Julie Kirkbride’s resignation yesterday seems to have lowered the bar at which MPs are expected to step down (by the next general election, that is).

Her expense claims were arguably as credible – or more so – than many others who are still happily clinging on to power, as Iain Dale points out. (He accurately points out that public/media judgments on the affair have become increasingly subjective).

It had seemed curious that some of those facing much more damning allegations were untouched. But that could start to be remedied tonight when Elliot Morley faces his constituents. The rumour (not rumour, unvarnished truth, Paul Waugh tells me) is that he will step down, or promise to do so at the next general election. You may remember that Morley stands accused of claiming £16,000 for a mortgage which no longer existed.

The former agriculture minister has already been suspended by the Labour Party and Scotland Yard is considering whether to launch a criminal probe.

I’ve put a call in to Labour to ask whether David Chaytor is considering a similar move – and will update.

Meanwhile a great piece in the Guardian about scores of Labour MPs begging to be let into the Lords.

UPDATE

It’s Friday evening and Morley has gone. Here is the BBC story.

The editorial in the Times by Alan Johnson (proposing proportional representation) was seen by that paper as a covert bid for the Labour leadership.

Well, possibly. But the alternative theory is that Gordon Brown is desperate for Labour to look like it is doing something about the expenses scandal that he has authorised senior colleagues to “go out there and talk reform”.

My theory gets added credibility when you see that Ed Miliband has been on similar manoeuvres. He seems to think that giving select committees more power and abolishing ancient traditions (eg calling MPs “my right honourable friend”) will restore confidence in the Commons.

Even Johnson’s allies point out that if he wanted to challenge for the Labour leadership he might chose a slightly more winning argument than the oft-derided PR.

“The mood of the public now is in favour of a root and branch look at how our democracy works and we are going to look at that – fixed-term parliaments, reform of the House of Lords, more power for Parliament over the executive,” said the health secretary. “It would be absolutely perverse if in the course of that debate we didn’t look at the fundamental issue of how people elect their representatives. Electoral reform has to be part of that debate.”

What both men have failed to grasp – it seems – is that the public is not up in arms over the first-past-the post system. Nor with an unelected Lords. Nor the fact that Parliamentary officials wear tights. People are angry about the lack of probity of individual MPs, many of whom have made ridiculous, greedy and – in some cases – downright illicit claims. Isn’t that obvious?

UPDATE

Paul Waugh explains why some people think PR = cleanup. Not entirely convinced myself.

FURTHER UPDATE

David Cameron has just published an article in The Guardian on why PR would be a mistake.

He argues: “Proportional representation takes power away from the man and woman in the street and hands it to the political elites. Instead of voters choosing their government on the basis of the manifestos put before them in an election, party managers would choose a government on the basis of secret backroom deals. How is that going to deliver transparency and trust?”

He does though have some other ideas for reform, unsurprisingly. The most unlikely is the idea that he would cut back the PM’s powers if he became PM: easy to say, harder to deliver.