Pigs in a trough- a round up

Having been out of circulation yesterday I missed out on the explosion in the blogosphere of comments about the expenses revelations.

Quite why Parliament now thinks that it is necessary to have an enquiry over who leaked the information is quite beyond me and will only add to the public's revulsion over the swathes of information hitting the headlines of which there will surely be more.

Here though are some of the comments that I have noted

The fate of nations, of monarchs and of the British people have been sealed in the Commons.
Yet now the reputation of the mother of all parliaments has been brought low by rules written and exploited here by claims for a kitkat, a tin of pet food and a bottle of shampoo... for TVs, furnishings and mortgages for the second homes of those who represent us.

says Nick Robinson

James Forsyth on Coffee House gets it spot on

I suspect that the story about Brown paying his brother £6,000 for cleaning services could be as damaging to the Prime Minister outside the Westminster Village as the McBride story was to him inside. One of the few remaining things Brown had going for him was the idea that whatever you thought of him he didn’t appear to be a politician on the make and on the take. Headlines about paying his brother £6,000 for cleaning blow away the image of him as a frugal Son of the Manse. It makes him appear just as bad as the rest of them.

Iain Dale who after ploughing through all the information says

You get the impression with one or two of the Cabinet Ministers that a story has been manufactured out of very little. But for most of them, there are questions which need to be answered, and I am afraid that the stock answer of "It was approved by the Fees Office" or "It's within the rules" is simply not good enough.

Guido who notes that

Clegg and Cameron seem quiet today don’t they? The usual attack dogs seem strangely muzzled. Chris Grayling isn’t growling. Norman Baker isn’t barking into broadcaster’s microphones. Wonder why? Could it be because no matter what their party, they are all at it?

The rumours incidentally are that the next installment will feature the shadow cabinet,possibly on Monday

Iain Martin says that

Members of Parliament have only themselves to blame for all this. They should have realised years ago that the game was up. From the moment in the early 1990s that sleaze scandals relating to the behaviour of MPs broke, they should have been on notice that anything they did that was less than honourable would out in the end.

Harriet Harman has it right when she says that people are angry - and that people are probably right to be angry - despite the fact that n one of these MPs were breaking any actual rules. says Susan Press

Paul Waugh reminds us that

none of this would have come to light without the tireless work of freedom of information campaigner Heather Brooke. Heather fought for 4 years to get the ruling that eventually resulted the receipts being gathered for publication. MPs and the Commons and the Speaker fought tooth and nail to stymie her.Three cheers for Heather - she puts some hacks to shame.

Bagehot who writes that

The various scams and ruses documented in the Telegraph aren't really corruption, at least not in the worst sense; they don't involve ministers taking money that influences their decisions, or to turn a blind eye, etc. They are more akin to theft. But they will still, I expect, be very damaging.

but adds that

Financial sleaze always looks worse for Labour politicians in a way, because they sell themselves more on their noble motives than the Tories.