Iain Dale suggests a motive or two, but stops tantalisingly short of naming his suspect(s).“when I worked in Parliament it was an open secret that Laws was gay.”This is about the fourth time I’ve heard this today.
If it was known, then surely it must have been known by Nick Clegg, and surely it would have been discussed by the coalition leaders, along the lines of the MI5 briefings about potentially difficult potential ministers, but from a gaffe perspective, no?
If it was known was it not also known who David Laws’ partner was, and that their arrangement contravened the 2006 rules on accommodation expense claims?
And if it was known in Parliament does that include press correspondents and lobbyists?
What initiated the timing of the release of the story by the Telegraph?
[...] through his stellar performance as Chief Secretary to the Treasury during the first three weeks of the coalition, Laws made himself a target.Food for thought there, but one presumes that Dale, being a partisan chap, was hinting at a party-affiliated whistle-blower.
Firstly, he made public the private note left on his desk by his predecessor, Liam Byrne, which said: ‘I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left.’
And secondly, he pulled out of Question Time last week after Labour refused to withdraw Alastair Campbell as its spokesman on the programme.
This accusation may be way off beam, but it wouldn’t at all surprise me if somebody’s tricks department had tipped off The Daily Telegraph about the nature of his relationship with James Lundie and it was that which provoked them to trawl through their expenses files again.
However, a recent article in New Scientist pointed out that there would be many in the civil service who take umbrage at coalition policies, and may do their damnedest to block moves which threaten their cosy empire-building existence.
"Labour is not the opposition," agrees [Privacy International's Policy Director, Gus] Hosein. "The civil service is."It's interesting, then, that the day before the Telegraph's revelations, the Department of Health was reported to be reeling at proposed cuts to their 'hectoring and lecturing' budget.
Health to bear brunt of first COI cutsOooh, that's gotta hurt. Especially for a department which has had its own way for far too long, and been a law unto itself at times.
LONDON - The Change4Life, anti-smoking and alcohol abuse campaigns could be permanently scrapped as part of the Government's planned curbs on advertising, according to Westminster sources.
Drives such as the £50 million-a-year spend on public health, including Change4-Life (which spent £7.7 million in 2008-09), anti-smoking (£26.2 million), alcohol abuse (£4.8 million) and stroke prevention (£4.5 million), are likely to be affected by Government plans to cut "preachy, nanny state" campaigns aimed at changing behaviours.
An immediate freeze on new advertising and marketing spend in the current financial year was announced by the Treasury Chief Secretary, David Laws, as part of the coalition Government's £6.2 billion package of spending cuts.
Laws said ad campaigns were "not priorities", saying: "We are being very draconian in these areas and inflexible over the next year".
As far as timing goes, it fits the bill perfectly, and what better motivation for someone with mud to sling than a pretty unequivocal statement of intent to curtail their wasteful spending?
I love a good 'whodunnit', me. The game's afoot!
