This week we heard what a bad man David Laws has been, prompting one Labour MP breathlessly to write to Scotland Yard demanding a full criminal investigation. See the Guardian barely control its glee here.
So what do I think here at Liberal Tory? Well, aside from my almost unbridled agreement with Laws' political views, I can't help but feel that the public is being deprived of an intelligent and able minister.
I buy completely the argument that he wanted to protect his sexuality. Similarly, I buy the argument that he could have claimed more money by claiming for his home in Yeovil legitimately. So, there was no pernicious motive and no gain from his wrongdoing. Yet there was wrongdoing, so it is right that he should be punished in some form.
So, has he been punished? Absolutely. He has been effectively suspended from the cabinet for a year, publicly condemned and suspended from the House for a week.
So is it time he returned to government? Absolutely. If official forms of punishment are to mean anything, they have to be a way for people to atone for what they have done. If we do not provide atonement through punishment, then that punishment is simply revenge, a communal lashing out at someone who has displeased us. In the case of David Laws, when he has completed his suspension, he should be welcomed back immediately. As soon as the PM has an opening for him, he should retake his place on the front bench and I hope the PM finds that opening quickly.
I can't help but feel though, that a quick trip to the voters would be the best thing. If Laws' constituents are willing to forgive him and return him to Parliament, then their opinion should be the only one that counts. If they are not willing to forgive him, then he would have no mandate and no place in the house.
A couple of supplementary thoughts:
On Question Time this week, someone asked if a person hiding their relationship status when claiming housing benefit should be similarly forgiven. Well, yes if they hadn't profited from it and if their motives had been pure and if they had already received a suitable punishment. If any of these things aren't true, then obviously not.
What bothers you more, that David Laws broke the rules or that Gordon Brown has only made 1 speech in a debate this year while submitting 9 written questions and attending less than 14% of votes? Not bad for £65,000 is it? Compare those numbers to Laws' 3 speeches, 83 written questions and more than 63% voting record*. If you want an example of someone taking their constituents and the public for a ride, look to the Rt Honourable Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
*Figures from http://www.theyworkforyou.com.
So what do I think here at Liberal Tory? Well, aside from my almost unbridled agreement with Laws' political views, I can't help but feel that the public is being deprived of an intelligent and able minister.
I buy completely the argument that he wanted to protect his sexuality. Similarly, I buy the argument that he could have claimed more money by claiming for his home in Yeovil legitimately. So, there was no pernicious motive and no gain from his wrongdoing. Yet there was wrongdoing, so it is right that he should be punished in some form.
So, has he been punished? Absolutely. He has been effectively suspended from the cabinet for a year, publicly condemned and suspended from the House for a week.
So is it time he returned to government? Absolutely. If official forms of punishment are to mean anything, they have to be a way for people to atone for what they have done. If we do not provide atonement through punishment, then that punishment is simply revenge, a communal lashing out at someone who has displeased us. In the case of David Laws, when he has completed his suspension, he should be welcomed back immediately. As soon as the PM has an opening for him, he should retake his place on the front bench and I hope the PM finds that opening quickly.
I can't help but feel though, that a quick trip to the voters would be the best thing. If Laws' constituents are willing to forgive him and return him to Parliament, then their opinion should be the only one that counts. If they are not willing to forgive him, then he would have no mandate and no place in the house.
A couple of supplementary thoughts:
On Question Time this week, someone asked if a person hiding their relationship status when claiming housing benefit should be similarly forgiven. Well, yes if they hadn't profited from it and if their motives had been pure and if they had already received a suitable punishment. If any of these things aren't true, then obviously not.
What bothers you more, that David Laws broke the rules or that Gordon Brown has only made 1 speech in a debate this year while submitting 9 written questions and attending less than 14% of votes? Not bad for £65,000 is it? Compare those numbers to Laws' 3 speeches, 83 written questions and more than 63% voting record*. If you want an example of someone taking their constituents and the public for a ride, look to the Rt Honourable Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
*Figures from http://www.theyworkforyou.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment