I am profoundly shocked this morning. Yet again a thoroughly decent man has been hounded from office by the paranoia and narrow minded venality of the media and the electorate.
I find it hard to credit that in the 21st century we can show no more compassion towards David Laws than we displayed with the witches of yore.
We are so fixated on our narrow definition of morality, drawn from the mystical books of our Gods, that we lose sight of the very human requirements for warmth and comfort in our life. In our insistence that those human needs are acquired in one way and one way only, we have denounced possibly the most able Treasury Secretary we could have had.
The media are at their sly best this morning, pretending that Lawâs downfall was due to a gay witch hunt that belongs to a bygone era.
When the stark truth is that the ‘avarice that dare not bare its name’ was to blame.
Can we not accept in the 21st century that the mere fiddling of expenses is not sufficient reason to part with a Treasury Secretary? That having the keys to the nationâs handbag is not good enough reason to deny a man the right to the warmth and comfort of dipping his hand in the till occasionally?
The laws that condemned a man to hide his love for another man were changed 30 odd years ago and yet the media crusade for us to condemn another love.
Nick Clegg has said that David Lawâs privacy has been âcruelly shatteredâ â and it is true. The love for a few shekels of the tax payerâs hard work has been exposed to view; it should have been allowed to remain in the privacy of his accountantâs office.
What goes on between a human being and his expenses sheet, should, in these enlightened times, be private, and remain between those sheets.
James Forsyth has described the events as a âdisaster for our public life, the coalition and the nationâs financesâ â he says it was âhard not to well upâ on reading Lawâs resignation statement. Scarcely an overstatement of the disgrace the nation must feel this morning â a man forced to hide his true love in life behind the perfectly legal activity of homosexuality.
Iain Dale writes in the Daily Mail âit just goes to show that if you go into politics nowadays and are not openâ about your private predilections they âmay come back to haunt you in a big wayâ.
Of course, the millionaire Mr Laws could have chosen financial celibacy as a way of dealing with his proclivities. He could have denied himself the stolen pleasure of that Â£40,000. As Iain Dale point out âwhat his critics are saying is that in 2006 he should have moved out of the flat he shared with his partner when the parliamentary rules changed to ban financial relationships between spouses and partnersâ â I think not Mr Dale. What the critics are saying is that he should have stopped claiming the money actually. Then he wouldnât have been forced to invoke the pink tafia to put up a smokescreen to hide his illegal proclivities.
Dale goes on to say:
“Are we really insisting that if all our politicians arenât whiter than white, they should quit? Itâs a very strange logic. If that rule had applied in the 20th Century we would certainly have been deprived of the services of both Lloyd George and Churchill.”
Quite right Mr Dale, the British are inherently troughophobic. It must be stamped out. Troughophilia should hold its head up high, and not hide its shame and shelter behind the beard of homosexuality.
It is a sad fact that without the âgayâ element, this story would not be so big.
Who introduced the gay element Mr Dale? Up until now, only Law’s constiuents, friends and familes knew he was gay – someone decided that everyone should know – why? Could it be that the person caught with their fingers in the till decided that it was a reasonable excuse? They could have stopped claiming when the rules changed, could have decided that their privacy must be preserved.
Men in powerful positions have succumbed to the pleasures of âhelping themselvesâ for thousands of years, deceitfully so, without being able to tell their Mothers. They have been forced to take gainful employment as a cover for their secret vice. They have agonised over the fear of exposure, been afraid to take annual holidays for fear that the company accountant might unravel their sordid secret. It has to stop.
Surely the British public is big enough to cope with a trougher at the heart of the Treasury?
We must outlaw troughophobia; and the practice of shouting âthiefâ at those who practice a totally natural desire to have more than they are entitled to. Children must receive education at a tender age to stamp out the abhorrent bullying they endure when they filch Johnson minorâs pocket money. No longer will we stand for thieves being excluded from positions of trust and fidelity.
Poor David Laws – from Closet to Cabinet and back to Closet again – via the Till. Now forced to wish his Lundie’s in public.
Ronnie Biggs for Chancellor say I.