In the Party leaders TV debate Nick Clegg declared:
There are MPs who flipped one property to the next, buying property, paid by you, the taxpayer, and then they would do the properties up, paid for by you, and pocket the difference in personal profit. They got away scot-free. There are MPs who avoided paying Capital Gains Tax. Of course, you remember, what was it, the duck houses and all the rest of it. But actually, it's the people, the MPs who made these big abuses, some of them profiting hundreds of thousands of pounds. I have to stress, not a single Liberal Democrat MP did either of those things, but they still haven't been dealt with. We can only turn round the corner on this until we're honest about what went wrong in the first place.
I wonder if the Lib Dem MPs Richard Younger-Ross, John Barrett, Sandra Gidley and Paul Holmes cheered him on while watching at home. Or whether they looked down at their shoes. This modern day Gang of Four were ordered to apologise and repay a total £16,500 as they were paid a lump sum in return for paying higher rent at flats in Dolphin Square apartments near to parliament. The MPs personally received the lump sum, whilst the taxpayer paid the higher rent. Perhaps Mr Cegg could explain the moral difference between what they did and what he was complaining about?
What about MPs claiming for food on expenses? David Cameron acted quickly once the scandal broke to ban his MPs from continuing to claim for groceries from the taxpayer. Clegg dithered - perhaps because his won snout was in the trough.
In summer 2008 as the recession started to bite, the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg had an "I feel your pain" interview where he disclosed that his family were "gravitating away from Ocado towards Sainsbury's, just on price. I have to say, the difference is pretty big". But it now turns out that he has been claiming his groceries bills back on expenses from the taxpayer. For instance in one four month period alone he claimed £1,657.32. If shopping at Ocado is free why not carry on there?
When Clegg was a Euro MP he used to fly economy but was paid travel expenses for business class. He then used the difference for "office expenses." Apparently by the standards of other Euro MPs this
was considered exceptionally honest.
In January last year Clegg called for tough action on Labour peers found to have accepted offers of payments to seek changes in the law. "I am also now calling on the Government to introduce urgent new legislation to change the rules so that peers found guilty of wrongdoing are expelled from Parliament," he said. But Clegg's tough stance does not extend to Lord Rennard who claimed £41,000 in expenses he was not entitled to as his main home was in London. Rennard has resigned as Chief Executive of the Lib Dems continues to sit as a Lib Dem peer.
During the height of the expenses row Chris Huhne, the Lib Dems Home Affairs spokesman, was puffing with indignation at the greedy expenses claims by his fellow MPs. "If the reports are in all cases correct, then there clearly are instances where MPs have lost contact with the difference between right and wrong," he told the BBC. "I think we need to make sure we're saying that loud and clear because, frankly, the voters are not going to be at all sympathetic if we don't." Days later it emerged that Huhne claimed for a £119 trouser press that was delivered to his main home rather than his designated second address. He agreed to pay back the money. He also claimed for fluffy dusters and the upkeep of his “pergola cross beam”.
Then there is the Lib Dem MP Lembit Opik expecting the taxpayer to fund a celebrity lifestyle - including a staggeringly greedy £2,499 for a TV set. He even claimed a £40 court summons on expenses and couldn't understand why anyone should think that he was wrong to do so.
Both Opik and Huhne are Lib Dem candidates in this election. Does that mean Clegg believes their conduct was acceptable?
