MPs risk having turned themselves from heroes to zeroes in the space of just one afternoon.
Having won themselves plaudits for turning down recommended pay increases, they have voted to keep their expenses system - so much criticized - just as it was. In other words, those payments for new kitchens for MPs' second homes go on, as does the notorious "John Lewis list" which sets out maximum payments to purchase a new plasma chest of drawers for that home in London or the constituency.
Now plenty of MPs will point out that the recommended reforms of the system wouldn't have saved the public any money and indeed might have cost more, given the burden of external auditors coming to snoop their way in to MPs' affairs. The controversy that is burning tonight though is whether Gordon Brown's government behaves like every other previous government has done, keeping a hard line on MPs' pay while turning a blind eye to their allowances.
The Tories are claiming that ministers went AWOL during the expenses vote and that if they turned up, the new expenses system would have been passed and not rejected as it was. I'm going to be checking the voting list.
"Hair shirts this way" they cried as MPs confounded expectations by voting for pay restraint not just this year, but for several years to come.
Thus, they rejected the recommendations of an independent review that said that they needed roughly a 10% hike in their pay over the next few years.
The debate was filled only with those who called for MPs to have the courage to defy public opinion and increase their pay. Those such as Tory MP David Maclean who said that "We have a responsibility for making mega mega decisions. And for that we're getting the level of pay of a 2nd tier officer in a district council."
The Commons has now moved to a vote on their expenses and allowances and I suspect having felt the pain on pay will be determined not to feel it there as well.
Stand by.
MPs might be about to vote themselves an above-inflation pay rise and to reject a package of reforms of their controversial expenses and allowances system.
Today the Commons votes on the government's proposal that they should stick to a non-inflation busting pay rise. The signs are, though, that they may well vote for one of a series of amendments involving pay restraint this year but above inflation top ups in years to come.
Those behind the move insist that they will merely be implementing the recommendations of an independent review and, therefore, only paying themselves what they're entitled to.
Equally controversially, MPs may, according to sources on all sides in the House, reject the recommendations of the Speaker's committee which proposed not just greater transparency and reform of the rules but also a powerful and intrusive audit of MPs' expenses.
Those leading the rebellion claim this would be a costly waste of money as a result of paying outside consultants. They claim that the Speaker's (Members' Estimates) Committee are proposing reforms where none are necessary and doing so in a hasty and ill thought out way.
If they win the day, the system of payments for flat screen TVs (off the so-called John Lewis list) and kitchen re-fits go on. One of those leading the backbench revolt told me that if he needed a new fridge for his second home which he needs because he works in two places, he was perfectly happy to make that case.
Let's be clear, there is no monopoly of virtue in one set of proposals or another. They give MPs roughly the same amount of money and in both cases the details of MPs' claims would have to be published regularly.
Many MPs will face a dilemma - to vote for something they don't like - pay restraint and expenses reform to get the critics off their backs - or to risk headlines declaring that MPs have voted themselves a pay rise they reject for others whilst binning proposals to reform their allowances.
It will be fascinating to see how they grapple with this choice in the hours ahead before the vote this evening.
