"Scandals" involving the government are an established feature of political life in the United Kingdom. They can be manufactured by the Opposition to discomfit incumbent ministers; they can be manufactured by the media as a way of providing narrative that will help sell newspapers; they can arise spontaneously from genuinely scandalous behaviour, neglect, corruption etc. The more obviously-manufactured scandals usually have the word "gate" affixed to the title.
The 2009 Expenses Scandal was a colossal event that shook the entire political class, rocked the government, and has far-reaching implications for the future of central (and indeed local) administration. Like the Dreyfus Affair, it is a scandal that blew up in the face of the Establishment. I have carefully watched the way the scandal has unfolded to see what general information it provides about the way "Scandals" are used as part of the political process.
1) The original offence (that politicians were helping themselves to pubic money) was so well-known that it hardly seemed newsworthy. Like most scandals it might have fizzled out, until a newspaper (the Daily Telegraph) decided to take it up. Even then, it might have been contained had political leaders acted together.
2) Streams of information, in themselves of piffling insignificance, began to flow into the public domain. Who cares whether the Home Secretary charged 88p for a bathplug to her expenses? It was laughable, but hardly in the league of ghost rendition camps, or dispossessing the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, or even losing data entrusted to government departments.
3) David Cameron (Conservative leader) broke ranks with the political class and decided to attack the government by demonstrating how he would deal with the situation were he to be in power. This was a high-risk strategy as his party was as implicated as the rest, but the strategy paid off. From this point the Scandal became an on-going issue.
4) Inexplicably the government acted as if it were "guilty". It thus became a focus for all the indignation and pretend-indignation that began to be generated. Instead of a few major sackings/resignations, it had to endure months of self-inflicted torture.
5) The power of narrative drive began to establish itself, and the Daily Telegraph exercised great skill in releasing details on a day by day basis. Almost everyone in the country was aware of the Scandal and equipped to have a view. It especially enabled people to make moral judgments about their political representatives.
6) Party and factional loyalty seemed to break down - this in itself is very unusual and needs a lot more study.
The sheer number of public reputations dragged through the gutter has been immense. There has been no scandal like this, and it will have far-reaching consequences (Ann Widdecombe was saying that the number of resignations and stand-downs created by the scandal will mean a big chunk of the next House of Commons will be made up of inexperienced new MPs, leading to an easy ride for the next government). The expenses scandal was the foremost media event of the year and needs to be thoroughly studied to reveal its true importance (perhaps Newsnight will do some ten-minute dramas similar to the ones it produced about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq).