Tory blogs have been falling over themselves to exonerate Michael Gove from this "flipping" expenses fiddle. And if he wasn't "flipping", but genuinely did move, he has every right to be miffed.
But with all the other "flipping" that's going on, what did he think was going to happen? And really, why should the fucking taxpayer pay for him to move because he couldn't hack the commute? If you took a job in London that involved commuting and couldn't hack it, would your fucking employer happily pay for you to move? Mine would laugh in my face before telling me to fuck off.
And if Gove was on such moral high ground, why was he claiming for nights at the Garrick?
No, I'm afraid this just shows tribalism from the Tories, happy to "attack MPs" while their lot are still in the clear, but quick to defend their own when they are accused of exactly the same behaviour.
The deafening silence from the Tory and the LibDem benches when Labour was being hung out to dry was, to my mind, the true message about expenses, which tribal Tories and LibDems are rushing to actively ignore or quietly pretend isn't the case: the majority of MPs, from all parties, are concealing at least one claim each that would get you or me sacked from our jobs.
Don't focus on the egregious thievery. Don't fall into the trap of "well, at least it's not as bad as it was in Five Bellies case". Look at each expense claim and think to yourself: "would a reasonable employer fund this?"
I bet you we find at least one sackable offence per MP.