Crazy horses

Got myself a new motor today. Feeling rather virtuous, although haven't quite reached this level of eco-smugness. (Have I just made that up? Quick Google - no, I haven't).

In fact, before anyone quotes it back at me, here's their definition:

"...the conspicuous aura of self-congratulation that accompanies any act of eco-altruism, no matter how trivial or self-serving, eco-smugness can be seen in everything from Greenfleet bumper stickers (just so everyone knows you're offsetting your automotive emissions) to growing your own vegies - then quietly letting everyone know about it."

Or blogging about getting an greener model of car? Yup, guilty as charged. (Glad to see Cameron getting an honourable mention though).

Nanny state revisited

Peter Spencer has just been on again - this time he compared Ms Spelman's alleged transgressions to "going through traffic lights a bit dodgily and finding a camera on you". I think he also said it was a bit unfair on her, and may have used the phrase 'not a hanging offence'. I was just waiting for him to describe it as a 'whoops-a-daisy' moment (© Giles Chicester MEP).

So, for the benefit of Mr Spencer, let's clarify what's under discussion here. Either the 'nanny' was legitimately employed as a constituency secretary, and was paid out of public funds purely and solely for doing such secretarial work - in which case, nothing dodgy, nothing wrong, case closed. Or she was paid out of public funds for looking after Ms Spelman's children. Which is undeniably dodgy and wrong and not allowed under parliamentary rules.

I would actually have some sympathy for Ms Spelman if she'd occasionally had to dump the kids on her office staff because the nanny was running late or if she'd suddenly had an emergency crop up. Kids sat in the corner with their colouring books while the staff get on with office work; probably happens every now and again in Westminster, hence many MPs' calls for a parliamentary creche. (At certain crucial votes there's often a kind of pass the parcel in the Government whips' office, as the mothers race through the division lobbies and then run back to retrieve their babies so that the 'babysitters' can vote, which can get pretty ridiculous).

We'll see what the parliamentary standards commissioner has to say.

Another example of the nanny state?

I couldn't believe what Peter Spencer, Sky's political correspondent, said on an earlier bulletin about Caroline Spelman. I paraphrase, but only slightly - he said that while what Spelman is alleged to have done was 'a bit worse than leaving the house without plumping the cushions', it wasn't 'as if she had actually trashed the house'. Let's get this clear - it's alleged she used public funds to pay her nanny's wages. The nanny herself, on Newsnight, said that she had answered one or two phone calls from MPs, but basically, she did 'nannying'. (Spelman says the 'nanny' did secretarial work during the day.) If the allegations are upheld, then it's very serious - and not in any way comparable with plumping or not plumping cushions. Someone else on Sky was obviously equally unimpressed by the acuity of Spencer's political analysis, as they've stopped running that segment now.

P.S. Come on James! Leap to your Party Chairman's defence!