Rod Liddle Rod Liddle

If you want to see corruption, look at the party leaders’ response to the scandal

Rod Liddle says that, for all the claims made by Brown and Cameron to be taking deeply moral action, the pattern of retribution shows that they are saving their mates and throwing their enemies to the wolves

issue 06 June 2009

Which of the many MPs accused of defrauding the taxpayer by fiddling their expenses is the worst offender, do you think? We need some clarity on this issue. In the public mind I have a feeling that they are all beginning to merge as one composite beast drawn from ancient mythology — a hydra-headed pig emerging from its second duck island with a tampon in one claw and a porno flick in the other, whining piteously about inadvertent accountancy errors. How should we choose between them? Clearly, some have behaved worse than others. Some have cheerfully gone along with a corrupt system to trouser a few extra quid here or there — others have told lies, cheated and employed accountants to screw thousands upon thousands of pounds from the rest of us.

My own nomination as worst offender is the Work and Pensions Secretary, James Purnell. He told the parliamentary authorities that his main home was in Manchester, so that he could claim a second home allowance for his pad in London. In 2004, however, he flogged his London flat — and in order to avoid capital gains tax, told the Inland Revenue that this was actually his main home. It seems clear enough to me that he was lying to someone in order to trouser a large sum of money from the taxpayer. As a sort of final ‘f*** you!’ to the taxpayer he also claimed a £395 accountancy bill, which included advice on how to avoid paying the aforementioned tax. Magnificent cheek — almost admirable in its effrontery. Purnell, you may remember, was the minister who once appeared in a photograph taken at his local hospital without having been present at the time — his office had him superimposed into the snap later. Without his knowledge, according to him. Most definitely with his knowledge, according to almost everyone else.

Illustration Image

Disagree with half of it, enjoy reading all of it

TRY 3 MONTHS FOR $5
Our magazine articles are for subscribers only. Start your 3-month trial today for just $5 and subscribe to more than one view

Comments

Join the debate for just £1 a month

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.

Already a subscriber? Log in