THEY were at it again those MPs. The election of a new speaker has been beset by whispering and rumours of behind closed doors deals between backbenchers, of bluff and counter-bluff, allegations by a senior MP that the party whips were getting involved, mutterings of people changing their votes at the last minute to get an `acceptable' candidate.

What people wanted to see was all MPs rallying behind a single figure capable of overseeing reform. What they got was more politics - and a private vote.

If this is the new age of parliamentary openness then we really are in trouble.

Have our MPs learned nothing at all? You sometimes get the feeling that if you got them all in a room and shouted `Who's to blame?' you'd see a forest of fingers pointing in different directions. A fair few would be aimed at Michael Martin. Some, perhaps, at Gordon Brown. Many would be circling wildly, taking in everyone else in the room. But would anyone be pointing at themselves?

That kind of genuine contrition is what the public want most - not a change of debating-room chairman.

They want an acknowledgement that it wasn't just the system, or the people who presided over the system, who were wrong. It was everyone who took advantage of it.

The events of the past few weeks are a watershed in politics. Trust was already ebbing away, slowly but surely. But every crisis is also an opportunity. The mood is ripe for a root-and-branch reform of our politics. What could that involve?

An overhaul of the expenses system, for a start, with every penny accounted for and published, in real time, on the internet and an end to the ability to claim set amounts for unaccounted items - £400 a month for `food', for example.

Then there are changes needed to put politicians back in the reach of their constituents such as televised public question times, in which ministers and other MPs put themselves forward for a grilling by the people who elect them, or websites where the politicians actively engage with constituents on issues of concern - rather than simply posting `press releases' and self-important `monthly digests' that were, in any case, probably written by a taxpayer-funded researcher.

Or a greater willingness to hold public votes, and respond to their findings. Changes to bring more democracy and a more representative mix to the House of Lords.

But the changes could, and should, run deeper. Your average politician no longer feels like `one of us'.

It is not just the rise of the career politician - the `parachuted-in' MP who has no real local roots and no great experience of life outside the Westminster bubble.

It's also the language they use - the jargon, the party-approved phrases and non-answer answers, the media training and relentless whipping that bullies bright and articulate politicians into droning out `the line', and nothing but `the line', during interviews. Constituents no longer get a sense that their MPs are people of strong character; sometimes they probably doubt their MP has any character at all.

The party system has suffocated politics as it has become increasingly media-savvy. Political tribes have become so paranoid about controlling how they are seen that they have ended up crushing individuality.

Yet it is the very politicians who are brave enough to break the mould, to take some risks and trust their instincts - the Thatchers, the Blairs - who connect best with the public and inspire people to vote. I suspect there is very little appetite in Westminster at the moment to tackle such uncomfortable truths. MPs, battered and cowed by weeks of revelations about their expenses, are feeling relieved. "It's been tough but we've got through it," they will be telling each other. "Now let's just sit tight for a while until everything dies down and goes back to normal."

But `normal' is no longer an option. The wounds reopened by the expenses row have been festering for years. They run too deep simply to heal with time. This is a time for honesty, for bravery - for action. It is a time for our highly-paid leaders to lead.

Now members are misquoting us journalists

FOR some reason, I keep getting mentioned in Parliament these days.

First, two MPs were reprimanded by a committee chairman for squabbling about the rules to some vaguely-satirical political awards I've been running on my blog.

Then last week David Curry, Tory MP for Skipton and Ripon, referred to an interview I'd done with the BBC after our `Hazel Blears' regrets' exclusive.

I'd been asked who would be the front-runner should Ms Blears be forced to stand down as Labour candidate for Salford and Eccles. I'd said the logical choice would be Ian Stewart - the current MP for Eccles who's been squeezed out after the seats of Salford, Eccles and Worsley were reduced to just two by boundary changes. I'd added that Mr Stewart, whose expenses claims were frugal, was feeling disillusioned at the low esteem in which all MPs were being held and might not want the post even if it were available.

Mr Curry said: "I was listening to some commentaries on the radio with the political correspondent from the Manchester Evening News. He opined that the honourable member for Eccles was losing interest in politics.

"He also suggested that the honourable gentlemen did not care what happened about the boundary changes if the worst comes to the worst and the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government were to find that her executive decided she should spend more time with her motorbike and badge."

Now clearly that isn't quite what I said. It's a curious experience - me, a journalist, complaining about being misquoted by a politician. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

Weblink: http://tinyurl.com/ lxztpt Discuss this column with david at blogs.manchester eveningnews.co.uk/politics and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/davidottewell