It seems certain that Gordon Brown's government will be brought down by sleaze just as John Major's was. But there are other similarities between the leadership of these two premiers that history may judge to be more important than the poor behaviour of MPs - and, in both cases, probably only a small minority and certainly not restricted to the respective parties they both were supposed to be controlling.
Both have failed when it came to leadership; they lost control of their parties and, in the process, also the confidence of the public and any support from the media. Sadly, both have proved incapable of finding and tackling the root causes of problems and both have irritated almost all commentators on the political process with their ineffective analysis of problems, their trivialisation of issues and the their unconvincing, lightweight and platitudinous styles of talking to the media, the public and their own supporters. Ironically, both are probably better people - more worthy, honest and well-intentioned - than their public collapse and humiliation might suggest. Like the bull being teased to death by the matador who has all the odds on his side, most observers wish it had never started ... but now it is too late and the sooner it is over, the better.
One central mistake that both men made and continue to make is to compare jobs in public life with those in the private sector. Inevitably, they have both picked those positive comparative factors that suited their arguments and ignored the rest.
Comparable jobs to MPs are impossible to d find in the private sector. Where are there any jobs that require the applicant to put his or her case to a the public and to be voted on this by thousands who can control whether they get the job or not, in open competition with other applicants in a public debate that goes on for weeks, if not months, on which everyone has views and loudly proclaims them under the floodlight of media scrutiny?
The sleaze has arisen through the decision of Mrs Thatcher not to allow MPs to be paid honestly a salary that could be scrutinised by the public. Back door benefits and allowances were introduced that clearly were a licence to corruption, self-profit and even fraud for the minority who chose those routes and to massive public and often unfair criticism of those who merely tried to cover the costs of the job. Majors sleaze was more of misbehaviour i relationships whilst Brown has been misbehaviour in financial matters. Neither man had the courage to tackle the root dishonesty and dangers within the system they inherited.
Mr Brown is mistaken if he thinks the public cannot cope with paying MPs what they need to do the job. No one complains that the head of a successful school earns £100,000 or more, or that the MD of a good little business pays himself the same. Both have proven to be the best person for the job and will lose that job if they fail. Neither will get the financial fringe benefits that MPOs seemed to think were reasonable.
Significantly, there is wide public criticism of the rewards for leaders of local authorities. These salaries have been massive racked up in recent years, way beyond what is needed to attract applicants and way beyond what is need to do the job or is considered a fair reward for the skill, efforts and strain of the job, as judged by the public for whom they supposedly work. These salaries have been self-inflated by those who benefit from them ... aided by their staffs who see themselves heading for a proportionate beneficial increase.
It is clear that the public sees that MPS should be fairly rewarded and the debate, the proposals and the arguments for an increase should be in the public domain. Fringe benefits should be minimal, punishment for failure - as in other areas - should be simple and direct and not dependent on five yearly national elections. In other words, MPs should have the salary to do the job. No fringe benefits that offer self-enrichment. No coy confidential deals. And, above all, there must be some process for sacking those who fail to perform. Most MPs are honest, work hard and do a good job for us. They need an open framework of rewards within which they can continue this work and within which the minority that might be lazy, incompetent or dishonest cannot survive.
Those are the key issues that parliament must review and ignore fatuous comparisons with incomparable jobs outside the Palace of Westminster.
He is the only person to have chaired both the Chartered Institute of Public Relations and the Chartered Institute of Marketing. He also helped form and chaired the world's largest network of independent business communications consultancies.