I have spent the last 48 hrs in bed. I told everyone it was a bad tummy, it wasn't, I had reached the point of stress induced physical exhaustion.

The nausea had soared to the point of physically debilitating me, and so I gave in.

Lying down was a mistake. Once I had done that, lifting my head from the pillow became a physical impossibility, for almost 24 hrs.

I felt as though Smeargate, my run in with the Daily Telegraph (DT), after I published their letter to me on my blog, the last few days along with all the usual MP and mother work, had morphed into a physical being and were collectively leaning over my bed, rubbing their hands together in glee and squealing "that's it, she's down!”

As always, I will qualify what I am about to say with the acknowledgment that I was as shocked and appalled as everyone else at the revelations of fraud and wrong-doing. Like everyone else, I am still reeling from the knowledge, that a sovereign system had allowed, enabled, and encouraged non-existent mortgages to be claimed for. The process of house flipping was as much news to me as everyone else. Frankly, even if I had used the ACA to buy a house, it is not something which would ever even occur to me to do, not in a million years.

My surgeries are full of people at their wits end. The redundant, the broken and the poor. I meet, see and talk to these people almost every single day.

I have been, at sometime or other, all of those people.

That is why I took their anger as read. I felt it too.

I believe it is right of the DT to bring this issue out into the open. I praise their exposure of fraud and mis-appropriation.

However, it is wrong to conflate the deadly serious with the mildly embarrassing and genuine administrative errors. By doing that you deem the truly innocent, wholly guilty, make it impossible for the public to understand where to direct their anger, create an atmosphere of chaos and insecurity, which in turn, threatens democracy itself.

Does the DT have an agenda other than the desire to perform a public service?

Why would they expose this fiasco at the start of an election campaign if the priority was not to de stabilise the main political parties and to drive votes towards the minority parties?

I cleave to my original substantive point. If it's in the name of the public good, do it all in one day. Get it all out there. One big explosive edition. Let the guilty be found, the mistakes be rectified and the innocent go about their lives free from the potential impending ducking stool.

Is there not something slightly hypocritical about the DT increasing its revenue by an estimated £1 million per day in the name of public good?

Whilst democracy teeters on the brink of collapse, the DT is laughing all the way to the bank.

You would never allow a business to freefall in the way we were allowing the mother of all Parliaments to spin out of control.

My colleagues, my innocent colleagues, were literally being made physically ill by the bullying process deployed by the DT, as part of the drip, profit, drip, profit technique.

If I had to use one word to describe any personal quality I possess, it is loyalty.

I would never betray a friend and I always instinctively, fiercely, protect those I care for. Seeing the innocent amongst my colleagues, from all political parties, on all sides of the house, suffer in this way and threading together what I saw with what I have explained above seriously worried me. When I heard two MPs discussing how very concerned everyone was about an MP who was ill and was being persued by the DT for an admin error, I worried too.

 I had no idea that the few words on my blog, written from a perspective of concern and care, would result in another 24 hrs of frenetic media or be quoted as the second item on the Today programme. I had only stated what was blindingly obvious to anyone and everyone who had been in Westminster that week.

I should mention at this point that I was 100% behind David Cameron's strong position of punishing the fraudsters. It has to be done. But the innocent needed to be cared for and protected too. David Cameron faces a huge challenge, to be the man who brings forward proposals which will bring about a new sense of security. the country needs to know it's safe in his hands. Only when people begin to feel secure again will calm be restored.

I didn't sleep at all on Friday night.

I knew that the following morning there was a chance I could be slaughtered in the papers.

That people may misinterpret my concern as an excuse for those who had committed serious fraud. Or that I was in some way excusing the ridiculous behaviour of someone who thought a second home for ducks was an appropriate use of tax payer’s money.

I was much relieved at first light that the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk leader had agreed with me, using the headline 'the witch hunt has to stop'.

The Archbishop of Canterbury had also written an article in the Times calling for 'the end of the ritual humiliation', and two of my favourite journalists Matthew Paris in the Times for whom I have the hugest admiration and respect and Danny Finkelstein, ditto, had written supporting my position in Matthew’s case, and me personally in Danny's. Thank you so much Danny ( I had read the book too!).

As well as waiting during the night on Friday to see if my career was in tatters, I also had to deal with the minor problem of the Barclay Brother’s use of global lawyers and the removal of my blog site on behalf of the Telegraph Group.

At 1am I felt as though I was in a very surreal place. This was just little me, and two of the richest men in the world who own a newspaper empire and can pretty much say what they want, when they want, to who they want, had, using their wealth and muscle, shut me down.

It was shortly after reading the Saturday morning press when realising that with the Archbishops comments, that at least I had God on my side, I began to vomit.

My whole-hearted apologies to Cara at Sky, who got the first audio clip.

My phone rang an hour ago. A very tearful, upset female MP, wrongly targeted by the DT. Her husband's company had received hate emails. The press were camped outside her house in a pack. Her very young son, unknowingly holding telephone conversations with journalists, even though he had told them mummy wasn't in. Her life and her family in bits, and in her case the DT have got it completely wrong. Decent people do not like to see the innocent victimised. I suspect this wont stop until June 5th, the day following the election. By which time much more harm than good may have been done.

She, one of the many good, is suffering as a result of the rotten minority.

I knew on Friday morning that I had walked into the eye of a storm. I also knew that in voicing concern for all but the immoral, corrupt fraudsters and the totally ridiculous, I would become a conduit for the anger which had yet to be earthed.

Never again must democracy be threatened or the innocent be victimised. A system is required which rewards in a fair way and is totally beyond corruption.

I finish on my initial point. If the Telegraph are doing this not for the advantage of minority parties, not to destabilise democracy, not to make themselves even wealthier, then handle it better. Leave the innocent alone and publish the guilty all on one day. Because if democracy is damaged as a result of a minority of fraudsters and crooks, we will all, in the long term,  be much worse off than we are today.

We may even see a return to the dark days when only the rich can afford to stand as an MP and as someone from a council estate, that for me would be the saddest day.

I've finished going through all my receipts and thought I had better make some things crystal clear:

I do NOT own a home in South Africa.

I do NOT own a home from which I receive a rental income.

I do rent a home/office in my constituency which is paid for by the ACA. The Green Book rules state ' if an MPs designated main home is not in either London or the constituency the ACA can be used to buy or rent in either'.

There is no stipulation on nights to be spent in either location.

I chose to rent in the constituency and not buy.

I do, from my own money, pay for a rental property I have designated as my main home. It is near the former marital home where my children were born and went to school; and where my youngest lived permanently, and attended school until September 2008.

I will buy again when the market settles down.

I have not used the ACA to buy furniture, sofas, plasma screen TVs, gardening, decorating, home repairs or any luxury items.

I did use it to buy a cooker, table dryer, desk, computer table and storage boxes from Ikea as one off relocation costs in the first year.

I furnished the house with items from my main home, a couple of donations from my mother, and beds that I paid for myself from John Lewis.

I have not claimed the £400 per month food allowance.

I have not claimed the £250 petty cash each month.

I have purchased and lost two digital cameras at two garden fetes and broken a Sat Nav.

We have ordered chocolate biscuits and tea bags with our stationary rather than using petty cash.

I used a chartered accountant to make sure that HMRC received my correct tax payments.

That's it.

The atmosphere in Westminster is unbearable. People are constantly checking to see if others are ok. Everyone fears a suicide. If someone isn't seen, offices are called and checked.

All because this country has never had a Prime Minister with the political courage to stand up to the British media, and award MPs the pay rise proposed year after year, by the Senior Salary Review Board.

Year after year the salary stayed the same; but the allowances were increased, were called allowances, not expenses, and MPs were told to use them.

I wonder how many people are aware, that if you are an MP and divorce, the courts base your maintenance payments to your husband/wife/children on a combination of your ACA and your salary.

This is because the ACA is classed as an allowance, not an expense account, and is considered by the court as the property of the MP.

An interesting legal point. One of the confusing facts, which has got us into this mess.

No MP must ever, ever have to vote for his or her salary again; and no Prime Minister should ever have the power to use MPs' pay as a political pawn.

Hopefully the good which will come from this will be radical reform, which will prevent such a disaster ever occurring again.

A very senior member of the Labour party has told me that the party, almost en masse, will be voting for Bercow.

It means they can do the honourable thing and vote for a Conservative and not be seen to be partisan, "because Bercow's not really a Conservative anyway".

He said that the reason Michael Martin had failed was because he had become isolated, he had no friends. The reason Labour wont vote for Frank is because, he reckons, Frank is already isolationist and has no friends and therefore is already out of touch with the House.

I asked him how that logic worked as John Bercow could be described as isolationist also. "Ah, yes, but that doesn't matter because he's a Tory"?

Eh?

I met Esther Rantzen when I took part in Question Time in Birkenhead. She had just left the jungle. It appears that she may miss it as she wants to jump back into another.
Not being familiar with the lovey dovey actorish world, I made a huge faux pas with Esther.
My first mistake was to assume that she was as nice a person in real life as she appeared to be on the telly.
Wrong.
Sitting in the make-up chair, having arrived early, she burst into the make-up room, having arrived late (actorish trait No1).

She stood menacingly next to the chair, almost demanding to be made up. I was on the verge of ripping off the gown and hot footing it out of the chair; however, the firm but gentle hand of the make-up lady pushed me back down as she sweetly told Esther to take a chair, and wait her turn. She then whispered in my ear, she's a pro, don’t let her bully you. (Actorish trait No2, the star of the show gets her make-up done first and is almost always a bully).

Esther obviously thought she was the star.
Her grasp of issues was scant; however, she had obviously decided that a good way to get a cheer was to use every question as an opportunity to attack MPs. (Actorish trait No3 they blag it well).

I almost let her have it on the show when she made a huge mistake, and then looked confused. She spoke about an issue and then said, “like here in Liverpool”. David Dimbleby made a very cutting comment as she was obviously looking at the crowd waiting for the applause that never came. I wanted to say, “we aren’t in Liverpool Esther, it’s Birkenhead”, a big deal if you live on either side of the Mersey. I thought better of it and didn’t.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I am afraid that Esther’s bid at politics is a rather transparent attempt to eject herself into the public eye once again, and probably to get some work on the back of it.

Jeremy Brier the Conservative candidate has been working his backside off to unseat the highly unpopular Margaret Moran; and given the feed back on the street, he could well have done it.

Esther’s arrival on the scene will split the vote and guarantee Margaret Moran a return back to Westminster.
Listen to Jeremy’s explanation of this on the Victoria Derbyshire show.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00khjbg/Victoria_Derbyshire_Prime_Ministers_Questions_20_05_2009/
Esther's answer on Newsnight when asked if she was going to stand was: “It depends on whether the people of Luton want me?”

No Esther, that’s what the people decide at a General Election – you have to decide whether you are going to stand.
Politics isn’t showbiz, it’s life; and if Esther thought the celebrity jungle was tough, she ain't seen nothing yet.

I got to know Frank well during the abortion debate. I am also the person who persuaded him to blog :)

He is a man of huge integrity, decency and compassion. He is also well liked and respected by everyone. He may be a Labour MP, however, I am sure he is going to be my choice.

I was sat close to him. I hated it. Totally hated it. The election for a new Speaker will now kick off in earnest and will dominate this place for weeks to come.

It just doesn't feel appropriate to blog about Boscombe Down today. I will leave it as something for the weekend.

For the sake of Parliament, I hope that Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will walk in front of the cameras, and announce that whatever recommendations, which Sir Christopher Kelly may propose, will be abided by, to the letter.

And that when the time comes, whatever the reaction of the media, that they show strength, unity and leadership and keep to their word.

One of the causes of this mess is that every time the Senior Salary Review Board makes a proposal, every Prime Minister ducks it, including my heroine, Margaret Thatcher.

What is happening today is the Swiss cheese effect. It's not simply the performance of the Speaker that has brought us to where we are, or successive Prime Ministers, or MPs; it's a combination of circumstances, a multitude of holes and tunnels, which have all led to the same place.

I was shocked at the Speaker's performance yesterday. He is obviously a man in distress.

I hope my readers will forgive me for not rushing in to enjoy or relish the downfall of an otherwise good and kind man. Sometimes I am appalled at the lack of human kindness displayed in Westminster.

For his own sake and that of his health, he needs to do what he is about to do.

I don't think there is anyone in Westminster who doesn't feel shocked at the position in which we find ourselves.

The Speaker as the sacrificial lamb is not enough.

The three party leaders need to map a way through to a moral, honest, accountable high ground together, and fast.

Nadine will not be blogging now until tomorrow as she is at RAF Boscombe Down – weather is apparently windy!

I'm afraid that I really don't support the motion to remove the Speaker.

I've said before that the Speaker's position and authority should be un-challenged. Over hundreds of years we have had good and bad Speakers, nice and nasty, competent and useless.

It is the only position, along with that of the Monarch, which I believe should remain un-challenged in order to carry the authority needed to execute the role with dignity whilst commanding respect.

It has been over 300 years since a Speaker was last challenged.

The speaker's chair holds the line in Parliament. We MPs dare not defy a speaker's ruling: that may all change now. The Speaker holds us in check, not always an easy task.

Speaker Martin, on behalf of all Speakers to come after him, must defy this motion and fight to retain the chair, whilst treading the fine line of deciding when would be the best time for him to go, and letting the House be aware.

If this motion succeeds where will it stop?

Will there ever again be any respect for tradition and heritage? For the procedures enshrined in stone, brought about by Cromwell and abided by since?

Will the Queen be next?