11 pages in the Telegraph today, and an unprecedented 2 stacks of the paper in my local corner shop, shunting the Mirror out of the way.

Remind me again who is supposed to be milking this expenses thing? I thought it was the MP’s but the media and retailers are beating them hands down.

I’m sure it’ll all come out about the tories too soon. After all, they aren’t kicking the government on this one, and the Telegraph is sure to string this out for a good while. They’ll get the ministers’ claims out first, and then move on to the opposition, not too much of a surprise in that ordering.

(I mean ‘about the tories as well soon’, rather than ‘too soon’, btw)

The new anti-politics can only find expression in either further depoliticisation if we are lucky, or a surge in support for the far right if we are not. One way or another, we will see next month

Or more likely a bit of both. I would say the chance of the combined UKIP/BNP vote in the Euros equalling the Labour/LibDem/Green vote is no more than 2-1 against.

It is entirely possible that Cameron may find himself inadvertently governing from the centre (that is to say, a new centre well to the right of the political centre in the 20th century).

We are used to politics being about class. But they don’t have to be. As Northern Ireland reminds us, they can also be about religion. And of course they can also be about race, as in the southern USA. British politics in the 21st century are going to be at least as much about race as about class, and thus a lot uglier than we have known them to be. And the “progressive” space will be that much less.

“There is recognition at the top of all three major parties that a new anti-politics mood is growing in this country, thanks to a sense of alienation from a political system that grants workable majorities to governments actively endorsed by just one in five of the people they govern, once abstention is factored into the figures.”

It’s not new, but it is growing.

“either further depoliticisation if we are lucky, or a surge in support for the far right if we are not”

Or for anti-state libertarianism.

Oh, for fucks sake, Dane Osler, were these sleazy people wrong or not?

Maybe Dave Osler? Apologies for that and nothing more..

Thanks at least in part to the incompetence of a left that has proven unable to root itself in the social layers it purports to represent, the new anti-politics can only find expression in either further depoliticisation if we are lucky, or a surge in support for the far right if we are not. One way or another, we will see next month

Jesus, that is one mealy-mouthed explanation. Sorry to prick this fantasy illusion you are living in – but people are seriously FUCKED OFF.

They brought it all on themselves, but you just can’t quite bring yourself to say it., eh? You really should think about how you style yourself a “journalist”, ‘cos frankly, you’re a disgrace to your profession.

Anti-politics is being fuelled by the exposure of this personal largesse, true – and let’s not forget they spent an enormous amount of time and (our) resources trying to prevent this material ever coming to light – but would you have it any other way?

Ropes and Lamp-posts – it’s the only way out now.

The blame lies entirely with the leadership of the party to which I belong, which provided the raw material for the copy.

‘Bout time someone from Labour said this. The title of this article should be “Sleazy, corrupt politicians, especially Labour government ministers, feeding the anti-politics mood”. Not saying the papers aren’t milking it, but if you think people aren’t genuinely angry about this regardless of how it’s played up by the media, you’re driving down the motorway at night without the headlights on.

douglas, you ask: were these sleazy people wrong or not?

Dave Osler says in the article, The blame lies entirely with the leadership of the party to which I belong, which provided the raw material for the copy.

Isn’t that straightforward enough?

The Labour Party is full of middle class mediocrities who have never done demanding jobs in their lives. If The Labour Party was full of MPs who had been foremen from manufacturing/heav industry, medical sisters , good teachers from tough inner city schools , NCOs with combat experience etc ( Don Concannon for example) they would earn peoples’ respect. Consequently, the scandal over expenses would be less damaging. Many people have contempt for MPs; too many are the sort of people who rise up in organisations by having the right ort of face rather than being good at the job. Therefore , the scandal over the expenses is the perfect reason to give politicians a good kicking.

Labour MPs may feel greater contempt from electors because they often represent poorer areas and therefore the figures involved are, in relative terms much higher. However, once MPs claim for bath plugs they just appear mean minded, petty and greedy.

It will be interesting if Labour MPs have played the secondary homes and reduction in capital gains tax fiddles more than the Tories and LDs . If this occurs it will show that once agains Labour scandal are financial and Tory ones are sexual. The problem is that as we are in a recession , financial scandals may be more antagonistic to the electorate than sexual ones.

It used to be said that Labour owed more to Methodism than Marxism. If Labour could return to the idealism of Methodism which gave rise to the Cooperative Movement, modest living, respect for practical education and thrift, help for the hardworking but not feckless, then they could still beat the Tories. It will be difficult for Cameron and Osborne to position themselvs as the party modesty, thrift and practical education. Funnily enough, it would be easier for Thatcher to position herself as the emodiment of a modest upbinging, hard work work, thrift and practical education than Harman, Milliband, Cameron, Osborne , Clegg.

Isn’t that straightforward enough?

When the title of this piece is “Newspapers Feeding the Anti-Politics Mood”, no, it isn’t…

Politicians are doing plenty of “feeding” themselves in both the literal and metaphorical sense.

The papers are doing precisely what they should be doing in a democracy – highlighting abuses of the (extremely generous) system – a system we should be reminded, that MPs created for themselves.

It’s way beyond the time that this should have all been made public – the squirming New Labour ministers, their vacuous attempts to cover this up and their weasel-words in today’s media tell us all we need to know.

I mean, they’ve called the Police – but not to investigate their own disgusting practices, but to “uncover” the mole. They are entirely disconnected from the public mood. But then, under Brown, that seems to be de rigueur .

[12] Question for you, Charlie. do you think Glenda Jackson has been a good MP? I ask, because whenever you list the sections of society you admire, the arts are always conspicuous by their absence.

Mike Killingworth. I do not think Glenda Jackson has made much of contribution, like manyMPs in fact. The reason why I mentioned the jobs were that they require technical skill, leadership, management and the ability to work under pressure. I also think far more people would respect out MPs if they had proven themslves before entering politics.The reason why I do not mention the arts is that I think we produce much mediocre material in view of the amount which is spent. If one looks at The Soviet/Russion system, they produce far more high quality output. Only 2 of our the principal dancers at the Royal Ballet are British, an inditement of our training.

As someone part of whose job is to claim expenses for my bosses, this has left me gobsmacked. My senior bosses would earn about the same as the MPs or even more, they do stressful jobs with long hours but they have to account for every penny and would be stamped down hard by the financial controller if they tried to play the system by switching and furnishing second homes etc. If they tried to combine taking a client out to lunch on Monday in London with a convenient weekend’s break there, it would be detected and jumped on. In these present straitened times we are told to use EasiJet and second class train travel. Anyone in the kind of professional job where claiming expenses is carefully monitored will be pretty cross that there is such laxity among the people who make the rules for all of us.

Oh yeah, the arts??

For gods sake, can’t Labour’s loyalists bring it upon themselves to just condemn the government unequivocally without having a go at the Tories or the Tory-leaning press. This isn’t just another issue you can sweep under the carpet whilst yelling at everyone to “focus on the economy”. This is the straw that has broken the proverbial camel’s back.

From Rawnsley, who I never thought knew how to criticise the government:

“[Labour] like to think that the McBride Affair, the Gurkhas and parliamentary expenses don’t really matter. They will be mere footnotes in the ­history books.

That may be correct. Yet sometimes it is the superficially trivial that conveys a significant truth about political decay. Full exposure of the expenses racket has illustrated the alarming extent to which so many politicians have lost touch with any ethical bearings, with any feel for what it is tolerable to the public, and even with any sense of self-preservation

The scams are bad enough. Worse is the total absence of any repentance. They have had weeks to consider how they would answer public revulsion when they were caught with their hands in the voters’ pockets. What was required was a display of contrition. Yet the ­collective response has been to try to brazen it out. “

I don’t believe there is an anti-politics mood, more of a witch-hunt against MPs (which is entirely of their own making). Their salaries and benefits package will change and parliament will recover eventually. The EU is rife with tolerated corruption and dishonesty, but it continues. Their expenses abuse makes Labour ministers look like saints.

Ever since their ministers have been exposed as lying tea leaves, Labour have sought to spread the damage by continually linking it to MPs renumeration. Using their “useful idiots” amongst the press and commentators and wanabe cronies on blogs,they’ve tried to spin the story towards Tory second jobs and smear all politicians.

This hides the fact that Labour are in Govt, not the Tories or the LDs. It is they that wield teh power to change the system and its they that legislate and manage the State authorities, who will act on such tax evasion and thieving demonstrated by ministers. They are the ultimate hypocrites.

The media are also to blame, for the system fo cronism that keeps the cosy relationship with Govt. The BBC and the Guardian are far too close to Labour to have acted on the info obtained by the Telegraph. News International don’t like to upset those in power. Well done the Mail and Telegraph for exposing the sickening hypocrisy and institutional dishonesty at the heart of socialism.

Chavscum @18: “The media are also to blame, for the system fo cronism that keeps the cosy relationship with Govt. The BBC and the Guardian are far too close to Labour to have acted on the info obtained by the Telegraph. News International don’t like to upset those in power. Well done the Mail and Telegraph for exposing the sickening hypocrisy and institutional dishonesty at the heart of socialism.”

Newspaper and journalists who report politics are genuine political animals, from left, right and centre. Some of them have party affiliations, and a few years ago it was not unusual for a mainstream political commentator to be a parliamentary candidate (eg Ben Bradshaw, Elinor Goodman). However political affiliation or activity should not necessarily disqualify them from a job. It is the role of news editors to balance bias. And in the case of the BBC, the distribution of complaints suggests that it offends all groups equally.

The Guardian is owned by a trust and does not owe us impartiality. However, its news coverage currently gives us balanced stories about policing in the UK. In the 1990s, reporting of Yugoslavia from Ed Vulliamy and others was exceptional. The comment pages are bizarre on too many occasions (and the Guardian does pay big salaries to idiots).

I can understand why media organisations didn’t buy the allegedly stolen material that contained information about parliamentary expense claims. Paying for stolen material is a legal problem, even with a public interest defence. And the material may be incomplete, providing the possibility of libel. So 10 out of 10 to the Telegraph for bravery.