It doesn't add up

Press, politicians and bloggers have been remarkably quiet about the Caroline Spelman scandal. Spelman clearly used public money to pay for a nanny and has to pay some of it back. The idea that this was "unintentional" is just one of those fudges that the establishment uses to protect its own.

According to the Guardian, John Lyon, the parliamentary standards commissioner, found that the nanny did a proper administrator's job but was overpaid for the work.

But the Independent's report shows that there are two different ways of doing the maths:

The report found that Ms Spelman paid Mrs Haynes £13,000 a year for doing secretarial work between 1997 and 1999. Ms Spelman said Mrs Haynes was paid no salary for taking sole care of her three children. Her nannying duties were rewarded with free board and lodging.

But when Mrs Haynes gave up the constituency work to concentrate on the nannying, Ms Spelman paid her a £13,000 salary out of her own pocket to cover the childcare.

A constituency secretary who took over was paid £4,800 a year less than Mrs Haynes for doing the work – and so the report found that Ms Spelman had been effectively subsidising Mrs Haynes' nannying job.

So Spelman suddenly paid her nanny £13,000 a year for nannying, having previously paid her nothing at all?

Secretary vs Nanny

Newsnight continues to make a compelling case against Caroline Spelman. The Times reports the story - that a secretary working for Spelman was shocked to find out how much she was paying her nanny for so little work. Sally Hammond - wife to a Tory MP - is said to be prepared to give evidence to the Standards Commissioner.

(Still) No case to answer?

So Caroline Spelman is to be investigated for paying her nanny out of public funds. It seems that she hasn't been entirely straight with us and that this arrangement lasted longer than she earlier claimed.

What gets me on this one is Spelman's attempt to spin the "exceptional" investigation as having arisen from her own request:

Spelman said last night: "Having personally referred this matter to the commissioner in the first place, I welcome his decision to look at it further."

As the Guardian points out:

After the story broke on BBC2's Newsnight, Spelman, on the advice of Tory leader David Cameron, held a meeting with Lyon and asked him to investigate in a bid to clear her name

.

No case to answer?

The Guardian reports that John Lyon, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, is "considering carefully" whether to carry out a full investigation into the Spelman affair. He says it would be exceptional to look at such an old issue. This may be a hint that he won't take it further or may reflect a belief that there is something worth looking at.

The report also quotes tories as claiming that the case is a "witchhunt" from a desperate, leftwing BBC.

Objectivity guaranteed

Iain Dale has a go this morning at the Observer's Jo Revill for writing anti-tory stories a few weeks before taking up a job working for Alan Johnson.

Dale makes a good point about declaring interests. But he has completely lost the plot on the Caroline Spelman story, leaping on a evidently cobbled together statement by her nanny saying that she DID do constituency work. A "decent and honest" tory is in trouble so let's defend her.

Isn't it a bit of a worry that, according to Spelman, Tina Haynes was paid to do secretarial work and did her nannying for free? How stupid do these tories think we are?

Ripping off the nanny state

Caroline Spelman is still insisting that paying her nanny out of her parliamentary allowance was legitimate, even though the nanny herself has told Newsnight's Michael Crick that there was virtually no secretarial work involved.

The tories have decided that sticking with Spelman on this is the best way to deal with it. I think it insults people's intelligence. Labour MP John Mann has demanded some proof.