has laws been broken?

God I hope not. If he is forced out or even sideways over this then it will be a sign of how destructive the over-reaction to the "expenses scandal" has become. Is there one serious person who doesn't think that Laws is the right man, in the right job, at the right - the critical - time? Is there one informed observer who thinks that he tried to profit from this arrangement - who thinks anything other than that he got himself tangled up in his attempts to keep his relationship secret?

The answer to both these questions, if people are being honest with themselves, has to be no. But the tide of moral righteousness is high.

Comments

[ashcash]

I have recommended that a purpose built post be set for David Laws - Minister of truth.....despite the connotations. Freedom of Information is great but getting to the Truth is not easy - He should act as a facilitator..............In the spirit of new politics Liam "There is no money" Byrne can return to his old job. everyone happy.

[scott]

So David Laws can commit fraud because he's so good at what he does? Really?!

It's not about righteousness. It's about rule of law.

[Ian Leslie]

He hasn't broken the law!

[scott]

Well, he's in breach of Parliamentary Rules regarding leasing accommodation from a partner. He concealed information in order to get away with it.

He's screwed.

[Ian Leslie]

So that's not breaking the law or fraud. It's the inability to make distinctions like that - to maintain a sense of proportion - that has forced his resignation. We're all a little morally purer and a lot worse off as a result.

[scott]

Yeah, you were right to call me on that. I'm still surprised that you're advocating the further marginalization of self-regulation for the sake of a talented politician.

[peter]

Has he resigned, Ian? If so, neither the BBC nor The Guardian websites yet know.

[Ian Leslie]

It's not just for his sake - it's in our interest to have talented politicians running the country, and if we turn minor offences into sackable ones we'll have fewer and fewer.

Actually no he hasn't resigned yet but Tory bloggers reporting he will do so this eve.

[scott]

If/when Laws goes, it'll be interesting to see the frequency of observations like "If only Laws were here," or "Laws would never have cocked that up," or even "Osbourne looks lost without Laws". This isn't meant facetiously - I am just not convinced that the future of David Laws means that much for the future of the UK.

[ashcash]

.
.
.
He is gone as he is more secretive than the rest of society.

a flawed character.
Time to Gain at the expense of another is over.

[DaveW]

If he's been caught co-habiting while pretending not to be when and was on benefits he'd be prosecuted and go to gaol; but cos he's a Minister and a millionaire he can just pay it back and resign. Still one Law for the rich...

[peter]

ashcash: You clearly move in different circles to the ones I know. There are still lots of areas of Britain and circles of British society where gay people dare not admit their orientation publicly. It is most unfair to judge David Laws by the standards of Upper Street, Islington.

[scott]

Peter

It's important to understand that Laws' sexuality is only relevant because Laws says it is. Let's not sentimentalize the issue; an excuse is an excuse.

[ejoch]

Very sad to see an intelligent and qualified man being forced out of office by a 'tide of moral righteousness', as you rightly call it. I've never been able to get remotely excited about the expenses 'scandal' and in this case it's worse, as this is clearly a very private individual now having his personal life minutely examined. Amazes me that anyone of any intelligence still wishes to go into politics.
Which isn't to say he hasn't made some mistakes; but there's such a thing as a sense of proportion. At a guess I'd imagine he just claimed the money because everyone else did, and is wealthy enough to have not even thought it a significant sum.

[DaveW]

Ejoch
Claiming £40,000 you aren't entitled is not a 'mistake' but simply theft. And if it is too trifling an amount for him to be bothered thinking about no wonder most of us feel politicians don't understand us.

[ejoch]

Well depends whether you want them to understand you I suppose. I couldn't care less whether for example the Defence Secretary understands me, I'd rather he understood defence policy.

[Ian Leslie]

Ha ha. As you'll have guessed, I'm with Ejoch on this. Especially on that sappy "I want politicians who understand me" stuff. Christ you'd think we were dating them.

[ejoch]

Ah Ian you're the voice of sanity in an insane world!

[Horace Dunn]

"Is there one informed observer who thinks that he tried to profit from this arrangement - who thinks anything other than that he got himself tangled up in his attempts to keep his relationship secret?"

Perhaps I misunderstand you here. Are you saying that Laws claimed £40,000 in rent expenses in order to keep his relationship secret?

[Ian Leslie]

No! He claimed his rent expenses because MPs are allowed to claim for London flats when they live outside of London. His mistake was not declaring his landlord was also his boyfriend. The reason he made that mistake was that he was desperate to keep his relationship a secret. ARE WE CLEAR?

[Horace Dunn]

Thank you, Ian. Now we are clear.

However, I'm not sure you're right when you suggest that this was purely an entanglement resulting from "his attempts to keep his relationship secret" and nothing to do with a desire to "profit from this arrangement".

He could, quite simply, have stopped claiming rent expenses. It wasn't that unusual for MPs to leave the greater part of their entitlements unclaimed. There was no need for Laws to "out" himself in order to do this.

I agree with you that there has been an overreaction here. This was hardly the crime of the century and Laws quickly offered to make full amends. He was not underserving of sympathy. But he could have stopped claiming the money. He chose not to. Seems to me that profit had something to do with it.

[Ian Leslie]

How is it "profit" if he claimed the same amount of money he spent?

[David]

Ian, Crime Counsel (a criminal lawyer) on Twitter says single mums who claim benefits to pay rent to an undeclared partner are being convicted and in some cases sent to jail. They are having to defend the line of "he only became my boyfriend last year" as well but apparently being given short shrift for making those personal arguments.

Isn't there an argument here and in all of the expenses scandal that we must not treat politicians any differently just because they are important?

[elemjay]

yeah thanks a bunch Daily Telegraph - raising the moral high ground on a regular basis. Somewhat ironic given the nature of some of its proprietors - e.g. Conran Black and the Barclay bros...

[SW]

"He claimed his rent expenses because MPs are allowed to claim for London flats when they live outside of London"

But they're not allowed to claim on accommodation owned by a partner. Hence:

"His mistake was not declaring his landlord was also his boyfriend."

But, then, to say:

"The reason he made that mistake was that he was desperate to keep his relationship a secret."

Is a big leap. It's a brilliant excuse because the public narrative is now *not* how David Laws is so tight he won't pay rent to his boyfriend (nor about how his boyfriend is a bit stingy - charging rent to your partner? come on...), but rather about how Laws is the victim of social attitudes towards homosexuality.

His resignation was really, really smart - a textbook example of a hack seizing the initiative from the press. But then we should expect that, shouldn't we?