Do I detect more than a litte hypocrisy on the part of a certain registrar? You’d think that someone whose religion was demonstratedly hostile to them might pause before directing religious hostility at others.

Remember the Forensic Audit Panel? It’s that supposedly neutral body meant to check the previous administration’s finances - which contains two Tory council leaders. And, it emerges, another Tory:

Patience Wheatcroft

1(a)(ii)(cc) – I am a member of or hold a position of general control or management of the following body/bodies whose principle purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy:

Member of the Conservative Party

I wonder what they’ll conclude, hmm? That BoJo wants to pick a panel that agrees with him is unsurprising; he wants to spend public money his way. But he really ought to drop all pretence of political neutrality while doing so…

Hat-tip: Dave Hill.

Brown suggests we waste less food and money. Eminently sensible, if a rather obvious point. So, presumably, he’ll be the first to tighten the belt? It’d be totally hypocritical to go on a long, entirely unnecessary trip to Japan (via Russia) to conduct a meeting which rarely achieves much beyond irritating a few anarchists. And, of course, while under protection from those anarchists by 21,000 police, he wouldn’t dine luxuriously on a menu like this.

Oh. Wait. Perhaps he will.

News very recently in: the Tories have yet more reason to squirm over expenses scandals today. Today’s Newsnight - immediately preceded by Sunny Hundal on Liberal Conspiracy - revealed that Caroline Spelman paid her nanny from her parliamentary allowance.

Spelman charged for the nanny, Tina Haynes, as a secretary between May 1917 and 1998. She may run into problems on this, however, given that the nanny’s sole claim to secretarial work is that she once passed on a message from William Hague.

Newsnight made a big fuss about it: presumably they think it could bite. I’m less sure. Spelman will be asked to pay the money back, and will do so if she’s any political sense. The party will dismiss it as ancient history, a silly mistake by a new MP (hah…). At a push, Spelman will get kicked out of the shadow cabinet and sneaked back in when the fuss has died down.

And it’ll be forgotten about.

That mightn’t be true if Labour pushed the accusations a bit more. But can they? Labour’s not exactly clean when it comes to nanny related indescretions (Ahem. Mr. Blunkett, please stand up…) and expenses fiddles. They risk raising old ghosts if they keep this on the agenda too long. So they might let it conveniently die too…

What this might do is shatter Cameron’s attempts to portray the Tories as a cleaner alternative to Labour. Conway looked like a terrible isolated case a few months ago. The twat Staines’ recent revelations regarding (gah, horrible phrase there..) Conservative MEPs’ similar behaviour, and now this, bring that judgement into question. Several expenses scandals - several serious expenses scandals - have come to light in the space of a year. The Tories look less squeaky clean and more an increasingly accurate replica of New Labour.

I bet Cameron wasn’t thinking of this when he made that “heir to Blair” quip…

EDIT: And that’s the narrative shaping on the internet too. This is already up on her wikipedia entry:

On June 6, 2008, Spelman came under some controversy when it was revealed that in 1997 for one year she paid her child’s nanny, Tina Hain, from her parliamentary staffing allowance. Spelman claims that her nanny was also her constituency secretary and hence why she was paid from the public taxpayers’ purse. This latest claim comes as the Conservatives‘ Leader in Europe, Giles Chichester resigns among claims he paid money through a company of which he was a paid director for and furthermore, the Conservatives’ Chief Whip, Den Dover, was forced to resign amid claims he also paid for his family for 9 years at a cost of £750,000 for alleged secretarial and office work. Perhaps ironically, David Cameron has tasked Spelman with reviewing the use or rather misuse of parliamentary allowances by MPs and MEPs.

I wonder how long that’ll stay up.

Staines, predictably, has decried this as another example of “snouts at the trough.” The pingback on Liberal Conspiracy from Lib Dem Voice is entitled “Conservative Expenses Scandal spreads.” More may well be coming from the liberal/left blogs. And just wait for the usual “bloggertarian” rage. It’ll come…

Oh. And did I mention silence on all fronts from Iain Dale?

A vision came to me last night: Ed Balls is a Tory in disguise, desperately fanning the flames of factionalism in the Labour Party.  As is Charles Clarke, as is Jack Straw, as is Brown himself for remaining leader.

Clearly

What I mean to say is the latest act in the PLP’s grim waltz to electoral suicide continued this morning.  For those that haven’t heard, Ed Balls issued a stinging (hah…) attack on opponents today, calling for an end to personal attacks in the party.

Before claiming Frank Field’s behaviour cast doubts over whether his, “intentions were honourable,” in attacking Brown.  This after calling not too long ago for personal attacks to stop.

Yes, I can see it too.  The public just love hypocrisy.  And backbenchers - who the government needs to win over if it’s to survive - are really crazy about confrontational ministerial behaviour.

Chyeah…

Field’s comments yesterday weren’t helpful to Brown or the Labour Party.  They sank a raft of policy announcements in a tide of personal effluence which might otherwise have provided a vaguely fresh start for the goverment.  Balls is justifiably irritated - along, so the tale goes, with a fair number of backbenchers.

Couldn’t one of them be found to attack Field?  If that’d happened, the criticism would have looked genuine.  Field might have been toppled from his spot as backbench-blocker-in-chief - which was an odd place for him to be anyway.  Divisions between backbenchers and ministers would have been reduced, and those policies might somehow have made it to the news.

Instead - Balls makes this impromptu briefing.  As Gordon Brown’s close friend and ally, his reaction looks like a personal continuation of the previous rancour.  The backbenchers see their self-appointed awdward squaddrista attacked by a minister, and rally round to stop the bullying.  Divisions reappear.  Those policies disappear entirely, aren’t properly scrutinised and unexpectedly bite the party in the arse next year.  Balls looks bitter; the party looks divided; and it all looks very weak to the public.

Strategic mistake, mayhaps?  However you regard Balls as a minister, it’s impossible not to lament the damage he seems intent on wrecking within the party.  He should learn to stop willy-waving, as it just doesn’t work someone in his position…

Note to self: Stop making jokes about Balls’ name.  Immature and puerile, and looks silly.  If not as much as the Minister for Children does at present…

This is vile. Businesses have decided it’s about time that they introduced their own version of the criminal record. The National Staff Dismissals Register, an online database going live later this month, will contain the details of all employees of signed up companies dismissed for simple allegations of certain offences. There doesn’t need to have been any proof, or criminal conviction - merely allegations.

These details will remain on the database for five years. They will be available to any company signed up to the site. That already means Harrods, Selfridges and Reed Managed Services, amongst others.

Presence on the Register is likely to scupper chances of employment entirely. Who’d employ someone who might be guilty of theft, forgery or fraud, if they even suspected them of it? No-one who valued their money, certainly…

They say it’s not a blacklist.

How?

The system is so open to abuse it’s frightening. People have been falsely accused of offences before.  They’ve been sacked for them. They’d lose their job, but they wouldn’t get a criminal record. It’d be unpleasant, but at least they could move on.

This destroys any chance of that. Once an employee is on the database, rightfully or not, they’re on it - and have less of a chance of getting a job. In a case where an employee is wrongly dismissed, that’s simply unfair. You can imagine it. Some lecherous old fart of an employer, as is known to happen, makes advances at an employee. Wisely cautious of flabby middle aged flesh and rampantly under-sexed bosses, they reject them. The boss gets offended, concocts a vague tale of misplaced paper-clips and laptops, and the employee is fired.

And now that goes on their record as theft. For five years.

So, that’s gross injustice number 1. But what about gross injustice number 2? This database utterly dismisses the notion that people can change. Yes, an employee might commit a crime at an early stage, and rightly be dismissed for it. But why can’t they change? Dismissal might be the very spur to drive them back into obeying the law.

If a greasy speck like Jonathan Aitken could do it…

There are reasons employers aren’t allowed to share details of employees. If a crime’s committed, and there’s enough evidence to collar someone, then they’ll get a criminal record. Future employers can judge them on that. If not, then past employers have no right to tar their future with semi-substantiated accusations so weak that they couldn’t even take them to the police.

If a government collected a database like this, there’d be (rightful) outrage. “Statist tyranny!” would go up the cry. “Evil socialists coming to steal your freedom, evil, evil…”

So why is there no outcry when the private sector does it?