I've read quite a few comment pieces, op-eds and even bloggers who insist that the MPs expense scandal and the row over the Speaker is demonstrable evidence that our parliamentary system is in crisis and needs, at least, fundamental reform.
It's a view I disagree with. My argument is that it is not the system that is at fault, but the people using it. It doesn't matter what system you put in its place, unless something is done about the sort of people we now have sitting in Parliament, nothing will improve - although things could get considerably worse.
The fundamental problem with the people who now make up Parliament - and the Commons in particular - is that they are mostly members of parties who support our membership of the European Union.
Membership of that "club" requires that you subscribe to a particular political doctrine - progressivism. As the EU is essentially a progressive (socialist) construct, this is hardly surprising. As more and more of what we control is handed over to the EU, so there is less and less that our politicians can have significant differences on.
Consequently, all three main parties are now progressive parties and, of course, that means that the vast majority of MPs are supporters of progressivism. There are still a few - generally older - MPs who remain true to the original principles of their parties, but there are fewer and fewer of them each term.
This is why voters are increasingly turned off politics and increasingly do not bother to vote - it makes no difference. It can't as long as all three main parties support EU membership - they have to be the same. The differences can only be presentational and minimal - they have to follow the course dictated by the EU on so many issues now that there simply isn't enough wiggle room for strategic differences.
Now, as I hope I've pointed out, the House of Commons is now dominated on both sides by progressive parties and progressive politicians. The point with the progressivism is that it is not simply about making general societal progress - conservatism does that far more efficiently - it is about making progress towards specific goals.
Progressivism is just another form of socialism and it's ultimate destination is to create a Utopian world along socialist principles. However, that goal is never ever expressed or conceded to. Instead they use a series of smaller "goals" usually phrased in terms that no one could possibly disagree with - ending poverty, equality, racial harmony etc.
Because these are perfectly noble causes it is hardly surprising that progressives feel that they are justified in pushing us towards them. All well and good in principle, but the cause overlooks the basic flaw in its argument - people are not perfect.
And because people are not perfect, progressives find that the only way to move people towards those goals is by coercion and enforcement. With that in mind, the last thing you want getting in your way, if you're a progressive, is the bloody people having their say - which is why democracy tends to get sidelined along the way.
That doesn't matter to progressives. Democracy is the means by which they attain power, but it is also the means by which they can be dispossessed of power. That's the last thing they want!
That was the principle behind the 1972 European Communities Act - the shameful piece of legislation which enabled the progressives to hand power to the EU and thus circumvent the British parliament and, therefore, the democratic will of the British people.
Democracy is the antithesis of progressivism. All it does is hold back their cause. So it is hardly surprising that, with our parliament stuffed full of progressives, there is little evidence of democracy in our nation.
That is not the fault of the parliamentary system. Indeed, if it weren't for that system I suspect we would be even further along that progressive path and more tightly integrated with the EU than we currently are. The fault lies entirely with the fact that our membership of the EU and our party system does not allow for anything other than progressivism. We live, effectively, in a one party state and you can not have democracy in a one party state.
That doesn't matter to progressives. To them, all that matters is the goal - how they get there isn't important and if it means bypassing democracy - so be it. The end justifies the means.
So, when you talk about reforming parliament - the House of Commons, the House of Lords or whatever - just remember who dominates that institution and how they may prosper from that "reform". As I suggested the other day, the Labour "reforms" of the House of Lords were not intended to improve democracy or accountability, but to entrench their power.
The progressives created the mess in the first place, but they must not be trusted to sort it out. Once we've left the EU, repealed the 1972 European Communities Act (and, therefore, all the laws that flow from the EU) and once we've kicked progressivism into touch in this country then we might want to talk about it. However, by then we are likely to have found that much if not all of our previously dearly held democracy has been restored and there is nothing we need to change anyway.