"Effective listening takes more effort than speaking." – Life's Little Instruction calendar.

One swallow does not a summer make, Mr. Editor, but much like Longtails here in the spring, the birds might reasonably be regarded as an encouraging sign that brighter days are ahead. Or so I thought last Friday on the House on the Hill. The tone and tenor of debate on the Throne Speech was decidedly better than it has been in recent times. Funny the difference that one person can apparently make. Like chalk and cheese to quote the other.

But whether it will last and for how long is another matter entirely. Yet it did seem to me that we started off with a lot less rancour; a lot fewer points of order that really aren't points of order but interruptions on matters of disagreement (that probably shouldn't even be entertained in the first place). There was also a lot less of the invective and a lot less of the general din and disrespect that permeates the Chamber and creeps out over the airwaves.

That's not to say there wasn't disagreement. There was, and there is, and there always will be. Like on Government expenditure, for instance, and on how the money has been spent or misspent, and on what and on whom. Not to mention the enormous debt (which I just did) or the startling revelations in report after report of the Auditors General.

There may be a new leader and the Cabinet shuffled and portfolios rearranged, but any way you dice it or slice it this is the same lot that got us into this financial hole in the first instance, and the second, and the third, and in the …

Still, there was this notable difference in atmosphere last Friday, so much so that it prompted my colleague Louise Jackson to remark what a refreshing change it seemed to be; for her at least, as she has constantly found herself under verbal assault when coming on strong for seniors.

But I don't think the change has anything to do with the new rules which are now called Standing Orders. But the revisions did mean that MPs did not get to speak for as long they wanted, which is what was the case up until now. Members are restricted to 30 minutes in total unless they are one of the leaders of the three political parties, in which case their time is not restricted.

Still, you don't have to be a whiz in math to figure out that if everyone speaks we are in for a long day on the Hill. All 35 for 30 minutes each works out to be just over 17 hours, which makes for a long day and night, if you can stay the course.

A lot of us do not. You can only speak the once and no vote is taken at the end. As it turned out, not everyone did speak but on average those that did pretty well took their allotted time. Here's a record of what will ultimately appear in the House minutes:

Opposition Leader Kim Swan – 40 minutes; Walter Roban – 32 minutes; BDA spokesman, Mark Pettingill – 41 minutes; Zane DeSilva – 25 minutes; Bob Richards – 31 minutes; Wayne Furbert – 30 minutes; Patrice Minors – 28 minutes; John Barritt – 26 minutes;

Donte Hunt – 26 minutes; Derrick Burgess – 37 minutes; Trevor Moniz – 21 minutes; Dame Jennifer Smith – 10 minutes; Grant Gibbons – 31 minutes; Glenn Blakeney – 28 minutes; Louise Jackson – 31 minutes; Dennis Lister – 19 minutes; Pat Gordon Pamplin – 27 minutes; Terry Lister – 29 minutes; Charles Swan – 21 minutes;

Neletha Butterfield – 15 minutes; Independent, Darius Tucker – 32 minutes; Cole Simons — 31 minutes; Randy Horton – 29 minutes; Ashfield DeVent – 30 minutes; and Premier Cox – 16 minutes.

To complete the record, the day came to an end in the midnight hour.

Now this week we start to get down to business. One of the first items on the Order Paper will be the Boundaries Commission Report and the recommendations for changes in boundaries and the consequent re-configuration of constituencies. It was tabled before the House broke for the summer recess, although I have to wonder how many outside of the House, i.e. the general public, have actually taken note of what's recommended.

There's been some publicity, but not much. The report hasn't been widely available, although copies could be viewed at the post offices and at the Office of the Parliamentary Registrar, assuming you knew they were there. It has not been available on line. It was "too large to get on the portal", so I was I told by one insider. Pity that. I don't pretend to be expert in these matters but it does seem to me that this is just the reason why we need a dedicated website for the Legislature where we can post such reports, and bills and motions and minutes.

It is an efficient and effective way of letting the public in on what we are doing and being asked to do. A lot of people are going to find themselves in new constituencies and with a different Member of Parliament come the next election. =

This is when the changes will take effect, assuming they are adopted by the House, which I expect they will be. The goal of the Commission was to equalise the voter numbers in each of the 36 constituencies and so the report has proposed adjustments to achieve voter balance form one constituency to the next.

But frankly, Mr. Editor, that's only half the problem. The other half is the fact that voters remain registered to vote at addresses and in constituencies where they no longer reside. We've been over this ground before.

The Parliamentary Registrar has reckoned there may be as many as 2,000 voters registered incorrectly. That's unacceptable. It's a fraud. It makes mockery of one person, one vote of equal value. But so far nothing has been done to correct this problem.

P.s. One small addition from last week: Dame Jennifer hasn't retired entirely from the work of the House and Grounds committee. I overlooked that she has been appointed a member by the Speaker and thus will still be able to keep a hand in on the Hill, and at the Cabinet table, which may be a plus.

Your view? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm