Will Project Cameron be undone by expenses?

Guido Fawkes

It could be turned into a defining moment. If Cameron tells Spelman she has to go it would say, "I have zero tolerance, no one is above the law on my team". It would stun the political class. It would signal the best intentions and stealy determination.

TrevorH

I guess you have to write something to keep the advertising revenue coming in and I am a sucker for responding ...

But ...

"That's partly down to Jacqui Smith's rallying cry to the 42-day detention rebels, which – as the papers have it – could well have averted a disaster for Gordon Brown"
Well if you believe Diane Abbott on 'This Week' she told Andrew Neil that Smiths speech was nothing much and only swung 4 rebels and the rebellion was still on. You chose to ignore THAT bombshell.

And ...
Even as he and Newsnight were trying to spin the Spellman story you got the sense that Michael Crick felt that it would not run.
He pointed out that Spellman was a new MP working from home as her constituency office and the arrangement lasted 12 months and was 10 years ago. New MP new mother new secretary working from home ... just how desperate are the BBC how desperate are you ?

Maybe we should ask Cherie how she funded her nannying for little Leo.

As for MEPs their expenses are a disgrace -- thats ALL MEPs and even the libdems say all are tarred with the same brush.

Exasperated Perry

Oh, so telling lies is the salient characteristic of politicos? Noo-Lie-Bore cheats and fawns its way to power, and then abuses it. The other lot just cheats and fawns.

Sweeping generalisation. But comprehensive enough to put everyone under suspicion until proven otherwise. And that is going to be hard work, and leave room for suspicion and innuendo. And there’s no time for that. There are better things to do.

What a load of twerps.

Mike, Brighton

How ruthless will Cameron be for power? No excuses, he needs to remove Spelman and now. There can be no excuses.
However Labour are playing with fire (c.f. Kevan Jones)...why are we paying for Gordon Brown's Sky subscription, why have we paid hundreds of thousands of pounds towards Tony Blair's Myrobella when it was purchased for £30,000? And so on and so on.....

Pete Hoskin

TrevorH: I wasn't ignoring Abbott's "bombshell". It's the reason why I qualified my remark with "as the papers have it"...

TGF UKIP

Just like your Dear Dave's reaction, Peter - too little, too late.

Tapestry

Cameron will not sort Spellman or the MEPs who he already allows to be reselected without a vote. He has added insult to injury by nailing his colours to the 'i'll try to negotiate a bit' mast as regards the EU.

At the moment of his byelection and polling triumph, he is now suddenly completely vulnerable to a resurgent labour move. If they were to dump Brown and go eurosceptic/anti-sleaze and choose the right leader, Labour could be made overnight into a highly attractive vote for Conservatives. Labour could hold onto power and Cameron's run would be over.

Perking up Perry

Wow Tapestry, - and others, - you touch the sensitive bits! Who’s knees are going funny now?

[Nice to see you on here Guido! Thanks.]

Max Kaye

Tapestry writes: "If they were to dump Brown and go eurosceptic/anti-sleaze and choose the right leader, Labour could be made overnight into a highly attractive vote for Conservatives. Labour could hold onto power and Cameron's run would be over."

If.

Athesius the Facilitator

He must ditch her. The Labour and Lib Dem lot are notable by the silence and her misdemeanour is not that serious but he must ditch her. Why? because she is absolutely useless. She is a token gesture. A lady who ouses liberalism and mushy appeasment when what we need at the moment is hard hearted pragmatists who can crack the whip. Sack her!

Frank Pulley

Peter

At least you have the bottle to defend your point; I note that your Editor has decided not to reply to the almost unanimous negative response to his reported interview with pin-striped Smudger the Fudger (she of the 'twinkling blue eyes' and the cheeky 'chuckle').

Cassius

"Of course, Chichester stepped down swiftly enough, and many Tories
must have hoped that, with that, the story could be swept under the carpet."

He stepped down but is still a sitting MEP and may fervently hope not to have his collar felt. So all the Tories wish to do is sweep these things under the carpet, instead of showing us some integrity by rooting out all such misbehaviour. May the appointment of Hugh Thomas prove me wrong.

As for Labour, what difference?

Are all MPs, all MEPs, and all local councillors afraid of being outed?

Is there anyone sufficiently squeaky-clean with powers to get rid of these wretches?

Frank Pulley

As for the latest exes revelations: stand by for many more. The hacks have the FOI file lined up so that everytime any MP, regardless of party, is appointed to look at financial impropriety among the politicos, they will be assailed with their own record of fiddled out-of-pocket expenses. It's what MPs have always done, are still doing and will always do. Rather like hacks actually. The sight of the bonny Mark
Mardell in Brussels standing on camera with his free-lunch gut hanging over his belt(obvious despite the over-sized suit - to attempt to disguise his bulk), the swill from the Eurotrough still running down his chin, pontificating about the Europols sharing his good fortune is hilariously hypocritical, to put it mildly. A plague on all their houses! Given the gargantuan extortion by tax from the ordinary punters of this nation - 'tis a mere drop in the ocean. Let's turn our attention to the big fish and ignore the red herring minnows. There's on so much time ....

Nicholas

Not by expenses but maybe by the combined propaganda of New Labour and the BBC which has reached new heights of sophistry and collaboration.

Fraser Nelson

Guido/Athesius, I agree in principle but think of the precedent that would set. Harman's error 11 years ago when she was first elected. Dodgy, but how many Tories do you think are not guilty of something like that? If DC sets the bar for dismissal so low, the press wld keep going until there's no one left in the shadow cabinet. It's still deplorable, and depressing how the majority of the expenses fiddlers do seem to be Tory MPs. I guess the clue is in the letters "MP" though. The silence from Labour suspects they have more than a few unexploded expenses bombs tho.

Pat

I bet the cost of the Nanny was considerably less than Mrs Becketts pergola and landscaping and oodles less than the Keens life insurance payments. Oil prices are soaring, people are dying in Zimbabwe and Ethiopia and the MSM leads on a 10 year old story. Next they will be telling us that good old Tony will be repaying the thousands he trousered to purchase his property portfolio on the taxpayer.

Guido Fawkes

The bar is set clearly, don't misuse public money for private ends. It is not too much to ask of those we trust with the public finances.

jsfl

(cf. Labour MP Kevan Jones' response: “Clearly, old habits die hard in the Tory party, despite what their leader says”).

Having watched him on the TV this morning I find it hard to believe that anything is 'clear' to Mr Kevan Jones. His strings were hard to discern though.

Clearly Labour's eternal habits have not changed. Where do they get their MP's from - the unemployment queue?

Is that the real Fraser Nelson or is it an impersonator?

Steve Garner

I've never understood why so many politicos seem to think that an expenses row (especially one from 10 years ago) is going to sway voters or "undo project Cameron". My take from Leeds is that here in the real world what matters is the economic crisis, petrol prices, food prices, tax, the miserable state of state schools, knife crime, a worsening NHS etc etc etc. These are the issues people are concerned about not whether Caroline Spelman messed up 10 years ago. I honestly doubt a single voter will change who they will vote for over this non issue. Please get out a bit more Peter.

Michael Hargrave

It seems to me by the useless smokescreen being created with this 10 year old weak story that there is an imminent announcement regarding the Labout Party funding problems next week. I would not be surprised to find that Peter Hain or someone else is in trouble.

Frank Pulley

Michael Hargrave

And talking of Peter Hain - that once-rising star seems to have imploded into a dark hole. Can't say I missed the old orange glow with the wavy grey mane though, until you just mentioned it.

Chuck Unsworth

The ball is in the long grass now, anyway. Cameron's next move is to wait for the Standards Commission's findings and then be seen to take decisive action. Alternatively La Spelman may choose to fall on her sword if she thinks things will go against her. The choice of that action will depend on what is likely to be politically best for Cameron - and doubtless that has already been mapped out.

But it's unlikely that a) this will simply go away and, b) that there will be immediate action.

All credit to Guido for running the story, though. I just hope he continues to 'uncover' such dealings for several months - without fear or favour and even-handedly. If he does, then we may see some changes in MPs' (and MEPs') behaviour, but probably not in motives.

The trouble is that it will continue to be necessary to expose these cretins for at least a generation.

TGF UKIP

Of course Labour MPs and MEPs, and their families, are at it just as much (see Guido and the Watson family.) The unfortunate thing for the Tories though is, as Nicholas points out, the BBC are more than ever acting as part of Labour's propaganda machine. Rare is the current news bulletin that doesn't start "Gordon Brown has announced."

So far as La Spelman is concerned, nowt of consequence will happen. In Dave's world the only mortal sins requiring instant dismissal or retribution are those against metropolitan political correctness. Just ask Patrick Mercer or Nigel Hastilow.

One thing, though, which should now be apparent to Coffee Housers is that given the tardiness and reluctance on the part of The Speccie to visit this story, they cannot afford not to pay Guido a daily visit on order-order.com to find out what really is going on on both sides of the political world.

David

It'd be a little unfair if Spellman's actions caused major problems, since they occurred before DC was even an MP!

The MEPs are more serious however, and he does need to get a firm grip.

Tiberius

If this story had broken before the Tory Party Conference, it would have been damaging. But thanks to the success of Cameron's strategy and Brown's uselessess, not even the BBC will be able to lay a glove on the Tories over this.

The lax control over MP's expenses will cause the revelation of many instances of doubtful expenditure within all parties, and some far more current than Caroline Spelman's 1998 expenses.

However, I am surprised it has taken this long for CH to open a thread on this matter. Was the delay due to fear? Surely we don't doubt, after all the events of the last 7 months or so, that Labour is destined for years similar to those from which Cameron has just led the Tories? Labour aren't even putting up a front bench spokesman on this.

The long walk across the eggshells is over. For goodness' sake let's find some communal backbone and get on with the preparation of saving the country from the consequences of Brown's mad professor experiment.

And if anyone in the Labour Party wants a debate about old habits dying hard, how about 50 years of Labout governments wrecking the economy, only for incoming Tory administrations to put matters right? While 7 months ago the electorate may have shrugged its shoulders at such a proposition, that is not the case now.

Rex Burr

Expenses are to cover out of pocket costs incurred wholly in the service of the payer of the expenses. It should not be possible to increase ones wealth from expenses as it then becomes income, and is taxable.
If a second property is bought with expenses, then that property should revert to the payer of the expenses when the receiver of the expenses leaves that employment.
London MPs are presumably precluded from this scam as they don't need a second property.

John

So, 10 years ago a new MP hires a nanny who does, maybe, a bit extra and is paid from exes. She is told that it is within the rules but as it just might look a bit iffy she stops.

In the words of one of the biggest politico-graspers around 'So what?'.

This is not on the same planet as, for example, the Blairs', Balls/Cooper and the Kellys' troughing and if Labour (or any other party) wants to make a big deal about this the phrase 'hostage to fortune' spring most readily to mind.

Fred

If Cameron simply waits for Oct and publication of expenses and hopes for best, he is either a fool or just another politician with no ethical standards. We might as well keep Brown. When Conway was exposed, Cameron should have gone through everybody's position and sorted it all out. The drip drip drip did for Nixon, now it is telling us that Cameron = Bliar = Brown.

TomTom

Spelman should go onto radio and television and say this was 11 years ago and it was wrong; she was corrected by Arbuthnot and her errors as a new MP were because the rules were not clear at the time.

She should say that expenses should be transparent and her bad practice should not be an excuse for anyone else - her error then should not justify fraud now.

nadds

One thing this story clearly demonstrates is the clear and unambiguous link between the BBC and nu Labours spin machine.

In a context set by Martin's use of expenses; the Keens purchasing of a cental London flat on our money 9 miles away from their house; Mr & Mrs Balls £40k a year tax free on the basis of making up stories about where they live; the caravan queens £6k garden make over etc etc, they focus on the actions of anew MP over 10 years ago, just as Brwons spinners would want

It would very interesting to FOI the beeb to find out who tipped them off

Labourite

Cameron might think there is advantage in being zero tolerance.

But I feel that Caroline Spelman could admit it was wrong, , she might have sympathy to stay on. The fact that she was a new MP, and a mother, that it happened a decade ago for a year, and that she changed the arrangements on advice, makes it a somewhat different case from Derek Conway. I don't want to suggest the rules should be less onerous for women, and the rules are clear, but she would have some sympathy if she was open about it, including from some of us who are not Tories.

However, as ever, the cover-up could prove more damaging than the offence. And the cover-up is not plausible.

It was very clear from Newsnight that the defence being offered - 30 hours of secretarial duties a week; nannying (without pay, for accomodation) - lacked all plausibility, because of the nanny's account of how she took the odd phone message.

If that is pursued, I think it could be fatal. I am a Labour supporter, but it is always worth asking what you feel you would honestly do or think if this happened to your own side, not the opposition.

And I imagine many Tories will think the secretarial work claim is not a plausible defence.

TGF UKIP

nadds, I entirely agree with you on BBC/Labour direct linkage. The BBC have clearly decided that their Party cannot currently win an election and therefore cannot afford to change their leader without forcing an election. This accounts for not only their focus on any and every Tory difficulty but their quite brazen promotion of Gordon Brown.

The other thing this saga demonstrates, though, is how much fleeter of foot and more brutally ruthless Labour are when it comes to rebuttal or political point scoring.

Imagine this was pre 97 and the boot on the other foot. As I've posted many times before when it comes to raw politics and hunger for power Cameron/Osborne/Hilton/Coulson are amateur featherweights compared with Blair/Brown/Mandelson/Campbell.

Hey

This should be a major selling point for the Tories - 0 tolerance for expense fiddles, and the inquisitors are from the party itself. Contrast that with CPS letting everything go and Cameron hanging people for doing a fiddle. Great sales pitch and ensures integrity of the members!

Tiberius

The clips available on the BBC website lead me to ask: what is Michael Crick's fixation with Tory MPs' expenses? Remember the IDS and Betty case? His leading questions to the nanny are reprehensible; and if the secretary who replaced the nanny is not being challenged as an expenses fiddle, who else but the nanny could have fulfilled the post before that appointment? (Guido chooses to ask this question the wrong way round on his blog).

Sherlock

The nanny has now released a statement clarifying she did do political work, which throws a negative light on Crick's reporting, and the Wilted Rose believes that Crick is from the ‘Gilligan School’ of BBC Reporting.

London Calling

Westminster Mandate 2008

1. To get your House in order, one must first ensure Underwear is clean at all times, just in case of an unexpected accident's.

2. Ensure all household members
budget accordingly and honestly
and save for a rainy day, of which there are many.

3. Set an example to others, not
exploit ones position or use it
for family members or employment of others using Tax payers money.

4. If one tooth is rotten, remove immediately before all teeth become rotten, otherwise remove all teeth and become gummy politicians who need replacing with false dentures until such time democracy is fully restored.

5. Use a lie detector on politicians on a regular basis, as currently being used on benefit cheats, just to make sure the public are being told the truth.

No if's No butt’s...

No dodgy expense claims.
No abuse of Public money.

Oh well, that's the End of Politics as we know it then...:0

Bocephus

If Crick is saying the nanny didn't really do very much secretarial work, who did? I presume no one else was being paid at the same time or we would surely have heard about it.

Why is this the biggest story in the world today? When it was Hain's 88 year old mother being paid I don't remember the BBC handing over rolling news coverage to it.

Silent Hunter

Guido?

'...stealy...'???

Don't you mean 'steely'?

Or is that an ironic use of language? ;O)

Silent Hunter

London Calling:

'....No if's, no butt's...'

No Butts?

I think you've made an arse of that! LOL :O)

But! .....I agree with the 'bottom line' of your comment. ;O)

Jonny

Sorry but if you study the history and the formbook, you'll find this thing called sleaze is as old as the hills. As deep-rooted as human nature. As instinctive as its mother - Greed.
And as for Nannygate - apart from dear old Auntie Beeb loyally fluttering her feathers - I predict it won't count a sausage.

cuffleyburgers

Good timing.

Cameron is getting his retaliation in first, there can be no doubt that labour and Lib Dem MEPs' snouts are just as greasy, and this is the perfect moment for a big EU gravy train scandal, 4 days before the Irish referendum.

Of course any NO vote will be ignored by our lords and masters in Brussels and if so, then it's presumably only a matter of time until the sinn fein boyos elevate the Brussels pass the parcel team to belfast standards?

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of tossers...

E Welshman

What about Labour MEP Michael Cashman giving his (now) civil partner more than £760,000 over the last few years?

Does that count in this discussion?