Armed guards will be protecting our MPs today, following yesterday’s invasion of the House of Commons by pro-hunt protesters. Would it have made a difference yesterday? Probably not. The armed guards at Buckingham Palace didn’t shoot Batman. Determined protesters like those seen yesterday are not going to be put off getting in to the Commons.

Naturally, the protest should have been condemned.

So where were the security systems that should have stopped them?

The public entrance
The protesters seem to have accessed Parliament through the St Stephen’s entrance. They passed through the security system there. That means they were unarmed. No guns, no bombs, no knives. So why should we have needed machine gun wielding policemen to stop them?

They got in with a forged invitation from MPs. Perhaps appointments should be checked with MPs’ offices in future?

Accessing the “private” areas
We are told that the protesters got through a security door because the swipe card system wasn’t working. The answer to this isn’t too beef up security, it’s to make sure that the security systems that exist are actually switched on!

Help from inside?
There is talk of help being given from someone inside the Palace precinct – The Guardian reports suggestions that a Tory MP’s researcher may have been involved. And this is the real problem with any increase in security: if you’ve got inside help, or a Parliamentary pass yourself, you’re going to be able to get in. The best plan for al-Qaeda if they want to blow up Parliament (and I’m not trying to provide tips here) is for one of their number to get elected as an MP.

All that said, it probably is for the best that armed guards – who were already present in the precinct – should protect the Commons. The nonsense of a Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms with a sword and tails has been rightly condemned. But if we call for it now, it should not be a direct result of the recent protest – which may have ended an unnecessarily shooting – but because through this protest we’ve learnt with some surprise that it wasn’t already the case.

Meanwhile, Peter Tatchell made a rather stupid point on Newsnight last night: he tried to argue that proportional representation (which I’m all for if by STV) would give those who feel disaffected any unrepresented in the Commons a voice rather than having to resort to direct action. He obviously hasn’t noticed that the Tories, who nearly all oppose the ban, have plenty of MPs. Indeed, it was their spokesman who was interupted by the protesters. He also talked about how he’d campaigned for the rights of minorities against a prejudiced majority – before decrying hunting as disgusting without a hint of irony.