MPs are all collectively guilty of ripping off the British taxpayer. Those who didn't personally make outrageous expense claims certainly know now that it was going on. They are collectively responsible for drawing up and enforcing the rules governing expenses. They have the power to expel from the House of Commons, those MPs who have so clearly brought it into disrepute. A ComRes poll for the BBC on Friday showed that 64% of people believe they should do so. Instead, there is every indication that MPs will continue to protect their own.

Its not just the current expenses scandals which requires reform of Parliament. There are recurring corruption scandals, many involving MPs who have lucrative consultancies and non-executive directorships. Its clear that in most cases they are not being hired for their business acumen, but simply as a way of influencing Parliament.

Members of the House of Lords have also been involved in expenses and corruption scandals. The Times published evidence that four peers were willing to change laws in exchange for money. Two of these, Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor, were found guilty last Thursday by the Lords Privileges Committee. However, it has only recommended they be suspended from the Lords for a mere six months.

There is at least one other scandal which deserves mention. That is the constant stream of lies from politicians on every subject under the sun. Until the expenses scandal broke, this was the thing which ordinary people most hated about politicians. Its become so common that it is rarely remarked upon, but MPs are breaking their own rules. Erskine May, the parliamentary rulebook, states that “Witnesses who have … given false evidence, wilfully suppressed the truth or persistently misled a committee have been considered guilty of a contempt”. Until November 2004, the House resolved at the start of each session,

“That, if it shall appear that any person has given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender”.

(This was dropped simply because the Procedure Committee pointed out that it did not add to Parliament's power to punish offenders). Despite the enormous powers they have, MPs were not even willing to impeach Blair over the lies that led to the Iraq war.

The fact that parliamentarians routinely allow their own rules to be broken leads to one inescapable conclusion: self regulation of Parliament must end. Instead there should be a special set of laws governing members of Parliament. These laws should be passed by a referendum, and should only be subject to amendment by referendum. In addition, amendments should only be put to a vote if proposed in a petition signed by a substantial number of ordinary voters, say five per cent of the electorate. This would exclude politicians from any special role in changing the laws. Furthermore, this document should also lay down the method for choosing the Judge, chief prosecutor, and lead investigator. I suggest that, like the jury, they should all be drawn at random from a large body of potential candidates. Also, measures should be included to ensure they can't be bribed or pressured by politicians.

I shall not elaborate on my ideas further at this point. I want to see if others agree with me, that electing a new set of politicians is unlikely to bring real change. It is the system which needs to change, and most of the ideas being put forward are far too timid and conventional to have the required effect.