The title really says it all on this one. By saying that this scandal is Very English, Preston is urging his reader to consider the broader impact of the story. Unless Thorpe had indicted himself by doing something ridiculous and heinous, Britain might have continued on without having to face the injustice of their laws, and the duplicity of those in the government. He was a Member of Parliament, but he was privately guilty of breaking the laws against homosexuality, though he publicly defended them.
To bring this all into perspective, the reader should remember the controversial verdict of Thorpe's trial—he was acquitted, but ultimately, he was completely defamed by his own hand. Ever since Magna Carta, the social standard has been that where there are laws, all the people of the land are beholden to them. Apparently, some politicians quickly forget that their power is not an excuse to insulate themselves in their own private versions of justice. A public leader is obligated to uphold the law, for the sanctity of law itself.
Now, consider this alternative story. Pretend instead of a real politician allegedly murdering an ex-lover, pretend it had happened the opposite way. Pretend a British Member of Parliament was found to be in a gay relationship, but instead of projecting about that, he simply owned it and worked to correct the law, which in this case was seriously in need of correction. But, because he allowed the shame of his private life to consume him, Thorpe always stood against homosexuality on his face, though he was at least bisexual. So, when it occurred to him the damage that could be done because of the anti-gay legislation in Britain in 1969, he was pigeon-holed into a situation that left him perfectly paranoid. He could have just accepted himself.
