If, as seems more and more likely, Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World hacked into the voicemail messages of the deputy prime minister of this country, what should be done about it?

It is easy to lose sight of the scale of this scandal, which has been running long enough to make us blasé. John Prescott is not a figure of great gravitas, and he is in company here mainly with entertainers and sports figures. Murdoch too has been around such a long time he is part of the national furniture. Plenty of people are ready to shrug it off.

But bugging the country’s elected leaders is a gross affront to democracy and a threat to national security. Just imagine what would be happening if the Russians, the Chinese or the French were suspected of doing it — and then factor in the suspicions that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were targets too.

It was Lord Fowler, the former Conservative Cabinet minister, who pointed out that this was Watergate in reverse –– not a newspaper bravely protecting the public interest, but a newspaper directly attacking the public interest.

So what is happening? A lot, but so far nothing to match the scale of the problem.

The Metropolitan Police, newly energetic if not yet actually penitent, are promising to contact their list of people who may have been real hacking targets. The “handful” once spoken of is stretching almost by the day, and lawyers now speak seriously of the possibility that it may be hundreds.

A good many of these will then join another list of people — those who are suing. That is already said to have jumped from around 20 to between 30 and 40, if you include those who have instructed solicitors but not actually issued legal papers.

What will happen to all these cases? At the moment Glenn Mulcaire and the News of the World give every impression of wishing to fight them all the way, but the sand is shifting under their feet. First, the Met’s change of position — from obstructing possible claimants to assisting them — removes the first line of defence and means the disclosure of damaging documents is likely to speed up. Second, the courts are expected in due course to tell Mulcaire he must answer questions about who told him to do the hacking — something he has resisted on the grounds he risks incriminating himself.

How long will the newspaper fight on? That, of course, is closely linked to the question: what hope does it have of winning? The odds are that not everyone who sues for breach of privacy will have a strong enough case to win, but does News International really believe it can win them all and vindicate itself?

Barring a change of heart — and despite the excitement surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s recent visit to London he does not appear to have ordered that — a long, squalid and extremely expensive series of civil cases is in prospect which will steadily erode what remains of the group’s public standing. And in the meantime, we still have the problem of a media organisation at the heart of our public life whose activities are, to say the least, a matter of grave public concern.

Lord Fowler demanded a public inquiry but that is highly unlikely before the legal cases are concluded. Lord Prescott and others are set to renew their case for a judicial review of the conduct of the police, which might lead to something resembling a public inquiry into that aspect of the case. And there are other processes under way. The Commons Home Affairs Committee is looking into the matter, and of course the police are reviewing their old investigation and conducting a new one.

Last and certainly least, the Press Complaints Commission has set up a committee to look at the lessons to be learned. Is there anybody left, inside or outside the industry, who thinks the PCC matters?

Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and Tweets at @BrianCathcart