We knew that it was serious when Gordon Brown strode towards us, his lopsided smile looking badly stuck-on, his teeth as dazzling as an iceberg.

“The Smile!” muttered my neighbour.

It was hard not to shield my eyes. This amount of teeth could mean only one thing: things were very bad. My guess is that Gordon Brown wanted something to be whiter than white yesterday, and it certainly wasn’t going to be his politics. For the next 75 minutes, the smile went on and off like a crazed Belisha beacon.

It was a messy press conference, but then it’s a messy scandal. Mr Brown’s goal was to rise above it all. I can see why, for the whole saga is confusing. Tony Blair had “cash for honours”. The name for this is less obvious. Cash for no honours? Cash for secrecy? My Not-So-Beautiful Political Launderette?

The Prime Minister was steely. He said that the donations were unlawful and unacceptable. The money must go back. He knew nothing until he was told about it on Saturday in Uganda. The fact that he was in Uganda when he learnt about this seemed normal. That’s how ridiculous his premiership has become.

“There is a review,” he announced. No one was surprised. It’s what he does. As the crises have piled up over the past week, like an accordion car crash on the M1, I have lost track of the number of new reviews. We are into double figures. I think that Gordon Brown may be addicted to them.

This review is the most high powered yet. It will be conducted by a lord, a retired judge AND a retired bishop. Indeed it may be three reviews. The presence of Lord Harries of Pentregarth, the former Bishop of Oxford, could mean only one thing. You call for a bishop only when things are so bad that you need someone with a direct line to God. Whatever next? Will Gordon ask Moses to update the Ten Commandments? And what about the parables? What about some guidance on the Bad Samaritan too?

The journalists were openly incredulous about the idea that no one knew about this except for Labour’s general secretary (who resigned, presumably after a phone call from Uganda). Harriet Harman had accepted a donation. What about her? Mr Brown’s support for Harriet was evasive. The rat pack smelt a rat.

What would happen, demanded one hack, if a Cabinet minister knew about this? What if the review named names?

“If the inquiry names names, then names will be named!” cried the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The iceberg smile flashed.

The foreign press normally ask spaghetti junction questions about the Middle East. Even they, yesterday, got in on the act. “What does your moral compass tell you?” asked one.

Ah. The moral compass. We haven’t heard about that for a while. I had thought it was at the back of the wardrobe in an old shoebox. But, yesterday, Mr Brown revealed that he had consulted the compass in Uganda. It was the first time that we had realised that it was a travel moral compass.

“My moral compass says that what happened with these donations is completely unacceptable,” he announced.

He was asked, for the umpteenth time, about Harriet Harman. Did she have his full support? Was it 90 per cent behind her, 50 per cent or what? Do you want her to jump off a cliff?

“Of course I’ve got confidence in Harriet Harman,” he said. “I said that. I said that.” Had he? Well you could have fooled me. I would say that his moral compass is in a spin about her.

Ann Treneman won the “best political satire” accolade in the annual awards yesterday by the Political Studies Association. The PSA promotes study of politics.

Times Recommends

• Donor organ allowed child’s own heart to heal
• Michael Jackson: Not the final chapter
• Sacha Baron Cohen forced to tone down Brüno