Presumably they don’t want to resign when the press prints article after article about their apology.

Funnily enough, Iain Dale was then trying to stick up for Conway too. Maybe that’s a poisoned chalice.

I’m a bit torn on this. I see Laurie’s point, and I’m sympathetic to it. Though I think Cath’s point stands too.

Maybe Jo Christie-Smith’s idea (about tax breaks, not paying for dog carers) is the best way. Jo – the difference would be that I think I’d enjoy looking after a dog. I’d hate looking after a baby.

We need politicians who at least own up to mistakes when they get caught out..

But we’re not and never have really blogged about that have we? So again, what makes this particular issue so special given it is “the parking ticket” level offense?

As it is the current regulations are clear and enforcement should be forthcoming if it isn’t already underway. You can start making exemptions for rules on the basis that a parking ticket is less bad than murder – that’s ridiculous!

Jo, I don’t have children of my own so I can say I have that insight, but I did think the advantage of working from home is that it provides the flexibility to fit work around other responsibilities, so if childcare and home-based work are incompatible it begs the question of why anyone does it (and I have several friends who do so for precisely those reasons).

I think most people who are required to work hundreds of miles from home and be available at unusual times are given one form of help or another with maintaining a second home close to the place of work.

However, those same people are responsible for making and paying for suitable childcare arrangements. If they can’t afford childcare to cover their working responsibilities then, in the real world, they have to find another job or stop working.

That’s, to an extent, undesirable and, given that children are essential to the survival of our species as well as our economy (in a way which dogs plainly aren’t), I think it’s high time childcare expenses were completely tax deductable.

The system of MPs’ allowances isn’t at fault here, as she was advised by the Chief Whip that the arrangement was not acceptable and she stopped it – if it weren’t for the clamour to expose MPs’ expenses we’d know nothing.

Rather than this being a partisan issue I see it as being a simple case of an MP being caught, retrospectively, with her hand in the till.

I also must say a lot of the comments on this seem vindictively jealous. “We don’t get it so why should she?” seems to be the reasoning for a lot of people’s thoughts. Surely it’s more productive to use this as a platform for greater funding of childcare from the public purse rather than to expel this energy of how “wrong” it is and essentially cement no state benefits for that sort of childcare as the norm? Seems really counter productive to me.

And so would I. Unfortunately it doesn’t happen…

Surely, though, childcare is a cost incurred for some MPs carrying out their parliamentary duties? They work fairly unpredictable hours, and if they have a constituency outside of London may well be away from their children for more than half the week. The children can’t move away from the constituency home because of school, and yet the MP has to for their work. If the MP’s partner has a similarly time-consuming job, or perhaps more importantly if they’re a single parent, then childcare becomes a necessary expense bought about by the nature of the job.

That said, I agree with the comments that MPs shouldn’t be allowed to claim childcare off the state without other parents receiving similar support. But then again, I’d broadly be in favour of the state providing daycare/childcare for infants so that parents (again, especially single parents) could get out to work and support themselves…

I agree with Cath that by suggesting it’s OK for Caroline Spelman to claim for a nany reenforces the idea that looking after children is, when push come to shove, the responsibility of a woman. It is not.

However, I have long thought that the cost of childcare could be tax deductable as it is an expense of working and can put women or low income families in the poverty trap for even longer.

Of course, it could also be a thin end of a wedge! I don’t have children but used to have a dog and I used to employ a dog sitter to come in once a day and walk him when I was at work, or stay overnight if I was away for work…that was clearly an expense of working for me!!! Tax deductable dog walking anybody???

Plus, thomas, have you ever tried working whilst looking after children.?

It’s probably a fair question to ask the reasons why certain MPs came under the spotlight while others haven’t, but my guess is that the FoI campaigners picked to investigate the low-hanging fruit first.

First, obtain croquet lawn…

Anyway, if Spelman was working from home what did she need a nanny for exactly? why not go the whole hog and claim for a full entourage including tutor, masseur, personal trainer, chef, chauffeur, chiropodist and a croquet lawn keeper as well – these are all almost essential for cabinet members, why not also for all MPs? Or was it because she thought she could get away with this one…

It doesn’t change the fact that all parties have been as bad as each other on this issue

Don’t make it into a party political thing because it isn’t.

The question is what the expenses are there for, and as far as I can see they have become a fund for MPs to make their lives easier in whatever way while they carry out their parliamentary duties. There are no doubt countless other things to direct our indignation at that deserve it more than a mother ensuring her child is cared for while she’s doing her job. Now that isn’t to say that I think it’s right that she can spend her expenses on that given her salary, but that’s because I believe the entire expenses system is one that is open to abuse and is a salary by proxy (and certainly would be if recent suggestions see approval). Under the current system though? No problem for me.

Seems more like left-leaning bloggers seizing on a rare recent opportunity to lay in to the Tories…trouble is that by doing so all it makes people like myself think is that it’s not as if Labour (and potentially even Lib Dem when the expenses list is published) have exactly acted any better when you look at it. In particular, on this case, I’d much rather money was spent on nannies than shopping trips and tudor cladding.

There is also the matter of how much secretarial work the person in question did; Ms Spellman was done no favours with the confusion at the beginning. It’s not unreasonable to ask, if this person was employed as a secretary, why she was doing any other work.

xD.