David Cameron has won all the tactical battles on the expenses row, leaving a frustrated Gordon Brown and his Government trailing well behind. Yet there is more than a whiff of populist gimmickry about the “I am more a reformer than you” competition between politicians at present.

The Conservative leader has displayed a steely mixture of ruthlessness and opportunism in his response to the public revulsion over the stories about MPs’ expenses. He recognises the demand for blood and has been willing to sacrifice MPs via summary execution.

Labour leaders also accept the need to dump MPs who are liabilities but Mr Brown has moved more slowly, suspending only two MPs and starting the party’s “star chamber” only today. He has criticised the conduct of some ministers (such as Hazel Blears) as unacceptable but has seemed inconsistent and indecisive in his treatment of others.

Mr Cameron has also appeared to lead the debate on reform, even though the Government has already introduced many changes and Mr Brown last week produced a bold plan for independent regulation of the financial affairs of MPs. But there has been a lack of a clear lead from No 10 as Alan Johnson and Ed Miliband have each produced their own personal reform plans.

The debate has been marked by confusion and wishful thinking. There has been a failure to distinguish between the immediate problem over expenses and wider questions of reform. Of course, the public’s anger goes wider than just expenses. But does it really go as far as electoral reform and a written constitution? The discussion is also prone to golden-ageism (the belief that things were better in the past) and ignoring recent changes. Contrary to Mr Cameron’s speech, the Commons is more effective than 30 to 40 years ago.

Scrutiny of legislation can obviously be improved a lot but is better than it was. Moreover, Mr Brown has already limited the use of the royal, effectively prime ministerial, prerogative by, for example, making big public appointments subject to select committee hearings.

The reformers embrace two distinct, and contrasting, views: first, that MPs should be held more accountable to voters and second, that MPs should be given more powers in relation to the executive.

The best way of achieving the former would be by introducing e-petitions to allow direct access, while recalls of MPs to force reruns of elections should be used only in rare cases otherwise members will be reluctant to take controversial decisions. There is also a strong case for fixed-term parliaments.

On the second, there is no shortage of proposals, now being re-examined by Jack Straw and Harriet Harman, to strengthen the role of backbench MPs. That could be done quickly. But don’t muddle this with creating a new constitution. That debate should be left until later.

Times Recommends

• Graveyard of empires could claim more careers
• Would you live on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall?
• At last we’re getting our heads out of the sand