THE expenses row has plunged the House of Commons to what many commentators say is the lowest point in public esteem in its 800-year-history. The question I ask is: why hadn’t the public’s disillusionment reached that nadir earlier?

In the rubble and dust of the expenses farrago, huge cracks and fissures that already signalled a collapsing structure have, temporarily at least, been lost to view.

The structure is democracy. Of course, we are often reminded that we enjoy the best system in the world. Our “Mother of Parliaments”

is held up as the model for others to emulate. We have a mission to spread democracy wherever we can – eg, Iraq.

But how does our Parliament actually work? Most MPs have safe seats and – short of a cataclysm, which we might now be witnessing – can’t be removed.

Many hold other jobs. William Hague, MP for Richmond and Shadow Foreign Secretary, has just decided to give up his extensive outside interests to avoid “distractions” in the run-up to the next General Election. Presumably, distractions don’t matter at other times.

Now a President in all but name, our Prime Minister – any prime minister – is not elected as such. Gordon Brown, the present Prime Minister, has never faced electors even as party leader.

Yet he can, and does, bring into the Government people who haven’t been elected at all. Ennobled for that purpose, Lord Mandelson is one. Recently, it was reported that Mr Brown is considering making Louise Casey, his former “Respect” tsar (heard of her?

Thought not) a baroness and adding her to the Cabinet. Is this democracy?

Every government breaks major promises.

Very often what they seemed to promise is not what they actually promised. They use words as much to deceive as illuminate. If there is bad news, they try to bury it. If they can twist figures to their own advantage, they do so.

The overall picture is of allowing, or tolerating, as little democracy as they can get away with. The people are a nuisance. Look at how the Labour Party, party of the people, is changing planning laws to make it harder for communities to stop developments such as airports and power stations.

The people are the masters, we are often told. We might be at the moment. But for how long? It’s interesting to note that when the MPs’ Additional Costs Allowance – the source of the expenses extravaganza – was introduced in 1971, the annual allowance was £187.50. It has now reached £24,000, sometimes by single leaps as large as £6,000. Contrast that with the niggardly rises in the state pension over the same period.

The pension is supposed to be relinked to earnings in 2012. Do you think that will happen?

A get-out clause says “at the earliest”.

There’s always a get-out clause. Always a denial of democracy which, effectively, stands at zilch.

THE avalanche of letters to The Daily Telegraph, which exposed the expenses scandal, brought a bright spot unrelated to the issue.

Complaining of an East Yorkshire MP’s £8,000 claim for heating oil, a man from Middlesbrough, perversely named Max Stockton, said: “It makes me ashamed to be a Yorkshireman.” He signed off from “Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire.”

So White Rose pride still exists in Boro. I was beginning to lose hope.