Paradox of Honour

GeorgeOsborne& DavidLaw

Chancellor Osborne (left background) with Chief Secretary Law (right foreground)

The Tory Whig Coalition suffered its first loss and the Blair Brown Regime gained their first sleazy victory. British Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Law tendered his resignation. Whig MP for Yeovil, David Law did something that British voters once took for granted, he made a principled decision, placing honour before self. Thirteen years of Blair Brown Regime misrule followed a different path when Ministers only resigned if they had done nothing wrong, whilst crooks and incompetents clung on until beaten off the tree by outraged public opinion.



So in this situation, which is new to those without much knowledge of British politics beyond the last thirteen years, what happened.

The story is complex even if David Law acted promptly with integrity.

As a member of the Whig negotiating team he came immediately onto the radar of twice-disgraced mortgage fraudster Mandelson and Blair Brown Regime Liar in Chief Campbell who as unelected members of the Blair Brown Regime had tried to rob the British voters by attempting to tie up a very dirty deal with the Whigs. Law was one person who went on their hit list for his part in thwarting their plans.

Then Law refused to take part in a television programme where Unelected Campbell had been put forward as a representative of the rump of the Blair Brown Regime in opposition. That must have proved a very strong personal insult to a man with admitted mental illness who once considered himself above the law.

The story emerging is that Mandelson and Campbell did what they do best and that was to slither over to the Daily Telegraph with a story about David Law. In the coming days we will probably find out if they did that directly themselves or used a proxy.

The story was that Law was homosexual, living with his boyfriend and claiming for rent on a room owned by his lover.

David Law appears to have been very frank in his response to this allegation which will be investigated by the Commons regulator for expenses under the new system of expenses rules. It is possible that Law may have been found not to have committed an offense under the rules. Had he been in a heterosexual marriage, or a common law marriage, claiming rent on property own by his partner it would clearly have been against the rules, even if the rent was a reasonable rate for accommodation near to Parliament and the partner was charging no more than would be charged to any lodger. It is assumed that a homosexual couple living in a civil partnership would also had offended had one claimed as an MP for rent on accommodation owned by the partner.

In David Law’s case it appears that he, an intensely private man, did not want to make public his sexuality and his relationship appears to be less than a full partnership, possibly a relationship that sits somewhere between a long term, but casual, arrangement and a full partnership. Certainly, neither man has previously been public about their relationship and they have no shared financial arrangements, living in many respects as two separate people. That may be sufficiently outside the written rules that no offense has been committed.

David Law appears to have carefully considered the situation since being smeared, and decided that although he would have been entitled to continue in his Government position, the personal stress and the impact a protracted story would have on the vital business of a Government cleaning up the mess left by the Blair Brown Regime would detract from the essential task of cutting Government waste and reigning in the swollen public debt.

Two decades ago, this would have been unremarkable. A Minister under a cloud, even if possibly blameless, would have been expected to immediately offer his resignation and probably see his political career destroyed for ever.

The paradox is that politicians of integrity have become a rare and valuable commodity. While resignation underlines their integrity and sense of honour, it immediately costs the country the services of a very effective and valuable politician. In David Law’s case, he had been selected to do a vital job for which he seemed perfectly suited, the right man, at the right time, for the right job. His replacement will have to work very hard to come up to the standards set at Treasury by David Law.

Law’s situation is a personal tragedy, let us hope it is not a national tragedy for Britain.

It is very difficult not to be cynical after the corrupt and corrupting Blair Brown Regime. There is a natural, if unreasonable, suspicion that we have not yet heard the full story. However, if it proves that we already know all there is to be known about the situation, it is to be hoped that an honourable man may yet return to serve his country.


Leave a Reply