The Party of the People Doesn’t Need Debate

When Edward VI gave St Stephen’s Chapel, in the Palace of Westminster for the use of the Commons, he inadvertently established the form that political debate in England would take for the next millennium.

St Stephens was arranged with the seating on either side of the chamber, with members of the Commons facing one another. When the chapel was destroyed by fire, this arrangement was replicated in the new House of Commons.

The members face those with whom they disagree. The quality of the debate may not always be of the highest standard, but the debate is guaranteed.

The continental preference has been for a horseshoe shaped chamber, less confrontational but still designed to reflect a progression of differing views and provide a forum to facilitate debate. In both models, members rise to speak from their seats.

Those countries which seek to minimise debate, which are centred around an autocratic leader tend to prefer the conference style seating model. For some reason this seems to appeal to states governed by Communist regimes. This example below comes from the People’s Assembly, (a name that is erringly familiar) of North Korea.

The members know their place and the leadership, suitably elevated at the front tell them all they need to know. Debate is not an essential element of this model; indeed, the very idea would be disruptive.

This is the Council Chamber at West Ham Town Hall. Late Victorian and something of a cross between the Westminster and the European models. A modest chamber in which every member can see and hear every other member.

Although it is over a century old the Newham Town Hall Chamber, (in East Ham) fits its purpose admirably. It reflects the layout of the former chamber in West Ham.

And whilst the image below does not give a great picture of the chamber, it gives a flavour of the way in which it lent itself to debate and the centrality of elected councillors, though it seems that since Mayor Fiaz has been in office, it has never been used for full-council meetings.

A more recent picture of the Audit Committee at work illustrates the layout somewhat better, but the small numbers do not reflect the atmosphere.

Below is a still from a recent broadcast of the work of Newham Council.

We see the central committee, sorry, the senior officers and the mayor at the front facing serried rows of councillors, and we barely see more than the backs of their heads.

In the time that is available for elected members to contribute, they have to leave their places and speak from a microphone at the side. It is a set piece ‘debate’, more suited to a conference than a council. This video demonstrates the neutered state of current political discussion.

When a vote is called one hand goes up and they all go up.

Question:

Of the three models described, which one does the current Newham Council set-up best reflect?

As to why this is important, if at all, consider the following. The electorate have returned an overwhelming majority for Labour. They at least have the right to expect that elected members can think for themselves. Not that they do, just that they can. We are struggling to find any evidence.