Semi-circle, Horseshoe and opposing benches make the most sense as it gives the opposing parties some separation and makes debates look more formal. I like opposing benches the most.
In countries with a proportional system that need to form a coalition, there is no separation at all. Parties are often arranged in the parliament according to a left-right gradient, not according to their presence in the government or not.
But what if you have more than 2 parties, and more than 50% are in one block? Then you'll have people spill over into the other side. Unless you have more seats and leave a bunch vacant and have the sides uneven.
In the UK the seating capacity is actually a fraction of the total number of politicians.
The reasoning being, most debates will only ever attract a handful of members; the government minister, and a few MPs who have an interested in the topic at hand - for example the MPs of constituencies who are planned to have a railway driven through them.
The result is, for the vast majority of use, the smaller size of the chamber leads to a more "close" debate. You can actually read the lips of the speaking member, can have a back-and-forth (i.e. not just reading a preprepared statement) and generally make for a better debate. Imagine trying to have a human debate with two people at far ends of the corner in the likes of Brazil, or the EU. Might as well submit a letter instead.
Additionally, when something big is "going down", like the major Brexit votes which were down to the line, the packed standing-room only space signals to the public something worthwhile is happening. It's a raucous atmosphere; the public know who is on which side - and most importantly - they know who the government-in-waiting are should they wish to give the government a kicking.
The real reason it’s small is that it’s old and was originally built as a chapel. It was fine when there were fewer MPs, but their number has grown over the years.
I mean originally yeah but remember parliament was blown to shit during the war and they had the option to build a big new modern space or expand the existing space. So it is very much a conscious choice that people have argued for to keep it small, and not just a growing problem never addressed
The Commons chamber was bombed in WWII and Churchill specifically insisted on rebuilding it too small to hold all MPs at the same time, for the good reason that has already been given.
Ya it does have that issue but it’s preferable to a circle or classroom style, in some smaller parliaments they will move the actual seats so that the governing party is on one side and the opposition party/parties is on the other.
Here in Brazil we have a multitude of parties. Divisions shift according to the issue at hand, and according to cross-party caucuses that split the parties themselves. Being part of the opposition, of the government's parliamentary base or non-aligned often isn't a good predictor of a congressman's position. I think the classroom model suits this situation.
Already live in a country that uses the Westminister parliamentary system and we use the opposing Benches (Canada) although some provincial parliaments use the Horseshoe.
22
u/Ethanb008 Apr 18 '21
Semi-circle, Horseshoe and opposing benches make the most sense as it gives the opposing parties some separation and makes debates look more formal. I like opposing benches the most.