It all depends on how we want to do politics

Continual hue and cry about MPs' expenses, provoked by Tony McNulty claiming a second-home allowance for a property occupied by his parents. He has broken no rule - except possibly the one that says people in public life shouldn't make it look as though they have their snouts in the trough. The facts that he is a Labour MP and a minister (gah!) don't come in to it: they're all at it and will be so even after the Conservative Party of trainspotters and virgins are returned next year.

The answer, surely, is to stop all expenses and increase their salaries to a point where they could not legitimately complain that they were underpaid. This, of course, would also cause a kerfuffle but at least the dust storm around the expenses issue would die down and it might be possible for the electorate to actually see what parliamentarians were doing on their behalf, ie how much, or how little.

That won't happen, because the last thing anyone wants is a bright light to be shone on politics, which is after all the art of appearing to do something positive while actually doing nothing at all or enacting legislation which creates an unforeseen and unpleasant consequence - the anti-terror law mangled by local councils to snoop on applicants for places at good schools and so forth.

The difficulty too often is that the letter of the law, or the rulebook, is being adhered too and the spirit or intent ridden over. Sir Compton is well aware that such a statement rather undermines his position on tax avoidance (though there are extenuating circumstances to that) but feels that this society is being drowned on compliance and regulation when all that is needed is a bit of honesty and commonsense. This is what was intended, so this is what we shall do.

However, which party would dare to pay MPs more?