SO, will MPs carry on the fight against the painful expenses crackdown heading their way – or will they throw in the towel and accept their fate?

More important, is the draconian overhaul unveiled yesterday the correct way to restore public trust after the scandal, or will it change Parliament for the worse?

The answer to the first question is almost certainly yes, because MPs voted away their chance to block change when they set up the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to decide their allowances.

Last night, in quiet corners of Westminster, MPs whispered their fury at the injustice of it all, attacking anti-sleaze chief Sir Christopher Kelly for his cruelty and ignorance of the reality of their jobs.

But, even if they had the power to reject Sir Christopher’s medicine, it would be surely be political suicide for any MP in anything but a super-safe seat, with a General Election looming.

Furthermore, with the worst of the pain – the orders to “sell the home and sack the spouse” – delayed for five years, the muttered threats of revolt will fade away.

But that does not mean that every dot and comma of Sir Christopher’s proposals will be adopted next year, which is where the second question about their wisdom comes in.

Yesterday, one North-East Labour MP, Bishop Auckland’s Helen Goodman, spoke out bravely against the package, warning that rich men would dominate Parliament at the expense of women and the working class.

I say bravely because I imagine the comments will feature strongly in her opponents’ election leaflets next year – and might get her into trouble with her boss, Gordon Brown.

But I think it would be wrong to accuse Ms Goodman – or Redcar MP Vera Baird who suggested higher pay – of wanting to carry on “riding the gravy train”, or some other tabloid cliche.

What they share is a deeply-held fear that Labour’s limited success in opening up Parliament to women will be lost under the new regime. And here’s why.

It was probably inevitable that Sir Christopher would outlaw taxpayer help to buy a second home, given that it lay at the heart of the scandal.

Remember the “flipping” and the capital gains tax-dodging.

But, buried away on page 51 of his report is the basis for his assertion that MPs could comfortably rent for less than a new monthly maximum of £1,250 – and it makes ugly reading for women with families.

It turns out that Sir Christopher’s calculation is based on the cost of a “one-bedroom flat” within easy travelling distance of Parliament, typically around £1,000.

Hmmm. A one-bedroom flat. Great if you are a male MP whose wife and kids are back in the constituency. Utterly useless for a mother-of-two who would like to see her children other than at the weekend.

That’s why the Kelly report must not be adopted lock, stock and barrel.

There are far too many wealthy men around here already.

IT was the greatest TV night ever. I got back late from a Jesus and Mary Chain gig (I was a student) to watch, in astonishment, as happy Berliners danced on their city’s infamous wall.

Luckily, I had something strong on hand to toast them. It was November 9, 1989 – 20 years ago next Monday.