Spelman in the clear

THX1138

WHITEWASH

Jane

"WHITEWASH"? That's rich coming from THX1138. Spelman should have got Bill Ayers in to do the childcare and THX1138 would have been whooping in mad support for her.

William Church

Surely Grayling or Hunt wouldn't draw any more media attention than Spelman. Pickles (my local MP) would make perfect sense, but so would David Davis and (in the case of an economic rethink) Osborne.

mac

" . . . the Tories can well do without any "sleaze" accusataions . . ."
Whichever way matters are dressed up, Peter, this was at the very least conduct unbecoming. I share Guido's take.

Caroline Spelman has embarrassed the Conservative Party and should have the sense to resign. If she doesn't then for me she's in the damaged goods basket occupied by such hypocritical hucksters as Hain and the Balls'.
I

THX1138

Oh Jane- I have been consistent that Spelman should resign the whole saga is rotten to the core & I agree with completely with mac.

I'm really not sure what it has to do with Bill Ayres, if you're having a go at me because I support Obama I would remind you that 82% of the American people see President Elect Obama in a favorable light.

Why don't we stick to the issues on this blog rather than making childish personal attacks on other commenters.

Chuck Unsworth

So, mac, are we considering levels of hypocritical hucksterism here? Or is this not a comparative but an absolute term?

Chris

Guido had no case, as can be seen from his highly amusing blimpish splutterings. If the nanny didn't do the secretarial work, who did? Because somebody did, and if s/he can't be produced...

Mark

It is now possible for Cameron to move Spelman as part of a wider reshuffle rather than sack her. That is the way forward.

Myles

Police officer: "Sir, we have reason to believe you were doing 49mph in a 40mph area".

Me: "Oh, sorry officer, I was not knowingly aware I was doing 49mph; I thought it was 39mph."

Police officer: "No problem, sir. Anyone can make a mistake. Mind how you go".

Yeah, right.

Dr Iago

Spelman should be replaced purely on the basis of her inability to perform in front of the media. Watching her on the likes of Question Time is simply embarrassing. I also tend to agree with THX1138 and Guido on the nature of the investigation...

wight tory

Sadly the damage of a Not Guilty verdict will be greater than if she had been found in breach of the rules. Drop her PDQ...

Verity

Someone with judgement that poor shouldn't be on the front bench. She's lobby fodder.

C Powell

She's a waste of space with poor judgment.

How do you think it looks to the rest of us that MPs use our money to provide themselves with all sorts of goods and services that the rest of us have to pay out of taxed income?

Lou Dacht

When are we going to move on from this habit of clagging '..gate' on the end of things so that they assume some kind of relevance?

Travis Bickle

Yet another politician cleared, if only HMRC were so forgiving when poor old joe public make a miniscule, but genuine, error on their tax returns.

One law for them..........

mac

Chuck Unsworth:

I'm not clear on the point you're making.

Do I think any Parliamentarian who plays fast and loose with expenses and perks should be castigated? Yes. Do I think some offend more than others? Yes. Would I call all of them hypocritical hucksters? No. I chose my examples for that appellation deliberately.

Tiberius

Judging by some of the comments above, Pete, are you sure you didn't miss "not" from your title?

I thought acquittal meant you had not nothing wrong. But Crick gets his way after all - fellow Tories squabbling.

Fred

Cameron, Blair, Brown, no difference in moral standing or judgement.

Chris

C Powell should note that all legitimate business expenses can be claimed against tax liabilities. He (and the other braying Guido acolytes here) should also read to the end of the Evening Standard article linked to, and note that Ms Spelman insisted on the investigation that has now cleared her name when the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner initially refused to investigate.

Verity

No, Tiberius. She managed to stay just a squeak within the bounds of what was legitimate. Conflating a secretary to an MP with a childminder was an idiotic, not to say arrogant, mistake. (Yes, I know she paid for the "childminder" portion of the time herself.) It's just too dodgy. What about when the "secretary" was giving lunch to a child and was thus being a childminder, or taking the washing out of the washing machine, and the phone rang and suddenly she was an MP's secretary for a few minutes? How was that time accounted for?

She ought to have paid for a separate childminder herself instead of trying to manufacture a "wife" for herself.

Sorry. I don't think she's cunning or malign. She used appalling judgement and we don't want such as MPs.

(Derek Conway, on the other hand, was a greedy monster. We don't want him or his wife or his son or his son's boyfriend, either. They should all leave in a huddle.)

mac

Chris:

You espouse the 'but strictly it's not illegal' defence. Are you similarly supportive of the 'only obeying orders' excuse?

Chris

Mac: no I don't espouse any such defence (so your silly remark following is irrelevant, and needs no response.)

Tax avoidance (if that's what you refer to in my reply to C Powell) is legal - not 'not strictly illegal.' Legal. And if you're referring to the fact the Spelman has been cleared of any wrongdoing, then any wrongdoing is what she has been cleared of. Not 'sort of cleared of.' Cleared of. Try a bit harder, please. Your stupidity is in danger of becoming apparent.

THX1138

Chris - If it's all so above board why isn't Spelman paying her nanny in the same way now?

Chuck Unsworth

@ Mac

Well then, let's hear your views on the antics of the Labour politicians and Ministers who seem also to demonstrate an interesting moral equivocation.

Is it the degree of offence which you find so repellent, or is it other things - such as their espoused political party or views? If it's the degree of offence at what point do you object?

In the light of that, would you care to proffer your definitions of Hypocrisy and Hucksterism? Both of which, in my understanding, are manifest in all politicians of any hue.

Verity

One thing one can say for Spelman, though, is, she's thin. Unlike all those female Labourite lard bums.

Chris

THX - because she was advised that the arrangement could be misconstrued. (Meaning 'could be twisted into a non-existent scandal by Guido and others with axes to grind.')

Chuck Unsworth

@ Verity

All depends on one's particular predelictions, wouldn't you say?

cuffleyburgers

Given that sleaze was a major problem for the last Tory government, and seeing how much worse things are now under labour, there is a very clear opportunity here for Cameron to say "enough", and to aim for a whiter than white approach.

There can be no possible hint of snout/trough proximity, and all activities of all front bench candidates must be evaluated from the point of view of the ordinary voter, harried from pillar to post by the cops, the excise, the council and god knows who.

It goes without saying that anyone unwilling to embrace wholeheartedly such a puritanical approach should be removed from contention immediately.

The casual corruption of Blair and now Brown's administration, apart from the routine lying, is one of the most sickening elements of these bastards' wholesale annihilation of our country's values and traditions.

Verity

No. I wouldn't. Because I'm not talking about predelictions. I didn't say Spelman is attractive. The fact that she is thin indicates that she is not greedy. Obesity is a character flaw, and she does not have it. I think she made a terrible judgement in what she did, but I don't think it stemmed from greed. All those Labourite women are fat for one reason only: they are greedy. Cherie Blair looks like a manatee.

David Lindsay

One in the eye of David Cameron, who used the BBC, and specifically Michael Crick, to hound the token moral and social conservative (with links to things like CARE) whom he had felt obliged to make Party Chairman as a sort of fig-leaf.

Crick, of course, was the man who invented the myth of the Militant Tendency, which in reality barely existed beyond Merseyside and had far fewer members than even the International Socialists, the Workers' Revolutionary Party (for some reason depicted by Nick Cohen in What's Left as of earth-shattering importance) or the International Marxist Group (of which Alistair Darling was a stalwart).

But they were university-based, like the Communist Party. The purge of untypically working-class, frightfully provincial (why, even Scouse) Militant could be depicted as the purge of Trotskyism in particular, and Marxism in general. It was no such thing.

On the contrary, thanks to Crick and his Myth of Militant, the International Socialists, the Workers' Revolutionary Party, the International Marxist Group, the Communist Party, and all the others who had followed academic Marxism from economics to the culture wars in the pursuit of entirely unchanged objectives were able to create New Labour.

Of which the principal present expression is the Cameron Tories.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Verity

I do like that. "Obesity is a character flaw". Yes indeed!

So 'thinness' is a measure of strength of character? Boy, those Ethiopians must be real toughies then. Is there some sort of International Standard Measurement which compares fatness/thinness with the number and size of character flaws?

And, of course, 'attractiveness' is a personal viewpoint, isn't it?

mac

Chuck Unsworth (@1036):

I mentioned Hain and Balls because of their particular gall in playing whiter than white (Hain) when caught out or in dismissing criticism ('So what' Balls).

As to your final point, I'd agree that hypocrisy is, in varying degrees, as universal as you suggest.

Chris: You emphasise, 'cleared of wrongdoing'. So, as i said earlier, that makes it OK for you because, strictly, it's not illegal. Did you applaud the Butler and Hutton findings?

Chuck Unsworth

@ mac

No, you really cannot mention Hain playing 'whiter than white'. Oranger than orange, perhaps.

Verity

Chuck Unsworth, I'm bothering to respond to your silly post because I don't like being misrepresented.

"So 'thinness' is a measure of strength of character?" Why did you write that? I didn't say it. This is your own thought presented as mine, and I disavow it.

I believe the subject was "obesity", not thinness. I said that obesity is a character flaw, and I said it because obesity is a sign of inner hunger and dissatisfaction with the self. Weak people overeat to quel the inner hunger. They have no willpower.

I don't believe I wrote, or implied, anything about thin people or Ethiopians.

Labourite women MPs are, by and large (very large) fat.

Chuck Unsworth

Verity

I'm not representing or misrepresenting - I'm simply asking questions. Note the punctuation!

'Obesity' is a comparative term - unless you want to put up the various (conflicting) medical definitions as your basis. It follows that 'thinness' is part of the consideration - again as a comparative. That you didn't write about it, or Ethiopians, is irrelevant to sensible debate - or are we only to discuss what you write rather than what may be deduced from your interesting position?

It would appear that you believe (by and large) those women of a certain political persuasion are 'fat' ('large' is not necessarily the same thing). Any evidence for this at all? Any research findings anywhere? Does it follow that those who are thin are not 'Labourites', or is this merely coincidental? And what's your source for "obesity is a sign of inner hunger and dissatisfaction with the self. Weak people overeat to quel the inner hunger. They have no willpower."? Are fat women on the Conservative benches merely closet Labourites? How silly do you want to get?