By: Sönke Pietsch
When thinking of a politician, an image of finely dressed and high-heeled debaters usually comes to mind. Setting policy for an entire government, nation or even the world, the highest degree of professionalism is required, or at least expected from these individuals; the power these individuals hold from their high ranks in public office perceive an image of responsibility. While assurance that these individuals keep the best interest of their constituents in mind at all times, is generally present.
This can not be said for the British House of Commons in 1945. Through a flurry of “I”s and “No”’s, these delegates try their absolute best to represent and differentiate the interest of their voters through a cloud of screeches, shouts, and screams from their surrounding 53 counterparts. In the British House of Commons, delegates represent their opinion in voting procedure by joining a loud mass of delegates who are either in favor or oppose a resolution, motion or idea. The power and value of the individual vote is lost.
Discussing health care, the representatives in the British House of Commons are faced with the challenging dilemma of whether to nationalize or privatize this industry after the crushing challenges triggered by reconstruction of World War 2. While the spokeswomen and spokesmen of this committee are open to working with opposing councils, the paths that the two major parties of the committee vary drastically. One representative, Sir Richard Crossman, believes that “nationalization is essential as it provides businesses with the benefit of government spending”. Later in session, when a motion to hold a moderated caucus about ministry spending was proposed, the delegate hurled a resounding “I” into the committee.
After the Chair joined the screams of House with an interjection of “Order”, the House returned to substantive debate. Addressing the previous issue of spending, liberal representative James Henderson-Stewart soon chimed in believing that “we can not solely address one aspect of reforming health care, such as funding. Instead, we must focus the interconnectivity of it all”, believing housing, jobs, healthcare and the economy are all connected. When the motion of a moderated caucus about health care was proposed, this delegates, in opposition, joined the minority by yelling “no”.
While the individual vote might get lost in the mass of sound that is the voting procedure in the British House of Commons, the committee still provides extensive opportunity for expressing the views of constituents through moderated caucuses. Nonetheless, this form of debate is still riddled with chaos as representatives may choose to interject in the middle of a delegate’s speech at any moment. When conservative Peter Thorneycroft held a speech about the importance of considering Britain’s massive empire in the reconstruction of the country, the delegate seemingly drowned in interjections from delegates, quick to point out that this topic was reserved for the alternative topic. Limited by time, the representative made the best of his opportunity to explain his view while dodging any further interjections shot at him.
While the committee might be chaotic at certain moments, it is abundantly clear that the committee is well on it’s way to drafting working papers that will shape health care, as well as a wealth of yet to-be discussed topics, for the millions of citizens of Great Britain. These changes might even apply to the persons of the British Empire, provided that representatives are able to dodge further interjections, when the committee once again decides that it is time yet again to yell for health care.