On Thursday the 20th of March, students from eight Wycombe schools partook in a mock-up of a Westminster debating session, chaired by Conservative MP for Wycombe Steve Baker, held at the High Crest academy. Many conclusions were reached that day, including one which many of the participants would have made themselves. Debating is extremely fun, yet difficult, frustrating and can often change very little.
The day began when, following an introduction into debating from the MP, the mace was brought into the chamber. This was impressive, gold, and represented the queen as it does in parliament, and so everyone needed to stand as it was brought in. What followed were a couple of hours of interesting, well formulated, and educated debate from the senior members of the participants. These were year 12 and 13s, who debated topics ranging from the expansion of Heathrow to a proposal to leave the EU. During this time, the year 10 and 11s observed and learnt how to hold such debates.
These began with the ‘government’ front benchers making an opening speech, which was then countered by the ‘opposition’s’ reply. This was followed by speeches and replies from the ‘back benches,’ which were shorter but often just as well researched and structured. Throughout this time intervention speeches in reply were commonplace. As were the customary ‘hears’ and ‘jeers’. In particular interventions, which could be denied by the member making their speech, were often made after members had used their one speech per debate.
After a lunch break, it was the year 10 and 11’s turn to argue their points. The debates were fiercely competitive, yet very enjoyable and eye opening. By the end, it had been decided that HS2 should be abolished, Green Tax maintained, Identity Cards avoided at all costs and military intervention in Syria even more so.
However, while the debates were largely balanced, by the end I questioned how effective they were. Even in a format when the ‘back-benchers’ were not obliged to support any particular side, people voted almost exclusively for the argument they had supported at the beginning of the debate, and I must admit that this was certainly the case for me. Whether this was strength of conviction or simply stubbornness is difficult to say, but you could often get a picture of who was likely to prevail in the debate once people had sat on their chosen side.
The whole experience opened our eyes to the truths of parliamentary debating, and this truth was as apparent to me as that of how entertaining this debating truly was. So the conclusion I have come true, however unrealistic, is that for democracies to be truly well functioning and effective, members should give their MPs the freedom to formulate their views during a debate and vote on their own accord. Obviously this would never happen, but it’s an interesting concept nonetheless. Vote for me as Prime Minister in 30 years I promise I’ll make it happen…