It is a bizarre world out there.
Israel refuses to join in talks to rid the Middle East of nuclear weapons – which raises the temperature out there, but highlights the hypocrisy of those who are asking for the de-nuking of some countries while retaining the edge given by owning their own. US forces have been killing Afghans by mistake (some comfort) and the financial precipice on which the world stands continues to crack and wobble under the weight of contradictory pressures. A precarious world…
So, what are we obsessing about here in England? A gay government minister who felt compelled to file housing expenses in order not to let any snoopers into the reality of his sexuality. Had David Laws not filed for housing expenses in London, you can bet your life someone would have outed him as gay – something he didn’t want. And, at the point of writing this, it appears he has tendered his resignation to David Cameron – the first casualty of the new regime.
David Laws seems to have broken the rules on expenses. He should repay them. But, the other questions remain and they have to do with the culture we have come to accept:
- Why should he (and others) in the first place have to fear media intrusion into areas of his private life that have no bearing on his ministerial office? I know I have been here before, but why do we give the media the right to hold people in public life to ransom in this way? The Telegraph has said (creditably, in my view) that they had no intention of touching on his sexuality in exposing his expenses breach, but that he outed himself last night. I would love to know how the Telegraph would have exposed his breach without exposing his sexuality and identifying his partner.
- Who gains what from his resignation – other than another ‘story’ for the media? Why do we think the world benefits from resignations?
An interesting light is shone on this question by an article in the Frankfurter Rundschau (titled Enough repentance, Frau Käßmann) today regarding the former Bishop of Hannover in Germany. Margot Käßmann resigned in February after being stopped for crossing a red light while well over the drink-drive limit. Thousands of people – including journalists – pleaded with her not to stand down, but, like Martin Luther himself, she felt, “here I stand, I can do no other”. She went and was universally applauded for her courage, integrity and dignity in taking responsibility for her serious error.
Now, however, many people in Hannover want her back. This wasn’t her intention (she is about to go to the USA for three months to teach before leaving Hannover in time for her successor to be elected in November), but her popularity was in evidence in Munich recently when she was the main attraction at the Ecumenical Kirchentag. Now it seems even the media are calling for her to come back – she acted with complete integrity and paid a huge price and justice was done, but that does not mean she can’t come back. Her re-election would also solve the problem of what the church can do with such a charismatic and popular leader who is always going to attract attention and cannot help but overshadow her successor at both Landeskirche and EKD level.
Her authority was re-established at the precisely the moment it was most compromised. This also proved that the mistake of February did not overshadow her credibility.
[Contrasting her decison to resign with the reluctant sacking by the Pope of the RC Bishop of Augsburg after what the journalist called 'deception, lying and whitewashing'], Käßmann’s behaviour has shown her to have character and understand the gravity of her role… Käßmann resigned without a Plan B and this gives substance to her words of regret/repentance – even if she were to come back… Enough repentance, Frau Käßmann! Your return to office would be for the church the best evidence of what you preach. Credibility is not to be confused with infallibility. And: there is a second chance – not a cheap ‘business as usual’, but a reflective ‘now for something new’.
I wonder if we in Britain would have the courage to request the return of David Laws whose resignation has been forced by personal agony rather than greedy ambition? And how would the press have reported this story without outing him?
May 29, 2010 at 7:48 pm
I think that the Telegraph can plead all that it wanted that they had no intention of outing his as Gay. I am afraid that I do not accept that line.
The information must have been in their possession since the Expenses Scandal last year, but they chose to hold on and use it when they could do most damage.
If the Telegraph were happy with the Coalition, I doubt if they would have used the information in this way – it strikes me that their integrity is now very much in question, while that of David Laws remains intact.
May 29, 2010 at 8:03 pm
I don’t think the press could have reported the story without outing him, and I tend to think that Jeremy Browne was right in his interview on radio 4 this morning with John Humphreys. The gist of what Browne was saying is that the press went after the story not because of the expenses issue, but because of the ‘human story’ and the man behind it. As he rightly points out–why are we getting hung up on this minor issue, which could be sorted out through clarification of what a ‘partner’ actually is, when the economy is in such a dreadful state and needs real expertise and skill in guiding us to a better situation?
I hope it gets sorted. It’s a pity to see talented people who are truly interested in helping the country getting ‘burned up’ by our insatiable appetite for scandalous stories.
Yes, we need honesty and integrity, but we can get it without these prurient witch hunts.
May 29, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Thanks for this. I went a bit further in my blog in raising questions about the Telegraph, so was particularly interested to find some of my questions reflected here.
May 30, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Sorry but I think the idea that this is a gay rights issue is ‘spin’. I don’t doubt he wanted to keep his private life private but that is not a valid defence for claiming money to which you’re not entitled.
The Lib Dems and David Laws personally made great political capital of being squeaky clean re expenses in the General Election but he’s made it explicitly clear that he knew his arrangements were in breach of the rules while making these claims.
I feel desperately sorry for anyone who is outed by the media but if he really thought this was not going to happen then he has
at the least he’s shown a serious lack of judgement and political nouse – 2 things that are arguably more important than a Cambridge degree and millionaire status if you are going to succeed in politics.
Having admitted claiming public money to which he knew he was not entitled – whatever the reasons – he would have been a completely lame duck as the front man for cuts in public services and benefits.
I feel sorry for him but I think he was right to go.
May 30, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Pink News has an interesting editorial on the issue here:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/05/30/comment-david-lawss-gay-secrecy-is-understandable-what-is-not-is-why-so-many-lib-dems-end-up-being-forced-to-come-out/#
May 30, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Deniability… The new watchword of Politicians and, dare I day it, ordinary folk as well.
We have watched so many of our so-called leaders being brought to account for some excesses in expenses claims, Expenses for which they were actually entitled… It was only the Telegraph with its lurid headlines and impetus that rocketed this to the national consciousness,
Today, we have witnessed the destruction of David Laws – possibly the best economist in the Government who could have helped us all in the battle to save our economy…
His reasoning … he tried so hard to protect his private life.
What worries me is that all this ranting and exposure is starting to have a negative drip down effect on professional and private family life. Indeed, members of the Civil Service who are hard working and very conscientious in carrying out their duties are now too scared to voice any opinion when they see blatant abuse of power from Government.
The whole question of dishonesty amongst our leaders is beginning to lead to suspicions amongst families and couples – the National press stuff eventually becomes a sort of canker in the side of the nation … Trust and honesty are held to be suspect… This a slow but inexorable destruction of Public trust that then filters down to the personal and family.
A as a nation of families and ordinary people we find ourselves at the mercy of politicians, then start emulating and re-enacting those same shabby revelations in our own lives and thus reproducing mistrust, blatant distrust and so starting to undermine all the values that we purport to uphold.
Is this not a moment in time when, as Christians or whoever else who struggle to uphold the true value of love and care, should start to question both the media and its values that are pervading our society – in other words, lets get things back in perspective.
May 30, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I am afraid I have little sympathy for Mr Laws. He could have rented a flat like hundreds of other MPs do. His partner could have stayed there. He would have got his rent paid no problem. I would have had more sympathy for him if the Lib Dems in general and David Laws in particular were not so sanctimonious on this very issue (see for example the Yeovil Lib Dems website)He also adopted a very hard line for prudence with taxpayers’ money and incredibly enough was touted as a future PM for his stance on civil service pot plants (I kid you not see the Wall Street Journal)He is also a VERY wealthy man who needed no state subsidy to (quite legitimately) keep his private life to himself.
He would have benefited from reading the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant.
May 30, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Pam, Neil and Ronnie, I agree that it was right for him to resign, but I was questioning what lies behind our thinking that resignation achieves anything more than self-righteous smugness on the part of press or public (some members thereof). It is not a ‘gay rights’ issue, Pam, but the disingenuousness of the media in matters like this is of wider concern. How many journalists will now be trying to drain more ‘stuff’ from his friends, family, etc – all, of course, ‘in the pubic interest’?
May 31, 2010 at 4:56 am
Hi Nick Baines.
Sorry, only way I found to make contact with you.
Heard your interview on Canadian CBC AIH re your FIFA soccer World Cup prayers.
As a none sports follower found your application inspiring and conducive to adding to good will.
I would not know, but if you have not yet done similarly for elections I would encourage the same while helping ordinary citizens understand how we do not have democratic self-government but an elite few within our parties divide and rule our respective nations as a privilege ruling class. Much peace and justice possible if we take back our democracy http://www.eduardhiebert.com/ereform/v123p.htm and if interested, I would be happy to give you a call at a mutally convenient time.
Advancing peace & justice through legitimate collective self-rule.
Eduard
May 31, 2010 at 1:26 pm
We cannot blame the press for this. The Telegraph’s revelations on MP’s expenses some months ago were a landmark event in our recent history. Their journalists deserve a great deal of credit.
I think there are 5 MP’s / Lords awaiting trial for fraud ?
As much as I hate the Daily Mail, a free press is one of the foundation stones of our democracy
David Laws, for all his gifts, was very stupid to think that his partner did not qualify as a ‘spouse’. I do not want stupid people in my government.
KK
May 31, 2010 at 4:24 pm
[...] Gaza, Germany, Israel, Koehler, Margot Kässmann, resignation | Leave a Comment Following my post on the resignation of UK Government Minister David Laws (in the light of Bishop Margot [...]
May 31, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Your question is good. The resignation does nothing per se but if the incident encouraged Lib Dems to be a little less sanctimonious then it won’t have been entirely without use. Furthermore is it too forlorn to hope that politicians might learn to be less judgmental with ‘benefit scroungers’ and the like who often come from less privelleged backgrounds than them?
May 31, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Well said Nick, sometimes I wonder who is actually running the country and what their agenda is. Sanctimonious is an adjective I would apply to the Telegraph as much as the Liberal party over this. We see other parts of the press actively encouraging people to break the law in a sting so that they can report it and claim that they are doing a public service. We see the press having much to much influence, not in reporting but in having a go at people in authority. Are we focussing on the right issues and who is holding the press accountable. If we need an accountable and transparent parliament, and we do, then surely the same is true for the press and the media.
How do we start a campaign to get Mr Laws back and to say, yes he did wrong, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Surely this is a place for love and forgiveness not for throwing out a really first class guy who the country needs.
May 31, 2010 at 9:12 pm
I think you are seeing the resignation as symbolic blood letting Nick, whereas I see it as a political necessity.
This is a man who was tasked with cutting public expenditure – and no doubt about it, the rhetoric of cutting money to ‘benefit cheats’ would have come into it – it always does.
People are prosecuted and sent to prison every week for claiming benefit as single people when they are cohabiting. And the definition of cohabiting is nowhere near as refined as David Laws’ definition, ie sharing a social life and a bank account. Sharing a house and a bed is enough. As far as I know the system is fairly unforgiving and pleas that you claimed a single persons’ allowance to maintain your privacy cut very little ice.
You can argue that the systems are not the same but they are very similar.
There is also a very clear guideline that your actions should not *make it look as if* a family member, partner or business associate is benefiting.
The results of the commissioner’s enquiry to which he referred himself will not be in for months. It will not just look at the rent he should not have claimed (and he now acknowledges he should not have) but possibly also his past claims for maintenance which dropped dramatically after the system changed so invoices had to be presented. He may well be exonerated of blame but it is far from clear cut at the moment. So he is innocent until proved guilty but will have the investigation hanging over him for several months during a politically demanding time.
Far be it from me to try and analyse what has been going on in his head and as I have said this must be a very difficult time for him personally. However I don’t quite understand the logic of his statement that he did not think his living arrangements qualified as a partnership but that he decided to continue claiming in order to cover up the fact that he was in a relationship.
Of course as Christians we should ‘judge not lest we be judged.’ Believe me I am not judging him. We all make mistakes, particularly where our emotions are involved.
However, both he and the leader of his party *have* expressed judgements about others who have been caught out in the expenses scandal – many of them, it has to be said, with a considerably less clear rule breach against them.
Jesus is particularly hard on those who don’t show mercy to others – so it ill behoves any of us to be merciless to anyone who is caught up in such events. I do as I said feel very sorry for him.
However, given his position and the task he was about to do, and how compromised that would be by these revelation, I feel it’s better it came out now rather than later and also that (as I already said) his resignation was morally. politically and personally the right thing to do.
June 9, 2010 at 3:23 pm
I feel very sorry for David Laws. He is clearly a good man. While I disagree with his policies, I cannot but see them as those of a man with integrity. It is sad that an able man should be forced out of the government.
That said, his behaviour cannot be excused. He lied about his use of public money: he did this deliberately and consciously. This is not a case of receiving poor advice from the parliamentary officials. He could not have been unaware of the rule: it was brought in during his time in parliament. He made a deliberate choice to ignore the rule and to lie about doing it.
Yes, the Telegraph has behaved dishonourably (surprise surprise). Yes, his resignation is bad news for the government and potentially for the country. However, if our politics is going to have any ethical credibility, there cannot but be censure for people who have broken the rules in the way that Mr Laws has.