What's wrong with using a little common sense, and sticking with the devil you know? Whichever devil you would have voted for, if the expenses row had never happened. I suggest this for what seem to me to be sensible and practical reasons.

1.You will either be voting for an MP who was mildly out of order, an MP who was innocent of any wrongdoing, or the REPLACEMENT for an MP whose misdemeanour was serious enough that he/she had to resign, or was prosecuted.
All candidates will fall into one of these three categories.

2. Whichever category your candidate inhabits, he/she will certainly NOT be repeating the actions of the guilty MPs of the past. New rules, and independent professional and public scrutiny, will take care of that.

3. If your candidate was one of the many innocents, named by the Telegraph and ignored by TV news to their eternal shame, you have NO reason to change. If he/she was one of the mild cases the old adage might apply (to err is human, to forgive, devine), and the replacements for the genuinely evil would not, by definition, be a problem.

4. To pursue that course would be to deny extremists of every stamp the opportunity to gain a toehold in the corridors of power.
If we do not take action to avoid that, we will assuredly regret, and suffer for it in the future.

Don T.