Government: So, BBC, why didn’t you let us know there was going to be a protest in the Commons?

BBC: We didn’t want to report a single, unverified source.

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.

Sheffield MP Meg Munn suggests a new political party that is now, happily, redundant.

In all elections in the United Kingdom, the names of candidates are currently listed on the ballot paper in alphabetical order using the surname. When the election concerns parties, such as in the European elections, they are also listed alphabetically. Consequently, someone with the surname “Blair” would find themselves listed above someone with the surname “Howard”, or, indeed, Kennedy. The Ant Liberation party, should such a party exist, would appear above the Bring-Back-Doctor-Who party or the Flat Earth party.

(Source: Hansard)

So Alan Milburn is drafted back into the Cabinet as Chancellor – sorry, Chancellor of the Duchy as Lancaster – after Blair gave up trying to drop Ian McCartney as party chairman.

Does this mean my taxes are now paying Cabinet level salaries for two party operatives? Or do these posts not cost taxpayers money? I don’t know the answer, but there is something distinctly wrong if we’re paying for Labour to employ a General Election co-ordinator.

Meanwhile, Michael Howard has also shuffled his front bench team. He seems to have given up on his supposedly radical idea of a small shadow cabinet from a few months back, although it’s not entirely clear why since the shadow cabinet doesn’t actually run anything. I wonder who the new Shadow Minister for Deregulation is actually shadowing; the same applies to Teresa May in her role as Shadow Minister for the Family.

Is he just inventing jobs for the sake of it? It’s a somewhat ham-fisted attempt to brand posts with a certain message. What next: Michael Ancram as Shadow Secretary of State for Looking Down Our Noses at Foreigners? David Davis to become Shadow Minister for Hanging and Flogging?