Sexuality, sickening hypocrisy and CGT
When you are a Liberal Democrat, there is nothing as unsurprising as hearing that a colleague is gay. Or indeed, not hearing about it. Having a sexuality that is not monogamously heterosexual is no big deal in the party, but nor is wanting to keep your private life private. As someone who is happily MH, I can imagine the party is a very comfortable and comforting place to be if you are not.
I’d always assumed David Laws was gay. Don’t know why. I have no definite knowledge, no gossip, no friend that shared a quickie at conference. And like 99% of the Lib Dems and sizable majority of the population, I didn’t care either. But I can understand why David did, and why he and his partner might have wanted to keep their relationship private. Coming from a seemingly conservative family and attending an independent Roman Catholic school, David then entered the City at roughly the same time I did – the end of the yuppie 1980s. Coming out then would have made his life difficult and halted his meteoric career. Once he entered politics, he was still under no requirement to tell, either to satisfy the curiosity of others or to become a standard bearer for gay men.
So I can understand if tonight David feels totally wretched. In outing him in the way that they have, the Telegraph have been thoroughly vindictive. Without David’s ‘hidden” sexuality, the story of a ‘secret lover’ did not have the same prurient allure for the media. But it goes deeper than that. Without David’s wish to keep his life private, the entire situation would not have arisen. He could have taken out a joint mortgage with Jamie, declaring his relationship and claiming half the expenses quite legitimately. Or he could have rented his own property, then popped round to Jamie’s home when he felt like it. In the first case, the taxpayer would have paid exactly what they did towards David’s London living costs; in the second situation, considerably more.
David Laws has claimed and published the extra costs of him living in London to do his job as an MP for a Somerset constituency. He did so in a manner which did not make him or anyone else a secret profit, or cost the taxpayer an excessive amount. What David chose not to publish was his private relationship. The tax payer wouldn’t have paid any more or any less if that relationship had been made public.
Did David Laws break the letter of the law on MPs expenses? That seems to depend on how a spouse or partner is defined. Did he defraud the taxpayer? I would say not. He claimed the real costs of a second home in London, which he lived in. Did he or Jamie make a profit on the arrangement? No. Should he repay the money? Probably not, but I understand his wish to do so and to offer himself up to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. But the rules do appear to discriminate against those who want to keep their private lives to themselves. And as that is far more likely to affect those who are lesbian, gay or bisexual, the rules themselves would appear to be prejudicial on the basis of sexuality.
So why did the Telegraph choose now to publish these ‘revelations’? Many have been musing online tonight as to why the paper would have sat on this story, rather than publish before the General Election. My guess is that they didn’t have the story then. In the last couple of days, the Telegraph has lauched a vigorous campaign to oppose the likely increase in rates of Capital Gains Tax, which would align it more closely with income tax. Which party has promoted this policy? The Liberal Democrats. Who is the Liberal Democrat MP at the Treasury? David Laws. Go out and dig for dirt on Laws was the Telegraph’s rallying cry to its hacks – the addition of a little ‘secret gay sex’ will have only whetted the enthusiasm of the paper and much of its readership further.
The Labour trolls have all been active tonight, demanding David’s resignation, whilst chuckling merrily behind their hands. Their hypocrisy sickens me. How quickly they forget the MPs who did make a profit from bending the rules – and are still in the Commons. The former Chancellor who flipped repeatedly. The married couple who both claimed for a second home. The MP who lived just a 20 minute train journey from central London, but still claimed the maximum amount year on year for a Westminster flat. I could go on, but you already know the script.
I’m not from the same wing of the Lib Dems as David Laws. I’m not a likely cheerleader for him. But his performance since his appointment to the cabinet has been astounding, with a mastery and articulation of his new brief which has delighted most of the political world. Don’t resign and give the Telegraph their pound of flesh, David. Your party, the coalition and, the country’s economy need you.
Related posts:
- What a waste of a talented man
- Hypocrisy – alive and well and living in the Labour Party's second home
- Conservative hypocrisy on phone masts
Comments
29 May 2010, 6:29 am
I believe you have missed a salient point. On Thursday, David Laws was to have been on BBC Question Time; suddenly he withdrew and the Govt refused to put anyone else in his place, as long as Alastair Campbell was still on the panel. The same Alastair Campbell who has such wonderful contacts in the Press and who is well known for his dirty tricks and spin on behalf of the Labour Party.
Watch BBC QT again and watch Campbell smirking as Dimbleby makes his announcement, at the start of the programme, about the Govt. refusing to provide anyone for the programme – watch Campbell’s face as he produces the framed picture of Laws at the end of the programme.
Nothing will convince me that Campbell hadn’t tipped the DT off about Laws’ domestic arrangements – without which there wouldn’t have been a story. I also believe that Andy Coulson, through his Press contacts, knew what Campbell had done and that THAT was the real reason no Govt minister would share the BBC QT platform with the despicable Campbell.
Conspiracy theory? The timing is too coincidental – the DT story says they sat outside Laws’ house on Thursday morning and watched him leave; so it wasn’t an ‘office based’ story, it was a live investigation. Timing is everything. This whole thing has Campbell’s fingerprints all over it – nothing will convince me otherwise.
29 May 2010, 7:21 am
That all sounds horribly plausible
Good piece and good comment.
29 May 2010, 7:41 am
An excellent article Sara and one I can concur with, also the response from Pam is definitely food for thought, I certainly would not have put it past Mr Campbell.. thank you both for your thought provoking comments…
29 May 2010, 9:39 am
Well said, Sara. And Pam. I did wonder what Campbell was up to at the end of QT.
29 May 2010, 10:11 am
David Laws hid his sexuality, which he is perfectly entitled to do. That is not the problem.
Alistair Campbell made the most of Laws’ non-appearance at Question Time. That is also of no relevance.
The main issues are these. First, can we trust a man who has knowingly hidden material facts relevant to his expenses claims? Second, should a Member taking expenses payments from the tax-payer to finance a property on which his partner makes a tax-free profit, go un-punished? Third, is the Government best-served by retaining the advice, guidance and presence of a man whose judgement must now be under question.
I have the greatest sympathy for David Laws. He was not solely driven by a greed and desire to line his own pockets. He appears merely to have been keen to protect or hide the true nature of his relationship with his “landlord”. I am sure he will have a long and successful political career. But to do that, he must go. And go now.
He must not be allowed to stay in Cabinet a moment longer if the electorate are to retain confidence in its leaders.
29 May 2010, 10:23 am
Good article and fuklly support, remember too that the privacy aspect affects David Laws friend – not just him. I agree with the direction of Pam’s comment whether it was Campbell or someone else, I thought this matter might be connected and that Laws was being set up for an ambush.
29 May 2010, 10:32 am
I love the idea that Alistair Campbell is the source of every ConDemNation screw up. Paranoia as well as inferiority plague the new administration. Alistair is all too willing to wear the crown of master manipulator they have awarded him. I bet he wishes he had earned it.
29 May 2010, 10:34 am
Excuse me but did I miss something? Wasn’t it the fact that David Laws has apologised for claiming expenses and breaking the rules that is the issue? Who gives a damn about his sexuality? Why apologise if he has done nothing wrong? You can’t blame Campbell for everything! If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
29 May 2010, 10:48 am
Laws is doing a fine job, but unfortunately the bottom line is this. He broke the rules on expenses, and as many of us who’ve ever messed up tax returns or parked in the wrong place know – ignorance or mis-understanding of the relevant laws is no excuse.
His sexuality is irrelevant – if the guy’s good at his job I don’t care whether he prefers to company of fish to humans – but if he’s broken the rules then the relevant sanctions have to be applied and the consequences handled.
29 May 2010, 10:50 am
Excellent commentary. I’ve been looking at the post-election coverage by different papers somewhat closely and Telegraph’s campaign against CGT has definitely stood out to me (god knows why I make Telegraph a part of my daily websurfing but anyway). This definitely makes sense. I hope the man doesn’t have to resign.
29 May 2010, 10:50 am
Laws was stupid to not clean up his business. It’s game playing, but that’s what Campbell et alle do best. – spin the story for max benefit. No-one is really interested in Law’s sexuality other than Law who has gone to great efforts to protect, rather than profit. It hurts Laws personally and sends out the message to play the game by the proper rules….However, Laws is a millionaire and therefore, the historic event of illegally claiming expenses is the story of public interest.
29 May 2010, 10:52 am
Isn’t the point you are missing here that the Liberal Democrats both before the entered Government and since they joined the coalition have (some would argue) rather santimoniously lectured us all about how they are the architects of “new politics”. That have been spectacularly blown apart in week 4.
29 May 2010, 11:01 am
[...] Sexuality, sickening hypocrisy and CGT (Sara Bedford) [...]
29 May 2010, 11:08 am
Being paranoid does not mean they aren’t out to get you.
Trust the extremely Tory Telegraph to spit its dummy out of the pram just because The Cameroons failed to win an outright majority.
If in doubt, blame a LibDem, especially one who has been spectacularly successful not only in business, but also in mastering his brief.
And J. Edgar Hoover chose in private to live his life HOW?
29 May 2010, 11:28 am
[...] deeper thoughts on this matter, see Sara Bedford. I agree with everything she says. Posted in [...]
29 May 2010, 11:40 am
[...] Always win when you're singing » Blog Archive » Sexuality … [...]
29 May 2010, 11:45 am
[...] Bedford covers the story in detail, reflects on why the Telegraph has published the story now, and thinks that he should [...]
29 May 2010, 12:19 pm
If (millionaire) David Laws is concerned about maintaining his privacy why didn’t he simply pay the rent himself? Lib Dems have been sanctimonious in the extreme over the whole expenses issue and now we find (surprise surprise) that, far from representing a “new” politics, they are just as prey to human folly as the rest of us. Even assuming that the conspiracy theorists above are right and Alistair Campbell knew the real reason for Laws’ no-show on QT, that doesn’t effect the issue one iota. David Laws knowingly broke the rules. He was stupid to think he wouldn’t be found out. But he has been. Now he should go.
29 May 2010, 12:20 pm
As I’ve said on other blogs, I don’t understand the entire “expenses fiddling” part of this story.
Didn’t David Cameron claim £20,000 a year in expenses on a house owned by himself and his wife? How is this different from David Laws claiming £11,000 a year in rent, paid to his partner?
How many other cabinet ministers claimed similar amounts? Someone mentioned Michael Gove flipping his home for Capital Gains Tax.
Are people upset just because he kept his relationship secret? What exactly is the resigning issue here?
29 May 2010, 12:55 pm
Pam Nash suggests that David Laws’ non-appearance on BBc QT was as a result of Campbell’s dirty tip-off. If that’s the case then it’s a poor show of this government’s willingness to lie to the country. Why did they wish to leave the impression that Campbell was a more odious figure than Nick Griffin? That they wouldn’t debate with him because he’s not a ‘Labour’ rep?
Sure the Telegraph’s havin’ a laugh. This is right up their dirty little street. But why hand them a big sordid gateau of a story on a silver plate?
29 May 2010, 1:51 pm
Fantastic piece, Sara. I’ve never read your blog before, but I’ll definitely read it again. I think that Laws has been monumentally stupid. I can understand why he did it, but it doesn’t look good, has damaged the party and may ultimately damage him. I would hope that he survives because he is such a talent, but he may not.
Pam, you make an interesting hypothesis. It definitely has the ring of truth (or at least plausibility) about it.
29 May 2010, 2:15 pm
“Update: The Prime Minister is now blaming broadcasters for ‘making a private conversation public’. Oh GET REAL, Gordon!”
Liberal MP’s are under greater public scrutiny, Oh get real Sara!
29 May 2010, 9:42 pm
Does the HMRC say anything about politicians claiming expenses for rent paid to relatives or partners? It determines a lot on the capital and taxation of everyone else.
29 May 2010, 10:00 pm
I disagree – if you don’t want publicity then don;t claim the money (as indeed several other MPs have done, claiming they don’t need it)
30 May 2010, 8:47 pm
[...] Sexuality, sickening hypocrisy and CGT on Sara Bedford’s Always win when you’re singing. “Absolutely brilliant article, [...]
31 May 2010, 12:22 am
[...] be kind to Laws, but I would urge people to do so. The reasons we might do so have been adequately rehearsed elsewhere, so I will not repeat them [...]
31 May 2010, 5:19 pm
But in the end the question was this man is right, his friend partner call him what you may is rich, so why the hell did these people need to charge for rent anyway, it has nothing to with being gay or not gay the fact is he claimed expenses which he knew was wrong, end of story
07 June 2010, 5:20 pm
Good piece, thank you.