As with many disclosures of this kind, it's often the case that it is messenger who gets shot, rather than the message dealt with.
Sadly we have shades of this here. As has been noted on Labour List, it seems the closer you get to Parliament the more jellyfish-like the reaction is for both the message that Parliament needs to be more open and transparent - and the messengers who worked hard to deliver it.
One person who deserves much more public recognition than she has received so far for her work is Freedom of Information campaigner and journalist Heather Brooke
If there was to be a proper response, it would see the push for greater transparency in our Parliamentary system as something that was long overdue, and that campaigning for it was an act of public service which should be recognised.
If the state currently hands out honours to those who have dedicated service for the public good, then the first on their list should be those journalists who - like Brooke - asked the right questions and, in the best traditions that people on the Left have campaigned for, didn't let up when faced with bureaucratic denial.
But the bet is that no brave soul will sign even an Early Day Motion in support of this, as MPs often appear to do when garnering publicity over achievements of soap characters or minor celebs.
Pushing for greater transparency is deeply rooted in our traditions and activism.
When Labour came to power in 1997 it set down an early marker for reforms. The Public Interest Disclosure Act, which I worked on in the late 1990s, is amongst the strongest whistleblower protection anywhere in the world.
The Freedom of Information Act drove exposure of Parliamentary practices, yet nowhere do we see those who made the personal sacrifice and hard work rewarded despite clear public opinion.
Compared to the Tories, strides we also made in consumer protection and advice over the last decade, yet somehow I get the feeling that we are seen on the other side of the argument.
Labour party members and supporters shouldn't drop the baton, but engage with the openness argument.
The future face of our party shouldn't be presented by those rather institutionalised MPs who appear on our screens holding forth about 'natural justice', but by a recognition of the actions of those who drove long overdue reforms.