling with your taxes/expense accounts will always get you in trouble -- and might constitute fraud. Buggering the lawn furniture or what-not should be neither here nor there.

Expensive expense accounting has a long political tradition, as the father of my country demonstrates. Geo's expenses were so annoying that the Constitutional convention -- realizing that the hero status of their presiding officer more or less mandated that he would be our first President, required the President to receive a set compensation -- not an expense allowance -- as the First section of Article II (Executive branch) of the Constitution. Congress determined their own salary and compensation.

PJ:

I'd have to agree with Beskar on this one. Save for a few or the more liberal districts, being a homosexual in the USA is a political liability. Thankfully, this is far less so than it was and will likely become an irrelevance (at least for someone who is not cheating on a spouse thereby) in the near future as our attitudes are rapidly shifting. However, to date, Beskar's assessment is more or less valid. He might, however, have taken a less "trolling" tone in his presentation thereof.

**Slyspy** · 05-30-2010, 18:23

The thing is he didn't actually fiddle his expenses. He merely paid rent to someone he shouldn't have. The expenses would have been completely ligit if his landlord had not also been his lover. Further, until 2006 even this was OK, while the rules introduced last year describe "partner" as someone fulfilling the role of a spouse which is hardly as clear as one would hope. I feel genuinely sorry for Laws, a man who seems to have allowed his (maybe unwarranted) fears to rule him.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 05-30-2010, 14:40

Originally Posted by tibilicus

The other thing is he isn't the only gay MP to "come out" about his sexuality via such a media storm. The "moment of madness" anyone? All this points me to the view that whilst those who represent us are more than happy to harp on about social equality; is there still a view that within the "establishment" of Westminster, it's much better to play the straight man than be openly gay. I just can't work it out. On the one hand the proportion of MPs not being honest about their sexuality is has been noted as quite high by some sources. Yet on the other hand, being openly gay never stopped Mandy "the prince of darkness" from being one of the most ruthless MPs to roam the corridors of Westminster.

Perhaps it is just that the politicians are not as liberal and relativistic as the populace. On the other hand, it may be that David Laws, like many others, didn't want to confront his parents with the reality that he would never produce grandchildren?

It will be interesting to see the coalition carry on from here. I doubt they can afford to loose another high-profile head so it pretty much all depends on whether Vince Cable stays or gos.

There may come a point when some Liberals, including David Laws, decide that there's enough Whig rump left in the "Tory" party to change benches, that would be interesting. It's also possible that the Liberals will shrug off the SDP finally, and possebly become a credible centre party as a result.

**Furunculus** · 05-30-2010, 15:11

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There may come a point when some Liberals, including David Laws, decide that there's enough Whig rump left in the "Tory" party to change benches, that would be interesting. It's also possible that the Liberals will shrug off the SDP finally, and possebly become a credible centre party as a result.

agreed, could go either way, and i'd be pleased by both eventualities.

david laws is talented courageous and pragmatic, he would be a boon to the tories.

on the other hand, the coalition could be an opportunity to shed the beard-n-sandals variety of lib-dems and stick with the liberal (libertarian) roots of the party, in which case the country would have a much more useful and healthy progressive-left opposition than labour ever managed to be.