Could Gordon Brown save Caroline Spelman?

1pm Update: I understand that at its meeting this morning, the Standards Committee was unable to come to a conclusion as to what decision to take over Caroline Spelman's case. As such, I gather that the committee chairman, Sir George Young, intends using the next week to take soundings from among the committee with the aim of forging a consensus by the time the committee meets again next Tuesday. The report on Gordon Brown, meanwhile, is expected to be published this Thursday.

---

The Press Association reports that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, has finally passed on to the Commons Standards Committee the conclusions of his inquiry into Caroline Spelman's use of parliamentary allowances to pay a nanny-cum-secretary for two years during the late 1990s when she was first elected to Parliament.

The then party chairman referred herself to the Commissioner last June in order to seek exoneration and has had the case hanging over her ever since.

But it is interesting that the Commissioner has reached his conclusions about Mrs Spelman at the same time as another lengthy investigation into another high-profile parliamentarian, namely the Prime Minister.

As the Mail reported at the weekend, Mr Lyon has also just passed on his file on the complaint made by Tory MP Greg Hands a year ago about Gordon Brown's failure to declare his subletting of part of a constituency office to his local Labour Party.

At this moment in time, without any conclusions having been announced, both Caroline Spelman and Gordon Brown remain innocent of any wrongdoing until proven otherwise.

However, if the scenario were to play out in which both politicians are found to have broken rules, I suspect that we would see a "gentlemen's agreement" between both Labour and Conservative parties not to make political capital out of either case - whereas if either Mrs Spelman or Mr Brown were found to have breached rules as an isolated news story, there would be calls for sackings, resignations etc.

If that does happen, there would surely be further accusations of members of the political class protecting each other. However, we must wait and see what the Standards Committee concludes first. But it's a thought.

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[Malcolm Dunn]

I really hope you're wrong about a 'gentlemans agreement' Jonathan. There would be nothing 'gentlemanly' about it at all.It would merely make it more difficult to answer those who when I'm out canvassing state 'you're all the bloody same'.
If Gordon Brown or Caroline Spelman have broken the rules they should face the consequences.

[Edward Huxley]

I`m with Malcom Dunn on this. We are sick and tired of these fiddles and in that I include politicians of all parties who milk the system for all it`s worth and get away with it.
Never mind if they have, like Jacqui Smith, taken advice and acted on it. These people know, or should know that, it might be legally right, but it is morally wrong.

And they wonder why they are held in such low esteem.

[David Belchamber]

I agree with Malcolm and Edward; two wrongs do not make a right. In any event, we are not going to let Gordon Brown get away with anything at the moment, I hope.

[Graeme Pirie]

I completely agree with the comments here so far. ANY politician that's been milking us needs to be booted out. If it means we're left with one or two then that's fine.

Who wants corrupt people running our lives?

[Victor, NW Kent]

Not before time, as it had taken too long in Spelman's case and had been fairly obviously delayed to a suitable point for release.

[Northern Conservative]

Longer and longer grows the list of politicians (MPs MEPs etc) who appear to grow richer by morally, if not legally, 'abusing' the expenses and perks systems which operate.

Many people wonder why so little is done by our politicians to tighten up the rules and make it clear that sailing 'close to the wind' will in future be judged harder than previously.

Is it because many more of them would be rooted out, if tighter investigations were carried out and that holds back politicians from supporting such stronger measures and safeguarding the public purse?

[AlexG Briggs]

Why on earth do we find yet another way of letting Brown off the hook.Let it be decided correctly.When will we as a Party go for this Failed PM Hold him to account for what he allowed to happen on his watch to this Country.Not just what suits who and what Party.
Another year of this government under Brown's guidance where and how low will the Country have sunk?
Westminster dithers and the Country levels out with Mugabe plan- printing moneyt

[pp]

I wonder if anyone had any doubt at all as to how this would be received here?

To my mind, I think it is *worse* for a tory to compromise on a principle than a member of any other party - Lib-dems don't have any, and Labours double-speak means no one actually knows what their principals are.

[bob]

it would be a serious mistake for there to be any agreements.irrespective of party all must face the consequences of their actions.the conservative party needs to remove the whip now and deselect (if they can't be persuaded to resign)all guilty of inexcusable claims.this is because it is the right thing to do and also because if they win the next election the press and the labour party will be all over them to the detriment of the job that needs to be done.

[pp]

p.s.

If tories really want to mend our broken society, the first step must be to show that you have to do the right thing all of the time - not just when/if it it to your advantage, or when it would be disadvantageous not to.

[GB£.com]

If Chekhov were alive today in the UK, his plays would centre instead on the political class; lazy, corrupt and selfish, sensing a change but unaware of the scale of the storm that will engulf them.

I just hope it will be libertarian and not nationalist.

[rugfish]

"Gentleman's agreement" ????

A big bucket of Westminster whitewash in other words.

If Ms Spelman 'has' done wrong then she should be sacked. Hard as it may be ( if in the wrong to that extent ), she should be reprimanded. - There can be no personal feelings about it if that's the case.

If Brown is seen to have broken the rules then he should be called to resign.

Whitewash won't cover the whole of Britain and 'someone' needs to start sticking up for clean government not bending rules to suit!!

Can I have a gentleman's agreement not to pay my taxes please if this occurs?

[Sally Roberts]

Malcolm @ 8:39 - I entirely agree with you! I hope and believe Caroline Spelman will be exonerated but if she is not, then she must face any consequences. I certainly do not wish anyone (especially Mr Brown!) to wriggle off the hook. As you rightly say, we are all too often confronted by the accusation "You lot are all the same!" and this kind of thing makes that more difficult to refute.

[JS]

I agree with the previous comments. There can be, nor should there ever be, any compromise whatsoever over people who break either the rules or the spirit of the rules.
This should be applied irrespective of that person's party or position and without exception. That alone will regain the respect that politicians have lost.

[David_at_Home]

I think that Malcolm Dunn and Edward Huxley have perfectly summed up the feelings of the general public on this matter.

I agree too with GB£ that there will be a huge tidal wave of anger which will wash our corrupt politicians and bankers away.

There is no chance whatsoever that the new arrangements will be "libertarian", a philosophy that neither is neither understood nor desired by the majority. So it will be nationalist and I think that we here should strive to ensure it is moderate nationalist, building on our traditions of inclusive "one nation" patriotism, rather than the extreme continental type of violent nationalism.

[tru tory]

We know the nanny was paid with public funds. We know she siad she only posted the odd letter. None of this is dusputed. Only in the la la land of westminster sleaze could this have been allowed to drag on.

She is a disgrace to the party and should loose the whip.

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper]

Caroline Spelman was in a very difficult position with a young family. Not an egregious fiddle in my book. Lesson learned, turn a blind eye to this one.

However, if she is let off I really hope she doesn't come out with the usual 'I have been entirely vindicated' line. Humility please.

[John Peel]

Caroline Spelman doesn't cut the mustard as a Shadow Minister so why is she still in the shadow cabinet.

I despair.

[Sally Roberts]

If you are a "tru tory" then I am Attila The Hun's First Cousin Seventeen Times Removed!!

Oh and perhaps you could learn to spell?

[pp]

Henry - her first line of defence was just that: 'young family', sudden disruption, etc... Which did attract some sympathy.

But then the drip, drip of more information being squeezed out - finally getting to the admission that it had gone on for years...

Very mandlesonesque - only admit things when they are already known...

Its this squirming that I most object to - contrast it with GOs full disclosure regarding the yacht (top marks that man)...

[RichardJ]

"There is no chance whatsoever that the new arrangements will be "libertarian", a philosophy that neither is neither understood nor desired by the majority."

It will be if public disgust with politicians accelerates. Furthermore I suspect there is a great deal of anger with government meddling and poking its nose into peoples' lives. The cry of "I wish the government would just leave me alone" will become louder.

[Praguetory]

Why would we 'save' Caroline to protect Brown - unless we prefer having him lead the Labour Party.

[Sally Roberts]

"Furthermore I suspect there is a great deal of anger with government meddling and poking its nose into peoples' lives. The cry of "I wish the government would just leave me alone" will become louder."

One of the most chilling things was listening to a late-night radio phone-in last night and hearing a caller who regularly phones in to that particular station with, invariably, an articulate and sensible point of view on many different subjects. Last night this particular lady expressed her anger at politicians so strongly that she was advocating "storming Parliament"... Now perhaps it was late, she was over-wrought and was not thinking clearly but nevertheless, I fear there will be others thinking exactly the same way.

[Marjorie Baylis]

If this were a game of chess, would we not sacrifice our queen to bring down their king.... and wouldn't it be a price worth paying?

[godefroi]

The expenses system is so flawed and so ridiculously over-generous that even those who abide scrupulously by the rules are tainted by association.

Instead of this pointless dredging up of minor infringements I would prefer to see a line drawn under the old system provided that a revised and fully public tariff of necessary and reasonable expenses were immediately established in its place, together with a more realistic salary for MPs instead of an enhancement by stealth in the form of these ludicrous allowances.

[Ray Finch]

It isn't a game of chess. It isn't a game at all. It is our nation, our values, our liberty.
If Spelman is found guilty she should be prosecuted. I feel Mr. Cameron would only gain from immediately sacking her. Why do you think people say "You are all the same" when we allow this immoral theft of their hard earned taxes?

[GB£.com]

No understands the meaning of the saying , "if you're paying, I'll have top sirloin" better than our political class.

[Edward Huxley]

godfroi wants a line drawn under the old system. A lot of our elected representatives would just love that, it would mean they could hang on to the money and no more awkward questions.

He also suggests "a more realistic salary for MPs" A polite way of saying more money I suppose. With thousands getting the sack every day that would cause a riot.

Perhaps he/she is an MP. That`s the trouble with noms de plume.

If it`s such a rotten job, why is there such competition to become an MP?

[Sally Roberts]

"godfroi wants a line drawn under the old system. A lot of our elected representatives would just love that, it would mean they could hang on to the money and no more awkward questions."

godfroi...sounds rather like Godfrey....

That's not you, Mr Bloom, is it?

[Tom FD]

Very unlikely. There is a large section of the Parliamentary Labour Party that doesn't do gentlemanly behaviour and will attack Conservatives at any available opportunity regardless of the consequences.

[Mark Hudson]

Why would anyone want to save Caroline Spelman?

[Patsy Sergeant]

I rather like the way that Marjorie Baylis has put it @ 11.22 - and agree with her.

However, I would be willing to bet, that a lot of work is going on at the moment, to try and ensure an UNeven decision has been/is reached by the Parliamentary Commissioner, and we shall see!!!

[Henry Grogan]

I'm rather bemused by the equating of Caroline Spelman with Gordon Brown, as if they were equally big fish. If both are guilty, surely sacrificing a relative nobody to get at the PM is a no-brainer.
I don't buy the idea that we should let Gordon off the hook because we prefer him as Labour leader to anyone else - who, exactly, from their bunch of nonentities?

[Sally Roberts]

The latest update is rather bad news! It seems we will now have to wait until next Tuesday for a resolution of the situation.

[Deborah]

Unable to reach a decision on Spelman? Why?

[Ruth]

Caroline Spelman's high quality of character and intergrity is the reason why the Commissioner would be justified in viewing this as an accounting slip rather than a deliberate attempt to defraud. The tax guidelines about what is and is not legitimate expenditure are harder to understand than might be supposed. It's always the honest people who get caught first. The country would benefit much more from politicians like these, who are honest when they make a misjudgement, than those who manage to stay within the letter but not the spirit of the law. Which would we rather have?

[Freya Sykes]

I wonder if Marjorie's chess comment isn't closer to the prize than she thinks. Perhaps "the Gentleman's agreement" is that Caroline will put her head on the block and sacrifice her career to give the Tories a chance to bring "Gordoom" down?? Either way to Joe Soap on the street it makes all politicians look as equally Machiavellean and untrustworthy. Sadly!

[Serf]

godefroi, I don't completely disagree with you. It would take a very principled person not to play the system when everyone else it at it.

However, forgiveness can only come with repentance, which means a complete changing of ways. Recent events have shown that many in Westminster are completely against changing the system.

We as a party need to promise complete transparency when we come into government.

[David_at_Home]

"...the Commissioner would be justified in viewing this as an accounting slip rather than a deliberate attempt to defraud."

You mean that she accidently employed a nanny, thinking she had employed a secretary?

Come off it, people in industry are fired for fiddling their expenses and quite right too.

[Serf]

I don't buy the idea that we should let Gordon off the hook because we prefer him as Labour leader to anyone else - who, exactly, from their bunch of nonentities?

If he goes, Labour is stuck with another "unelected" Prime Minister, plus an exleader that would out grumble Edward Heath at his best.

They can't win. Unfortunately he will hang on until the bitter end.

[steve foley]

Why bother saving her? Let her go to the wall. She was unfit of purpose as former Party Chairman.

I can't see a lot of point in prosecuting her though. Give her the "Conway Option" to sit as an Independent and stand down at the General Election.

Meriden
[E] Conservative hold
Spelman C.A. Ms.* Conservative 22,416 48.20%
Brown J.E. Labour 15,407 33.13%
Laitinen W.J.P. LibDem 7,113 15.30%
Brookes D.V. UKIP 1,567 3.37%

Electorate: 76,569; Turnout: 60.73%;
Majority: 7,009 (15.07%)

Safe enough seat for a lucky Candidate let's hope NOT an "A Lister" though.

[pp]

Ruth,

Telling right from wrong is easy - if someone can't do it, or *needs* written rules then there is something seriously wrong with them.

Does anyone learn not to murder or steal by reading law books? I suggest not, I also suggest that these laws may be very complex and difficult to understand if read - however noone ever seems to 'accidently' break them, and wouldn't get much sympathy if they did...

If the outcome isn't a 100% clear cut 'not guilty' then she should go.

I notice Conway is staying on to pickup his full pension and parachute money etc -- and not even referred to the CPS... You know the public get their cars crushed just for bad parking, and get locked up for not paying for a £140 TV licence.

[John Ireland]

I think that I prefer Caroline to Gordon Brown, come to think about it, I prefer anyone to Gordon Brown! Even that Cameron chap, but only just!!!

[B.Garvie]

Speculate, meditate, cogitate, and await adjudication. Everyone under British Law, (what's left of it), is innocent until proven otherwise. Now if the EU Napoleonic system was enforced, that would be another matter for Brown, Smith and Caroline.

[RichardJ]

I think this point made by Guido says it all:

"We are expected to believe that Spelman's nanny was actually her constituency secretary* thus paid for by the taxpayer and that in return for her childcare duties her only compensation was room and board. Who really believes that the money was not payment for her childcare duties? Unbelievable, it simply does not wash."

[Tony E]

The analogies to chess above are the most accurate I think.

The Conservatives would have loved to use any opportunity to bring down Brown as little as 6 months ago, and they would have quite easily excepted the pawn/queen exchange of Spellman/Brown.

Now though, they are unwilling to bring down Brown as they know that any other leader would prove more positive for Labour, and there is no guarantee that a change of leadership would bring about an immediate general election.

Even if it did, unemployment has not yet peaked and the banks crisis has not yet stabilised. The conservatives may be right in not dealing the kiler blow now, only to see themselves back in opposition in a few years with very little achived other than carrying the can for Labour's economic nightmare.

[righty right wing (mrs)]

One can only come to the sad & inevitable conclusion that this endemic corruption & cross party troughing in Westminster spans the entire political spectrum.

Cameron should have sacked her - no if's, no but's, no argument, no debate.

What she did was immoral & corrupt & as long as she stays in her position my vote, & no doubt many others, will go elsewhere.

This was my hard earned taxes she was stealing.

[Paul Owen]

The Conservative Party should simply sacrifice Caroline Spelman. The woman is useless and she's my MP. What price principle? Is it any wonder people don't vote anymore.

[Tristan Downing]

What do we know about the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon? How trust worthy is he? Same questions about the Commons Standards Committee too.

[John Moss]

The contrast with John Profumo is quite staggering.

Profumo's action did not lead to a breach of national security, but he told Parliament something which, at the time he said it, he genuinely believed to be true. When it turned out to not be true he resigned his Cabinet position and parliamentary seat. He then spent the rest of his years doing charitablework for Toynbee Hall in the East End.

Any "Honourable Member" ought to think what the "honourable" course of action should be in these circumstances, or stop relying on the Parliamentary assumption that they are "honourable" because I don't think many people think they are telling the truth!

[John Moss]

Of course, the Committee is 50/50 Labour and others so this could simply be Labour ganging up on Spelman and the rest refusing to condemn her.

[albion]

Theft is theft.

She must have known that she was in fact, stealing.

"Gaining goods, money or services for which one was not entitled to".

That is stealing.

She is a thief.

Like many I have spoken to recently, we the little taxpayers are on the cusp of realising that ALL of our politicans are small time opportunists who are fil;ling their boots with our cash.

I doubt there is an honourable one amongst them.

[Sally Roberts]

Harsh words, albion! Let's just wait and see what the Committee comes out with next Tuesday before pronouncing judgement.

[anon]

Spelman needs to consider her position carefully. Assuming she gets some form of prior view of the Committee's report/ recommendations, and assuming that they are critical, if she apologises and steps down before they actually publish then she's in a better position to salvage her career when we get into government

If she bottles it and waits for Cameron to act, then good riddance

[Joe James B]

How ridiculous.
I suspected this would end up buried in paperwork concluding nothing.

[Tony E]

@John Moss.

I think you may be mistaken about John Profumo. He told both MacMillan and the Chief Whip that he barely knew Keeler, and that he has merely met her at a party. He repeated this in the House.

It was for that lie that he resigned, not for any breach of security. There was none (as you rightly point out). Why John Profumo is remembered more warmly than others caught in a lie, was that he spent the rest of his life quietly helping the deprived of East London through charitable works.

[RichardJ]

"Harsh words, albion! Let's just wait and see what the Committee comes out with next Tuesday before pronouncing judgement."

She was using OUR money to fund a nanny. How can that be justified? Or do you really believe her claim that she wasn't paying the nanny for her childcare duties?

[Disraeli]

It astonishes me that people commenting on this site will rush to judgement on somebody such as Caroline, who has been a first class servant to the Party over many years. They do this without even seeing what the Committee has to say. They make these comments about a fellow Conservative with a crass idiocy that suggests that disloyalty is something enjoyed by some commenters on this site.

I believe that Caroline is a fine servant to the Party and a public servant of great honesty and integrity. She deserves better than some of the underhand comments made by some people commenting on this thread. Some of the 'Conservatives' commenting on this thread ought to realise that they are playing in to the hands of our political opponents.

[steve foley]

I agree with "anon" @ 17.19.

I assume that Spellman will be given advance knowledge of the finding of the Committee? As an example in a Court Martial the Officer's sword lies on the table. As he enters to receive the verdict he will observe that it will either be pointing towards him, in which case he is Guilty, but is lying across the table he is Innocent. I would hope that Spellman will be given some presentiment of her fate, and if she is Guilty she ought to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds and leave the House.

[pp]

RichardJ, don't be so cynical the nanny was 'paid' for her nanny duties with bed and board. And as we know - Jacqui Smith having london bed and board cost the taxpayer the best part £100,000 a year (plus £200,000 a year for police security, but that might be over the top for a nanny - even an MP's nanny (wouldn't it?)).

[support the strivers]

I wonder if either party understands how many votes there are in being seen to be straight dealing.

The leader who makes mincemeat of MPs transgressing the letter AND spirit of the law will really clean up.

(no pun intended!)

[Malcolm Dunn]

No we are most certainly not Disraeli. If she is guilty she should be thrown out of the house. If she is innocent then she can continue to be 'a servant of great honesty and integrity'.
What really serves the party badly would be to cover up for poor behaviour just because the MP concerned was a Conservative. We expect that from Labour, but we are better than them.

[anon]

Steve Foley @ 17.37 - "I agree with "anon" @ 17.19"

Steve, in light of our previous COn Home encounters on the subject of offensive words, I find your support truly encouraging...

[oldrightie]

In the name of God, go.

[JD]

Cameron has to make an example of her. Why can he not come out in public and declare that any infringement, wrong-doing, etc, by any member of his prospective government will result in immediate dismissal? Is it because every politician is compromised? I also resent that Spelman, who lives in a beautiful large house in the most expensive part of Dorridge, has been trying to foist her husband onto the scene as MEP.

[Deborah]

"The leader who makes mincemeat of MPs transgressing the letter AND spirit of the law will really clean up."

You are absolutely right.
Unfortunately, the leaders seem too divorced from reality to get it.

[grumpy old man]

I actually have a great deal of sympathy with Ms Spelman and any mother with young children. If ever there was a case for changing tax law, it is to allow all mums, or primary carers, to expense child care as of right.
but that one change, which would make the working environment much more female-friendly and nubile women much more employable, has mysteriously been overlooked by Harman and her sister stormtroopers of the monstrous regiment, to say nothing of the equality industry. I wonder why. Any answers, ladies?
Having said that, at the time the rules did not allow for childcare provision. Ms Spelman should have at least offered her resignation while the case was being reviewed, and DC should have accepted it. As it stands, we spear carriers have to explain to the alienated masses why "Spelman" is not sleaze - especially after the Conference "Sleaze Crackdown Speech". To the mass of the electorate, unversed in the nuances of the Westminster Village, DC looks as shifty as Liebore on this issue. The Spelman has been allowed to rumble on and shows none of the main participants in a good light. The high command better get a grip well before the next election. Remember 1992!

[RichardJ]

"RichardJ, don't be so cynical the nanny was 'paid' for her nanny duties with bed and board."

How many nannies do you know who work for only bed and board? Nannies usually cost thousands.

[righty right wing (mrs)]

""I believe that Caroline is a fine servant to the Party and a public servant of great honesty and integrity. She deserves better than some of the underhand comments made by some people commenting on this thread. Some of the 'Conservatives' commenting on this thread ought to realise that they are playing in to the hands of our political opponents.

Posted by: Disraeli | February 24, 2009 at 17:35""

Disraeli, with respect....

It is not traditional Conservative voters who are "playing into the hands of our political opposition", it is the sad fact that Caroline had a "nanny on the state" that is giving them ample ammunition.

No amount of party loyalty can change the facts, or the public perception:

"Same old Tories".

And by not sacking her DC is giving this incompetent, unmandated & morally corrupt Government & their media mouthpieces a smokescreen.

If she did not think or know her actions were in any way wrong then she has no place in public office.

It really is that simple.

[Ian Ward]

The whole issue of misused allowances stink. However, in Caroline Spellman's case the alleged infringement pales into insignificance when compared with others, including other Conservatives! I suggest a truce is called and the access to allowances is tighten up for the start of the next parliament in 2010.

[Mark Johnson]

When are the Conservatives going to call for a vote of no confidence in this rabble who pose as a Government. It must be time to call an election, we can't carry on anymore.

[righty right wing (mrs)]

"I suggest a truce is called and the access to allowances is tighten up for the start of the next parliament in 2010.

Posted by: Ian Ward | February 24, 2009 at 22:52"

A truce?

With whom?

All of the other little piggies around the trough?

It simply won't do.

[Super Blue]

"If you are a "tru tory" then I am Attila The Hun's First Cousin Seventeen Times Removed!!

Oh and perhaps you could learn to spell?

Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 24, 2009 at 10:59"

Another improbable Conservative who can't spell?! Curiouser and curiouser.

[godefroi]

I assure the previous commenters who had suspicions about my identity that I am neither an MP nor Mr Bloom in disguise. I simply post under a nom de plume in order to avoid embarrassing my family any more than is absolutely unavoidable.

And I agree with Ian Ward. Any business leader, any new commanding officer, anyone at all with any common sense, knows that when attempting to restore profitability, morale or effectiveness, show trials and retrospective condemnation are pointless and unproductive. The only method that really works is to make a fresh start on clearly defined principles and to enforce the new régime vigorously.

[steve foley]

"When are the Conservatives going to call for a vote of no confidence in this rabble who pose as a Government"

No point! They still have a majority and as Turkeys do not vote for Xmas Labour would win and the Conservatives would be left looking silly. It would only be a pointless gesture.

[Edward Huxley]

godefroi has changed his tune somewhat, but although I agree that the rules need to be rewritten the public would not stand for an amnesty. If further fiddling comes to light, the culprits (as well as those already exposed) should be prosecuted.
Re his reasons for using a nom de plume, I don`t use one and my family is not embarrassed.

I think people mainly use them to enable them to make statements they would be ashamed to put their name to.

[catbalou]

allowances are a form of benefit and just like government tv advert says 'We are watching you'. Any over payments 'taken' should be paid back in full, a fine imposed and possible imprisonment considered! The guilty person should be sacked for gross misconduct. Job done!! SIMPLE

[Chris Paul]

I'm with those who say "no deals" on this stuff. On the face of it Caroline Spelman appears to be not only guilty of the abuse of these allowances but also in concocting an entirely cock and bull story explaining that her nanny was in fact a constituency secretary.

Not based in the constituency, not at Westminster, clearly not qualified in any way shape or form for such a post, and both the nanny and her family and friends said it wasn't true, early on. Strong case for serious and repeated dishonesty there.

The GB case and his alleged omission on reducing his claim for office costs to reflect some income seems very minor and a matter of accountancy rather than dishonesty. It's in a different category and certainly a different quantum as well.

GB would have to dishonestly claim that local party workers were helping in his constituency work AND despite this dishonesty refused to put the money back into the system to parallel Caroline Spelman's pretty much confessed and plainly dishonest antics.

The Lib Dems - up here at least - appear to run their party political and constituency and apolitical campaigning (most of it!) out of the same spaces, largely paid for my the tax payer, and with the same workers, ditto.

Whether the space is owned or leased by the party and sublet or by the MP and sublet - often with preposterous changes in cost since before election - the possible problem with Gordon Brown's claims is made to look very trivial indeed.

[David_at_Home]

"Any business leader, any new commanding officer, anyone at all with any common sense, knows that when attempting to restore profitability, morale or effectiveness, show trials and retrospective condemnation are pointless and unproductive. "

This would indeed be true for errors of judgement, honest mistakes, faults due to poor training or inadequate command systems and the solution would be to improve the organisation, structure and training.

However, deliberate dishonesty is another matter and any new MD or CO would be well advised to get rid of the miscreants. The fiddling of thousands of £s of expenses would certainly be severely punished in the Armed Services, probably be dismissal following a court martial. In a well run company (yes, I know many are not well run) so the punishment would normally be the sack.

[godefroi]

It was in fact the Army system I was thinking of, in which the rules regarding expenses are crystal clear and rigidly applied. Fraud can only take place by deliberate falsification of the facts supporting a claim or by the provision of fake receipts, and therefore the consequences are quite rightly extremely serious and usually involve criminal proceedings. But if it were found, for example, that an entire unit had been permitted to make claims incorrectly because of the incompetence of those administering the system it is the administrators who would be held to account rather than each individual claimant, who could be said to have known no better. You can't lock them all up; a severe reprimand and clear guidelines as to future conduct would be the best way forward, in my view.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have nothing but contempt for those who use public office as a source of unearned income, and as a self-employed taxpayer I want to see the utmost frugality practised by those we elect. But I dislike the scapegoating of random individuals and I simply do not see what is to be gained by endlessly dredging up relatively minor misdeeds while failing to address the problem at its source.

[Edward Huxley]

Daily Telegraph article today:

`Front company` keeps identity of £500,000 Tory donors secret.

The story of a very shady deal that allows donors to remain anonymous. Yet another case of bending the rules to get their hands on the money.

They are all at it of course. Doesn`t it make you sick?

[chris southern]

Coruption is rife, every single politician should be investigated and the corupt placed in front of a judge.

Gentlemen agreements and privelidge is not the LAW of the land, it is the coruption of a self apointed hierarchy.
bring politics back to the people, remove the privelidge and the coruption.
make politicians accountable for their actions in the eyes of the law, just like every one else is.

[snegchui]

Caroline Spelman must repay some of the Commons expenses she used to pay for nannying work but any breach of the rules was "inadvertent", MPs will say.

It is expected to be published at 1800 GMT.

How much do you think she will have to pay? Interesting, will the same principle be extended in other enquiries?