Together they have become the Bermuda Triangle into which reputations have simply disappeared.

After cash for honours, came the arrest of a Tory MP who'd received leaks and passed them to the papers. After the scandal of MPs' expenses comes today's row about who knew what about the hacking of the phones of the great and the good and the merely famous.

But today Yates of the Yard decided that he did not want another starring role on the national political stage.

His insistence that there was no evidence that John Prescott's phone was tapped, insufficient evidence to bring other prosecutions and that no new evidence had been produced by the Guardian, sounded pretty definitive but these waters are still treacherous.

There will still be a Commons enquiry and there will be calls for an independent investigation into the police's handling of this affair.

There will still be awkward questions for News International, for the Tories' Director of Communications Andy Coulson and for the man who hired him David Cameron.

This is a story fuelled by genuine outrage at abuses by the press and politically inspired protests designed to damage the Conservatives.

The Tory leader is hoping that beyond the triangle of Westminster, Wapping and Scotland Yard few will be paying too much attention and that he can hang on to the Director of Communications - the former editor of the News of the World - who he values so much.

The line coming from his close allies is that he is not even contemplating asking Andy Coulson, his communications director, to resign.

One source insisted that no significant new facts had emerged since Mr Coulson had been appointed by the Tories, and said, "The past is the past. Mistakes were made but he paid a high price for them. There is a world of difference between what he did as a tabloid editor and what he does for us."

The source went on to say that if Mr Coulson was called to give evidence before the Commons Media Select Committee "that wouldn't change our view of him at all".

Everyone is now waiting to see what Yates of the Yard has to say about why the Metropolitan Police did not extend its inquiry to cover all those whose voicemail was hacked into and whether he will re-open the original investigation.

For now, the Tories are determined to tough this out.

This revelation may add to the pressure for a further investigation into how widespread phone hacking was, and who knew about it. Already the Chairman of the Commons Media Committee, John Whittingdale, has said he may re-open his inquiry into the affair.

So, is David Cameron right to be "relaxed" about the implications for his Director of Communications, Andy Coulson?

Certainly, he must have known the risk when he hired Coulson just months after he had been forced to resign as the editor of the News of the World. At the time Coulson said he knew nothing about what had happened, although as editor he'd taken full responsibility for it. The Guardian is clear this morning that it has no evidence to the contrary.

The Tories' first reaction to the Guardian story was that it only contained one new revelation - that the News of the World had reached a huge out-of-court settlement with Gordon Taylor, the leader of the footballers union, one of those whose phones it had hacked into. As this deal was reached after Coulson resigned they argued that this was a story not about politics but the media.

Their hope was that many papers would steer clear of this story since their own journalists are alleged to have indulged in blagging - paying to obtain private data under false pretences - if not hacking.

They argue that the interventions of John Prescott, Charles Clarke and Alastair Campbell should be seen simply as a politically motivated campaign to damage David Cameron and one of his key advisers.

This morning the Tory leader has sought to distinguish between what Coulson did in the past at the News of the World and what he does now for him by declaring:

"I believe in giving people a second chance. As director of communications for the Conservatives, he does an excellent job in a proper, upright way at all times."

The problem he faces is that new questions are now being opened about the past.

It is now clear that phone hacking at the News of the World was much more widespread than previously thought; that it targeted senior ministers not just celebrities and that, if the Guardian is correct, at least one of the paper's executives knew about it. This is leading to calls - not just from Labour politicians - for Andy Coulson to answer questions about what he knew and to questions about whether he should be at David Cameron's side.

That is why I am sure that David Cameron is anything but "relaxed", as was claimed last night.

Coulson has already broken rule one for any spin doctor - "Never become the story". He's good enough at his job to know that this story will soon become one about David Cameron's judgement.

These, though, are not normal times.

It took the threat of tax chaos; the wheeling in of the sick, the shamed and the resigned and the votes, once again, of the Democratic Unionists to see ministers comfortably home.

It is yet another day that has left many backbench Labour MPs feeling depressed.

The Yorkshire group of Labour MPs went for tea with the PM this afternoon. One told him that he should take a holiday because he looked tired and was taking "tired decisions".

Greg Pope told me that it was never his intention to wreck the Budget as the chancellor has warned could happen (see my last entry).

Mr Pope says that it is up to his colleague Frank Field to decide whether to withdraw their proposed amendment to the Finance Bill.

Mr Field is waiting to hear what the Treasury Minister Stephen Timms tells MPs about the government's plans for further compensation for those who've lost money as a result of the abolition of the 10p tax rate.

Earlier the chancellor told Greg Pope and Frank Field that he would consider new measures in his autumn pre-Budget report.

Alistair Darling met the Labour MPs Frank Field and Greg Pope this lunchtime to discuss their attempt to block the passage of the legislation enacting his Budget until the chancellor came forward with proposals to compensate all those who'd lost from the abolition of the 10p starting rate of income tax.

Treasury sources say that he advised them that his legal advice was that their amendment to the Finance Bill would invalidate the collection of income tax. This is because their amendment would - it's claimed - override the powers given to the government under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 which allows tax to be raised even though legislation enacting the Budget has not been passed through the Commons

The rebel leaders are said to be reconsidering their position

Why, of course, he's phoning backbench Labour MPs and pleading with them not to rebel in tonight's Commons vote on compensating the losers from the scrapping of the 10p income tax rate.

One MP I've just spoken to asked the PM for reassurance that a government funded project in his constituency would not be sold off. He was promised a meeting to discuss his fears in more detail. The government will now get his vote.

Who says there's no pork barrel politics in Britain?

Meantime the whips have been mighty busy persuading the sick (Kali Mountford); the shamed (Elliott Morley); and the resigned (Hazel Blears) to back the PM.

All this over a decision taken in the last Brown Budget which for months the PM insisted did not produce losers and was not causing any political problems.

They have called to say that Mr Cameron's speech was not, as I reported, called "Bonfire of the Quangos" but called instead "People Power - Reforming Quangos".

What's more they point to their leader saying: "it would be far too simplistic for me to stand here and announce some kind of 'Bonfire of the Quangos.' People have heard that kind of talk many times before, and seen little to show for it."

I am happy to correct this whilst merely noting that the invitation to his speech read: "Reform invites you to: Bonfire of the Quangos". Also, the quote above was not in the speech extracts issued in advance and may have been written after my first blog post.

Incidentally, on the substance of the issue, one senior Tory has called with an interesting question about his leader's speech. Isn't the Tory plan to de-politicise the NHS and have it run by an independent board the creation of the biggest quango of them all?

You are?

Well so too is the Tory leader - it's the title of a speech he's delivering today.

And so is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne. On Friday he promised one.

As did the shadow chancellor way back in 1995 - a man you may know called Gordon Brown.

And, I'm sure that Margaret Thatcher was in favour as well - although I can't find evidence that she used the exact phrase.*

Politicians of all colours promise to light a match underneath quangos ("quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations" now you ask) for the same reasons. They spend a lot and they're not very democratic.

Today in a speech Mr Cameron will argue that: "The growth of the quango state is...,one of the main reasons people feel that nothing ever changes, nothing will ever get done" and promises "a massive shift in power from bureaucracy to democracy...(from) elites to people from quangos to you".

He will, no doubt, point to the creation by this government of dozens of new quangos - some estimates put it at 70.

Aware that this was coming Labour got their retaliation in first alleging that the Tories have talked about creating 17 new ones of their own - ranging from the Office of Tax Simplification and Office of Budget Responsibility to a Military inquest family advisory service and International Aid Watchdog.

So the question worth asking today is, perhaps, not why don't politicians abolish quangos but why, despite the obvious objections, they choose to create them and allow them to grow?

Partly it's because politicians are under pressure to "take the politics out of ..." many areas they have responsibility for (whether setting interest rates or managing examinations).

Partly it's because cynicism about politicians has led people to be more prepared to believe "independent" bodies (remember John Gummer force feeding his daughter with a burger to reassure about BSE?).

Partly they allow politicians to put controversial decisions at arms length from them ("Sats went wrong? Blame the QCA"). All this makes talking about abolishing quangos easier than doing it.

David Cameron today argues that there are three good roles for quangos - what he describes as "technical", "fairness" and "transparency" - but argues that they should not make policy. Thus he plans to say that: "Ofcom, as we know it, will cease to exist".

Important phrase that - "as we know it". He's not proposing scrapping the 800 strong body that regulates and acts as the competition authority for the communications industry.

He wants it to stop doing things which he believes that civil servants and politicians should - proposing, for example, how to save Channel 4 or regional ITV news.

Broadcasting industry sources tell me that perhaps just a handful of Ofcom officials deal with such matters and that once they've written their reports they hand them to the politicians to debate and decide on.

So, are we set not so much for a bonfire of quangos but for a pruning of them?

* It was three decades ago - in 1978 to be precise - that a pamphlet - The Quango Explosion - written by two Tory MPs Philip Holland and Michael Fallon first (to my recollection) got this debate moving.

He is furious that the current debate focuses on his integrity and his honesty, but it is hardly surprising given the fact that he has changed his description of what is happening to capital expenditure three times in three weeks at PMQs.

Today, he also declared that current spending would go up by "zero per cent" - a slip that produced roars of both disbelief and ridicule.

I travelled with the prime minister on the train to Leicester at the beginning of a three-day tour away from Downing Street and the debate about debt, which he believes is obsessing the Westminster village, but not the country.

People care, he tells me, about jobs and housing now and not unknowable public expenditure figures for several years hence.

When I point out that the OECD, the IMF and the governor of the Bank of England all seem worried, he makes his key argument - that growth is the best answer to the problem of public debt.

Under pressure to admit that he's going to have to make cuts, the prime minister does use the "C" word for the first time.

He defines the word narrowly, though, to describe efficiency savings and assets sales and claims that these will allow him to protect front-line spending.

This is a debate he does not want to have, an interview he did not enjoy, but a subject that will not go away.

George Osborne boasted that that he was being honest about public spending whilst accusing ministers of "lying" (yes, he unlike his leader, used the "L" word). He went on to accuse the prime minister of blocking access to a detailed breakdown of government spending.

So, what are the facts?

In pre-election meetings with the cabinet secretary in January and February, the Tories asked for access to the spending numbers broken down in over 12,000 headings. The answer - which was "No" - came many weeks later in April fuelling the Tories' belief that the prime minister had taken the final decision.

The Cabinet Office insist, however, that it was Sir Gus O'Donnell alone who decided and that, until yesterday, ministers weren't even aware of the request.

So, you might assume, George Osborne is on a sticky wicket. However, long before this row, the Tories committed publicly that they would publish these data if they get into government. Thus, publication, they can argue, is ultimately a matter for ministers.

All this raises the question: why would the government want to stop the data being published?

Whitehall sources tell me that all the information in the COINS database is already in the public domain although they concede that you may have to spend time online collating it.

It is there, they point out, because the government annually publishes to Parliament all the data by which it centrally controls public expenditure so that Parliament can vote on it and through its select committees hold the most senior civil servants to account for it.

It is, they add, published in the manner requested by and agreed with by Parliament, including the breakdown of departmental budgets into the main departmental spending programmes.

They point to the list of existing government publications - Spending Reviews, Budget/PBR, Supply Estimates, Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper, Supplementary Budgeting Information - which contain the relevant information.

To which the Tories reply - why doesn't the government agree to publish it in a simple, digestible form allowing the public to engage in programme-by-programme scrutiny of what their tax pounds pay for?

There is, of course, an underlying tale here which has nothing whatsoever to do with public spending.

Remember "Yachtgate"? It was triggered when George Osborne was not terribly discreet about a private chat he had with Peter Mandelson before he had any clue that he would be returning to government.

Mandelson did not appreciate that breach of confidentiality. Ministers believe that Osborne has similarly abused the private chats he's had with the governor of the Bank of England and, now, the cabinet secretary.

Update, 12:13PM: Downing Street says the PM had no knowledge of the request from the shadow chancellor George Osborne to see government spending data.

The spokesman said it was a matter for senior civil servants and it would be "completely inappropriate" for the PM to become involved. He said there were normal conventions surrounding information made available to the opposition and the PM believed these should be followed.

But the shadow chancellor says he has written evidence to back up his story that the Tories repeatedly asked for financial information including the COINS database. He also claims that he was told informally that ministers and, in particular, the prime minister would block the request.

That's a question I've been pursuing in an interview with the shadow chancellor George Osborne.

He claims that the prime minister is denying him the information he needs to decide where the axe should fall. A request for access to the detailed spending information available to ministers has been turned down.

The Tories wanted to see the COINS database - that stands for Combined Online Information System - which contains information about what's been spent in over 12,000 category headings.

Mr Osborne tells me that:

"Gordon Brown is denying to the opposition the information on individual spending items in the government Budget that would help us plan for government, help us plan for dealing with the debt crisis. He has denied us access to that information. That makes our life as an opposition more difficult, but more to the point for the country, it means the country doesn't know the truth about where their money is going."

Neverthless he promises that the Tories will in future "provide more and more details and examples of specific schemes" they'll cut.

The shadow chancellor also makes clear that the Tories are not committed to protecting spending on schools or the Sure Start programme. Earlier, the shadow schools secretary, Michael Gove, insisted that the Tories would protect what he called "front line spending" on schools.

Pressed on why the country should trust him - a young and privileged man - with this task, the shadow chancellor replies:

"We're going to protect the poorest, we're going to protect the vulnerable, but we're going to deal with the debt crisis because, let me say this, I've got young children, many people watching this programme have got young children, and it is not fair to leave them with our debt. We have to deal with the situation now and not leave the problem to another generation."

PS. For those who want the full quote on spending priorities:

Osborne: "We've taken a tough decision, which is to protect health spending - I could have put health spending into the pot - I'm also protecting international development spending because we've made some moral commitments to the rest of the world. That means..."

Robinson: Are you protecting schools?

Osborne: "I'm not protecting other areas at this stage."

Robinson: Are you protecting Sure Start?

Osborne: "I'm not protecting other areas. I'm not going to go into specific details of individual programs but I've made a positive decision and this is part of the choice that David Cameron and the modern Conservatives have made to protect health spending, to protect international development spending because we think those are important commitments for the kind of society we want (interruption)."

Update, 18:35: The Cabinet Office insist that the decision not to give the Tories the spending information they requested was taken by the cabinet secretary and not ministers after normal pre-election contacts between civil servants and opposition leaders.

So said a Whitehall mandarin about the document which is widely-known in Whitehall as Gordon's "National Plan" - a title dropped to avoid any unfortunate Stalinist overtones.

Look at the eye-catching headline-grabbing proposals in the more forgettably-titled "Building Britain's Future" and you can see what he meant:

"Take a job or lose benefit"

Young people who refuse the offer of a government-created job - after being unemployed for more than a year - will face having their benefit docked.

The Budget unveiled the "Young Person's Guarantee" which promised that that everyone under the age of 25 who'd been out of work for 12 months would be offered a paid job or a training place designed to get them back to work.

The chancellor pledged that the government would work with employers to create or support as many as 250,000 jobs in local services and social care.

As a result of today's announcement, those who refuse a suitable job offer could lose two weeks' benefit (or up to six months if they continue to refuse to participate). Where a suitable job isn't available, they'll be offered a choice of either training or community work experience. Failure to complete a 13-week community task force without good cause would will also result in benefit sanctions.

"Local homes for local people"

The rules governing council housing will be reviewed to allow councils to favour local people or those who've been on the housing waiting list for a long time, instead of new immigrants.

Add to that evidence the clear signals from Peter Mandelson that he might not quite get round to part-privatising Royal Mail and that there'll be no spending review before the election, and it's clear that this document's real title should be "Rebuilding Labour's Future".

And what does Mr Howard say about him and his paper?

I'll give you a hint: it's none too polite.

They and I have been reflecting on the lessons learned from the reporting of the great expenses saga.

And you can hear us all in my Radio 4 programme Moats, Mortgages and Mayhem, produced by Martin Rosenbaum. It's broadcast on Sunday at 1330 and again on Monday at 2000 and is, I believe, also going to be available as an episode in the Radio 4 Choice podcast. Let me know what you think of it.

PS: The controller of Radio 4, Mark Damazer, has written about the programme on the Radio 4 Blog.