So, as predicted, Laws has gone.
An interesting debate, as it goes. Some views deserve special mention.
According to the Guardian, I mentioned, but glossed over, a likely cause of his error of judgement.
Of course there was nothing to fear. But the human brain does not always work like that. And it is not hard to guess why. His mother is Catholic. Laws had a Catholic education. The news broadcast this morning, which reported his situation, went on to cover the Archbishop of Canterbury’s efforts to stop churches giving their blessing to gay partnerships. The world is less progressive than it sometimes seems from north London.
Ahh. Catholics. It’s a rather pluralist approach to sodomy they have, isn’t it? Apparently, it’s the ‘voluntary’ variety they object to.
This Graun piece also deals with the question of Laws’ motivation.
The closet causes crises. It is an unhappy place to live and David Laws is not the first person who, on being forced out, immediately talked about the "relief" of no longer having to lie. It is tempting to blame Laws himself: a man who had the ability and determination to earn a fortune by the age of 28, and be in a senior government job at 44, is obviously no shrinking violet. Why wasn’t he able to take control of his life and be honest and open with his friends and family and be proud of his relationship?
Back in the blogodrome, Constantly Furious sees the case in black and white terms:
This furore is absolutely bugger all (oops) to do with Laws’ sexuality and everything to do – as always in the ol’ expenses scandals – about a genuine deadly sin: Greed.
As I mulled the case over yesterday, I did indeed wonder what the Telegraph’s motivation was. Tory Bear addresses this question head on:
One thought that TB can’t get out of his head is this whole affair reeks of a stitch up. Who tipped The Telegraph to the name of the landlord/boyfriend? Who might have know about the former Chief Secretary’s expense arrangements? Former deputy leaders and presidents of parties are privy to that sort of information about their MPs. Who is on internal party manoeuvres? Who is in cahoots to see the left of Liberal Democrats have a stronger voice? Who are more opposed to the right-wing Laws that the likes of Vince Cable and Simon Hughes, both rocking the boats behind the scenes. Just sayin’.
Meanwhile, wielding his pink handbag of homo-hysteria, the rolling self-parody Iain Dale apparently hoped Laws would survive this episode because he’s gay.
What has become of Laws is, for all of us, a tragedy. We needed him to deliver the forthcoming cuts. Now we have a Scotsman doing it.
Have we ever tried allowing a Scotsman to handle the money before? And how did that work out?
Fred? Gordo? Al? Bueller?