David Laws: A PR Triumph
David Laws resignation over expenses claims has finally settled. The ConDem coalitions have wangled a major political triumph in the way the story has been presented by the media.
Most papers have gone easy on Laws, after he claimed £40,000 expenses whilst living with his longterm boyfriend. He used two excuses to explain and excuse his actions. The first is that he wished his sexuality to remain confidential. The second is that he did not count his boyfriend as a partner. The papers have expressed outright sympathy with this man, who attempted to swindle thousands from the public purse. I believe this is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, with neither excuses having a valid capacity to explain his actions. As such, the sympathetic representation by the media is a major success for ConDem PR.
Firstly, Laws cannot hide behind fear. It is not an excuse for the breach, and indeed it can be argued that it does not even explain it. Summerskill quite reasonably argues that the public would have never known about Laws' sexuality if he had not made the expenses claims. Indeed, it is the claim that opens his living arrangements to the public domain. Given that the media & westminster already knew of his sexuality but had chosen not to report it, i see no reason why not claiming would alert the media to his sexuality.
Furthermore, it is puzzling for Laws' to claim on one hand fear of revealing his partner whilst on the other he denounces him precisely as his partner. It is not a viable argument to claim that their relationship was of 'boyfriends and not partners,' as any expenses claim under this premise would still have been invalid.
As such the media response to the Laws' scandal is surprisingly generous given how unfounded such a response is. A major triump for the ConDem coalition indeed.
Most papers have gone easy on Laws, after he claimed £40,000 expenses whilst living with his longterm boyfriend. He used two excuses to explain and excuse his actions. The first is that he wished his sexuality to remain confidential. The second is that he did not count his boyfriend as a partner. The papers have expressed outright sympathy with this man, who attempted to swindle thousands from the public purse. I believe this is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, with neither excuses having a valid capacity to explain his actions. As such, the sympathetic representation by the media is a major success for ConDem PR.
Firstly, Laws cannot hide behind fear. It is not an excuse for the breach, and indeed it can be argued that it does not even explain it. Summerskill quite reasonably argues that the public would have never known about Laws' sexuality if he had not made the expenses claims. Indeed, it is the claim that opens his living arrangements to the public domain. Given that the media & westminster already knew of his sexuality but had chosen not to report it, i see no reason why not claiming would alert the media to his sexuality.
Furthermore, it is puzzling for Laws' to claim on one hand fear of revealing his partner whilst on the other he denounces him precisely as his partner. It is not a viable argument to claim that their relationship was of 'boyfriends and not partners,' as any expenses claim under this premise would still have been invalid.
As such the media response to the Laws' scandal is surprisingly generous given how unfounded such a response is. A major triump for the ConDem coalition indeed.