From the smell of sleaze to the whiff of a quick fix

What bothers me is the substance of what Brown was saying (and rarely could you challenge the substance of Blair, because rarely was it there on show).

While there is no doubt the expenses system needs changing (and Jacqui Smith's porn situation is a just a sideshow distracting from the big issues), swapping a receipts-based repayment structure with a vague attendance allowance is just plain wrong.

Why? Because it instantly skews an MP's life towards the Westminster village. If an MP spends five days at the Commons, he or she would pocket £750. If he or she spents four days in the Commons, and the fifth day back in the constituency meeting local people, attending local events and so on, they'll only pick up £600.

As each political expenses scandal has broken, be it home secretaries claiming their "first home" is a back bedroom at their sisters so they can whack up the second home allowance on the big pad back at home, or the various ministers and ex-ministers who rented out homes they were claiming allowances on because they actually lived in grace-and-favour Government accommodation, the response has always been the same.

"We've not done anything wrong or broken any rules" has been the standard response, which is rather like a man driving a car dangerously in the rain, hitting several people, and then pointing out to police that he was within the speed limit.

The fact that so many MPs have trotted out the "no rules were broken" excuse not only tells us the system was wrong, but that many of them actually lack a moral compass (presumably because they couldn't find it on the John Lewis List).

It tells us they are totally out of touch with what people would think back in the constituencies about the various expenses they can claim. No-one would deny an MP the ability to cover their reasonable costs, but as our exposed MPs have shown, reasonable is a moving feast.

If anything, MPs need to re-connect with the public. They need to be spending more time, not less, in their constituencies so rewarding them financially for populating the subsidised halls, bars, restaurants and offices of Westminster rather than facing up to their constituents can only ever be seen as a bad move.

Ironically, under Labour, councils were put under pressure to move away from pay-as-you-attend allowances for councillors in favour of "remuneration" to reflect the fact that being a councillor meant much more than just attending meetings. It also enabled councils to seize upon dodgy legislation (dodgy for open democracy) which enabled them to operate often-secret cabinet-style political structures, meaning fewer meetings. There was also an accepted criticism that many councillors often turned up for meetings, contributed very little, but still left with their allowance.

So if that system wasn't good enough for councils and councillors, who supposedly act in a part-time capacity even if the new system has seen a rather large amount of professional feather-bedding, why is a daily allowance suddenly flavour of the month in Parliament?

Will the oft-quoted sight of MEPs queuing up at Brussels to clock in on a Friday with suitcase in hand so they can fly home straight away become the norm at Westminster? How can it possibly be fair to penalise someone for spending more time in their constituency?

Of course, there are positives to the new announcements. Making MPs reveal how much they earn in their other roles, something which will make the Tory front bench quite worried, along with Labourites like Patricia Hewitt (remember her?) and Alan Milburn, should raise some interesting questions about how full-time being an MP, and representing tens of thousands of people, really is.

The stink of sleaze appears to being replaced with a whiff of superglue. Brown might think he's being decisive, but does he really expect vot