For decades they have colluded amongst themselves

A sort of PR campaign seems to have started to justify the expenses claimed by MPs (not sure whether this campaign is spontaneous or organised).

On the Today programme this morning two MP's wives appeared, indignantly defending the fact that they are obliged to maintain two homes. Ann Widdiecombe also contributed to the debate, using a tone of voice that indicated she wanted to knock some heads together. A couple of days ago Stephen Fry, in what appeared to be a particularly insensitive let-them-eat-cake pronouncement, wondered what all the fuss was about since "everyone" was claiming spectacular amounts of expenses ("I do it, you do it, YOU do it" he accused directly into the camera).

Do the political elite (using elite in its widest establishment meaning) still not grasp the underlying message of this situation?

The ordinary public resents the claims of their "representatives" because they do not think these "representatives" are worth the money being paid to them.

No appeals for reason over the issue of second homes are going to get a sympathetic hearing. No faux-outraged hissy fits by heavyweight thespians are going to assuage the popular mood. No honest-brokering by a battleaxe-laureate is going to have the slightest effect in calming the clamouring mob.

Members of Parliament have been cast in the balance and found wanting.

For decades they have colluded amongst themselves to ignore the people they are meant to "represent" (ignoring them over the big issues and over the little issues) and have repeatedly imposed their will on the majority as if they were a ruling caste of Brahmins rather than representatives and conduits of the people they are supposed to represent.

By maintaining an unspoken "common purpose" the main parties have managed to subvert the political process under the impression that if they all say and do more or less the same thing as a political class they will go on forever "managing" the people in a turn-and-turnabout self-perpetuating regime.

This expenses debacle is an early warning that "common purpose" is not tenable when it ignores the popular mood (however uncomfortable the popular mood may be).

If you refuse to represent us, the people are saying, we will refuse to pay you.

The next logical step (and I hope I am not overstating this) is revolution.

Not sure how "conspiratorial" this is, but it does cause me some concern: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7929210.stm