It’s the politics of it all, Mr Editor. There’s no need to read between the lines. It’s there for all to see. We know it when we see it or when we hear it. Had enough yet?

Two recent matters on and off the Hill underscore the point.

First, the censure motion against the Speaker: anyone who listened to the debate has a pretty good idea what was at the root of this action. BTW, if you didn’t catch the debate live, you still can, and maybe you should, by tapping into the electronic Hansard on www.parliament.bm; and the beauty of this is you can speed up and/or skip portions of the recording. Either way, you are in for an earful. It’s an eye-opener, too.

The trouble really started when the OBA invited Randy Horton to take on the role of Speaker, even though he was an Opposition MP, or more accurately because he was an Opposition MP; although not to be overlooked is that he had been serving as Deputy Speaker just before the last House was dissolved for the 2012 General Election and thus a credible candidate.

At 19-17 in a 36-member House, his acceptance of the post made his selection a very attractive proposition for the OBA. It gave them the added comfort of three-seat majority, a margin that was further enhanced when Terry Lister went Independent.

The PLP subsequently gained one back upon the retirement of Mr Lister and the Opposition can only imagine how much more challenging parliamentary life might be, for the Government, had the Speaker come from the ranks of the OBA Government. A narrow majority on the Hill would be reduced to one, 18-17.

That hurts, politically, and that hurt continues to find voice on the Hill. Sadly.

Sadly, because being Speaker is no easy job, whichever side you come from. There will always be those who disagree with rulings from the chair and, invariably, there will always be rulings that go against you and with which members disagree — and strongly. During my time on the Hill, frequent were the occasions when I was incensed with decisions of the chair. I had colleagues who felt the same way. But (and here’s the politics of life on the Hill) I would remind myself, and the disgruntled, that we would not be running against the Speaker in the next election.

The government of the day must be the focus. This leads to the second matter: those allegations and very serious allegations at that. They have now had their initial day in court, the forum in which they were first levelled. The other side was quick to dismiss them as outrageous and unfounded, the act of a desperate man, and more recently, as scurrilous. Our Chief Justice now gets to have the first word on which each side is contending.

A police investigation is also under way, and not surprisingly, in light of what has been alleged.

Of course, all of us await the outcome with more than just a passing interest. Cats are out of the bag and the public will want to know exactly what went down. This is their government that is being talked about and called into question.

The hope must be that whatever happens it won’t end up like Jetgate, which left most of us with more questions than answers. We were also left with a sense that the final result of that sorry episode was a reflection more of internal OBA party politics: starting with the resignation of then leader and Premier to be followed later by his return to Cabinet under the new leader.

The open question is by what mechanism answers can be obtained. Court hearings and a police investigation must now run their course. Expeditiously, one expects.

But I return to a constant theme of this column. I cannot help but reflect on what can be achieved with a robust and active parliamentary committee system. Whether it be through PAC (the Public Accounts Committee), coupled with the assistance of a beefed-up Auditor General’s Office, or through specially constructed cross-party backbench committees to monitor and investigate contracts and decisions of the Government on a continuing basis. Like the Hamilton waterfront? Exactly. Next up, the proposed airport project.

It isn’t just the transparency and accountability this oversight will bring about, but the potential savings, too, when you think of the apparent waste and costs thrown away chasing wild horses long after they have bolted the stable.

Not that the politics will disappear completely. But there is always the hope that, when it comes to parliamentary democracy, party political interest and the public interest will overlap, and often enough, so as to advance “the peace, prosperity and welfare of these islands” — to borrow a line from the prayer recited each day the House begins. That’s the theory anyhow.

Those in power have the responsibility to provide the means whereby this can happen.

In the absence of meaningful opportunities to work together on major issues of the day, politics is reduced to a blood sport — with words, not weapons, thankfully, to this point.

There is a price to be paid for the failure to act. The obvious example: it was also last Friday that the Government told us of its decision to put in place a $200 million loan facility. Public debt already stands at $2.185 billion and counting — and this, we are constantly reminded, Mr Editor, is unsustainable. Like our politics?