However, on closer reflection this consolation only takes us so far. Many people easily forget (or are entirely unaware) that there is another parliament that we vote for and pay for based in Brussels. There is absolutely no reason why the expenses of Members of the European Parliament should not come under the same level of scrutiny as British MPs. They spend more of their electorate’s money and make more of our laws than our national parliaments. The lack of scrutiny that MEPs face goes right to the heart of why the European project is flawed: noone is aware or interested in what those in Brussels get up to and they are therefore not accountable. There is no demos in Europe on which to base a democracy. There is not a sufficient body of people who identify with a central European parliament and take enough interest in it to ensure that such a parliament can be accountable and representative. The apathy that people show towards the EU is entirely understandable given how fundamentally undemocratic its institutions are and seek to remain. It would be both ethically and politically astute if David Cameron continued leading on the expenses issue all the way to Brussels.

Looking at the content of those e-mails it seems that McBride was well worthy of his nickname “McPoison”. Having been exposed, his resignation statement was symptomatic of how the current Labour party operates: Try to deflect as much responsibility as possible. McBride expresses that he is “appalled that … these e-mails have been put into the public domain by Paul Staines [the blogger Guido Fawkes].” He then goes on to say that “Derek and I decided in the end that this website [where the e-mails were to be published] was the wrong thing to do, and that Derek should not take his online efforts down to the level of Guido Fawkes and his Tory backers.” All in all his statement appears to be a desperate attempt to blame Tories for the whole episode and have one last effort at smearing them.

McBride seems to completely miss the point that it is not the fact that these e-mails are in the public domain that is the scandal. What makes this so unacceptable is that the Prime Minister’s head of strategy and planning was using his time at work, paid for by the taxpayer, to make up obscene and unfounded allegations for party political reasons. This was done during a time when the whole of the government was, we were told, united in doing “whatever it takes” to tackle “a global financial crisis” the like of which no one had ever seen before. Had this not been made public it would have done little to mitigate McBride’s actions or make them more palatable. The episode reveals that Gordon Brown had appointed as an advisor a deeply unpleasant individual who was prepared to use our money to facilitate his unpleasant actions. It is revealing of Brown’s administration that he had such people so close to him and, at the very least the Prime Minister’s judgment is called into question.

The second point that arises is that of the role of blogs in undertaking the vital task of holding those in public office to account. Traditionally a scoop such as this would have been the preserve of tabloid journalists. For all the criticism the tabloids get, they have proved over the years that their ruthless investigatory journalists can be an extremely effective tool in exposing politicians. Guido Fawkes has now taken his second political scalp, the first being Peter Hain (the former Work and Pensions Secretary). It is reassuring that, should the trend of the decline in traditional print media continue to the point where many newspapers cease to exist or are drastically slimmed down, that the blogosphere can still provide the accountability that otherwise might be lost. Of less worry is the fact that blogs do not have the same editorial control as established newspapers. With so much choice available and with the easy accessibility of blogs, the ones that will be popular will be those that provide either sensible comment or make revelations that prove to be founded. On that measure at least, Guido Fawkes’ “level” is considerably higher than that of McBride’s in this instance.

In the case of Conway, taxpayers have the small consolation that he has repaid the money, apologised “without qualification”, and been held to account by the Conservative party who have expelled him. This case was fairly clear cut and one could justifiably argue that Conway and his party had no choice but to accept responsibility in the way that they have done.

The ambiguity regarding the recent cases of Labour politicians does not make their contrasting responses any less abhorrent. So far all of the individuals involved have come up with a similar response to accusations that they have abused their positions. Rather than taking responsibility they have hidden behind the “rules”. Lord Taylor asserted, “I have followed the rules”; Jacqui Smith reassured us that here expenses where “above board”; and today Tony Mcnulty stated that, “I have complied with all the rules”. As far as I can see compliance with the “rules” is a weak defence, implying that the politicians’ standards are based solely on what they can get away with rather than doing what is right.

This raises the question as to why politicians should need rules at all. They enter into public office, accept a generous salary and, I would hope, have the character and moral compass to know how to behave in an appropriate manner. I couldn’t care less if they have (in the words of Jacqui Smith) “received assurances” from the Commons authorities that they are on the right side of the rule book. By any reasonable measure their actions are just plain wrong. Anyone outside of the Westminster bubble can see this. It is no wonder that so many are switched off by politcians who justify themselves in this way. Ministers have resorted to advising Sir Fred Goodwin to “do the right thing” of late; it’s their only option given that he has not broken any “rules”. Many of their own party would do well to follow this advice.

Some may be surprised to see that the world’s greatest investor has, in his own words, done “some dumb things” during 2008 and made what a “tennis crowd would call … unforced errors”. However, this is characteristic of a man who can stand up, admit his mistakes, and take responsibility. What a refreshing contrast to so many of the politicians, bankers, and over leveraged institutions and individuals who have sought to place blame for their considerably larger errors elsewhere.

When we look at the numbers we realise that Buffett has not done too badly after all, particular when compared to his peers. Yes, it was Berkshire Hathaway’s worst performance in 44 years in terms of decrease in book value; and yet when compared to the S&P performance it ranks as the seventh best year (he outperformed the index by a punchy 27.4%).

With the world financial system in its worst state for some time the rules of value investing, as laid out by Benjamin Graham, remain as pertinent and sound as ever. The first goal of Berkshire Hathaway “in good years and bad” is:

“Maintaining Berkshire’s Gibraltar-like financial position, which features huge amounts of excess liquidity, near-term obligations that are modest, and dozens of sources of earnings and cash”

Both individuals and insitutions would do well to make this their own goal if they want to avoid a repeat of the present problems. History however suggests that even a shock like the current one will not ensure that such parametres will be taken on by most. As Buffett points out: America”has faced far worse travails in the past”.

To end on a positive note:

“America has had no shortage of challenges. Without fail, however, we’ve overcome them … Though the path has not been smooth, our economic system has worked extraordinarily well over time. It has unleashed human potential as no other system has, and it will continue to do so. America’s best days lie ahead.”

The Sage of Omaha hasn’t got too much wrong over the last four decades, and if we play the percentages – as tennis crowds like to do – then we can be reassured that the above statement will not rank amongst his “unforced errors”.

If this is true, I find it depressing (if not unsurprising) that the government, before splashing out £20 billion of taxpayers’ money, relied on the “impression” given by the bankers who helped to create this mess. Imagine you had to buy a car and had no option but to go to the most disreputable second hand salesman in town. His reputation had been ruined after years of selling over-priced cars that worked for the short-term before breaking down. You probably wouldn’t accept the salesman’s words at face value when he asserted “nothing wrong with that guv”. The sensible course would be, at the very least, to kick the tyres and beyond that to get a qualified mechanic to see what gremlins lay within before getting the cheque book out. It has now become apparent that ministers didn’t even kick the tyres, let alone get their mechanics (lawyers and accountants in this case) to look into the detail. Instead they relied on those who had most to gain from them doing the opposite. This leaves ministers in the position where all they can do now is whinge from the sidelines, express how “angry” they are and describe the episode as “unfortunate”. The government made itself and taxpayers hostages to fortune when they spent such an enormous sum without doing their homework.

And what of Sir Fred’s position? Of course he doesn’t deserve the pension after his performance, especially one paid for by taxpayers. However, I can understand why he is in no mood to do the Prime Minister and the Chancellor a costly favour. The government have done everything they can to pin the entire crisis on him and his colleagues; humiliate him in front of – for the most part – an ignorant, uninformed and unqualified Treasury Select Committee; and done this to divert any blame away from their own substantial failings. I doubt that the current crop of spineless politicians will stand up and take even a modicum of responsibility; they certainly wouldn’t entertain giving up their own state funded pensions after their poor performance. Given the government’s track record so far, I’m beginning to think that Sir Fred spending his pension on cleaners, chauffeurs and staff would be a better way of stimulating the economy than letting Gordon Brown get his clunking fists on it.