So John Bercow is the new first commoner in the land, speaker of the House of Commons.

I don't think election of a speaker has ever caused so much attention in recent times, due of course to the damaged reputation parliament faces regarding the so-called 'expenses scandal'.

Does the amount of public interest fuelled by recent events suddenly mean that, as all the other flaws of parliament have been kicked up in the dust, we need massive reforms to our system?

A few measures on the cards are: transfer of power back to parliament from the executive; less whip involvement in commons voting; allowing back-benchers more of a voice in the commons; further reforms to the House of Lords; re-examining the voting system for general elections (proportional representation, etc), which could mean more minority parties gaining influence in parliament.

Will any of these measures, if they go ahead, actually change the way we do politics in the country? Or is it all just waffle to make the government look like they are being pro-active in light of recent controversy?

Opinions please

It seems clear that the expenses system for MPs (and other publicly funded organisations, the BBC opened theirs recently) are flawed. They should be allowed expenses, because they often do need a second home, and they need to run an office - these things are what expenses are meant for. But there should not be this abuse of the system to make up for their ungenerous wage. It's dishonest, and while I don't approve of this mass-departure from the electoral system seen in the MEP/local election turnouts, there should be pressure to at least reform how the expenses will be handled in future.

My personal opinion is that full disclosure is the best, and most important thing to get in place as soon as possible. And this is more information than they provided in the release of the last four years of data, where they removed addresses of homes for the purposes of "privacy", when actually they're public figures and they chose to be such, and the actual reason in my view way to hide any more cases of "flipping" to save face.

As to reform on a broader parliamentary scale, it's probably true that this has come about for the wrong reasons. They're pushing reform to save face, and restore faith in the parliamentary process which has been damaged by the expenses scandal. However, the question really is "are these real issues, or manufactured ones to sway voters?", if they're real issues with the process of running the country, then regardless of how we came to identify them, they should be addressed, and it is right to do so. I would definitely say there are some real problems with our system (and there still will be after reform, we can't make it perfect - times change - but we can make it better for now) and if it happens that this excuse gets some of them resolved, then I'm glad it happened.



Well, on those, I certainly think less whip involvement on issues not in the party manifesto is a positive step, it means you can make more "local" decisions based on which MP will make locally-important decisions in your perceived best interest rather than follow the party step for every single point. They should follow manifesto policy though, as that allows for coherent party governing.

I am not keen on the unelected House of Lords, but I think reform should be cautious to not make it into a second House of Commons. For example, I think membership to one should bar membership to the other for their government career, so that one is not seen as a progression from the other. That way you would end up without much point of the second house. I'm also for separating the Queen and the Church from the main areas of government. That's an old throw-back to the old days, and I don't see why we should be burdened with those outdated ideas. We're now a secular society, having Church of England seats on the Lords just seems unfair.



I'm personally doubtful that either of the two main parties want any kind of real reform. Labour are being forced to jump into it in light of their huge slump in popularity, and my view is that the Conservatives are mostly doing it for the sake of opposition posturing. Both Labour and the Conservatives opposed opening up the expenses prior to the scandal coming out, but as soon as it did they both tried to jump into "we're reformer" roles, particularly David Cameron who hijacked the EU MEP party broadcast to talk about nothing but expenses, ignoring European policy altogether. There's no doubt the Lib Dems want reform, but they always have so that isn't new.

All that being said, I do see at least some reform coming in, I just don't think it'll be as far reaching as most people want, particularly if the conservatives take over, as they'll be in a strong position, and won't need to make concessions. My view is that they'll sit on things, and do little. But that's opinion I can't really substantiate.

I agree completely. Expenses should be specifically for costs which are necessary in order for the MP (or any employee in the public sector) to carry out their job effectively and to best serve the public. Second homes and office running costs definitely fall in this category; however, many of the items brought to public attention recently do not, and it is a good thing that MPs know exactly where the line is in terms of public tolerance from now on.
In terms of the BBC, I think they did an extremely honourable thing by risking their credibility and publishing expenses, by way that ITV and the other independent broadcasters have no pressure on them to do so and they surely are subject to expenses abuse.



I think there is definitely a sense of panic within the [hopefully outgoing] government. Bringing reform to the table so urgently is not only a way of attempting to redeem public face after the expenses scandal, but also them cashing in on the public's semi-misdirected anger at parliament in order to promote themselves prior to the upcoming general election.
I agree, all the talk of reform has brought some important areas into light which were perhaps waiting like a time-bomb to be discovered and need to be rectified as soon as possible. Again, like you say, I agree there should be less whip involvement on policies not in the governing party's manifesto. The manifesto is a promise which can often get a party elected and therefore such promises should be upheld through use of the whip.



My worst fear is that the House of Lords will be 'reformed' into another House of Commons. I think the House of Lords serves its purpose well as a forum for experts in various fields to debate and advise the government on key issues. To this degree I agree with peers being unelected, and instead chosen by the Government for their particular expertise in a field. I do disagree with the current situation, however, where several peers have been drafted into the cabinet. This causes them to go beyond their role of advisers and become part of the executive which in my view, due to them being unelected, is not acceptable. I also think peerages should be, in every circumstance, only for life and not a birth rite.

I disagree in separation of Church, Crown and Parliament. The Queen still remains the Government's top advisor, and one that many Prime Ministers have testified they could not have survived without. She is extremely wise and seen many Governments come and go, gaining a knowledge for successful governing and an innate sense of the will of the British people. As far as the church goes, top Bishops (who sit in the Lords) are in their position as Church leaders due to their knowledge and experience. I believe they also serve a valuable purpose in an advisory capacity, even be it only on religious issues. Whether you think, therefore, that in a multi-faith Britain, it is time for leaders of other faiths should be invited to sit in the Lords, is a different question altogether!



I think the Conservatives are genuine about the reforms they have suggested, which in my opinion are sensible and not overblown gestures which try to fix everything a lá Labour. True the Lib Dems always have, but they never seem to be taken seriously!

I think we'll just have to wait and see how Cameron's government performs.