[Mr Cash] said his claims were in line with the rules and were approved by the House of Commons fees office.Sorry, not good enough.
He added: “What is lawful is appropriate.”
Asked why he lived in clubs rather than his own flat, he said: “I just didn’t and that’s all there is to it. I was nomadic at the time. It was around the time I was moving between two places and I was moving around.”
But this illustrates a growing problem for political leaders and the media,and it is this. How on earth is it possible to be consistent when judging which of these incidents are serious and warrant a party taking action itself, or warrant a politician falling on his or her sword? You could accuse me of not being consistent in saying Bill Cash's explanation is not good enough, when I accepted Julie Kirkbride's. I could retort that Bill's explanation doesn't pass David Cameron's "smell test", but I thought Julie's explanation did. Why was Julie Kirkbride considered a more serious transgression by the media, than, say Hazel Blears, who cheerfully remains in her cabinet post? Wasn't what Tony McNulty did far more serious than any of these?
Objective reporting is not possible any longer on this issue because people are making subjective judgements the whole time.
* Questions for Cash was coined by Paxo on Newsnight last night, which I have just watched on iPlayer. The spat between Kelvin MacKenzie and Danny Finkelstein was a great bit of TV.