David Laws - corrupt hypocrite?

lostinrates

chucky wrote: »

you can start with every single political party. they all have the same standards. these sleaze issues aren't exclusive to the Brown or Blair governments.

for me these type of stories along with the expenses scandal are all a bit of a waste of time and a distraction. it switches attention from the real issues that need to be addressed not only by the coalition govt but by every political party.

I agree on every count, but I would ad that although these low standards are throughout the political spectrum, they are not throughout all politicians. I disagree with nearly new,I don't think they are all rotten just that a fair percentage of them are.

Wookster

Rupert_Bear wrote: »

Its a fair cop and I suggest he stops using the Gay card as the reasons for being so, so dishonest. .

As far as I know (from my gay friends) there are two steps to be crossed as part of being gay. One is coming to terms with it in yourself, accepting that and resolving any shame issues that it brings up. The second is making disclosures to people around you. Like it or not, there is still an enormous amount of stigma about sexual orientation.

The ease of these steps varies enormously from person to person. It isn't really fair for you to make judgements such as these until you know all of that person's circumstances - which no one can.

chucky

Wookster wrote: »

As far as I know (from my gay friends) there are two steps to be crossed as part of being gay. One is coming to terms with it in yourself, accepting that and resolving any shame issues that it brings up. The second is making disclosures to people around you. Like it or not, there is still an enormous amount of stigma about sexual orientation.

The ease of these steps varies enormously from person to person. It isn't really fair for you to make judgements such as these until you know all of that person's circumstances - which no one can.

the man is a politician, a member of the cabinet and serves the country.
he's made a career decision to be in the public spotlight. he made that choice all by himself.

being gay or not gay has little to do with it - it has every thing to do with him taking £40,000 from his expenses so that he could circumvent it to fro gain by his partner, heter sexual or homo sexual - it's not important.

the gay issue is a smoke screen that deflects the real criticism of him that he cheated in his expenses by appealing to people to feel some sort of sympathy towards him so that they may feel a bit sorry for him.

ninky_2

absolutely disgraceful.

there is no excuse for homophobia (internalised or otherwise) in modern politics. by saying he wanted to keep his relationship 'secret', david laws is sending out a message that there is something shameful about it. a very cowardly act imho. i was 'out' at the age of 14 - despite a homophobic roman catholic mother. i dealt with being spat at and bullied. if a 14 year old girl can cope with it then a 40 year old man certainly can. and the world has moved on a lot since then. we no longer have section 28 and there is the option of civil partnerships that weren't around when i was a teen. queer people (and some of the straight people) have fought long and hard for the rights we have now. it's insulting for david laws to use homophobia as an excuse. funny how it was to his financial benefit.

even worse is cleggeron coming out saying what an 'honourable man' he is. does that mean that every person in the country can now commit fraud on the basis of wanting to be 'private'? the state expects every single one of us to declare our marital and relationship status - regardless of whether we'd rather keep it private or not. people who claim benefits as a single person when they are infact cohabiting (whether straight or gay) face criminal proceedings. why should a politician be exempt?

chucky

ninky wrote: »

absolutely disgraceful.

there is no excuse for homophobia (internalised or otherwise) in modern politics. by saying he wanted to keep his relationship 'secret', david laws is sending out a message that there is something shameful about it. a very cowardly act imho. i was 'out' at the age of 14 - despite a homophobic roman catholic mother. i dealt with being spat at and bullied. if a 14 year old girl can cope with it then a 40 year old man certainly can. and the world has moved on a lot since then. we no longer have section 28 and there is the option of civil partnerships that weren't around when i was a teen. queer people (and some of the straight people) have fought long and hard for the rights we have now. it's insulting for david laws to use homophobia as an excuse. funny how it was to his financial benefit.

even worse is cleggeron coming out saying what an 'honourable man' he is. does that mean that every person in the country can now commit fraud on the basis of wanting to be 'private'? the state expects every single one of us to declare our marital and relationship status - regardless of whether we'd rather keep it private or not. people who claim benefits as a single person when they are infact cohabiting (whether straight or gay) face criminal proceedings. why should a politician be exempt?

i'm sure that you'll now be called a raving loony leftie or a crazy socialist just because you've questioned the 'highly credible' new government.

ash28

treliac wrote: »

The last govt set the standards in sleaze, imo. This one had better learn fast or it'll go the same way. I don't feel the need to defend any particular party, not being hidebound in political affiliation. Any party that lets the electorate down deserves its retribution.

I have been hopeful that change will bring something better. We desperately need standards in public life to be raised. It will be up to the new govt as to whether it can deliver that.

I hope there are enough 'honourable men' to be found. In this age of media attention and quick dissemination of information, it won't take long for skeletons to escape from the cupboard!

I have to disagree with your first paragraph I'm afraid - the last Tory administration were pretty high up there IMHO - but it wasn't expenses scandals.

Just off the top of my head I can remember

Neil Hamilton
Jonathan Aitkin
Jeffrey Archer (deputy chairman)
David Mellor
Michael Heseltine
Peirs Merchant
Tim Smith
Graham Riddick
plus a number who resigned for "past indiscretions"
there were still muttering back then about Michael Ashcroft - he was party treasurer

Labour may have won in the expenses stakes in the last administration by a fair margin - but in the sleaze stakes the last Tory administration have it by landslide.

A._Badger

ash28 wrote: »

Labour may have won in the expenses stakes in the last administration by a fair margin - but in the sleaze stakes the last Tory administration have it by landslide.

What set the last government apart from any of its predecessors was the refusal of its ministers to resign when caught-out. That and the ease with which some of them, Mandelson to name the most obvious miscreant, were reinstated time and again.

That compounds corruption with arrogance.

silvercar

ninky wrote: »

absolutely disgraceful.

there is no excuse for homophobia (internalised or otherwise) in modern politics. by saying he wanted to keep his relationship 'secret', david laws is sending out a message that there is something shameful about it. a very cowardly act imho. i was 'out' at the age of 14 - despite a homophobic roman catholic mother. i dealt with being spat at and bullied. if a 14 year old girl can cope with it then a 40 year old man certainly can. and the world has moved on a lot since then. we no longer have section 28 and there is the option of civil partnerships that weren't around when i was a teen. queer people (and some of the straight people) have fought long and hard for the rights we have now. it's insulting for david laws to use homophobia as an excuse. funny how it was to his financial benefit.

even worse is cleggeron coming out saying what an 'honourable man' he is. does that mean that every person in the country can now commit fraud on the basis of wanting to be 'private'? the state expects every single one of us to declare our marital and relationship status - regardless of whether we'd rather keep it private or not. people who claim benefits as a single person when they are infact cohabiting (whether straight or gay) face criminal proceedings. why should a politician be exempt?

Just because you came out at 14 does not mean that David Laws has to. The fact he chose to keep his relationship hidden from his parents is his choice not yours.

It wasn't really to his financial benefit, he could have claimed more had he been more open about the relationship. In fact the idea that it is fraud when he claimed something disallowed under one rule, but could have claimed twice as much under another, makes it a bit of a grey area in my eyes.

chucky

A._Badger wrote: »

What set the last government apart from any of its predecessors was the refusal of its ministers to resign when caught-out. That and the ease with which some of them, Mandelson to name the most obvious miscreant, were reinstated time and again.

That compounds corruption with arrogance.

have i missed something or were these two part of the last government?

Jonathan Aitken = convicted

Jeffrey Archer (Conservattive party deputy chairman) = convicted for perjury in two separate cases.

Mr A. Badger = In, Glass, throw, stones, houses, shouldn't, people

Wookster

silvercar wrote: »

Just because you came out at 14 does not mean that David Laws has to. The fact he chose to keep his relationship hidden from his parents is his choice not yours.

It wasn't really to his financial benefit, he could have claimed more had he been more open about the relationship. In fact the idea that it is fraud when he claimed something disallowed under one rule, but could have claimed twice as much under another, makes it a bit of a grey area in my eyes.

Exactly!

Well said.

I still have yet to see how his arrangements disadvantaged the purse? Perhaps someone make a strong case, rather than just rattling off the terms lying b@st@d...