« giving religion its due | Main | never rains but it pours »

May 31, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


He explained: "When I grew up, being gay was not accepted by most people including by many of my friends. So I have kept this secret from everyone I know for every day of my life. I was so determined to keep my private life secret that James and I behaved as if we were good friends."
Mr Laws is living in the past. Meditation and/or prayer will help him move forward.


"Seek for integrity, intelligence and passion. If he lacks the first, the others will screw you up" by Warren Buffet, sort of.

Dont underestimate moral standards or we'll end up in an Goldman&Sachs overkill.


I agree - Chris's piece is a good one.

I'd quote his second point also:
"Clever people can be stupid"

I agree that the expenses scandal got way out out hand, but by now no MP could be in any doubt of the consequences of breaking the rules, and it seems pretty clear that he did break the rules, no matter what your view on his motives.

It's a shame that talented people lose their jobs over idiot moves like this, and that they lack the common sense to figure out which rules they can break and which they can't.

I feel sympathy for Laws, but frankly, also I'm annoyed with him for removing himself from the government like this.


Yes...gerd I may have been exaggerating a little. You're right but my point is we're blowing this moral lapse - if that's what it is - way out of proportion. I'd rather have a well-run economy managed by morally flawed ministers than a bloody mess run by saints. TR I agree with you - I'm annoyed with him too. But I'm more annoyed with a political environment that makes this sort of thing a huge issue, at the expense of more important things like competence. The more we make mountains out of molehills and lose talented politicians as a result, the more we all suffer. It's the self-destructiveness of this that gets me.


Agree entirely Ian. Also I think there's a problem around this business of wanting politicans to be like 'regular' people. I don't want them to be anything of the sort, not if they're in a senior position. A person who has to decide on say, sending troops into battle or imposing sanctions has to be unlike a regular person- they have to think beyond everyday rubbish and think strategically. And take decisions an average person might balk at.
and if they can do that, I couldn't care less if they fiddle expenses/have a moat/employ their friends.


@Marbury: Yes. Right. I think all the moral judgements here have tactical second thoughts and are therefore not a bit better than the lapse discussed there. Since all human beings are human beings and fail sometimes the point to me seems to have a kind of fair and pragmatic way of dealing with issues like this. And there you need integrity (not bigotry) which is connected with intelligence ultimately something like wisdom... : )


@Marbury: This remindes me of a point made by David Runciman (he talks about it in interview here http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/14577, also a book called political hipocrisy (2008)).

His point (or my crude understanding of it) is that hypocrisy is unavoidable in politics, but that there are broadly 2 types of hypocrite.

A: not living up to the whiter-than-white expectations of the public.

B: living up to them, at the expense of doing the job that you are elected to do.

The comments to this entry are closed.

brain food

american politics

british politics


my other places