Is it 2009 or 1995?

Just over a decade ago, the cash for questions scandal helped bring the Major government to its knees. It had been buffeted by controversy throughout its period in government, mostly due to sex scandals, but the cash for questions issue was more serious than an evening with prostitutes. It seemed to indicate a deep-seated corruption at the heart of the British body-politic.

Graham Riddick, David Tredinnick, Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton all found themselves staring public outrage in the face with the news Harrods owner Mohammed Al Fayed paid them money to ask questions in the Commons.

Now Labour faces its own scandal, with four Labour peers - Lord Truscott, Lord Moonie, Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Snape - accused of entering into negotiations with journalists posing as a foreign lobbying company seeking amendments to a government bill. The fact no Tory or Lib Dem peer appeared tempted by the journalists' advances has put the spotlight on the governing party.

But there are firm difference between the two scandals. Firstly, this one is more serious. Being paid for asking a question is one thing, but being paid to actually amend laws is in the realm of a banana republic. On the other hand, the fact the scandal takes place in the Lords actually gives Gordon Brown some breathing space. The public recognises the distinction between the two Houses and the short walk to the second chamber constitutes a small mile in the public mind.

In reality, sleaze has not come back, because it never went away. Despite all its lofty rhetoric, the Labour government has fundamentally failed - primarily through lethargy - to make the changes British democracy needed.

The cash-for-honours affair may not have concluded in any charges, but the methods of Tony Blair and his fundraiser Lord Levy revealed a new approach to party funding - one based on tennis with absurdly rich men rather than encouraging party membership.

After a barrage of nasty headlines about MPs expenses - across all parties - parliament took the first tentative steps towards fixing the problem last year. But the steps were tentative and the government's behaviour since - to try to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act - indicates it still doesn't have the force of will to bring parliament up to date with the modern world, where people have to do strange things like provide receipts.

Lobbying remains a perennial problem. Former government figures have to wait a year before working for a firm which could benefit from their knowledge and, more importantly, their contact list, but they can still pursue commercial agendas in that time through purely personal contacts. The revolving door still turns, and not just in the Lords.

Government inaction on these matter reflects why the current scandal legitimately contains echoes of the cash-for-questions affair. The government is anaemic. Once upon a time, back in 1997, it was engaged in a flurry of activity. The Bank of England became independent, there were referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution, action on gay rights. Now, it moves at a snail's pace, if at all. It is difficult to make the government do anything. Take for instance, the House of Lords, where reform has been promised for years. There was some movement when hereditary peers were abolished, but since then action on the ground has been slow, with no end in sight.

It's the symptom of tired governments. Lethargy, caution and inflexibility. And in that sense, cash for amendments rightly brings back memories of cash for questions.

Ian Dunt