The rise and fall of David Laws

Mycroft

My guess is that neither Huhne nor Cable wanted the job; one can understand why. Now we will see what Alexander is made of.

Gary Williams

It is not clear how Bill Clinton's laughable attempt to conceal from the country what he had really and truly done would be analogous to Laws's actions.

In a relationship between two people, what would make them "spouses"?

Chuck Unsworth

Honourable? Not quite, I think. But yes, remarkably able. Could do with greater circumspection and, frankly, a keener self-assessment.

Know thyself - and act accordingly.

davidk

What stood out in that piece was the news that treasury officials believe the deficit could fall to £100b by 2013 without any savage cuts. If that's the case, it sort of undermines the 'great tragedy' in losing the ideal axe man David Laws has been heralded as in some quarters.

mongoose

"It’s a shame this coalition is so structured that it had to be a LibDem". What? If so it's not just a shame, it's idiotic. I have nothing in particular against Danny Alexander, but this pivotal job needs a rare talent. It's natural for the LibDem leader to be the Deputy PM, but beyond that the coalition government should be formed from the most suitable talents available in both parties.

Will J

@Chuck Unsworth: Indeed. He said he never considered himself to be in breach of the rules. Sadly, that only betrays self-deception, since it's clear that he was - as he himself now acknowledges.

He will be back, though. If Peter Mandelson can return twice then David Laws can return once.

SUSAN HILL

Presumably there is nothing to prevent Cameron/Clegg/Alexander consulting Laws on a regular basis ? He can still give of his expertise. Indeed they would be fools not to, having put a complete tyro into the most important job going.

Alcazar

More importantly - what will be in David Laws' letter to his successor??????

Alcazar

Susan, it is not the most important job going - and David Laws had not yet demonstrated a consistent track record - nobody can after 3 weeks. Facile to suggest otherwise.

I think the Chancellor's job is a trifle more important.......

I don't understand all these gushing tributes to a man hardly any of us knows or has ever met.

Alcazar

And another thing! Why did Phil Hammond not get the job?

Far, far better qualified and more respected than Alexander.

Daisy

Thank you Fraser for an interesting and perceptive blog, and thank you everyone else for your thought-provoking comments.

Tiberius

So Laws has rightly paid the price for claiming rent payable to a spouse. It doesn't matter that in relative terms, it's presumably no worse an offence than many of the other fraudulent expenses claims which have not had such a sensational outcome. His desire to keep his sexuality private does not provide mitigation. And the press must publish such things when in the public interest, which this case is.

But if, as Fraser says, there has been a suspicion around Westminster about Laws' personal life for some time, I do think that we are able legitimately to ask The Telegraph why they chose not to reveal this story months ago, but have chosen to do so now. I posted a comment questioning their motives but they have chosen not to publish it. I find it hard to believe that they have broken this story as soon as they discovered it.

I suppose that the Laws photo on QT may have prompted them to ask whether it was only a matter of time before some Dark Force finally revealed the truth, so they simply decided to get in first. A justification is required, in my opinion.

davefromluton

i hope there is no similarity here between David Laws and Ian McCleod.
My recollection is that Ted Heath's Government never recovered after Ian died in 19070, just after being appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer

Dimoto

The Treasury team is deep and wide.
Although Laws is a great loss, he has already set the tone. The role is very much a leadership and coordination task.

Huhne is an economist, so what, is he a team player ? How good is he at running a department where most staff are Tories and have radical ideas on righting the economy ?
It's a big mistake to imagine that because somebody has some vague "economic experience" he should be a candidate for heading a major government department.
Cable certainly isn't a team player. He has some very flakey advisors, and the "Shell job" was an internal consultancy, not an executive post.

Maybe Cameron judges Alexander to be a safe pair of hands, a conciliator and coordinator.
Laws was ideally suited and had started to change the job to fit himself. Alexander is an entirely different kettle of fish who will do the job in a very different way. Doesn't mean the outcome will be a fail though.

Of course Hammond would be better, but the coalition has it's agreement on jobs. Just shows how desperately short of talent the LibDems are.
Could Cameron be holding Hammond in reserve, in case of an accident to Osbourne ?

I hope that the Edinburgh Alexander, is not related to the Glasgow one, fellow son-of-the-manse, and Gordon Brown stalwart Douglas (wink).

Vulture

At last a sensible antidote from Fraser to the deluge of sentimental gush unleashed by James Forsyth last night. ('Tears welling up' - yuck).

Alcazar is quite correct: few of us knew David Laws until he was catapulted into his job. A stern press conference, a competent front bench debut and pruning the Treasury pot plants do not a Gladstone make.

What few of you Laws fans seem to appreciate in your lachrymose hymns to his rock-like integrity is the fact that the guy - by his own admission - is a thief, a liar and a monumental hypocrite.

Not least in his preening self-congratulation on his website that his expense claims were whiter than white.

What was far worse was him listing neighbouring Tory MPs in the south-west whose claims were a little excessive.

To conceal your sexuality for years on end is fine; to expect the taxpayer to pay for your deception is not.

Laws is not irreplaceable: he has already been replaced. And no doubt, after he has said a few Hail Marys in penance, he will be back. Meanwhile, as Susan Hill sensibly suggests, there is no harm in wee Danny Alexander asking his advice.

stephen

I for one hope he is back! Mandelson managed it although IMHO Laws is a much more quality act than Mandy!

Who leaked it and why?
A Tory well there a lots of them lining up to reform as the nasty party which kept them unelectable for 13 years
A jealous Lib Dem
or Mr Campbell after Laws denied a chance to out him on question time.
I for one hope he gets exonerated and can make a come up back I feel very very sorry for him

Dimoto

davidk : So you think a deficit of 7% of GDP in two years time is a satisfactory outcome do you ?
Are you Gordon Brown ?

Flash Gordon

Just who is this Danny Alexander?

I find it curious that a man who was a nobody prior to being part of the coalition negotiation team has now risen the ranks at an astounding speed.

Shirley Bowen

Whether Mr Laws is right or wrong, Mr Cameron judges him to be 'an honourable man'. Strange, David Davis, a man of principle, resigned and won an election and yet, has been left out in the cold.

oldtimer

Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and co have just to get on with it. Law had to go. It is just as well he has gone as quickly as he did.

That leaves the question of why and how this story came out right now. Like an Agatha Christie whodunnit there are several possible wielders of the knife - LibDem, Labour, Tory right, Barclay brothers and the DT.

My conspiracy theory is to blame Vince Cable. My guess is he doesn`t like the fact of the coalition with the Tories - he prefers Labour. He didn`t like Laws` sudden, effortless rise to stardom. Even worse Laws was making, for Cable, unhelpful noises about modifying the LibDem/Cable stance on CGT. What better way to undermine the coalition, stuff the Orangebookers and prepare for VC`s very own forthcoming VC LibDem leadership bid. A little preparation like resigning as deputy leader, getting a chum in your place first before pulling the plug by a personal resignation and challenge to Nick Clegg for his woeful leadership of the party. I think it is entirely plausible in the feverish world of Westminster politics. All it needed was a quiet tip of to Alastair Campbell ready for QT.

Cat Fancier

I'm sure it will all be fine

djw2009

Yes, James Forsyth's tears welling up are a sign he needs to be dropped from the Spectator staff. But I do not believe that Cameron gave strong support to Laws and indicated he wanted him to stay. If you understand Cameron, he is a self-serving type who stands for nowt, and he may have said "I'll support you over the weekend", but definitely would not have indicated that he would be prepared to weather a media storm for Laws. This resignation simply should not have been accepted. It is an indication of Cameron's spinelessness.

Moraymint

Guys ... never lose sight of the fact that over the next 3 -5 years (and beyond) you and I are going to pay for the mess that we're in, regardless of the brilliance or the incompetence of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The agony under Laws would have been the same as it will inevitably be under Alexander or whoever's in the job.

To recap. For decades, governments in "developed" countries facilitated an unprecedented (outside of total war) debt boom to give the impression that we could all get rich quick largely without effort and without risk, and by thinking that churning wealth (aka the banking and financial services industries) was the same as creating wealth (by taking natural resources, judiciously applying capital and skilled labour and transforming those resources to add value for sale at a profit).

The bankers cashed in on this mirage. Millions of citizens took the bait, because it was there; our politicians fuelled the situation because there were votes in it. The system was unsustainable. Banks went into meltdown. Governments stepped in to "save the banks" ... with our money ... deferred for collection from us until, er, about now.

So, Laws or no Laws in the job, the time has now all but arrived when we citizen serfs will have to pay for the gross economic incompetence of our political caste as well as, it must be said perhaps, our own complicity or naivety ... call it what you like.

So, from here on for many, many years we'll now be paying for the economic and political incompetence of our masters, as well as an almighty collusion between bankers and politicians, through:

A savage reduction in state-controlled benefits, services and investment.

Increased taxation.

Inflation (and some).

Laws may have delivered all this to our society in a masterly way, but however hamfisted it's now managed, a step change downwards in our prosperity and quality of life is dead ahead.

It's payback time, whether Laws is pulling the levers or not.

Mark M

davidk: a £100bn deficit is still a £100bn deficit. It's still higher than any deficit we ran before the Brown years. It still adds money onto the national debt, which in turn increases debt interest payments. If it can come down faster then it should (on 15 year bonds, at current interest rates, every £10bn borrowed equals around £1bn per year after that in interest payments, or £15bn over the life of the bonds). The more we save now, the more we will have left in the future.

Edmund Jerk

They could've brought Redwood in. Damn the stupidity of this coalition. Laws was one of the best things about it, but perhaps as Susan Hill says, he can still be consulted on economic matters; Alexander will need the help.

charles hercock

By the LAWS and the prophets,remember this Trinity Sunday that we give thanks for the three in one-Dave, Nick and George. Those He has joined together let no man put asunder

jaybs

David Laws made an error of judgement! that is it and he has paid the price.

But reason the way the media have treated the story first The Telegraph and then such as The Daily Mail with its usual agenda needs questioned to be answered and perhaps for the Press Complaints Commission, but I suppose a complaint needs to be made from Mr Lundie, I know I would.

Many people have known about David's personal life for 8 years and in his own constituency, unlike what Peter Tatchell may think, people can be private and do not have to be like him Loud and Proud 24 hours per day.

Interesting how Liam Byrne has apologised for the first time today to David Laws for the flippant note he left.

Tiberius

Some of you guys seem to think the human side of this story should be ignored or demonstrates weakness. Is this view some kind of macho trip, and if not what is it?

stephen

Old Timer;

What a horrible thought Vince the Grass!

Anyway he IMHO is a horrible man!

Chuck Unsworth

@ Stephen

"Who leaked it and why?"

How long ago did this information come into the hands of the Telegraph, do you think?

strapworld

A rather surprising piece by Mr Nelson. One wonders what is behind it. It does not strike me as the normal Nelson approach. Am I alone?

Moraymint, loved your assessment. As a businessman you know, more than most, what to expect. Mind you I do believe the we, the people, deserve part of the blame for wanting everything NOW and not, as our parents did, save for the things you wanted.

Debt was once a very dirty word now it appears to be a badge of honour. Keeping up with the Jones's was once fowned upon, now it is a fight to get the latest gadget first.

I would love to see this government have the bravery of the Canadians and order a 20% pay reduction on all public service, local and national, employees. AND benefits!

Moraymint would remind us, I am sure, that the private sector had had to cut their costs to survive. So must the public sector.

IF people want their jobs they must pay the price, surely?

Gawain

Very, very sad. This also raises the question of wether the media is now too powerful. If Laws is as talented as we are being told then time should be allowed to see whether public opinion would be prepared to forgive this error and let him do his job. Unfortunately, we no longer have a public opinion, we have a 24 hour media mincing machine reflecting the opinions of a narrow minded, and in some cases, morally questionable elite of political journalists and newspaper owners .I would be very happy if the government stopped giving media interviews, withdrew all privileges from journalists and allowed our elected representatives in Parliament to scrutinise them. Journalists should have no privileges above any other citizen. I am not convinced that the loss of Laws was worth reducing the loss that a couple of tax exiles make in running their newspaper.

denis cooper

"I know many MPs who are staying for free in friends rooms right now, to save the taxpayer money."

You should be careful on that, because Michael Trend, the disgraced former MP for Windsor, also claimed that he stayed overnight in a friend's place in London, also free of charge - part of the "arrangements for alternative accommodation in London" referred to in his letter below - and on that basis he claimed Additional Cost Allowance for his family home in Windsor, to the tune of £90,000.

When this came to light in 2002 the comment by one MP, reported on the blog of another MP, was to the effect that many other MPs were doing similar things and Trend had been unlucky to get caught.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmstnprv/435/43509.htm

"At the time of my election to Parliament in April 1992, my main residence was a house that I owned in London. Since my selection as a candidate in April 1990 I had been renting a flat in Windsor; following the election, I rented a house in Windsor, but I continued to own the London house. I was told by the Fees Office that ACA could be claimed in respect of accommodation either in London or in the constituency, and that I therefore needed to nominate one of my addresses as 'home' for the purposes of the allowance. At this time I nominated London, and claimed the allowance in respect of the rented house in Windsor.

In 1993, I sold the London house, and made arrangements for alternative accommodation in London. In the 1992 parliament I used to stay overnight in London frequently, in the next parliament less often, and since 2001 rarely. This reflects changes in my own life, and in the sitting hours of the House. It was, however, my expectation that I would need to stay in London more frequently in the future, due to the recent changes in hours, especially the much earlier starts to formal business.

In April 1994, I bought my present house in Windsor. For the purposes of ACA , my 'home' continued to be London, and I claimed the allowance in respect of the Windsor house.

Over the years, I had several conversations with the Fees Office about ACA. My understanding was that the arrangement I had made was allowed within the rules, and I checked this with them whenever my circumstances changed. I remember clearly the conversation I had with the Fees Office at the same time of my move to my present address in Windsor, in which I pointed out the precise nature of my circumstances. I was told that my claim for ACA could properly continued, and indeed the Fees Office advised me that, because mortgage interest was an expense properly chargeable against the allowance, I should go for an endowment mortgage rather than a repayment mortgage.

It was at all times my honest and sincere belief that my claiming ACA was in accordance with the rules. This belief was supported by my conversations with the Fees Office.

On 15th December 2002, the Mail on Sunday published a story alleging that I had for many years been claiming ACA in respect of a London property which did not exist, and when I seldom spent the night in London. This is also the allegation made in the complaints against me submitted to the parliamentary commissioner.

At the earliest opportunity, I checked my arrangements with Mr Archie Cameron of the Fees Office, who confirmed, of course, that all these allegations were false, since I had at no time claimed ACA in respect of any London residence.

In the course of my conversation, Mr Cameron told me that, the Windsor house having become my main residence, I should not have claimed ACA in respect of it. I was dismayed and very upset by this, because I had always acted in good faith in the belief that my conduct was perfectly proper.

However, I accepted what I was told by the Fees Office in December, and determined to put the matter right without delay. I enclose copies of letters exchanged between us, which show that my offer to pay the whole sum was accepted by the Fees Office, and that they now regard the matter as closed. My outstanding account with them has been settled in full.

My mistaken understanding of the effect of the rules concerning ACA was a belief honestly and genuinely held. However, I deeply regret having found myself in this position and have sincerely apologised for it."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmstnprv/435/43503.htm

"10. The Commissioner comments that he finds it "difficult to understand" how Mr Trend felt able to sign a certificate in November 2000 giving the home of his friend in London as his main residence when, on his own admission, he was then staying there infrequently. We agree. It was wrong of him to sign the document when, as he told us, he had the London accommodation rent-free, and at that time made little use of it when the House was not sitting."

john wright

C Unsworth 1.13,asks who leaaked the Laws business?. Look who is on the page opposite holding a photo of Laws, This is an old Fleet Street trick when the libel lawyers forbid editors actually printing something .Question-,did Cameron refuse Laws appearing on Question Time because he suspected Laws would be onthe program by youknow who???

Mycroft

There is no point in asking who 'leaked' the Laws story; the Telegraph would have known about his expenses claims since they first got hold of all the records, and his homosexuality was not exactly a state secret, so they could easily have put two and two together.

stephen

Have we a Blair Brown syndrome developing between Clegg and Cable?
Maybe Old Timers right St Vince did finger Laws as Clegg and Laws were becomming the Lib Dem Golden Boys.
Vince's envy and sanctimoniousness certainly are redolent of Brown IMHO

Kirsty Richards

My rose tinted specs are coming off, this coalition is not in the interests of the people of this country. Osborne and Alexander at the Treasury, one (Osborne) has never had a proper job and the other (Alexander) was until a few years ago press officer for a natioanl park for God sake.

COME BACK GORDON BROWN ALL IS FORGIVEN!

Verity

jbs writes: "David Laws made an error of judgement! that is it and he has paid the price."

An error of judgement is generally deemed to be a temporary false footing, a slip, a tripping up. Didn't Laws' "error of judgement" - claiming money from the taxpayer to which he was not entitled, in the service of hiding his private life, go on for several years? This suggests not so much an error of judgement as a long-term plan.

This was coolly planned and executed in the service of the advancement of Mr Laws.

I hope he'll have to pay the taxpayers back for the money he illegally finagled from them in the cause of advancing his career.

Alcazar

Kirsty! You win "Unexpected Comment of the Day" Award.

That made me chuckle.

Jenny Gibbons

Fraser

This is a nonsense. Spending the odd night with someone does not make them your 'partner', and it is no one else's business. If Laws had paid no rent in London, no doubt our beloved Press would have seized on that as a matter worth investigating and he would have been 'outed' for that.

The taxpayer has lost nothing as he would have had to pay commercial rent elsewhere. So come off it. It's time the Press laid off their sanctimonious, expenses-sodden moralising and thought about the public interest occasionally

Tiberius

Kirsty: you know you don't mean that.

It seems to me that Brown spent his early years wandering around some area of eastern Scotland with the pupils of his eyes facing the back of his head.

TGF UKIP

Fraser, as any Villager would, you have chosen to gloss over Laws' real fiddling - his entirely false claims for utilities, services and maintenance.

As for the whingeing on his behalf, including by some who should certainly know better, the point is not that other people got away with it, they did and he too would have done last year, but then a line was drawn in the sand. He could have stopped claiming and simply repaid without giving any reason. No matter, he knew the climate and the rules and his excuse of separate bank accounts and social lives is laughable, otherwise many married partners would not be described as "couples."

The other loose end! in all this is the separate flat rented by Laws for £736 per month after the expenses scandal broke. Rented but not apparently used by him and I just hope for his sake that it was not sub-let on no matter how informal a basis.

As for all the bile and conspiracy theories agasinst the Telegraph these are simply hysterical nonsense and I write as someone who is no admirer of the Browngraph or some of the wankers and wankeuses who write for it.

There will be many more politicos on all sides who breathed a very premature sigh of relief last year but who will have cause to regret not fully coming clean then as the ferrets now work their way through the mountain of details in those expense claims and as political enemies and rivals sharpen their knives.

Most likely Laws' lifestyle and accomodation arrangement was fingered by a fellow LibDem with Cable being just the most obvious given his recent humiliations. Not by any chance a mate of fellow Labourite Campbell is he?

ButcombeMan

This is worth repeating:

Laws' real fiddling - his entirely false claims for utilities, services and maintenance.

Olaf Rye

Did Gordon Brown ever have a job outside of the Labour Party ? I should think that Osborne's credentials are more impressive than Brown's--in fact, my window-cleaner has more experience of commerce than Gordon Brown and his leftist coterie. The proof of this is the disastrous state of the public finances that they have bequeathed to their successors and the cynical commitment to spending on numerous projects in the dying days of their sordid and fiscally incompetent regime.

TGF UKIP

PS As to why Alexander, simples; he's apparently quite an amiable, amenable and probably quite malleable young chap and like Dave a holder of an Oxford PPE which almost certainly means that, like Dave, he doesn't do numbers. One thing he definitely won't do though, as Laws was doing, is to outshine and overshadow Osborne, a clinching consideration for best mate Dave.

Trebles all round for Squeaky, the Treasury civil servants and all the spending ministers.

Simon Stephenson

What I find staggering is the unquestioned presupposition that David Laws' technical financial expertise was somehow critical to the composition of an effective fiscal strategy for the next few years. Think about it. The Treasury is stuffed full of technical competence, but its political heads are just that - political appointees, put in place to choose between the various strategies put in front of them, as representatives of the general population. They're not there to make technical judgements, nor are they there to suggest the policy detail, because there are paid professionals to do this, people who are far more technically skilled than any politician could ever claim to be.

It's this misunderstanding of what the political heads are there for that makes so much comment such nonsense. David Laws' impact depended upon how good a politician he was, not on how good a financier or accountant. Just as it really doesn't matter how financially experienced Danny Alexander is, as long as he's a competent politician.

Chuck Unsworth

@ john wright

For clarity please note that I did not ask 'who' the leaker was. I asked how long the Telegraph had held the information. These are two entirely separate matters.

Who leaked? Well, that may be of interest to the leaker - and possibly to us out of prurience.

How long? Well, that is more to do with the Telegraph's view of its best interests. Whose decision was it to publish this story at this particular time? And, crucially, what was their motivation?

Not quite the same thing, I think you might agree.

David Lindsay

Whether or not David Laws leaves Parliament, has not a newspaper found an ideal solution to the present problem that, with no Fleet Street columnist who writes from within the life and subculture of the Lib Dems, that party of government is exempt from an important form of scrutiny? One of the more rightish papers, obviously. For example, The Daily Telegraph.

Noa Zrk

Truly the coalition government has come of age with the first ministerial expose and resignation occurring in 18 days.
If the attrition rate continues we can expect a turnover rate 20 ministers a year; giving a total of 100 over the posited 5 year term.

Kev

The question now is who leaked the story? Was it a left wing Lib Dem? Was it Alastair Campbell? Was it someone on the Tory right? Sabotage from within the coalition or without?

Come on, someone spill the beans! This story still has legs.

toni

Gawain
May 30th, 2010 1:26pm
Have you held these same views for the last...shall we say...13 years, or just for the last 3 days?

Chuck Unsworth

@ Noa Zrk

You may care to recalculate on the basis that some Ministers may actually return - some more than once, possibly.

That is if modern precedents are any guide.

Fatbloke on tour

Trevor aka "Fraser" -- the fastest spinner in the Nelson family even though my brother is a DJ.

Can I please thank you for your service to progressive politics and the case for a non dog boiling economic policy.

You may know nothing about economics.
You may know nothing about economic statistics.
However you have an un-nerving ability to shoot yourself in both feet with one bullet.

Your little story of the "new" treasury view that 2012/13 will see a deficit of £100bill and that with a fair wind and a little light trimming all will be OK gives the lie to all the stories of deficit shroud waving doing the rounds to frighten the plebs.

Good to see that you have finally caught up with the real story, the establishment plot to build up the deficit into some sort of monster threatening civilisation as we know it so that they could implement their dog boiling orthodoxy.

The deficit is not the problem.
Our current public sector deficit is the mirror of our current private sector surplus.
The "fire up the chainsaw, lets slash and burn" attitude is all about rowing back on the progress made since 97 so that tax rates can be slashed for those at the top.

The second point where your little story helps is the political nature of deficit forecasts coming from the Treasury.

Mar 09: 2009/10 deficit = £175bill f'cast
Nov 09: 2009/10 deficit = £178bill f'cast
May 10: 2009/10 deficit = £156bill actual.

The swerve on the Treasury's number would make Ronaldo blush. Surely they didn't work the numbers in Nov 2009 so that AD wouldn't inject more money into the economy?

The whole sorry episode is a stitch up.

The hatchet faced poisoned dwarf is not the expert you claim him to be. He is only a hard hearted party boy unable to see the problems his slash and burn attitude will cause.

Consequently good riddance to a slimy little creep.

Derek

"Like many [a] man in love, Laws wasn’t thinking straight."

Hm.

hadrian

It is very rare that when a politician gets into a spot of bother he finds many rallying from all quarters to defend him to the hil. That is has happened for David Laws speaks volumes about the sort of person he is at heart. Some will possibly be rejoicing in his current mortification but I think their motivations will range from personal envy to political but not necessarily personal malice.
As a Christian I cannot condone his secret relationship and the dire consequences of it simply demonstrate that such secretiveness in public life is extraordinarily dangerous. It has been a cruel thing to out the man, however, when he obviously felt a very pressing need to keep the whole thing secret even from his own family and close friends. Those responsible must hope that the immense trauma and pressure now on him do not totally swamp him. I believe he was certainly shaping up to be that rare thing- a very honourable, dedicated public servant. At a personal level I sincerely hope he will recover his sense of dignity.
Finally, if he was the victim of a vendetta, whoever did it, I just hope it was not that toad, Campbell as has been suggested. Now there is one who really does lack all honour.

JohnAnt

"Laws didn’t fancy telling the Commons clerks that he no longer wishes to charge for a property in London – thinking this would bring attention to his relationship."
Wouldn't the solution be to tell the clerks to sign the Official Secrets Act, and warn them three times a day not to leak their info on pain of 25 years imprisonment? We have to have some protection, as taxpayers. Just as MPs have to have some protection to a private life.
And where were the LibDem Chief Whips in all this? Security, vulnerability to blackmail, relationships, declaration of interests, public-private distinctions - it's their job to manage all that.
Are they telling us they didn't know?
Ha-ha-ha-ha!
Sack them, Clegg.

maddy1

Why do these Mps give us detailed accounts of their dealingsat the Westminster tax haven! Some apologists have even made the excuse that laws did not rip us off half as much as he could have! why do we need 600 plus parasites to represent us plus Wales plus Scotalnd plus Brussel sprouts?

Ronnie

I am at an age where I can remember reading, or being told about, the great responsibility of the British press and their editors - The Times, The Telegraph, The Express etc. Apparently, in those days, editors made judgements on what might be best for the national interest and some very juicy stories were not published as a result.

We do have to ask ourselves if the Telegraph's actions in continuing with this story, in it's current form and in the current dire national circumstances, is in the best interests of the country. Should we focus on the scandalous to the detriment of our capaacity to deal with the deficit by hounding reportedly able ministers out of office when we need them most?

We are in danger of aping Japan where the general interst in scandal to the exclusion of all else has frozen the process of government over the past 10 years. We can't afford to go the same way. Surely we can accept that selling newspapers is less important than the financial stability of the country?

As for the comment above that Redwood should have been brought in, I think we have to realise that, in the coalition, the minister in charge of cuts has to be a Lib. Dem. to make them seem more palatable to a Tory-phobic electorate.

procopious

Isn't it time to decide once and for all that there is a political clas and it can do with impunity things for which other people would go to jail? Once everyone is agreed on this we will be able to avoid these heartaches. Forgetting completely about personal virtue also makes it easier to accept Fraser's point that because DL has been a successful speculator he will be a genius in government.

Simon Stephenson

Fatbloke on tour : 10.54pm

"Your little story of the "new" treasury view that 2012/13 will see a deficit of £100bill and that with a fair wind and a little light trimming all will be OK gives the lie to all the stories of deficit shroud waving doing the rounds to frighten the plebs.

Good to see that you have finally caught up with the real story, the establishment plot to build up the deficit into some sort of monster threatening civilisation as we know it so that they could implement their dog boiling orthodoxy.

The deficit is not the problem. Our current public sector deficit is the mirror of our current private sector surplus."

It is of course quite correct to suggest that a public-sector deficit that is broadly offset by a private-sector surplus is a lesser problem than one which has to be financed by nett overseas borrowing. But there are two questions you need to answer before you should expect others to take your assertions seriously:-

1. What actual evidence do you have that the public-sector deficit is broadly offset by domestic private-sector surplus, and that the deficit is not the problem, as you claim in the section above that I have highlighted?

2. In terms of the sustainable overall level of national indebtedness, public and private combined, what effect should the decline in asset values be expected to have on this? As a nation, should we still expect to be able to borrow as much, on the same terms, as we were able to when the money-value of our security was that much higher?

djw2009

Is it true that Fraser comments as "Trevor" on the Spectator blogs?

Robert Mitchum

This article typifies the chasm which exists between those in the Westminster cocoon and the rest of us. Take the use of the word 'honourable' for instance. We, the public, obviously have a different definition. I wonder how Fraser regards someone of the lower orders who takes money to which he is not entitled? Honourable? I very much doubt it. His next article will probably be about what can be done to repair the rift between politicians and voters. The excusing of MP's misdeeds by political writers would be a good place to start.

JONNY

Is the DT hellbent on killing off the Coalition ?
I now read they're after Alexander over CGT.
Time was when new ministers were given a honeymoon. Now it seems they're Shelltoxed at birth.

Gary Williams

Ronnie -

"As for the comment above that Redwood should have been brought in, I think we have to realise that, in the coalition, the minister in charge of cuts has to be a Lib. Dem. to make them seem more palatable to a Tory-phobic electorate."

Spot-on.
The Left are not the sole cause of Britain's predicament, but their 13 years of recklessness, deceit, and weapons-grade incompetence made our problem vastly worse than it otherwise would have been. Even now they fail to get it, and continue to think it would be a good idea to saddle our children and grandchildren with intolerable debts.
Only by having one of their former fellow-travelers wield the knife will the populace accept that the patient needs major surgery, not another sugary placebo.

David Short

Funny how the Speccie and this commentator who likes to think of himself as on the in didn't warn us in advance!

Tom Graham

I think people forget that it wasn't just a political miscalculation on Laws' part on the basis that it's far worse to be an expense fiddler than a gay MP today.

Laws is from a catholic background, and although I have no idea whether his family were aware of his sexuality, even if they are it might be that he did not want to be seen to be 'rubbing their noses in it' by being 'outed'. Some families have limited tolerance, shall we say. It might also be that Mr Laws was not entirely comfortable with his sexuality; as a gay man myself, I can tell you that 'coming out' or acceptance or whatever one calls it, is a process and not a watershed moment. We internalise society's prejudices from childhood, and picking through all those layers of self-loathing takes years. And when one starts by being private, it's sometimes much easier to maintain that rather than draw attention to something which detracts from your work.

So, even if society has changed since David Laws entered politics, he had every reason to want his sexuality to remain private. Had he voted against the furtherance of gay rights, I would have a different opinion, but he is not a hypocrite.

Therefore, I think it is all very well to say that Laws should be treated the same as anyone else. The fact is, though progress has been made without a doubt over the last 15 years, gay people still have many, many good reasons not to disclose their sexuality, much as I personally wish they would.

Society is still not completely tolerant of homosexuality. A politician knows that disclosure of their sexuality is a risk when every vote can count.

Hugh Fraser

We've heard the phrase "in the national interest" so many times - that means Philip Hammond not Danny Alexander for the job. It shouldn't matter what the coalition agreement says, because it didn't foresee this circumstance.

Fox in a box

Un-f*cking-believable!

Been away in Ireland all weekend. Sat down on Sunday night and talking politics with the father in law. He asks what I think of the new administration and how they will deal with the deficit? I was telling him how I had great optimism in the new treasury team - particularly the Chief Secretary, a Lib Dem guy called Laws.

Finished telling him how impressed I was and how I felt he would really help us get on top of the deficit (something they're feeling the sharp end of over there) and turned on the BBC news at 10.

Oh - he's resigned. I was honestly speechless.

Hadrian

Tom Graham,

Though I sympathise strongly with you and other individuals who have shared the same experience, I rather doubt that society will ever reach some 'ideal state' where homosexuality is viewed as entirely acceptable and normal. All the laws in thw world won't change an instinctive sense in many that it is somehow not so and toleration will only ever stretch so far.
If Laws background is indeed RC or Protestant Christian then obviously the man will have deep unease about his sexuality. Personally, I think if he was set ona life of very public service he should have had the iron will to remain celibate. However where emotional need is concerned who are any of us to throw the first stone?
Whether he did 'fiddle and diddle' the public purse is very much open to question but at a personal level I think like any vulnerable person he deserves a large degree of compassion. He never struck me as a horrible career politician such as Mandy, the consumate machiavelian for whom one feels not a shred of warmth.
As for the point that the Treasury need not be run by MPs with 'professional' or learned economic qualifications, given there are civil servants whose office that is, all I can say is maybe not, but it sure helps to know what's being put before you!

Neil Wilson

What's really, really galling is that had he admitted who he was and claimed a joint mortgage with his partner, then it would have been perfectly allowable.

I hope David Laws can come to terms with himself and get back into politics as quickly as possible. His loss is an appalling blow to the country.

Simon Stephenson

Hadrian : 12.27am

"As for the point that the Treasury need not be run by MPs with 'professional' or learned economic qualifications, given there are civil servants whose office that is, all I can say is maybe not, but it sure helps to know what's being put before you!"

Yes, but I'm not suggesting that a Department of State can be run by a complete ignoramus. What I queried was the widespread misconception that an area of activity is necessarily best run by someone with great expertise of that activity, and that therefore the appointment of someone of lesser expertise is a guarantee that the activity will be run less well.

In this case, the rapidly-created myth that David Laws' professional expertise was the key that unlocked the possibility of excellence from the Treasury, whereas under anyone else the decisions will be second-rate.

Simon Stephenson

Apropos to the point I have been making, here is an extract from the former Chief Secretary William Waldegrave's open letter* to Danny Alexander printed in today's Times:-

"Don’t worry that you don’t have business experience: dogged hard work will do instead. You certainly don’t need to be an economist. Economists have no more idea of how to control spending than astrophysicists — and a rather greater capacity to think up clever reasons for doing nothing."

*
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7141296.ece

Hadrian

Simon-

Very witty and apposite point about economists and astrophysicists!
However I think the thing about David Laws was that by common consent he DID have a very clear-eyed view of the urgent need for cuts and the grim determination not to flinch therefrom. Whether young Mr Alexander can be as single minded is a very moot point. After all, there seem to be some ( often very highly placed) Lib-Dems for whom this coalition is practically anathema and Laws certainly wasn't one of them.

Simon Stephenson

Hadrian : 10.19pm

I don't dispute what you say is "common consent". The question I'm raising is whether it's a good idea for policy to be determined by opinions derived from "that's what most people think" rather than by those derived from "irrespective of everyone else, that's what I think is the best answer"?