Yet it is Tory party chairman Caroline Spelman's payments to a nanny who may or may not have also worked as a constituency secretary that seem to be provoking most criticism.
It is astonishing that the ex-chief whip in Brussels, Den Dover, could pay his wife and daughter around £750,000 quite legitimately (although it was embarrassing enough for him to lose his job anyway), while Ms Spelman will have broken the rules if she is found to have paid for childcare rather than secretarial help.
Parliamentary staffing allowances are intended only for work deemed directly relevant to serving as an MP, and childcare is not viewed as such, while answering letters and filing documents is.
Now there will not be too much sympathy for Ms Spelman from ordinary working parents - they cannot claim childcare fees as tax-deductible, getting only limited help through the childcare element of Working Tax Credit. Why should a high-earning MP be treated any differently?
However, this case raises important questions about the UK's attitudes to childcare and working mothers. It is easy to imagine Ms Spelman struggling to make sense of the blurred boundaries between home and work, as many do. It seems it is perfectly legal for MPs to charge the taxpayer for mortgages, stereos, wallpaper, doing up the garden, and a whole range of other 'necessary' expenses, but not for the childcare that truly enables them to do their job. Which is the bigger rip-off?
