This is now a discredited House, not a reforming one

There are some changes coming. But do we see real signs of a cleansed parliament reconnected to the public? Not really

Let's start with another leaked parliamentary document. It's less sensational than MPs' expenses claims, but perhaps just as eloquent about the condition of Westminster. Passed to me by an MP, it's from Robert Rogers, the Commons clerk of legislation, and has been sent to all of the candidates for the speakership.

The document contains a long menu of proposed reforms – 75 in total - that a new Speaker could introduce on her or his authority, and other more ambitious ones needing cross-party agreement, or votes. They include allowing urgent questions to challenge ministers on immediate topics "to show the House responding to public concerns and calling the government to account on them"; stopping ministers who have announced something on the Today programme getting Commons time to say the same thing; and dropping much of the impenetrable jargon. MPs should, suggests Rogers, consider addressing one another as "Mrs Smith" and "John Jones" rather than as the honourable member for this or that, and make proceedings more intelligible.

Rogers is a longtime official who knows his onions: what is striking is that sensible and overdue changes need to be suggested to the would-be Speakers, rather than bubbling directly from them. Admittedly, some of the candidates have embraced some of the suggestions – but these are things independent-minded and reasonably forward-looking MPs would have demanded years ago.

The wider truth is that self-regulation and self-reform rarely work. Today's Speaker candidates are a mediocre field, all of whom would need to surprise their friends if they were to prove radical reformers. Several have too many questions to answer about their own expenses, others are too deeply mired in the old system. Some of the older candidates are just too quiet and dull.

Of course, somebody will be elected today, in a process driven more by inter-party squabbling and score-settling than thirst for reform. Whoever it is may yet surprise us all. But when party leaders talk of the need for a radical reformer with real leadership skills, able to project a new Commons to the country, it's a bit hard to spot this paragon just yet.

We have to live in hope though, because so far attempts to deal with the "trust" crisis between parliament and the electorate have made things worse. What's become clear is that people in clubs don't voluntarily tear up the rulebooks they've lived by. It seemed impossible that by finally publishing their expenses, just as the Daily Telegraph was completing its comprehensive expose of them, MPs could have actually put themselves in a worse light. The ludicrous and offensive redactions achieved just that. Put ethics to one side: just at the level of basic public relations it was an act of cack-handed incompetence. Yet try to find out who was ultimately responsible, and every one at Westminster shrugs and blames someone else.

The decision by No 10 to try to keep the interesting and important parts of the Iraq war inquiry secret is in the same league. The prime minister may have been pushed into having second thoughts now, but his original plan would have ensured that, for instance, Tony Blair gave his crucial evidence in private. The paperwork and assessments Whitehall wanted kept quiet, would not have been made public. As more evidence tumbles out about Blair's conversations with George Bush as they struggled to find a good trigger for war, this would make it an inquiry not worth having, one that added to public cynicism. Frankly, if you wanted to reassure the public, it would have been better not to have an inquiry at all than to have one that was described by the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, as "a secret inquiry, conducted by a clutch of grandees, hand-picked by the prime minister".

Clegg speaks angrily about a stitch-up between Labour and Tories over parliamentary reform in general, and the onus is on the bigger parties to prove him wrong. The government is now meant to be keen for Lords reform and the end of the unelected chamber, a basic democratic change that we might have expected to read about in history books, and which should have happened before the second world war. But when will this actually happen? It's a coughing, wheezing fag-end aspiration. And if the parties are serious, why not stop sending people to the Lords right now?

Yes, there are some changes coming. A more transparent system of publishing MPs' expenses is on the way. The practice of house-flipping to avoid tax and max-up claims will be banned. The worst offenders among today's MPs are likely to be prosecuted and more will be pursued by the tax authorities. But do you see real signs of a cleansed parliament asserting its rights over the executive, an end to the dominance of the whips, a revived parliament that is reconnected to the public? Not really. The likeliest thing is that the geyser of public anger will jet upwards at the next election, mainly washing away Labour MPs; and that after it we will find ourselves with a similar set-up, run by the Tories.

What are the alternatives? Under a system of parliamentary sovereignty, outside bodies may be set up, and publicly report; but if they make things too uncomfortable, MPs will deal with them – just as previous ombudsmen have been dealt with. Referendums on reform are another idea, but one must be sceptical about who asks the questions, and when. Could we have a popular movement for change, as in Scotland before devolution, and a grand convention? Not a bad thought; but where is the energy for it? Isn't the cynicism too ingrained?

Perhaps at the next election we can all make a bit of effort to put pressure on candidates to tell us how they would act differently as MPs, and whether they would push for radical change. More mavericks, independents and people reluctant to toe the party line would help make the next parliament live a little. And if the election produced a hung parliament, Lib Dem and other reformers would be in a stronger position.

It's a thin hope, but probably the best we have . Later today we will probably witness sentimental scenes in the Commons, as the victorious Speaker emerges and is lauded on. MPs will slap one another on the back and talk about a new beginning. The sensible thing is to be very sceptical – to believe it when we see it. This remains the discredited parliament not the reforming one, and until we have hard evidence to the contrary, that's how it will be remembered.