Balls reveals Economic Plans....George Osborne's

For the last 18 months Labour have been saying that the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition has been cutting too fast, they have stood along those in the public sector about their pay conditions etc. All the while many of us have asked what are their alternatives for this parliament then.

When finally the Guardian have got to the bottom of the issue in an interview with the Shadow Chancellor today.

Labour's alternative it seems is do exactly what is being done.

Balls says:

"My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts. There is a big squeeze happening on budgets across the piece. The squeeze on defence spending, for instance, is £15bn by 2015. We are going to have to start from that being the baseline. At this stage, we can make no commitments to reverse any of that, on spending or on tax. So I am being absolutely clear about that."

He also says:

"It is now inevitable that public sector pay restraint will have to continue through this parliament. Labour cannot duck that reality and won't. There is no way we should be arguing for higher pay when the choice is between higher pay and bringing unemployment down.

"I know there will be some people in the trade union movement and the Labour party who will think of course Labour has got to oppose that pay restraint in 2014 and 2015. That is something we cannot do, should not do and will not do."

So now we as Lib Dems know just what we have achieved. We have tamed the Conservative plans to make things fairer for those who are worst off than they initially planned and we have done it so well that the Labour party cannot improve on what we have managed to get unto the table.

Therefore plaudits to Danny Alexander and David Laws in the early days for setting up a fairness in the plan to help the UK recovery. For making tough yet fair decisions. Even Ed Balls agrees.

For privacy not profit yet seven days suspension

It is a rather strange thing that as a result of an MP saving the taxpayer money that he should be suspended from the House for seven days.

Of course the suspension of David Laws is not about the frugalness of his claims, it is because he claimed rent that was paid to his same-sex partner. That was a relationship that David wanted to keep private, but when the rule changesd came in in 2004 he didn't disclose that relationship. He chose instead to claim on the smaller value property he could have claimed his expenses on.

He issued the following statement following today's ruling.

"I accept the conclusions of the Inquiry and take full responsibility for the mistakes which I have made. I apologise to my constituents and to Parliament. Each of us should be our own sternest critic, and I recognise that my attempts to keep my personal life private were in conflict with my duty as an MP to ensure that my claims were in every sense above reproach. I should have resolved this dilemma in the public interest and not in the interests of my privacy.

"However, from the moment these matters became public, I have made clear that my motivation was to protect my privacy, rather than to benefit from the system of parliamentary expenses, and I am pleased that the Commissioner has upheld that view.

"I have also, from the very beginning, made clear that I believed that my secrecy about my private life led me to make lower overall claims than would otherwise be the case, and this has been confirmed by the Parliamentary Commissioner and by the Committee. The taxpayer gained, rather than lost out, from my desire for secrecy, though I fully accept that this is not an adequate reason for breaking the rules.

"This last year has been a difficult one, and I am grateful to family, friends, constituents and colleagues for their support and understanding."

The question remains can LGB politicians be open and honest about their sexuality? It is something that I have been honest about, even mentioning it in hustings meetings. Is there really generational divide between me and David who is only 4 years older than? Two of the MSPs that the Lib Dems lost were openly out and both Margaret Smith and Iain Smith are older than David and never found their sexuality an issue.

It appears that David has come on a long way from the day at the end of May last year when this all came out into the open. Then he didn't want to disclose his sexuality, now he realises that his "attempts to keep my personal life private were in conflict with [his] duty as an MP to ensure that [his] claims were in every sense above reproach."

In our society today we're not past the occasion idiot hurling homophobic abuse at people. We do live in a society that demands that every detail of a public figures live is public, that includes who their partner is. Therefore our public figures whether in the field of politics, sport, entertainment or whatever do feel the extra pressure to conceal that part of them. Often times not so much for themselves but for their partners sake. The issue as David has learned is when with that public face comes public financing.

However, although he has not cost the taxpayer extra somehow he is getting censured with suspension, while others who breached expenses rules and cost the taxpayer more got away with paying back the excess. David paid back all his living expenses claims from June 2006 - July 2009 and is still getting suspended. Weird sense of justice, even when the Parliamentary Commission has upheld the is was privacy not profit that the claims were made.

David Laws Doesn't Want to Return to Government

It really isn't my attempt to get at Stonewall again it is just a coincidence. When David Laws came out Ben Summerskill took to the air waves and print media saying that gay men who stayed in the closet didn't deserve the same degree of support and sympathy of an organisation such a Stonewall.

Reading the news today, while I was sitting waiting for Mícheál coming out of an appointment at the Royal Victoria Hospital, of David Law's latest statement I think it needs revisiting.

He says he has 'lost the hunger' and is 'unwilling to return to the Government' after the stress of being outed the way he was. There is even talk of him not seeking re-election for his seat in Yeovil at the next election depending on the outcome of a parliamentary investigation into the financial dealings which saw him worse off, but not declaring the relationship with his 'landlord'.

It is a sad case when someone is forcibly outed and loses their va-va voom as appears to be the case with one of the sharpest minds in the Lib Dem parliamentary team. It may be just a matter of time that David still needs to come to terms with his situation, I certainly hope it is, but I hope it is not the onset of some deeper malaise.

As I pointed out shortly at the time public opinion was that the UK didn't care about the sexuality of those leading the country. But it can be hard to have to come to terms with the sudden public knowledge of your sexuality. Most of us get the opportunity to come out to others in our own terms, in our own time. It is an ongoing process as each new contact has to be weighed up for how and when they are told.

To have that decision ripped out of you hands and over the front pages and TV screens must be a traumatic experience and one that takes some time to heal and get over. I'm not saying to David get out there and be proud of who you are right now. I'm sure if he had turned up at the Delga AGM or any of their fringe events* he would have been made to feel very welcome, but he chose to stay away from conference altogether. But I would say don't do anything too hasty. See advice from those of us who are out, gay, candidates or MPs about how we deal with it. Some of us keep it as something we don't talk about, some like me seem to very much at ease as talking about it as part of us, not the whole.

It would be a shame to lose David to politics altogether and I hope that he does reconsider the statement he has made. But I also know that the time has to be right for him.

* Or any part of conference for that matter.

Dear Stonewall, Some People are Closeted Get Over It

I make no apologies for twisting Sonewall's 'Some People are Gay Get Over It' slogan especially in light of reading Ed Fordham's opinion piece on Lib Dem Voice the other day. Like Ed said:

"I was appalled by the decision of Stonewall’s Chief Executive Ben Summerskill to take the airwaves and print media to launch his own mini-campaign against David [Laws]."

Not everyone finds it easy to be out and proud as Summerskill seems to make it. It they did where are the gay footballers and apart from Gareth Thomas the gay rugby players at the top end of our sports. Similarly in other high profile professions, the media in certain quarters still take great delight in finding out that some film, pop, sport star or public figure is caught in a possibly compromising position with someone of the same sex. Those same sectors absolutely revel in it if that same person comes out, and if there is tragedy like in the case of Stephen Gately they can even blame it all on sexuality.

It's not easy.

Indeed Stonewall seem to have in the shape of Summerskill become the arbiter of family circumstances as far as coming out is concerned. They seem to be saying that they and only they know when you should be out. I thought that was a person decision for every one of us, don't we decide how out and open we are with each individual we know?

I am not a number! I am me!

Of course none of us in the UK have it as hard as Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga had it in Malawi. Therefore the news that Monjeza has either due to the governmental pressure, family pressure or whatever has found himself a female lover and is renouncing his previous love for and engagement to Chimbalanga is sad.

But Chimbalanga is the sort of person who does not need the support of groups like Stonewall, he's said:

"But I am not worried. You cannot force love, and nobody forced him when we did our symbolic wedding in December.

"I will also marry because there are lots of good men around. I will remain a gay."

It is people who like Monjeza feel the pressure to conform to a so-called 'norm' that need the support not the derision that Summerskill is heaping upon people like David Laws. For whatever reason, wherever in the world they are some people are quiet about their homosexuality. I guess it is a fact of gay life.

So Stonewall some people are closeted, get over it.

Some Good News for David Laws

There is some good news for David Laws following the rather forced and sudden nature of his coming out over the weekend his family have accepted his sexuality and welcomed James his partner into their lives. Speaking to the Western Daily News he said:

"I guess it was pretty stupid really, because all of the people I have spoken to since Friday have accepted it without hesitation: my parents, family and friends. Not being honest with them has meant a huge price over recent years. I have had to keep a large part of my life secret."

"I have heard from lots of friends over the past few days who said it didn't matter to them, or they didn't care about my sexuality, and to be able to meet them in the future, to be honest with them, to meet them with James, will be a huge relief."

I'm glad it went well, it is just a pity that four years ago or earlier he didn't take the plunge, then we'd propably still have him as Chief Secretary to the Treasury as he'd have been claiming for his share of a joint mortgage rather than paying rent to a 'partner'.

The People Respect Privacy So How Do We Support the Private?

According to a YouGov poll 73% of the population believe that politicians should not have to be open about their sexuality, providing they do not lie or 'behave hypocritically'.

This finding does of course come in the week after it was revealed and since been surmised that if David Laws had changed his accommodation claims at the time of the rule change he would have been 'outing' his relationship. Caron ran through the various options he was facing on Saturday, which outline the difficult choices he had if he were to remain in a private relationship.

Only one in twenty 5% think it is a bad thing that the cabinet contains gay minister, whereas 13% consider it a good thing. However, while 3% say they would be more likely to vote for their constituency MP if they were gay 9% say they would be less likely to do so. Although I guess we can just take that to mean the the liberal minded will merely be voting for the best candidate irrespective of sexuality while the homophobes are set in their ways. Indeed a staggering 86% said that if the party that they normally supported fielded a gay candidate it would make absolutely no difference to their voting intention.

The one issue is not the sexuality but the lying and hypocrisy of some. If a gay MP has voted against gay rights legislation consistently that would be seen by many as an issue. The bigger issue comes with defining lying.

If they don't care if someone is out of not, don't each of those non-corrections of pronouns in conversation count as a lie, admittedly not a big lie just a little white one. Of course sometimes it is difficult to keep correcting for those, everyone misses the odd one or two and sometimes the circumstances do not allow for the full truth even a partial revealing of the truth.

There has been discussion amongst the out Lib Dem candidates since the weekend about what we can do to support our closeted or out candidates. The consensus is that that our sexuality by in large is not something that we wear on our sleeves it is just part of who we are. It is also something that so far many of us have no issue with being open about. On the other hand you have the stories like David, Simon Hughes and Mark Oaten through the years of those who seek to lead the party, contest our winnable seats etc who are seem less willing to be open.

The party of course is supportive of all minority groups. We have programmes in place to support women candidates, ethnic candidates but how can do the same for LGBT candidates? The other issue is that unlike gender or ethnicity this is not a minority group that is visibly recognisable as distinct. So is there a need to provide LGBT support to all candidates to ensure we capture the closeted as well as the out? To do otherwise would mean that the people who may most need such support are the ones who are missing out as they wish to retain their privacy.

In this day and age it appears the people, the voters don't care one way or another. Of course that doesn't take away the fear of some to be honest with those closest to them. Until they are able to do that they are less likely to be open with those that may impinge on that world.

Danny Alexander

I'm back at work today after a long weekend as are our politicians. I fully expect that the Times today will be getting a request for the original of Peter Brookes cartoon from the Treasury.

People in the public eye used to say that if Spitting Image didn't have a puppet of you you'd yet to make it. So the cartoon (I'll not link as I'm sticking to refusing to link to future pay-walled site) has George Osborne shoes off feet kicking behind him on the chair, having crayoned in with primary colours 'BUDGET' at the top of a blank sheet. Danny Alexander peeking over the table is asking "Are we allowed to use the sharp scissors?".

It is a play on the fact that the two of them in the treasury are young, but that doesn't mean that the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury doesn't have the gravitas or experience for the job. He was the man who was Nick Clegg's aide and the author of the first Liberal Democrat manifesto to have planks put into a UK-wide programme of government. He was part of the negotiating team that struck the deal, and impressed his Tory opposite numbers.

If he hadn't impressed Osborne also part of those negotiations I doubt he would have been the replacement for David Laws. Of course in his 18 days Laws did make a mighty big impression from the off. Danny is going to have to do the same there is a budget coming up and he's going to have to carry on the work that David had started.

Whatever Happened to Privacy

Earlier today I was ordering coffee and tea for me and my mum in Bangor when on the screen was scrolling the BBC 24 news about David Laws. One of the things that I picked up from the scrolling was the use of the phrase:

Laws didn't want to disclose his "sexuality"

The inverted commas were what struck most. Ok I will admit there was a story there, but the story of the day has shifted unto one of sexuality and one where private life has been exposed as part of another story because of the link into the original story. Ben Bradshaw the Labour MP said:

why should anyone in Britain today feel ashamed to acknowledge they're gay” y ashamed?

Linda Jack responded with:

More likely fear of losing family - just because it was easy 4 you doesn't mean it is as easy 4 others - maybe you haven't noticed but whether we like it or not homophobia is still alive and well in our enlightened country.

Jonathan Fryer sums it up quite well by saying on Twitter.

Yes, it's tragic that some people have to hide their sexuality, but it's equally tragic when people are forced to parade it

What has happened today is a case of that. If you are in the public eye it is not uncommon for some of your partners not to want to be in that spotlight. Whilst I'm prepared like Ben to wear my sexuality if not on my sleeve at least not hidden away. There are others for whom this has been a reason. I recall what I said about Simon Hughes when he was similarly forcibly exposed.

There may be family reasons with some people, yes even today, that such things are not publicly wanting to be discussed. In David Laws his catholic upbringing may have something to do with that, also the world of the city of London being a "man's world" is not conducive to such openness.

There is also the matter of protecting the privacy of a partner. In my own past there are for a number of reason who would not have been out there standing beside me as part of my very public life. There are all manner of reasons, their own level of coming to terms with their sexuality, their career or job prospects (perceived or real), for some it is the cross political persuasion issue. It's why I usually only refer to partners on this blog by some coded name.

Invasion of privacy of a third party is something that needs to be protected. Yes there was a story to be revealed. Although why now? If the Telegraph had the full un-redacted expenses claims last year the timing of this disclosure as well as the rest of the story that is coming out with it points towards spitefulness to a degree. But I digress, I'm not the one to expose a partner. If they are a public figure and also out then that will be easier for us both to deal with, but that isn't always the case, therefore I do compartmentalise by private life from my public when I have to. In fact isn't that something all of us who aren't Belle de Jour etc do?

The extent of what level of privacy is required depends on the individual concerns and needs of the situation and couple. I wish we live in a world where such things never matter, but look at the Gaily Fail and the Torygraph as examples of MSM who do make an issue of it, or the BBC's use of "sexuality" earlier today, why emphasise it and then expect homosexuals and their partners to expect to be open and treated fairly?