The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Photo credit: Keith Edkins

The best opinion writing from Sunday’s papers, all in one place. Brought to you by Caroline Crampton.

Today, the UK editorials are dominated by the resignation of Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Laws over £40,000 expenses claims he made to rent a room from his gay lover. Iain Dale in the Mail on Sunday has one of the most concise assessments of the issues involved, arguing, “There are some things you just don’t do. We’re not Americans. We don’t like baring our souls.” However, he feels that although many will sympathise with Laws’ desire to keep his sexuality private, “[i]t’s healthy to be open and completely transparent” and those in politics must surely know that their secrets can come back to haunt them. He explains, through his own experience of revealing his homosexuality to his family, how difficult it can be. What it ultimately comes down to, Dale says, are these two questions: “Did David Laws defraud the taxpayer or did he intend to? The answer to both questions is no.”

Martin Ivens in the Sunday Times offers his own recollections of the affair, saying, “Although his sexuality wasn’t such a closely guarded secret, Laws’s refusal to discuss his private life with colleagues was to be respected, even applauded.” But looking at the issue of the expenses in the context of our much-vaunted “new politics”, Ivens concludes this is going to be a long-lasting story – it has “succeeded in tipping it back into the mire of the late unlamented “manure” parliament”, he claims. He concludes with praise for the Chief Secretary’s swift action in resigning, and hopes, “Soonest gone, perhaps soonest back.”

Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer casts his eye over the Labour leadership contest and the immediate instinct of those just ejected from power to go through a period of “dirtying” the party’s immediate past. As he puts it, “[T]he opening phase of the contest for the Labour leadership is already an orgy of competitive self-flagellation.” He argues that although this is to be expected from left-wing contenders John McDonnell and Diane Abbott, the “sons of New Labour” – the Milibands, and Ed Balls – should remember the men and the movement that got them where they are today, and seek “a clear view of why it won as well as why it finally went down to defeat” before they completely destroy its legacy.

Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times looks at President Barack Obama’s response to the Gulf oil spill, arguing that while it isn’t his fault or his responsibility to fix the mistake, there is one very valuable thing he must do. He must “react to this spill as a child would — because it is precisely that simple gut reaction, repeated over and over, speech after speech, that could change our national conversation on energy.” Referring to Malia Obama’s prescient comment to her father (“Did you plug the who yet, Daddy?”), he points out that Obama must seize this opportunity to fix this for his daughter’s generation. In this kind of situation “a disaster is an inexcusable thing to waste.”

Jessica Valenti in the Washington Post takes a look at Sarah Palin’s recent activity, and finds that she “sure is dropping the f-bomb a lot lately.” She is adopting the language of feminism to “woo women”, as part of a broader strategy by conservatives who are “trying to sell anti-women policies shrouded in pro-women rhetoric.” But there is a more sinister undertone, Valenti argues. While “dropping the f-bomb” is frustrating, it has a deeper effect – “it’s deliberately misrepresenting real feminism to distract from the fact that she supports policies that limit women’s rights.”

More Sunday Selection »