Caroline Spelman has paid her nanny out of her parliamentary allowance

[spicemonster]

Apparently while she and the tories are saying that actually she was doing parliamentary work for 30 hours a week and a bit of nannying on the side, the nanny has said that she was primarily a nanny who sometimes took the odd parliamentary phone call.

The whole bloody lot of them (all politicians I mean, whatever flavour) are corrupt expense fiddlers aren't they?

Isnt childcare a valid expense?

Why is it a valid expense? You're supposed to pay for it out of your salary. She gets a generous one - I think she can afford it.

I like the bit where she apparently said the nannying part of her job was paid for in kind with board and lodging while the money paid for her secretarial work. I think I would like a nanny for my kids now, especially as you don't have to pay them any money!

pmsl that they think they can justify this IN THE SLIGHTEST! If this was a labour MP, old Dave Cameron would be on his feet shouting 'position is untenable!!!'

Personally I think childcare should be a tax deductable expense, but until it is she should be dealt with in the same way any of us would be if we cheated the inland revenue by hiring a 'nanny/PA'. Somehow I don't think they'd accept the story the Tories are spouting

Yes, we can't put childcare expenses on tax forms! And the scheme that is in place is SO hideously complicated to work out, that it is worse than useless!

One rule for us, one rule for them.........

I feel so nostalgic about Tory sleaze making a comeback...

And clueless, I don't see why the majority of the population who earn a lot less than Spelman, and can't afford nannies themselves, should subsidise hers. As well as paying her a very generous salary and pension scheme.

Not just her, though, think three other Tory MEPs have had to resign their posts (leader of the Tories in Europe and chief whip and stuff). One of them is called Den Dover and mishearing his name cause much hilarity in this house yesterday!

The nanny probably did as much secretarial work as some of the wives/daughters/sons etc that some other MPs pay a salary to...

yes edam, we larfed at den dover too!

pigs in troughs and its not pleasant and seems pretty much endemic in the corridors of power

My first thought was "blimey, so nannies don't charge for nannying anymore if you give them bed and board? Only I was under the impression that you had to give them bed and board and use of a car and paid holiday and a salary higher than mine. I'm obviously out of date, I must rush off to the nearest nannying site immediately and employ one, seeing as how they are now cheaper than au-pairs..."

Effing NOT. What a shameless liar.

Outrageous but not surprising.

nanny now saying she was employed for nanny and secretarial duties......

I was quite surprised by this story as I worked with Caroline's husband and they are some of the most honest, upstanding people I have met. So I really don't think she deliberately set out to abuse funds and her position. But it does seem that there are lots of grey areas for MPs, allowing them to do things to their advantage.

well, I think it just goes to show that the rules for expenses are old boys network. I mean really, one can pay a secretary as a legitimate expense, but not a nanny?

I was so pleased to read this. Cannot stand Spelman; she has one of those horrible tory women voices - slow and patronising.

No love for the Tories here but in some senses the childcare vouchers do make chidcare a tax-deductable expense don't they? Not that it makes it ok...

The childcare vouchers are SO complicated though. We looked at them, but basically, you need to do a calculation as to whether you are better or worse off by using them.

If you use them, essentially your employer pays your childcare amounts in vouchers, so your salary is lower, and therefore less tax is taken. BUT, your amount you pay in childcare is also lower, as you can't include any childcare paid for by the voucher, and therefore when it comes to either WFTC or CTC (can't remember which) you get less, because your childcare costs are less. But you can't find out what the difference in this particular tax credit is, because it is paid retrospectively.

So you have to gamble - I guess, if you are a higher rate tax payer it may be worth using the 'employer vouchers', if not then it probably isn't.

they're all a bunch of lying crooks no matter what their party affiliation.

i don't know why people are continually shocked when their true natures are revealed.

Oh the bottom line is that she cheated. Most of them do. They've constructed the rules in such a way, that they're deliberately ambiguous and you don't actually need to break the law to rob the public. But they're full of moral outrage about benefit fraudsters. The wankers.

They aren't all a bunch of lying crooks. That's very unfair to the likes of Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mo Molem and David Hinchcliffe (although obviously two of those are deceased).

But they're full of moral outrage about benefit fraudsters. The wankers.

Oh, yes, that always gets me. Especially when they target lone parents with school age children.

And then you get masses of people with the, 'Send the slackers to the workhouse' mentality.

All whilst the politicians pick their pockets whilst that population has got their arms up waving 'Down with benefits' banners. And they're none the wiser. How thick can you get? The joke's on all of us and the dish ran away with the spoon.

I think they all fandangle the system, edam, in one way or another.

If they don't then I'd be willing to wager my last tuppence of the month that they all go that way at one point or another.

Most just don't get caught.