No member is a hero to his valet

MPs' expenses part whatever it is now. A second Tory MP claims for his servants (sorry, staff).

Charles Hendry, a shadow minister, claimed more than £7,300 in taxpayer-funded expenses to pay for domestic staff at his second home.

Amusing, certainly. Bad for the Tories, sure. But should he (and Sir John Butterfill) not have tried to claim these as a legitimate political expense? Remember Balfour's wise words that he would sooner take political advice from his valet than the Tory Party Conference.

The worst thing about the political parties - all of them* - is their rank and file membership.

* Okay, Ed Balls for Labour then.

Lincolnshire, so much to answer for

Baroness Thatcher's home county is a rather strange and sinister place: the flatness, the ditches on the roadside that seem to have the express purposes of drawing in motorists who have become hypnotised by the monotonous landscape so that the in-bred locals can slit their throats and take their valuables. You might see it as Wales without the redeeming features.

But when you consider its politicians an Irish friend of mine suggested an even better comparison: the Tipperary of England. It is perhaps not entirely a coincidence that the most shameful examples of troughing MPs have come from Lincolnshire.

Viscount Hailsham, aka Douglas Hogg, aka the man with the moat seems determined to destroy his own career in a manner designed to make David Cameron look good in comparison.

Then there are his Labour counterparts, foremost among them Elliot Morley, who will spend the rest of life longing for obscurity after claiming for the mortgage that never was - oh while renting out his other home to a fellow Lincolnshire Labour MP.

Another representative of that country is Austin Mitchell, a man whom no one has taken seriously since about 1979. Even the Commons Fees Office questioned some of his claims. At least, he doesn't appear to have done anything too outrageous and, to give the man his due, his response to the Telegraph is far more enjoyable that the standard "it was all within the rules" shtick.

However, this is also the county that sent to Parliament Quentin Davis, the man who was once prosecuted for cruelty to sheep and who - in possibly the gravest misjudgment since Paris whispered in Helen's ear "come over the weekend, no one will miss you" - decided to leave the Tories to join Labour because of his admiration for Gordon Brown's "sound judgment" and "great competence".

Going back further, this was also the county that sent the young Jeffrey Archer to Parliament.

What the hell is wrong with the place? Great cheese, though.

Caught red handed

Jacqui Smith, oh dear. The really important question is what should we call this scandal: w–ergate? mastur-gate?

The rest is pretty predictable. Can Jacqui Smith survive? no. A truly shameless and able politician might brazen it out when caught with their snout in the trough; even if, as in Smith's case it's no so much a snout as a whole pig's worth bar a couple of trotters and a little tail wriggling pinkly that is found in the mountain of swill. But when you manage to be a laughing stock with it, there is no hope, none whatsoever, of survival.

Does she warrant any sympathy? Some, but not for the expense gouging that led to this. If you play the system to the extent that you are happy to get the taxpayer to subsidise your family home (officially the second home, far from Westminster, even if it is lived in by your husband, who is paid £40,000 a year to act as your parliamentary aide), its entertainment system, an 88p plug, a £1,ooo antique fireplace, your internet subscription and even a viewing of Ocean's 13 and so on and venally on, it's no wonder you might inadvertently claim a state-sponsored wank or two as well. Or even be bothered to distinguish between legitimate expenses and grabbing whatever you can.

Oh, okay there are a couple of questions remaining. Why didn't her husband, Richard Timney, not use that internet subscription to seek out free smut?

And what of his viewing material? We told that one of the films may have been Raw Meat 3 (link safe for work). A cursory search for this cinematic classic leads one to suspect that it is somewhat homosexualist in nature (link not overly safe for work). It's possible there are other naughty films with the same title, of course, or even that he might have been watching another one of the naughty channels but that would possibly explain the Home Secretary's anger.

PS: Another thought occurs to me. The paper that first broke the story was the Sunday Express (prop: Richard Desmond). Did it have direct knowledge of what he might have been viewing by any chance?