The fetid cloud of hypocrisy rising from our federal Parliament must surely by now be visible from space.

Strip away all the insincere grandstanding about due process and parliamentary standards and you get a government motivated by clinging to power and an opposition motivated by the burning desire to bring that government down, whatever it takes.

If you doubt this, think about how Tony Abbott would behave if he were prime minister and his government's survival depended on the vote of a Liberal MP facing similar accusations and what Julia Gillard would say if she were the leader of the opposition. Each would be doing more or less exactly what the other is doing now.

If you are still unconvinced, consider whether Labor paid full regard to its argument about due process in its pursuit of allegations against former governor-general Peter Hollingworth, or any number of Coalition ministers accused of wrongdoing. Compare Labor's pleas for the Coalition to consider the personal consequences of turning the Parliament into a kangaroo court with its retaliatory accusations against Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly and its threats of more accusations to come against other Coalition MPs. Think about how quickly Labor would agree to ''not accept'' Craig Thomson's vote if it had a clearer majority.

And then think about Tony Abbott's almost complete silence on the supposed dangers to democratic processes posed by the Craig Thomson allegations for the first two years after they were comprehensively aired in the Sydney Morning Herald, before the government's survival - and therefore his own ambition - suddenly became dependent on Thomson's vote.

The dismal truth is, despite the extremely grave doubts most people would hold about Thomson's explanations, there is no obvious way to quickly bring this political feeding frenzy to an end.

The civil charges arising from the Fair Work Australia report are being worked up but have not yet been laid - and when they are, there is a chance they will be thrown out, or at least delayed, because of questions about statute of limitation. Even if Thomson is found guilty, they will only result in a fine and would not require him to leave Parliament. Criminal charges have not yet been laid and, if they are, will have to be tested in court. The parliamentary privileges committee inquiry is not equipped to finally determine the veracity of Thomson's statements to Parliament and, in any event, has already descended into a tactical, party political bunfight that surely proves that politicians cannot be relied upon to sit in fair judgment upon each other.

There are processes under way but they might prove inadequate and they are certainly too slow for Tony Abbott's desired end. That is the reason for the Coalition's fury; they believe Labor has been dealt its fatal blow but the damn government just won't die.

And so Julia Gillard clings to power but fails to find a way to talk about anything other than the scandal. And Tony Abbott puts the government in a permanently untenable situation but fails to finally tear it down. And neither knows how to make it stop, despite mounting public disgust with the lot of them.

Some MPs on both sides are deeply uncomfortable about the human toll on Thomson. Abbott is now disingenuously weaving Thomson's mental well-being into his campaign to speed up the backbencher's, and the government's, demise. For Thomson's ''own sake'', the Prime Minister should ''allow'' him to resign, Abbott now says. Oh really? For Thomson's sake? Do we look like mugs?

Privately, other Coalition MPs are much clearer. When asked when the saga will stop, they say ''when we break him''. They appear to be referring to forcing Thomson to resign but many on both sides of Parliament have voiced concerns that someone in Thomson's position could resort to self harm.

If you still harbour hope that our political leaders are behaving with honour and regard for the institutions of democracy, instead of listening to what they say, look at what they are prepared to do.

Tony Abbott said this week ''we are doing this because we want a better standard for the polity. Our Parliament can be better than this''. So why is the Coalition not supporting a new code of conduct for politicians, nor a new integrity commissioner, nor broader constitutional rules for disqualification from serving as an MP?

A parliamentary code of conduct was part of the (don't laugh) ''agreement for a better Parliament'' signed by Labor, the Coalition and the independents during negotiations to form government after the 2010 election.

It was referred to a committee in each of the houses. The House of Representatives committee reported back late last year, proposing a draft code that to an outsider looks like a statement of the bleeding obvious, requiring members to be honest, loyal to the nation, diligent and economic in their use of public entitlements and mindful of the ''dignity of Parliament'' in their personal conduct.

That code will now be moved for adoption by the independent MP Rob Oakeshott and appears set to win support in the House of Representatives, after negotiations with the leader of the house, Anthony Albanese.

But the Senate interests committee, chaired by Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, has deferred its report on the issue until the end of this year. A spokesperson for Senator Bernardi said this was to ''consult with stakeholders''. It was later clarified that the ''stakeholder'' being consulted for the remainder of the year was in fact the chairman of the Senate privileges committee, fellow Liberal senator Gary Humphries.

The Coalition wants attention to stay focused on Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper and says it will think about a code for the House of Representatives or the Senate when the committee finally reports back in November.

In any event, a code of conduct is an ineffectual solution. Surely it is obvious that we need some kind of federal independent commission against corruption, maybe something like the integrity commissioner the Greens are proposing, to promptly investigate and adjudicate on allegations of fraud or corruption or misuse of entitlements. But neither major party appears to want a bar of that.

And so the saga goes on, with outer space probably the only place disillusioned voters could escape it.

Political Feeding Frenzy A Plague On Both Houses