If you’ve ever done the tour of the Houses of Parliament, it is impossible to come away without a strong sense of history, pomp and pageantry. You get the same feeling looking round the state rooms at Buckingham Palace, St George’s Chapel, Windsor or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Architecture combines with myth and legend to leave you feeling the hand of history on your shoulder. You can see the Royal Robing Room, the Prince’s Gallery, the Queen’s throne, and the oil paintings of Victoria and Albert. I first saw the inside in the mid-80s, when a nice man from the NUS, now dead, showed me round. When I got my first job there, Harriet Harman gave me a lift in her car from Peckham to ‘the office’ as she described the sight so touching in its majesty, as we drove over Westminster Bridge. I get a thrill walking in, even now after all these years.
The problem with the Houses of Parliament is that they are faked. If you seek a metaphor for our mythologised system of democracy (Magna Carta, Glorious Revolution, Reform Acts, etc) look around the Palace of Westminster. It was designed by Augustus Pugin as a deliberate copy of a medieval cathedral. Luckily there was one across the road to serve as a reminder. His perpendicular gothic masterpiece is a grand forgery, filled with fake iconography, relics and old-looking statues. Pugin was bonkers of course, driven mad by syphilis and dead by the age of 40. His biographer suggests he caught the disease as a teen, hanging around with a disreputable theatre crowd, which is where he learned the art of tricking an audience.
As if that’s not bad enough, the chamber of the Commons is an even bigger fake. On 10 May 1941, the Luftwaffe completely destroyed the chamber with incendiary bombs. All that remains has been made into the door frame of the chamber that replaced it. Parliament met in Church House, down the road, for the rest of the war, and assembled in the House of Lords after the 1945 election. The great dramas of the 1945 parliament were played out in the red end of the building, appropriately enough, not the green.
The dilemma faced by the post-war parliamentarians was how to replace the chamber. Jimmy Maxton, the Red Clydeside MP, said
‘I should like to see premises built on a fine site, in good English parkland, as near to London as the kind of land can be got—some 20 miles out, I should say, is not an impossible distance—and there I would erect the finest building that British architecture can devise.’
I suppose we should give thanks that Maxton’s advice went unheeded, lest Parliament had been rebuilt in Slough, Basildon or Potters Bar, in the same 1940s vernacular as say, the National Theatre or the ‘new towns’ such as Letchworth.
Winston Churchill, ever-keen to invent national myths, insisted that it be rebuilt in line with Pugin’s original designs, which in turn were based on a middle ages chapel, with choir stalls and an altar. That’s why Members bob their heads, like the priest facing the ‘holy end’ of a church. Whilst the bombed-out cities and ports of Britain were being recast in concrete and steel, with soulless walkways and nightmarish tower blocks, there was a corner of SW1 which was forever 1399.
At the end of October, the House of Commons Commission produced a report into the future of the Palace of Westminster. It stated boldly that doing nothing is not an option. The roofs are leaking, the structure will become ever-more unsafe, and parts are already not fit for purpose. The ‘new’ building Portcullis House has a hole in the glass ceiling (not in a good way), and you can’t get a phone signal in the MPs’ offices. It’s time to mend the roof, whether the sun’s shining or not. But, alas, the commission emphatically ruled out moving Parliament elsewhere.
This is a missed opportunity. As Meg Hillier MP has pointed out, there’s a fantastic potential venue, with great transport links, at the site of the Olympic Park. Westminster becomes ‘EastMinster’, at least whilst the repairs are carried out. If the 1940s Parliament could meet in Church House, the 2010s Parliament could meet anywhere it chose. It doesn’t have to be in London. Brighton or Birmingham could prove as hospitable. But that if that sounds too expensive, then why not the QEII Conference Centre on the other side of Parliament Square, or Methodist Central Hall? The latter was good enough for the founding sessions of the United Nations in January 1946; it’s surely up to MPs’ deliberations on fish quotas or payments to the European Union.
I’ve nothing against the Palace of Westminster, other than it is a ‘Royal’ palace, a dank mausoleum, a dusty museum and it weighs down our half-grown democracy with its invented tradition and deliberate barriers to the citizen (sorry, ‘strangers’). It would make a fine tourist attraction, alongside Westminster Abbey in the UNESCO heritage site.
Democracy, however, is served better by buildings designed to be open, inclusive, transparent and welcoming. Israel’s Knesset or the Scottish parliament serve as good examples. Churchill knew that we shape our buildings then they shape us. It’s time to shape a parliament building which celebrates rights, democracy and citizenship, not kings, wueens and pretend pageantry.
—————————————————————————————
Paul Richards writes a weekly column for Progress, Paul’s week in politics. He tweets @LabourPaul
—————————————————————————————
Photo: UK Parliament
The shape of the chamber also helps to perpetuate a macho and confrontational style of debate, with two sides squaring up to each other just feet apart. If a replacement for Parliament followed that of almost all democracies, by being in the round, it might engender better behaviour in Parliament that would have a positive impact across our national political culture.
I don’t think debate in the US House of Representatives is any less acrimonious for being conducted in a horse-shoe shaped arena. Nor indeed in the Scottish Parliament, where Johann Lamont and Alex Salmond haven’t exactly spared each other at First Minister’s Questions.
Debate should be confrontational and antagonistic. We’re talking about important principles and the future of the country. I agree that a lot of the behaviour is exaggerated and unnecessary, but confrontation is a good thing when it concerns the livelihoods of millions of people.
confrontation is good, they are paid to fight for what they believe, not sit around holding hands and making daisy chains.
You know, we have the National Indoor Arena in Birmingham, ready for use. Or the National Exhibition Centre, which has excellent transport connections.
But no, let’s remain in the London bubble and ignore the Provinces.
I completely agree with this, Paul. The Palace of Westminster cannot be taken seriously. Regardless of the shape of the chamber, a chamber with enough seats for all the elected representatives would be an indicator of serious intent, rather than carrying on in the style of a mid-nineteenth century debating club! Unfortunately, in my experience of MPs – and I’ve known a few – many, even Labour ones get very misty-eyed over all the pseudo-Gothic goldleaf, stained glass and twiddles. Turkeys and Christmas come to mind…
It’s not really the building that’s the problem. The opening of parliament with people on horses and in horse-drawn carriages is a deliberate use of an ancient imagery in which the “man-on-the-horse” represents hereditary power and wealth. Robes, wigs, and deferential ceremony,, in which the Queen “summons” the commons to the House of Lords to witness the Queen’s Speech, continues the mockery of democracy.
Even though Scotland has a brand new “parliament” building, they stupidly chose to use the man-on-the-horse symbol of undemocratic power in the ludicrous processional pageantry for the opening of the assembly.
This article is was slightly interesting, but the interest was lost at the end with the bit about the dust democracy and the royal palace. Reading this put everything into context. Republicans cannot be objective nor can they truly understand the term democracy without insisting that a republic is the other form. This can also be seen from the comment also. Also you situate the main government buildings in the capital that’s common sense.
Only not other
Agreed, the Scots and Welsh assembly buildings have modern facilites. They have desks fully wired-up, with space and communications. Only thing lacking is an electronic ‘scoreboard’ to show who is voting and which way. Our Parliament building is a fitting venue for monarchy – crumbling, outdated, paternalistic, imperialist, a relic of faded glories and a denial of the real opportunities which face us in today’s world.
Interesting view point. Before Westminster and Whitehall became the preferred location, the
government of the day would routinely meet up around the country. SimilarlyGordon Brown held several cabinet meetings beyond Westminster- something worth expanding. So, in the medium term, I back moving out of the Palace of Westminster during its refurbishment.
Additionally, anyone with an interest for Pugin should delve a little deeper into his work. If you do, you would realise that there is nothing ‘fake’ about his architecture, Pugin despised mock gothic buildings. His designs were inherently purposeful and practical (just look at the state opening of
Parliament, could you imagine that taking place anywhere else?). Every floor tile, wall surface, nook and cranny of the Houses of Parliament is intended to embody itself as the ‘British Parliament’. Not even the best British architects of today could achieve this- look down the Thames at Norman Foster’s City Hall, it could have been built anywhere! Where the Palace of Westminster does fail is in its layout and that can be attributed to the original architect Charles Barry. Augustus Pugin was only later draughted in to add an inherently British quality to the building and he did, stunningly.
Take his masterpiece the Chamber of the House of Lords, Pugin drew 10,000 sketches for this single space alone!
As Pugin would say “decorate your structure, don’t structure your decoration” i.e. get the fundamental plan right and then make it look beautiful. Making something that looks good but serves no purpose is simply a waste of time. This is an architectural principal that all good policy makers would do well to remember.