I SHOULD be really angry. You know, teeth-clenched, foaming at the mouth furious, like most of the rest of the country seems to be.

“But somehow, while I feel quite a lot of things about MPs’ expenses – amazement at the cheek of some of them, cynical amusement at the embarrassment to the great and good and sorrow at the damage done to our public life – I can’t quite work up anger over this whole sorry spectacle.

Maybe I’ve been worn down by the knowledge of all that’s gone before, for surely the Mother Of Parliaments was also the Mother Of All Political Scandals, even before Cromwell cleared the chamber at the point of a musket. We’ve had rotten boroughs, misuse of patronage, and more sexual shenanigans than you could shake an order paper at.

It is also quite funny, as well as shocking, to see some of things that have been claimed for. I particularly liked the former Tory minister getting the public purse to pay for getting rid of moles from his garden. Mind you, I’m sure that effort will be as nothing compared with the hunt for the mole who leaked the claims details to the press.

There’s also, of course, the point made by many of the MPs whose claims have adorned the front pages – that they haven’t actually broken any rules. But that raises a few questions of its own.

I remarked a few weeks ago that our ruling classes seem obsessed with burdening us with rules and red tape, but oblivious to the unwritten rules that bind a functioning society together. What better illustration of this than the fact that so many MPs seem to have been prepared to take the Mickey with their expenses claims, without ever thinking they were doing anything wrong. Common sense, let alone morality, should have told them they were pushing a good thing too far.

There’s also the question of “who’s signing the cheques?”, as someone put it to me the other day. It’s pretty obvious that officials have either approved what the “naughty” MPs have been doing, or have turned a blind eye. How did this come about?

A century ago MPs didn’t even get a wage, the idea being the job was public service. But it was successfully argued that meant politics was restricted either the rich, or those who had backing from an organisation such as a trade union.

“The expenses probably started off reasonably enough; the now highly controversial allowance for second homes makes a degree of sense if an MP genuinely lives hundreds of miles from Westminster.

But I wonder if somewhere along the line some MPs were told: “Look, don’t ask for a higher salary rise; the public won’t like it. Just work up your expenses instead,” and the rest was history.

Having said that, if I’m not boiling mad, a lot of other people are. Let’s hope that anger prompts our MPs to clean up their act. In the meantime, I just think there’s so much more to be angry about, and not just the ruination of our economy.

Because the same people taking liberties with their expenses are also taking our liberties with almost as much enthusiasm. A pensioner recently showed me a request from his bank for proof of his identity, just in case he was engaged in international money laundering. To satisfy part of this bureaucratic rigmarole, he was told he could produce a copy of his passport, or his National Identity Card. Of course, he doesn’t have an ID card yet. But it’s pretty obvious the Government is going to try to “persuade” us to accept the things voluntarily by making them the easiest way to cope with the increasing mountain of red tape ministers are foisting on us. We should tell them that if they want to keep filing their expenses, they should file ID cards to oblivion.