They are allowed to wander around the building, move to rooms with more comfortable chairs, chat amoungst themselves outside the Chamber whilst the speeches are being relayed to them by loudspeakers. They only have to return to the Chamber to cast their vote. How much attention they are paying to the speeches relayed like this is another question.
With regard to the quality of the speeches, and this is a very important, tho' not the only aspect of the criteria for choosing a representative - they should be able to stand up in the Chamber and represent the views, interests and values of those who elected them- it is generally appalling. I listen regularly to proceedings in Parliament (I can't help it if I'm a political junky) and even I have to admit that proceedings at Westminster are usually stultifying, boring and devoid of excitement or amusement. Compared to debates in our own Chamber, however, thay sound sparkling and witty, like a soiree hosted by Oscar Wilde. Speeches in the States too often consist of people up on the hind legs, apparently intoxicated with the sound of their own voice, repeating at length points previously made by another speaker because that is what everybody else has done. As an example, during the debate on the proposal of censure bought by Geoff Southern against Frank Walker, many members felt obliged to get to their feet and say what a wonderful bloke Frank Walker is - however, many of them seemed confused about the proposal on which they were speaking and many speeches were interrupted by the Speaker correcting them when they spoke of 'this motion of no confidence' instead of referring to a motion of censure. They were prepared to speak, at length, and demonstrate their agreement with everybody else and they didn't even remember what the motion was!!! (I'm sure all this is in Hansard).
Nowadays, and for some time, the trend in society is towards effectively conveying information to people with limited time and limited attention spans - reducing ideas to bullet-points, Powerpoint presentations, three-word Hollywood pitches - and, yet, our members are still getting onto their feet and drivelling away to each other in the same manner that they have since time immemorial. Not only is this inappropriate as a decision-making mechanism in a democracy in the twenty-first century, it is doubly inappropriate that they are making decisions concerning the huge amounts of money that flow thro' our economy in a a manner that would shame a parish council meeting or a poor sixth form debate.
My solution - I would certainly suggest time-limiting speeches using a system of lights... Bearing in mind, however, Guy de Faye's concern about bringing fun back into politics perhaps the same could be done with a series of electric shocks administered thro' the platform and getting stronger the longer the speaker refused to stop speaking. Then we would find out how committed they were to speaking at length and the points they wished to make!
