Recently by Jonathan Walker

Meriden MP Caroline Spelman, the Conservative Party Chair, is to face an inquiry into her use of MPs' expenses to hire a nanny, it has emerged.

The statement issued this afternoon by John Lyon, the official Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, comes as a surprise because just last week he seemed to be saying that no investigation was needed.
But Mr Lyon, the official Commons watchdog, has consulted a committee of MPs - chaired by Tory backbencher Sir George Young - which agreed an inquiry was needed.

The controversy surrounds Mrs Spelman's use of Commons expenses to employ a nanny, after she became an MP in 1997.

Mrs Spelman has said that the nanny, Tina Haynes, was paid to look after her children and do secretarial work for a "short term period" after her election to Parliament, between 1997 and 1998.

As MPs are allowed to claim expenses to pay their secretaries, this was not against Commons rules.
But it was claimed over the weekend that Ms Haynes in fact remained on the public payroll for almost two years, from April 1997 to March 1999, and that for at least some of this period she lived at the Spelman family home in Kent, more than 140 miles from Meriden.

We are waiting to see whether Mrs Spelman or Conservative Central Office will issue a formal statement in response to the news that the inquiry is going ahead.

But privately, Conservatives are drawing attention to the fact that Mrs Spelman herself asked for the investigation - and that there have been no official complaints about her.

Still, even the hint of sleaze at the top level of the party is a blow to the Tories.

Mrs Spelman will now be under a cloud of suspicion until the unquiry is completed - which could take months.

Two members of the Government have suggested to me that Labour should not even put up a candidate in Haltemprice and Howden - and let David Davis fight it out with Miss Whiplash and the Monster Raving Loony Party.

The idea would be to portray the Shadow Home Secretary's decision to resign from the Commons as a stunt, which will force an expensive by-election which nobody wants.

It's certainly hard to see what a by-election will prove. If his seat was a Conservative/Labour marginal then, perhaps, a by-election resulting in a crushing Tory victory would prove that the public backs Mr Davis in his campaign to defend "fundamental British freedoms".

But it's actually a Tory-held seat where the Lib Dems are the challengers - and they're not even going to stand against him. Referring to Wednesday's vote on holding terror suspects for 42 days, Mr Davis said that if he is returned to Parliament it will be "with a single, simple message - that the monstrosity of a law that we passed yesterday will not stand." But the message, surely, will simply be that without a Lib Dem candidate, his is a safe Tory seat.

There's only one story tomorrow at Westminster, as MPs vote on the Government's plans to allow the detention of terror suspects for 42 days.

If the Government wins it, the credit will belong partly to Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, who won over some doubters with her speech to the Parliamentary Labour Party last week. If they lose, it will inevitably be seen as another blow to Gordon Brown.

Labour has today been very open about the fact that it may lose the vote. This could be a deliberate effort to warn rebels that there will be consequences if they oppose the Government - vote against the proposal and the horrible predictions in the newspapers could come true. Horrible from Labour's point of view, that is.

I wouldn't like to place a bet on the outcome tomorrow. It really is too close to call.

The result of the Crewe by-election has yet to be announced, but Birmingham MP Steve McCabe (Hall Green), Labour's campaign manager in Crewe, has effectively conceded that the Tories have won it, telling broadcasters "things happen mid term".

He cited the by-election in Birmingham Hodge Hill, which Liam Byrne won for Labour with a majority of just 500 in 2004. Just a year later, in a general election, Mr Byrne was re-elected with a healthy 5,000 majority.

The message to MPs was not to panic - by-elections don't tell you what will happen in a general election. As he put it: "What's important is that the unity that people showed here [in Crewe] mid-term is shown in Government."

On the controversy surrounding Labour's "Tory Toff" attacks on the Conservative candidate, he said: "We were having a bit of fun. Most people in Crewe and Nantwich got that . . . it was never a central part of the campaign."

Mr McCabe's argument, expressed on the BBC tonight (or this morning, as it's 1am) and to The Birmingham Post earlier this week, is that the media have exaggerated the extent to which Labour focused on Tory candidate Edward Timpson's background.

But it's not just the media and the Conservatives who have raised this issue. There has also been some disquiet from Labour figures at Westminster.

Having said that, there is also concern among Labour MPs that Mr McCabe is being blamed for a by-election loss which was probably inevitable, based on comments MPs have made to me.

Ultimately, I think "Labour strategists" who have been briefing the London papers that Mr McCabe got it wrong are in danger of deluding themselves.

The comment Mr McCabe made on the news just now is correct. He said: "I think when there is a big movement, and that's exactly what we've seen, I think the campaign can only play a limited role."

The Tory success in Crewe - they are currently predicting a majority of about 6,000, as counting continues this morning - is not a judgment on one Birmingham MP, it's a judgment on the Government as a whole.

We report tomorrow that Birmingham MP Lynne Jones (Lab Selly Oak) has criticised Labour figures who have been attacking Gordon Brown.

This might prompt a wry smile among some of Dr Jones' colleagues. As she says, she has been branded a serial rebel for her opposition to some of the Government's policies under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

However, she has always argued that she has stood up for Labour principles, as she sees them, while certain Labour MPs today seem to be happy to see the party lose power and usher in a Conservative government.

Her anger, I think, has been prompted by Frank Field's attack on the Gordon Brown this morning. Mr Field, the most high-profile critic of Mr Brown's tax reforms, suggested the Prime Minister should consider retiring.

Tory leader David Cameron was challenged over whether he would restore the ten pence tax band by a passer-by, as he campaigned for Crewe by-election this week.

As we have reported, Labour's Steve McCabe, MP for Hall Green in Birmingham, has been placed in charge of his party's election campaign. His task is to stop the Conservatives overturning a 7,000 majority and scoring another morale-boosting victory in the Cheshire seat.

I don't envy him, but in some ways his task is actually easier than Mr Cameron's. People now expect the Tories to win a by-election like this, and they should do if they are on course for a General Election win. If Labour loses, I doubt anyone will blame Mr McCabe. If they win, he'll be a hero.

Thursday is the big day for the politicians as the nation goes to the polls in the local elections.

But they're going to have to wait for the result Westminster is most interested in, the winner of the London mayoral election.

Like it or not, the battle to run the capital is going to be seen as the most important election this week. If Ken Livingstone holds it for Labour, Gordon Brown's MPs will receive a morale boost which may make his life a little easier. If Boris storms home for the Tories, David Cameron's party will look a step closer to winning a General Election.

The Chancellor insisted today: "What I can't do is to rewrite the budget."

He sounded almost regretful. Hearing Alistair Darling speak, it didn't sound as if he believed the changes had been entirely for the best. The impression was strengthened when he pledged to "return" to the issue in future financial statements.

He was referring, of course, to the decision to scrap the starting 10p rate of income tax - so that people pay the higher, basic rate instead - to pay for a cut in the basic rate from 22p to 20p.

The effect is to increase taxes for people on lower salaries. The Chancellor and Gordon Brown, who announced the change back when he was Chancellor in 2007, would point out that most of those affected will enjoy the benefits of higher tax credits to make up for it. But an estimated five million are still worse off.

In fact, I wonder if the Government hasn't placed too much faith in this tax credit stuff. If you increase someone's taxes but make up for it in some other way, I suspect that what they remember is that you increased their taxes.

Will Charles Clarke challenge Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership?

There's certainly a feeling among some Labour MPs that something has to change. The rebellion over the abolition of the 10p starting rate of income tax is driven partly by a fear among MPs in marginal seats that they are set to be kicked out of the Commons at the next election.

Hence, they are keen to distance themselves publicly from an unpopular and badly thought through policy, even if this causes difficulty for the Prime Minister.

But there's no sense that a leadership challenge is imminent or, for now at least, desirable. It's not as if Mr Brown is likely to go quietly before he has fought even one general election as Labour leader.

So it was odd that the Prime Minister chose to stoke the fires with his comments earlier this week, when he insisted: "I'm starting a job that I mean to continue."

This has been seen as his way of insisting that he won't be pushed out of office. A Prime Minister only says these things when he is in trouble, and the effect was to give talk of a leadership challenge more credibility than it currently deserves.

Digby Jones, now Lord Jones of Birmingham and a Trade Minister in Gordon Brown's Government, is reported to have told business leaders he will quit the Government before the next election - because he doesn't want to support the Prime Minister.

The generous view is that this is simply Lord Jones being consistent with what he has always said, that he's not in the Government to back Labour (or any other party), but simply to back British industry.

A less kind view is that this is yet another vote of no confidence in Mr Brown.