In defence of Spelman?
Penny Red provides a far better defence of Spelman than Osborne did this morning:
What, precisely, is the problem with a working mother paying another working woman to carry out childcare and admin duties that she doesn’t have time for? Does the public worry that people who are ‘only nannies’ are unlikely to make good secretaries? Does a focus on childcare as a career mean one is unable to read, write, keep files and open post? Was the nanny found delinquently dancing on rooftops with rogue chimney sweeps? Or is the issue simply that childcare isn’t seen as an important part of a politician’s expenses, particularly if that politician is female? Excuse me whilst I remove my jacket: it’s getting rather hot under this glass ceiling.
I’m persuaded; MPs should be allowed to claim nannies on expenses. If they’ve got children, child-care will presumably form a considerable part of their expenditure. A nanny may well be essential, given the long and often unpredictable hours often involved. So allowing that under expenses seems reasonable - certainly more so than demands for extra cars…
Spelman (probably) broke rules on expenses, such as they are. Whether those rules are at all fair as they are is distinctly more debatable. Perhaps the Tories could, if they’d tried early enough, shifted the issue onto that? The shift would be interesting: they’d be able to portray themselves as supporting working women’s advancement. And to shift the agenda to that from what was originally an expenses scandal would be quite the political achievement.
Of course, as Penny Red points out, it’s unlikely to happen: they’re the Tories. And public advocacy for financial support of working women in carer’s roles? Well, that would be socialism…
I think MPs should pay for childcare out of their own pocket like other “working mothers”.
This is irrelevant, of course, to the fact that the rules do not currently allow taxpayers’ money to be used in this way.