John Bercow is considering ending the rules that mean that MPs must refer to each other as “honourable” or “the right honourable” (in the case of Privy Councillors) members in the Commons Chamber. The reason for the change being to make Parliamentary debates more intelligble to the public – so rather than referring to an MP as “the honourable member for X”, they use their name. As, after all, even most political anoraks couldn’t identify every MP by the name of their constituency!

This is a very good move. Though Bercow wants to maintain the custom of speaking through the Chair (ie. him), which seems totally of out of date as well. Why can’t an MP refer to another as “you”? That would actually free up debate as least as much as removing the “honourbale member” reference.

But then, there’s another reason why MPs should no longer refer to each other as “honourable” – because a significant number of them simply aren’t. That has been revealed without doubt by the publication of the (unredacted) version of their expenses.

The sheer number of false or inappropriate claims is staggering – and since the amount repaid has breached the sum of £500,000, that’s one hell of a lot of money that should not have been paid in the first place. And many MPs are stabding down because of this. To refer to them as “honourbale members” is absurd, and definitely a misnomer – dishonourable members would be a more appropriate title.

The root of this is that Parliament needs to be updated. But updates should not be rushed, but brought in to facilitate the democratic process and develop over time. The removal of this archaic reference system that serves no purpose is a good start.

However, removing all of the “ceremonial” aspects would be a bad move – a bit of pomp and circumstance is good for us all. But it shouldn’t interfere in the running of our democracy.