John Bercow was out campaigning with his one-year-old daughter in the Portcullis House coffee shop at the House of Commons yesterday morning — a new man promising to be the “clean break” candidate in the race to be elected House of Commons Speaker. “We need change,” he told MPs, as he set out his plans to push through “an agenda for reform and renewal”. He wants a new expenses system, more independent scrutiny of legislation — and an enhanced role as an ambassador for Parliament, explaining the mysteries of politics to the outside world. Will he now exchange the Speaker's tricorn hat for a baseball cap?

On the face of it, MPs voted for modernity last night. But in fact the whole contest shows just how out of touch the House of Commons still is. Mr Bercow — a former Monday Club rightwinger, who became the Tories' überliberal — was elected because so many Labour MPs wanted to irritate David Cameron not because they thought he was the best man for the job. During the ballot, one backbencher told the Tory leader he was going to vote Conservative for the first time in his life and got the response: “John Bercow doesn't count!”

The resignation of Michael Martin was supposed to be a catalyst for change, but the process of choosing his replacement has revealed how little politicians understand the scale of the problem that they face. While the voters are crying out for honesty and integrity, the election of the new Speaker has been all about petty politicking and party power games.

Labour whips were actively promoting Margaret Beckett as the candidate least likely to curtail their own power to appoint the chairmen of select committees. Conservatives were supporting Mrs Beckett in an attempt to stop Mr Bercow, even though they actually wanted Sir George Young. Everyone seemed to be voting tactically rather than in a straightforward way. Some Tory MPs even let it be known that they would seek to depose Mr Bercow as Speaker after the next general election if they won power. It was as the Labour backbencher Stephen Pound admitted “a depressing example of MPs looking inwards to their own advantage when we really should be looking outwards”.

It is no coincidence that Parmjit Dhanda, the most modernising candidate, was knocked out in the first round. In his statement to the House he gave a stark challenge to his colleagues: “Do we get it? Do we understand the level of the public's anger? I'm not sure we do.” To judge by the past few weeks he was right.

Instead of being the start of a new era, the way in which the election of the Speaker was conducted simply confirmed that the old politics still apply. This was the first chance MPs have had since the expenses row to show that they had got the message - but they put their fingers in their ears and sang “la la la”.

The decision to hold the ballot in secret was meant to make the election more democratic — but, in fact, it allowed MPs to put self-interest before the public's concerns without risk of exposure. Sir Alan Haselhurst gave the game away when he said that he “shared the hurt that many honourable members feel” over criticisms of their expenses. Too many MPs still feel more sorry for themselves than remorseful about the inflated expenses claims they have made. Even the way in which the poll was conducted looks archaic — was it really necessary to reprint ballot papers every two hours when votes could be cast in seconds using an electronic system? Tom Harris, the blogging Labour MP, helpfully reproduced a mocked-up Labour whips' ballot paper, with all names except Mrs Beckett's blacked out.

This election is, of course, of a piece with the decision to redact so many details of MPs' expenses claims, and Gordon Brown's desire to hold the inquiry into the war in Iraq behind closed doors. The politicians seem not to understand that the world has changed - that the voters no longer look up, with deference, to their political lords and masters, that in the internet age people expect to be given more information, not less.

MPs talk about the need for a “new politics” but when their backs are up against the wall the parties revert to traditional tactics every time. The Prime Minister claims that the wicked Tories plan to cut public spending by 10 per cent - wilfully ignoring the fact that this is a figure based on analysis of Labour's own Budget Red Book. The Conservatives announce the make-up of its right-wing grouping in the European Parliament only hours before the Commons starts voting for a new Speaker — a good day, the strategists have clearly decided, to bury controversial news. From Damian McBride to moats, Corfu to cuts, reshuffles to relaunches, the political class looks woefully detached from the real world. MPs promise to wear hairshirts, then slip into silk pyjamas when they think nobody is looking.

Their response to the election of two BNP MEPs is to debate the technicalities of AV-plus. They talk about revolution then announce a series of reviews. On parliamentary expenses or the House of Lords, they say that they agree with change, but when it comes to it they vote against reform. Like party members in George Orwell's 1984, they are guilty of “double think” - “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them”.

Last night the new Speaker was dragged to the chair. This is a tradition that developed at a time when it was seen as a dangerous job: the Speaker is responsible for delivering the Commons' opinions to the monarch and several holders were executed after giving an unpopular message to the ruler.

But it shows just how archaic the parliamentary system is. Mr Bercow has promised to reform it - but that is not really why he was elected. MPs should remember that these days it is the voters, not the Queen, who have the power (and the inclination) to chop off their heads.

Times Recommends

• The ghost of Robin Cook haunts Chilcot’s feast
• The truth shouldn’t need oaths
• Violence: let’s separate the men from the boys