Laws oh Lordy

Over the weekend you will no doubt have been made aware (from various different angles) of how evil David Laws is and of how he should be summarily strung up from the nearest tree the moment the press manage to get hold of him.  I personally think that the way he has been treated is disgraceful, and here's why.

To many Conservatives David Laws was (and probably still is) the best Liberal Democrat in Parliament.  His beliefs in Gladstonian and Social Liberalism aligned him nicely with a lot of Conservative policy and even earmarked him as a potential defector, with George Osborne even offering him a seat in the Shadow Cabinet in 2007.

In his short tenure as Chief Secretary to the Treasury he further endeared himself to his new friends with his mature and progressive attitude to cuts coupled with his refusal of a pot plant for his new office (citing it as an unnecessary waste of Taxpayers' money) and his subsequent axing of the Treasury's plant budget.  His promising start even led to The Wall Street Journal publishing an article describing him as a potential "future Prime Minister".

However, it is not just for selfish, political reasons that I deplore the media's treatment of Mr. Laws; not in the slightest.  I also believe, wholeheartedly, that he did nothing wrong in the first place.

The facts are simple: over a five-year period, Mr. Laws claimed approximately £40,000 in accommodation expenses to rent a room in Kennington in South London; this works out at roughly £600 a month.  By my research and calculations (the cheapest flat I can find in Kennington costs at least £800 a month, before bills) this represents excellent value for money to the taxpayer.

However, the devil (as ever) is in the detail.  Parliamentary rules prohibit the leasing of property from a partner or family member; partner being defined as (and this is the very important part) spouse, civil partner or any other person with whom one lives in a similar manner.  The problem came when the Daily Telegraph decided to reveal that Mr. Laws was actually living with his long-term partner.

Mr. Laws states that he claimed the money in this way for two reasons:

1. He and his partner did not live together in a manner consistent with a married couple; they did not share bank accounts etc., and lived very much separate lives.
2. He felt unable to claim the appropriate allowance available to persons with a partner as he had no desire to make his sexuality public knowledge for fear of reprisals against him.

In his further defence, not only did he immediately agree to pay the money back upon being advised that his claims were not in line with the rules, but he referred himself for investigation by the Parliamentary Standards Committee, made a full and frank apology and also immediately tendered his resignation.

It is only a shame that Messrs. Cameron and Clegg felt obliged to accept such a resignation.

Here we have a man who, although he may have broken the rules, clearly acted according to the spirit of the rules (the clear opposite of so many of his disgraced colleagues) as he felt himself unable to put himself in a situation whereby he had any alternative.

He made no financial gain out of the situation and in fact claimed far less than he would have been entitled to had he felt able to make his sexuality public knowledge.  I do not believe that David Laws set out to deliberately (or even knowingly) defraud the taxpayer of this money and believe that he honestly believed that he was doing the right, and acceptable thing.

What's more, is that the Daily Telegraph now gives the impression that it is sitting on much more information about the expenses scandal which it is withholding and drip-feeding to the public when it feels it can make the most money out of it.  It says that all it wants is a clean break with new, honest politics, but that won't be achieved until all their information is made public.

The fact of the matter is, that the Daily Telegraph have hounded a fundamentally honest man and excellent minister out of office, and it is the country that will end up poorer for it.