Posts
Michael Crick: Tories Fail to Answer on Sleaze
Michael Crick's litany of unanswered questions for the Tories and in particular La Spelman are still going unanswered but a good few of the comments are falling foul of the censors. On Newsnight last night Crick indicated that the former Tory Chief Whip, a Mr Arbuthnot, had gone into hiding rather than supporting La Spelman. And he speculated on the matter of what William Hague might have known at the time and on the ongoing employment of the Nursery Nurse with no secretarial skills who did "secretarial work" all day for Taxpayers' pay, while doing nannying work either side of it for nothing at all.
Later - until 2002 or so - carrying on with nannying work ... for unknown remuneration. Presumably just room and board as before.
POSTSCRIPT: Emily Maitlis was very impressive Newsnight anchor last night with Hard Talk/Straight Talk style interview with His Holiness the Arch of Cant, and a useful exchange with Bev Hughes, plus Crick twisting the knife, and great roving reporting on corrupt (and lethal) medics from the 'stans from Natalya Antylova (sp?).
5 comments:
It is outrageous how the media, Newsnight excepted, fell into a line of "Ms Spelman isn't really crooked". I've seen defence after defence of her, the latest in a fawning Guardian article today, but little which goes to the heart of the matter.
It does matter that Ms Spelman used public money to pay for her childcare (until warned by the whips that she shouldn't) whilst the Tory Party is pushing a policy of "stand on your own two feet" and "support for families".
We know what these policies will mean to women, especially single mothers who slave away trying to make ends meet. It's not just deceitful to use public money to pay for her nanny, it's hypocritical too.
But that was then, and things are better now, except that as you rightly point out, they're not. Cameron's Conservatives are being funded by big business in a much more direct way than before. As America prepares to tackle the vested interests which funds their body politic, thanks to Obama's principled stand against lobbyists, the opposite is happening in the Tory Party.
Keep at it Chris, this is important stuff.
Is paying the nanny only with borad and lodging consistent with the law in respect of the minimum wage??
Probably not. Though there are work rounds along the lines of the old "Company Store" ruse. But when did that come in?
Incidentally the last Dorries child that workd fro her got minimum wage, this time it's £7.50 and hour and who knows what in a mother-daughter side deal. That's runaway inflation that is. AND she gets board and lodging to boot.
I know she's bonkers - but I've not much of a problem with Mad Nad employing her daughter - even at £7.50 an hour she is hardly raking it in and the poor child has probably suffered enough being the daughter of an MP (most of whom work very hard and long hours), let alone Mad Nad, and the whole deal is pretty transparent.
Indeed. Transparently bonkers. Nads is a born again liar though so there may be more to it. She has second and third and fourth homes coming out her ears. Or she did before divorce two at least.
Post a Comment