I’m feeling dispirited this morning. A lot of people – including many of my good friends – have reacted belligerently to the news about David Laws.
Let’s be clear: by keeping his relationship private, David claimed less public money than he was entitled to. If he’d done what most people think he should have done, he would have cost us more. So that makes it simple: if you think he did something wrong, it cannot be because he was greedy with public funds – he clearly wasn’t – and your complaint must be about why he claimed less money from us than he was entitled to.
Ben Bradshaw – the openly gay MP for Exeter – scoffed yesterday and suggested it’s nonsense for anyone to keep their sexuality private in this day and age. Ben Summerskill, the preening chair of gay rights group Stonewall, said pretty much the same. What utter arses.
It’s 43 years since homosexuality was decriminalised in England and things are very, very different to the way they were. Nonetheless, I know dozens of people who are very effective as political advisers and consultants but refuse to stand for elected office themselves because they don’t want their private lives to be critiqued and compared to the man next door. For all the progress made, only 3% of MPs are openly gay. In the House of Lords, less than 0.3% of peers are. Many good people hide parts of their life or stay in the back rooms of politics because being elected is tough and being gay is still a source of anti-rapport on the doorsteps of Britain. It’s possible to win as an openly gay candidate these days, but it’s an added hurdle to overcome. And whatever others say, I think it’s ok not to be a trailblazer.
The problem arose because MPs can’t claim back their rent if they are living with their landlord “as spouses”. What does it mean to live “as spouses”? The rules don’t say. David and his partner kept their relationship very private. Apparently some of their friends didn’t even know. They left social gatherings at different times to avoid suspicion. So it makes sense that they didn’t consider themselves to be living traditionally “as man and wife”.
That kind of relationship will seem rather odd to most of us, and that’s the point. Most people these days pride themselves on being modern, inclusive and “gay-friendly”. It challenges them deeply that David didn’t mirror that back. It upsets their world view.
David Laws undoubtedly made an error of judgement. He should have realised that many London-based media types have a more enlightened attitude to same-sex relationships than he does himself, and it’s important to those people – as part of their fragile personas – that we all salute the rainbow flag and recognise David’s partner as a fully-fledged spouse, even if that’s not what he wants. By shunning the new norms and wanting his private life to be private, David reminds us at a critical time that the issue of homosexuality is still uncomfortable for some people. That was his downfall. When he was born, this kind of relationship was illegal. Not everyone is comfortable being open, even now. But it’s very un-PC to remind us of that. It rocks the boat. And that’s why he had to go.
Remember that he could have claimed for a whole house and let his partner live there rent free – that would have been within the rules. He could have charged for his partner to travel back and forth to Yeovil with him, and all kinds of other things too. In fact, he cost us very little. So this isn’t really about the money; it’s about facing the fact that, collectively, we haven’t progressed as far as we like to think we have. Having a same-sex partner is still awkward for some people. That’s the uncomfortable truth that David Laws represents.
What a thing to lose your job over. I don’t know how anyone can feel anything other than a lot of sadness for the guy, whatever you think of his politics.
Can I be useful? Coaching conversations are a wonderful way to explore your own ideas and get in touch with your natural clarity. Please visit this page for details of what I offer.
