David Laws spent less than three weeks as Britain’s Treasury secretary, resigning after a newspaper reported he was using taxpayer funds to pay rent to his boyfriend of nine years. Does he deserve your sympathy if you find out he was doing it just to stay in the closet?
Like American politics, in Britain just because you have a few out lawmakers here and there doesn’t make Downing Street and its surroundings the most welcoming place of all. Which is what Laws is claiming to be the reason he never revealed he was in a same-sex relationship when submitting paperwork for his housing expenses, the Independent reports.
But the real personal tragedy is that Mr Laws was, at the age of 44, “terrified” of revealing his homosexuality to his family – including his Catholic parents – and friends beyond his closest circle. This was the reason why the deeply private MP had allowed himself to become entangled in a situation which has forced him to resign after just 18 days in office. One friend, defending Mr Laws, said once the rules on paying rent to partners changed in 2006, he would have “effectively been outed” by the parliamentary authorities by declaring the arrangement. So he risked everything to keep the fact that he was gay a secret.
Laws, a Liberal Democrat, had an important role in the coalition government just installed, and led by the Conservative Party’s David Cameron:
Mr Laws was a key player in the negotiations that saw the Lib Dems form the coalition government with the Conservatives, and in the policy document published days later. To Mr Laws, being the “axeman” for the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government was a job he wanted and relished, rather than shied away from.
And it’s all come crumbling down, because Laws was either too scared to come out, risked his entire political career if he did, or both. That’s a terrible shame, and says less about Laws’ character than it does institutional homophobia. It also begs the question: Who here thinks if Laws was an out man he would’ve reached such a high office?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
jake
the party he represented is very gay friendly.
“terrified” of revealing his homosexuality to his family – including his Catholic parents..”
well, each situation is unique. i’m sure he would have eventually come out on his own terms.
clark
He got into trouble because his lover directly benefited from taxpayers’ money. He could have rented out a legitimate apartment for himself and never stay there. Or he didn’t need to receive any taxpayer funds in the first place. He had options. From what I’ve read about this mess, it was a pretty open secret that he was gay. I really don’t think this had anything to do with homophobia. This has more to do with Mr. Laws being ashamed and closeted. As we have seen here in this country, we know how that works out…..By the way, is it me or does he look a helluva lot older than 44?
Andy
It’s not about institutionalised homophobia, it’s about fraud. The guy’s a multi-millionaire, he could have paid his own way if he didn’t want to come out. And nobody actually cares about gay MPs in the UK either way – there’s plenty of them, in influential positions, in all three parties. (Even the Tories, which is odd.) Mind you, there seems to be a trend for high-profile Lib Dems being outed in awkward circumstances – expenses fraud for Laws, rent boys and (alleged) coprophilia for Mark Oaten, previously campaigning against Peter Tatchell by basically calling him a big fag for Simon Hughes…
tarxien
The previous government had several out gay cabinet ministers and even the Tories have some leading MPs who are openly gay. The Liberal Democrat party is even more gay-friendly than Labour and Conservatives so I really don’t think institutionalised homophobia had anything to do with this. His sexuality was well known in political circles and was not an issue. He got this job because he is a known right-winger who could be trusted to be ruthless in cutting welfare benefits etc.
He did not need to claim any housing expenses and his secret partner would have remained secret. He cheated to benefit his partner and got caught. He realized the hypocrisy of fiddling his expenses while cutting expenditure on the poorest groups in society and resigned. Now he’s playing the gay card to try to gain sympathy, but it hasn’t worked judging by the UK press today.
British voters are used to gay politicians. It really isn’t an issue anymore.
Kieran
The same argument could be made for New Jersey’s ex-Governor Jim McGreevy. He had the dream of being Governor of the state someday. He also had a secret….he was gay and he knew that openly gay men don’t get elected to high office because of society’s homophobia neurosis. So he was forced into a secret relationship and later forced to resign when the relationship came to light.
SSCHIEFRSHA
He still has my sympathy especially since he did not attempt to actively oppose same sex legislation in anyway. I still think he is the BEST man for the job though.
Cheryl Wright = ZZZ's (John From England)
@SSCHIEFRSHA:
Economic Liberalism didn’t work well for the USA, why will it work well for us??
How many more f*cked up Neo countries do we need to see before people get IT through their heads that this warped theory of a freemarket only benefits the rich?
I don’t want the UK like when Thatcher was around although I was a kid and I don’t want us to turn out like the US were everyone is so selfish, greedy and cruel that the sheer concept of having the NHS (free healthcare for all) is seen like some devils playground!
@ Queerty
We’re not you.
We’re not your country.
Do you know who Peter Mandleson is???? Google!
Do you know who Gordon Brown’s Chief whip was (most powerful in parliament?) Google!
We have PLENTY of senior gay MP’s and NO ONE cares about his blimming partner!
Henry Holland
No sympathy for him whatsoever. It was cringe-inducing to read him babbling on and on about how important “integrity” was to him, the clueless twat.
SM
If he didn’t want to come out, that’s his choice. But there would have been NO backlash, infact he probably would have been more high-profile, as parties attempt to prove their gay credentials.
But he stole 40k last year from tax payers, against the rules. And he’s a massive economic right-winger (and a lib-dem, just to add) – so good riddance to him – but based on his politics, not his sexuality.
cyberdoogi
In the last Labour government there were lots of gay people in the Cabinet. Up and down the length and breadth of Britain there are gay, lesbian and trans people in high office in local and regional government.
He is a multi-millionaire, if he’d wanted to keep his relationship and sexuality private he need not have claimed any expenses.
To me his sexuality is not an issue. What is the issue is that he stole taxpayers money and then tried to cover it up and was caught.
I don’t think a thief is the best person to be in charge of economic reform.
Tallskin
He’s a clueless twat as Henry Holland says
see my response at http://www.queerty.com/76-of-brits-dont-mind-if-gays-serve-in-the-cabinet-100-shouldnt-have-been-asked-the-question-20100601/comment-page-1/#comment-308546
he is a fucking millionaire and yet was ripping off the taxpayer for nearly £50k each year.