Why won’t my employer pay me to look after my castle while I’m in London?

Rod Liddle wants to know why the taxpayer has to pay for Douglas Hogg’s moat and Phil Woolas’s groceries, but nobody will subsidise his own extravagant needs — and is offended by MPs’ attempts to posture as the victims of an impersonal ‘system’

The thing that puzzles me is why did Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, need to buy a whole box of tampons? I can understand that he might wish to look at one, out of curiosity. But it seems profligate, if you’re the taxpayer, to shell out for a whole boxload. Couldn’t he have just borrowed one from his missus, if he was that interested? Apparently you are breaching the House of Commons rules if you claim for tampons for someone else — and so Phil is bang to rights. But it is ok if you are a lady and wish to use them for the purposes intended by the manufacturer. When you think about it, this is a little puzzling, too. Is there something about life in the House of Commons which predisposes women towards unnaturally heavy menstrual cycles? The rest of our womenfolk buy their own sanitary wear, no matter where they live or what hours they might work.

And then there’s this: the tampons (and indeed ‘panty-liners’) Phil bought were part of a grocery order from a supermarket — for which you and I paid the whole amount. Why? Why are we paying them to feed themselves, given that we already pay for their second homes? Is there any other job in which grocery bills can be charged up to the state? I can understand a small weighting allowance for London; I can understand, to a degree, an entertainment allowance for, you know, taking potential donors out to dinner and offering them a knighthood.