They’re back, Mr Editor. The House on the Hill reopens today after a 16-week absence with all the usual pomp and pageantry the colony can muster for the occasion. But, as one faithful reader has already speculated, the dignity and civility on parade today will very likely quickly dissipate as members of the two parties get down to business and go after one another.

Okay, maybe. But not necessarily on the first day back. Tradition has it that the Government sets out its legislative programme for the year in a Throne Speech read by the Governor, while the Opposition listens and keeps it powder dry for the Official Reply which they get to deliver next week. That’s usually when the, er, exchanges, begin.

But there is one significant difference this year. The Throne Speech debate has as its backdrop the Sandys South by-election. This will undoubtedly influence the way things go as the parties jockey for position and play to potential voters.

It will likely not be all peaches and cream. We have already witnessed how bitterly personal the battle for this one seat became. While it may be true that politics is no Sunday School picnic (Dame Lois) surely there is no need to descend to kindergarten politics 101 right from the start? We all remember how that goes. The party of the first part feels entitled: their candidate looks to be superior and tries to make the point by running down the competition and in a very public way. The party of the second part rubbishes the claims (“shenanigans”) and calls this the politics of distraction. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, and on the grapevine, all other parties let loose and pile on. You don’t believe it? Well, check out the blogs for example and some of the comments. It has gotten personal, very personal.

Some quick observations :

* Some of the nastiest, most venomous comments are penned anonymously.

* Some of the nicest, warmest endorsements are also penned anonymously.

* Most of the above are penned by the same people!

* While we may hear the voice of Jacob, we truly do sense the hands of Esau.

Go figure. You can but draw but one conclusion. These are the views of petty partisan hacks, paid or otherwise, who are not only be ashamed to put their names to their remarks but would likely be embarrassed if they were exposed for who and what they are.

Sadly, tragically even, they simply add to the toxicity of political discourse which only deepens divisions in the community on all fronts — and some of those same parties then wonder why collaboration is elusive.

This, though, is the trend here and elsewhere when it comes to politics and campaigning: for those who have cable TV you couldn’t help but notice how intensely personal the attacks were in advertisements leading up to this week’s elections in the US. Ouch. But, and here’s the thing, it appears to work.

Mind you, I also accept that the character of a candidate can be a decisive factor for voters. You can run in Bermuda but you can’t hide. Candidates get sized up and ‘sussed’ out pretty quickly whether it be on the doorstep, in the kitchen or the living room. Reputations precede us too.

It was also noteworthy that neither party announced their candidates until almost a month after Terry Lister resigned. If I didn’t know better (and I do) I would say there was a little cat and mouse to see who announced first. Whatever. But the fact is that left a little over a month for the candidates to actually canvas the constituency and connect with constituents — which is no easy feat no matter how much help you are able to enlist in the cause. It is the candidates who count; or rather who get counted.

But the importance of party affiliation is not to be discounted either. Once elected MPs are expected to toe the party line — and usually do. Party may ultimately tip the balance. It could quite easily come down to whether voters wish to endorse the work and plans of the OBA Government or whether they wish strengthen the Opposition and make voting on the Hill that much closer and the Government that much more attentive.

Whatever the outcome, the voters of Sandys South know going in, as we all do, that the result will not change the balance of power.

It is doubtful too, whether it will change the way the parties conduct their politics. Still, we look for signs of some change, perhaps starting with today’s Throne Speech. That signal could come either in style or substance or both. The governing party was after all the party that promised to do things differently, and by differently I think we all assumed they meant better.

For instance, it will be interesting to see if they proceed with parliamentary reform. There was that committee of the House that recommended Election Act changes, which incidentally could lead to regulation and codes of conduct for campaigns, which met with unanimous approval. It was a decision of the Legislature, worked on and embraced by both sides of the House, a work of collaboration, you might say, that should, for that reason alone, be taken up and acted upon.

Such steps might well make for a welcome and pleasant change.