Don't worry, Caroline, you're among friends

A very curious statement from Conservative leader David Cameron does his party chairman Caroline Spelman no good at all.

He is apparently "standing by her" over the difficulties in deciding if Tina Haynes was her secretary as well as being her kids' nanny.

At least, he's standing by her just so long as she has clearly done nothing wrong. In which case why wouldn't you stand by her?

If, on the other hand, the poor woman is found to have broken the rules by using taxpayers' money to smooth over her child-care issues then, we are told, she will be out on her ear, dumped unceremoniously by her leader.

What I can't make out is in what way Mr Cameron is standing by her.

If he will dump her at the first sign of trouble then where is this brave-hearted loyalty to a trusty lieutenant when she really needs it?

Mrs Spelman is, to quote an ex-Conservative MP of my acquaintance, "the weakest party chairman we've ever had".

She is useful, though, because she is female and therefore contributes to the official policy of bringing as many women as possible into the Shadow Cabined. In power, Dave wants one third of all his Ministers to be women.

Mrs Spelman is also useful because she is willing to do Dave's dirty work for him. Most recently she forced the Tory leader and chief whip in the European Parliament to quit over alleged expenses irregularities.

The moment she herself is in difficulty, however, her leader's support extends no further than you can throw a copy of Hansard.

This is a test of character not just for Mrs Spelman but for Mr Cameron.

If she has transgressed at all, it was when she was first elected and if it was a mistake at all, it was a minor one. She says she hasn't, everything has been done according to the rules but the nanny/secretary arrangement stopped after the Chief Whip said it might be "misconstrued".

It may be, though, that the Parlianentary Standards Commissioner sees things differently and reprimands Mrs Spelman. Then what?

I have no great affection for Mrs Spelman - it was she who forced me out as a Parliamentary candidate over my comments about Enoch Powell.

But she's not a gravy-train rider and while she may have been ill-advised to employ a nanny on the taxpayer, it's not - or should not be - a hanging offence.

Which is why Mr Cameron's attitude seems so problematic. He may feel it necessary to be utterly hard-bitten and ruthless in order to make sure his party is, in Tony Blair's word, "whiter than white".

But a successful leader needs a loyal and supportive team. Most Prime Ministers get intob trouble for sticking by Ministers even after they have got themselves into deep trouble.

Mrs Thatcher stuck by Cecil Parkinson, for instance; John Major tried to rescue David Mellor from the disaster of his own making; Tony Blair did all he could for Peter Mandelson. Twice.

Cameron may argue he has learned from these PR disasters. And he is, above all, an expert at public relations.

But if he wants to be a successful leader, he can't afford to turn his back on every colleage as soon as some minor difficulty appears.

Loyalty is worth nothing if all it means is supporting his party chairman when the going is good. What really counts is whether he is willing to stick his neck out and defend her when things get tough.

Caroline Spelman will survive this little crisis unscathed. But whether she will have as much faith in her party leader in future is another matter altogether.

Political leaders may well need a wide streak of ruthlessness. But at this early stage in the game, Cameron needs to be careful how many of his friends he starts to alienate.

It may not seem like it at the moment but one day, he will need all the friends he can get.