Pomp and pageantry marks the beginning today of a new legislative session. It’s one of the more pleasant (and pleasing) parliamentary traditions that helps to distinguish us here and abroad.

It also highlights our British heritage and represents that to which we apparently continue to hold fast, or so it seems, but which is in need of change, specifically our Westminster style of government.

But it isn’t like we need to immediately throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. We could easily begin with some modest modifications here and there, Mr Editor.

Starting with, say, the reading of the Throne Speech, a laborious and contrived exercise, which is followed by a Reply to the Throne Speech, also a laborious and contrived exercise, followed by a Throne Speech debate that is also — sure, you guessed it — a laborious and contrived exercise.

We know the deal only too well. (In fact, I bet there are any number of sharp wits out there who, if interested, could write the scripts ahead of time — and come close.) Throne speeches have been expanding over the years, becoming a veritable laundry list of things the Government intends to do in the forthcoming parliamentary year — on and off the Hill.

The closer we get to an election, the more it starts to sound like early positioning for the next campaign.

The Opposition tends to respond in kind, next week, and as for the debate that follows, well, it’s more of the same, but with few exceptions. It’s the physics of politics: equal and opposite forces, etc, etc.

Now I will not be so unkind to say that it is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. This is a time when we do expect to hear what our government intends to do over the next 12 months and for which it is to be held to account. The Opposition, in turn, gets to tell us that with which it disagrees and how it would do it.

But neither need be lengthy: tight and to the point would be most helpful, an outline of just what the Government intends to bring to the Legislature for debate and approval, a checklist, if you will, to which constant reference can be made for review by the public as well as the Opposition.

While the word in and out of government around here has been “we should aim to do more with less”, this is one of those occasions where less from less would be welcome. We’ll soon see.

Leadership by example was the underlying message I tried to make last week, but failed to do, judging by some comments reaching me.

Some readers thought I was serious: that the Cabinet should be outsourced to a Crown corporation along the lines of what Cabinet is proposing for a new airport. As appealing as that sounds to some, that was not my point.

I try again. Here it is: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Or put another way: first do unto yourself what it is that you want to do unto others. Or, to put it in yet another way: lead by example.

We look to the Legislature to keep the executive in check. This important role is meant to be taken up by an assertive backbench, ie, those who do not serve in Cabinet.

We can count on the Opposition to do its part; it is on the outside looking in. Instead, it is to those on the government benches that we look for more bite and not so much background bark or baying. This, too, requires modification of the Westminster style of government as practised on these shores at present.

We are told that economically we are in the midst of turning a wide corner, a very wide corner, for sure, and that there is a multiplicity of projects in train to make sure that this remains so: America’s Cup, a new airport, a hotel and marina for St George’s, casinos ...

Government funding and support is critical. But what we don’t want is to find out after the fact that some became runaway projects or projects over which the Government lost control or that they didn’t pan out as promised. This is what we cannot afford. This is where an active back bench becomes key. This is where the committee system can lead the way, whether it be Public Accounts Committee or any other parliamentary committee.

The hard questions need to be asked, and answered, in full view of the public, and on this both the Government and Opposition backbenchers need to unite to make it a functional reality.

It is accountability, transparency and responsibility all rolled into one — and if you don’t think it is warranted or needed, take (yet) another look at the reports of the Auditor-General. Any report.

The reasons are there, in black and white, plain to see, and sadly, tragically, almost always after the fact.

It is way past time our Legislature got caught up; current and contemporaneous is what we need.

Time for more brass whatchamacallits on the back bench, Mr Editor.