There was much talk of a new era after the general election, with 12 new MHKs among the 24 taking their seats in the House of Keys.

Much was made also of the fact there were five (gasp!) women among that number.

But, how much has changed?

Patience has already started to drain from the public, at least in some quarters, over what they now regard as the same old song and dance, with the only difference being the performers in the spotlight.

There was not a plethora of legislation progressed in the past year.

Have the new MHKs delivered?

And, despite the trumpeting of a consensus approach and a more grown-up attitude within the chamber, are things all that different?

The first and last question amount to the same thing, so let us take them together.

Things have changed, to some extent. However, not as much as most of us would like.

Some of the bitterness of the previous parliament has gone, for the time being, at least.

However, there is still very much the sense that Tynwald remains a boys’ club.

It may not be as bad as it was, but it is still not quite in the 21st century.

Whether it is intentional or not, there is still the suspicion that, when certain women have the temerity to raise issues the establishment would prefer that they did not, the condescension level can rise higher than if it was one of the chaps.

A couple of times, it would not have been a surprise to hear a buzzer go off and for neon lights to flash up the words ’troublesome woman alert’ from beneath the sword of state.

It may not have improved from the problems highlighted by Brenda Cannell not too long ago, but at least the behaviour is better than it was in the early nineties.

In those days, the way in which several members would turn away and talk to a colleague as soon as Hazel Hannan got up to speak was both juvenile and rude in the extreme.

Not to mention stupid.

Those depths of bad behaviour have not been reached this year.

Sometimes, the condescension may be inadvertent. But the parliamentary process would be better without it at all.

Meanwhile, there has not been a plethora of legislation processed.

The most significant set of laws is the Equality Act, but let us not forget that actually started its process under the previous administration.

That is not to diminish its significance. However, its application will need to remain under great scrutiny.

There are other social issues that are on the horizon. Ramsey MHK Dr Alex Allinson has delivered on his pledges to push for legislation on both the legalisation of cannabis and to reform abortion law, the latter now with a draft bill out for consultation.

In doing so, he has also done a good job of presenting his case forcefully and responding to criticism, while continuing to show respect for those who hold a different opinion from his.

He has definitely shown himself as one to watch.

Elsewhere, we have already seen the consultation on the much-anticipated Education Bill delayed and there will come a point, shortly, when the public will want more than a reference to bullet points in the Programme for Government as an indication as to what awaits on a number of issues.

As for the consensus approach, there has been the odd slip, where government has reacted irritably to opposition, and not just when the criticism has come from a woman. Such contrariness from outside the ministerial ranks is to be expected and, frankly, it is not a bad thing.

The public still wants to see politicians pose the tough questions, particularly on the big issues.

A little less consensus in the approach on the Steam Packet, for instance, might actually lead to a healthier debate.

As such, Chris Robertshaw’s role, as the only MHK not encumbered with government responsibilities, could prove crucial in ensuring scrutiny is at the level it should be.

David Ashford and Lawrie Hooper tended to be the busiest during question time and, as their experience of parliament continues, we should expect them to pack a few more punches. Another performance to watch closely is Juan Watterson. He may be Speaker, but he is certainly not keeping quiet during Tynwald question time and has raised a number of issues.

As a former minister - one who has been outspoken about his time in the cabinet - he has the potential to make things interesting for the current government.

He has been unabashed at the more overtly political approach he has brought to the Speaker’s chair, but not everyone else in Tynwald is a fan, preferring their presiding officers to say a little less.

The dynamic of the Council of Ministers will be something to watch, as well.

In chamber, Policy and Reform Minister Chris Thomas, seems to spend a lot more time on his feet than Chief Minister Howard Quayle.

Whose ambitions that situation benefits more, in the long-term, remains to be seen.

So far, the cabinet is clearly more united than it was towards the end of the Bell administration. Or even the beginning of that government, if your memory can stretch that far. The next year will put that to the test.

â?¢ Next week, we will take a look at the successes and otherwise in the Council of Ministers and consider position of the Programme for Government in the grand scheme of things.