Some seem surprised I am so angry with David Laws. These letter writers to the Guardian would not be; especially the last who hits the nail on the head with remarkable succinctness:
Even in Yeovil there are people who claim housing benefit, and local MP David Laws must have constituents who have been refused HB because South Somerset district council believed they have a "contrived tenancy" in which "their liability to pay rent has been created to take advantage of the HB scheme". You can't get HB if your landlord is a relative or a partner. Some of Mr Laws's constituents may even have faced prosecution for fraud because they tried to do so. What's the moral or legal difference?
Pete Ruhemann
Reading, Berkshire
• I for one wouldn't care if he was in a relationship with a green Martian, but object with rage at the idea that yet another of our great and good politicians turns out to be a cheat.
Kathleen Hines
Some may have noticed I am not a great fan of cheats.
Nor, I am pleased to say is Polly Toynbee who deals with another dimension of the issue quite adroitly:
On resigning, David Laws said: "How much I regret having to leave such vital work, which I feel all my life has prepared me for." How odd that his relished life goal was to cast people out of work.
I regret the manner of his fall, but not the departure of one who expressed little sympathy for the lives of others being damaged by a too harsh interpretation of economic necessity.
Quite so.
And in glossing over his cheating (for that is what it was) I note the Tories willingly apply one rule to their own and another to those whose lives they are seeking to destroy: those on benefit in this country.
And yes, that does sicken me.
And I’m happy to say it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think your anger might not have reached it’s high point, according to the guardian he’s back in an advisory role, so not only will he be making cuts, but he will not be answerable to parliament for them!
You may say “adroitly” but I’d say “unconvincingly” – because Polly Toynbee presents no evidence to support her claim that “his relished life goal was to cast people out of work”.
That’s a pretty strident and damning accusation to make; don’t you think such a claim should be supported by some evidence?
The quote from Laws itself isn’t evidence to support that particular claim because of course there are many different ways in which someone might view the “vital work” of sorting out the nation’s finances. For example, that sorting them out is necessary to protect both public services and jobs which otherwise will both suffer much.
Clearly that’s not the interpretation Polly Toynbee takes, but shouldn’t she present some evidence to back up her view rather than simply assert that it must be true?
@Mark Pack
For heaven’s sake – Polly (and I) are are allowed to assume that you know the context in which a comment is made
A commitment to massive state cuts was that context – the inevitable consequence of which is millions (yes I mean millions) losing their jobs.
And the evidence that this will not cut deficits is also widely known to exist – and is overwhelming to all but those who for pure dogma hate the state so much they will do anything to limit its size and put those who work for it into unemployment – even at massive cost to the private sector and the benefit of the country at large
To make this point does not need reference to the whole body of literature that supports the case
We are entitled to think informed observers might have some familiarity with it
David Laws is typical of the pious type who casts himself as brave enough to take the ‘tough decisions’ for other people yet quite craven about taking them for himself.
How life in the House of Morgan prepares you for government of the 99.99% who have nothing to do with investment banking,I fail to see.
Richard: you rather undo your often thoughtful commentary with the sweeping generalisation that someone who disagrees with you on the fiscal impact of a particular policy is someone who is simply dominated by “pure dogma hate the state”.
Do you really think it’s only possible for someone to disagree with you if they are filled with dogmatic hate of the state? No possibility that someone might have other reasons for taking a different view to yours? That seems a remarkable claim to infallibility! Especially in the area of economics.
But even if that’s what you believe, that’s still short of making the leap from saying “someone wants to cut jobs” to framing it as “his relished life goal”.
Again, you seem to be backing yourself into the corner by arguing that it’s only possible for someone to disagree with you if they love sacking people. Really?
@Mark Pack
And respectfully, you as an editor show considerable inability if you think every comment article that disagrees with your own opinion is one that must be fully referenced to original source material.
As for backing myself into a corner – far from it
It’s just those of the liberal persuasion (and I note you are) are somewhat unaccustomed to robust, reasoned and appropriate analysis of your position
Most of you have not experienced it in your lifetime. When it happens you say the opponent is an extremist. Or backing themselves into a corner. Or can’t argue.
Actually the problem is yours: you can’t see that your assumption that your position is the end of history is simply wrong – that you’ve paddled up a dead end from which you have no way out, bar admitting you’re wrong
Your bi-polar view that there is state and non state, and that the former is bad and the latter good is myopic, illogical, dangerous, naive…I could go on – you get the point I’m sure.
Those of us who argue for the mixed economy, a caring community, oblique decision making, joyous inconsistency in the face of ever changing facts that require we respond appropriately – and therefore differently frequently – whose concern is for people and not dogma – so unlike those of liberal belief – are happy to say you’re wrong becasue, to put it bluntly, you fail to understand the human condition.
I beg to suggest those I work with do understand that condition better – not perfectly
But we do know your dogma won’t work
And we’re offering you a valuable lesson in being opposed – which has too rarely been the case for far too long – whilst doing so
But let’s be clear – it’s you who’s in a corner – and utterly wrong. Your rationality – for that is all you pin your hopes on – is a contrary to all human nature
And that’s why you have to be the ones who eventually back out of the corner
Richard, you’ve made a lot of statements there about what you think I believe and have experienced and it’s not an accurate picture.
I’ll just take two as examples: (1) I’m very used to people disagreeing robustly with me (that’s part of what comes with being a blogger!), and (2) I believe in the mixed economy and don’t subscribe to the ‘end of history’ argument.
Impressive though that you are so happy to be so sure about so many things about what I think or have done. Would be a mite more impressive if the list was close to accurate (or, boring, boring, you’d presented any evidence such as quotes from me to show why you were so sure that those must be my views), but hey – you can’t have everything 🙂
If Mr Laws falsely claimed £40,000 fro the tax payers as benefits – Would he not be prosecuted? So if this paragon of Cuts allegedly has done the same while mocking the moat cleaners and Duck islanders etc, does not the Crown prosecution Service need to mount a prosecution.
Should Cleggie not withdraw the Whip ?
And How DARE he Stand for Yeovil as MP now?
By the way I’m glad he has found love in his life.
Pointless argument guys!
@Mark Pack
Amazing response
You arrived here presenting a pedant’s argument that all claims had to be referenced or they must be dismissed
And now without offering any evidence whatsoever you say I’m wrong when I have presented reasoned argument to rebut your claim
You claim you’re used to this argument thing
Not much evidence is being revealed of that fact here
So I’d suggest you pop back to your own blog
Maybe they take your claims seriously there