“We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us,” said Winston Churchill, defending the decision to retain the adversarial layout of the House of Commons during its post-World War II reconstruction. Looking at the way our political system functions today, it’s hard not to agree with him.
Entering the Palace of Westminster, one is immediately immersed in centuries of history. The very walls radiate tradition. Westminster Hall — where Queen Elizabeth II lay in state — dates back over 900 years. The weight of British history is tangible, steeped in the legacy of empire. Statues and paintings abound, memorialising an era when a third of the world was ruled from this building.
And therein lies the problem. Even a brief visit feels like a journey back to a time when ‘Great’ Britain implied global dominion rather than geographic size. How must it feel for today’s parliamentarians, tasked with shaping the nation’s future, to do so in a chamber locked in the past, using a centuries-old voting system of physical divisions?
Parliament is, in both symbolic and literal terms, crumbling. The building is dilapidated — leaking, vermin-infested, structurally precarious, and one mishap away from disaster. Likewise, the political system it houses is outdated, dysfunctional, and stubbornly resistant to reform.
While much of Europe elects representatives through proportional systems and houses them in modern chambers designed for collaboration — complete with electronic voting — Britain clings to the “Mother of Parliaments” mythology. Tradition is preserved for tradition’s sake, even as it obstructs the realities of 21st-century governance.
Britain’s future lies not in nostalgia, but in pragmatic cooperation. As a mid-sized regional power, we must work with like-minded neighbours to influence global events. Our most vital trade partners are no longer relics of empire, but nations just across the Channel. A modernised democratic system, housed in a reformed Parliament, might remind our leaders to face forward rather than backward.
* Barry Smith is a member of Merton Borough Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest PollBase is out, with all the British voting intention polls since the 1930s
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A remarkable politician
Well done Planting Up Sunniside
Reform UK councillor was 'pen pal' of top Al Qaeda terrorist who masterminded 9/11
David Evans
Peter Hirst
Brenda Will
15 Comments
I agree.
While I don’t think of myself as an iconoclast, I think many aspects of the Palace of Westminster are not appropriate for a modern democracy. Parliament needs to move out to new premises.
Yes, the Houses of Parliament building is clearly not fit for purpose but, before replacing it, let’s also think about the fact that the US parliament has a House of Representatives of 435 members and a Senate of 100 for a population about 5 times greater than the UK. It is time for the number of MPs to be halved and the House of Lords replaced by a senate of no more than 100. Then we can think about providing a suitable building.
@ Mohammed Amin And how much do you reckon that would cost, Mohammed ?
I can’t see the National Trust taking over the Palace of Westminster, transferring both Commons & Lords to the new Maltings Theatre in Berwick (the geographic centre of the UK) to provide extra facilities…. and would it leave enough to avoid another bout of austerity ?
Surely cheaper to install electronic voting in the current Chamber and save ten minutes on every Division.
Its also largely fake tradition, most of the House of Commons dates from the early 1950s, its a copy of a Victorian attempt to revive the spirit of the Middle Ages, their idea of it.
The place needs to be repaired and made into a museum for paid visitors.IT IS THE PAST.The country needs a new building .IT WILL BE FOR THE FUTURE.Reform of our political system is due. If something is not done re renewal or repair how long will it be before MPs are deluged by falling masonry, death, injury, elections needing to occur?
Sadly, nostalgically, but also so typically Lib Dem, we seem to think that spending time on things that to the vast majority of the British people are of minor importance at best in teh current climate is a way to progress in our aim to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society. In fact, the *only* way to do that is to hold our current seats in parliament, in the same old buildings and win more with the same old voting system.
When we get a majority, then is the time to discuss
1) electronic voting (un-auditable, unverifiable and therefore bad),
2) moving elsewhere at significant cost financially (so presumably after all the stuff that people think is important is already sorted)
and bureaucratically (so presumably after all the important legislation is done, dusted and working well), and
3) adopting a new voting system – just after we have won!!
Sorry guys, but you’re on your own with this one.
Mixed feelings on this article. I agree with the need for Parliament to sit in a building that isn’t half-falling down, with things like modern voting systems, and a non-adversarial seating arrangement (basically, any modern conference hall would allow MPs to do their jobs better than the current buildings do). But I disagree with the nostalgia-bashing that seems to implied in the article. There’s nothing wrong with nostalgia (as long as it doesn’t get too divorced from reality) – our history is a big part of what makes us who we are as a country and gives any country that sense of shared community, patriotism, and values that allows a country to function as a cohesive unit. Let’s argue for a modern Parliament fit for today’s World without trying to bash all the symbols of our history.
@Mike Peters – Part of the reason we have so many MPs is that the government is almost entirely made up of them, while the Americans go for a system where the President appoints secretaries who are not political representatives – a system we already use elsewhere, e.g. for the Mayor of London’s team. My next article might be on why we should move to that system…
@Barry Smith. What makes you think that the US cabinet are not political representatives?
Sure they’re not directly elected, but they are representative of the President’s Party. They are not, by law, allowed to be congressmen or senators. Would you want that sort of arrangement in the UK? I wouldn’t.
There is great danger too, in the UK, of putting huge amounts of power, money and patronage into the hands of one person, namely elected Mayors, as opposed to a cabinet or policy committee made up of elected councillors. We see Mayors giving jobs to their friends – with lots of money attached. Sure they’re are a few LibDem Mayors who act differently, but you get the point.
As a party we support devolution to the nations of the UK and to regional authorities. If we had that, then we could reduce the size of Parliament, but to reduce the number of MPs now, in the absence of real devolution, is not a sensible option
@David Raw: Given that they are meant to represent people rather than land the centre of population would be more appropriate. That would put it in Leicestershire next to Twycross zoo.
@ Peter Davies Ahhhhh, Peter, if only life was so simple.
The major problem with Twycross is access, viz…. “The closest train stations to Twycross Zoo are Atherstone and Nuneaton. From Atherstone, you can take the number 7 bus, which has one direct daily service, or a taxi (about 10 minutes, but book ahead). From Nuneaton, you can take a taxi (around 15 minutes), or the bus, which will add time to your journey”.
Berwick railway station (within walking distance to the Maltings theatre) has the advantage of having a former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party living 200 yards away (coffee-tea-cakes-comfort and a dash of Methodism all included) and a frequent service to places such as London, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Manchester(and even Penzance on that delightful Cross-Country service).
Still waiting for Barry Smith and Mohammed Amin to tell us how much their proposal would cost !! Probably much more than Sir Ed’s plan to furnish every house with black out curtains – so Ed wins it on grounds of retrenchment as well as the fact as it’s in England.
There is a case for government Ministers not being MPs (something that also happens in many Parliamentary systems, e.g. Netherlands), namely that it eliminates the payroll vote and thus makes Parliament truly independent of government.
If we really wanted to move into the 21st century, we’d have a Parliament and Government on the net. Video calls and Zoom meetings etc. We could convert the PoW into a museum without any need for a new building!
Just a thought!
@David Raw
As Birmingham is traditionally Britain’s second city (although Mancunians disagree), clearly the best place for the new Parliament building is just outside it near the NEC. With there already being an airport next door as well as the M1, M5, M6 and M40 nearby and good rail connections to Wales and South-West England as well as to North-East England, Scotland and London, and HS2 when it finally opens also stopping there, Birmingham is the obvious candidate. The centre of gravity of the UK population is more important than arbitrary lines drawn on a map.
And while you’re at it, can we please get rid of the un-elected upper chamber. If you absolutely must have a bi-cameral system, at least make it elected.
That your family oppressed other generations ago, or that you styled Johnson’s hair better, diddled more money out of the Taxpayer than the next guy, is not qualification enough to sit in a position that influences the laws of the land.