Skip to main content

Does architecture explain our problem with coalitions?

A more representative House?
In yesterday's paper there was a report of a poll saying that in the face of another no-overall-majority election, over 60% of respondents would prefer a proportional representation system. (Where were they when we voted on it?)

Yet many European countries manage quite happily with coalition after coalition. Why do we find them so difficult to deal with? My suspicion is it's a matter of architecture. Specifically, the psychological impact of the layout of the House of Commons.

Most parliaments are laid out in a curve, but by putting the two biggest parties directly facing each other, there is a requirement that we don't consider what would arguably be the only coalition that could genuinely argue that it had popular support - a Conservative/Labour coalition.

I know at this point supporters of both parties are probably falling to the floor and frothing at the mouth, but in many respects the parties aren't hugely distant, and a compromise between the two would ensure that we got through the maximum number of policies that had public support. Of course the negotiations would be painful - but politicians have to do something for their wages.

Whether or not it makes sense, I suspect we don't consider such a coalition - I haven't even heard it mentioned as a possibility - because of the seating plan of the House. And that isn't really a good enough reason.
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox6 May 2015 at 10:52

    Architecture does indeed affect the mindset of the people working in it. Many years ago when the world was young (OK, it was about 1991) I was a science reporter covering the re-branding of the Natural History Museum in London by image guru Wally Olins.

    I had known the NHM, man and boy, and it was evident to me that the staff was split up into a large number of small groups, each with their own culture, and suspicion of the others, and of any outside interference.

    Olins' remarks to me were revealing - it's all to do with the building, he said, a large gothic pile designed by Waterhouse. Olins had found much the same mindset on his last job, re-doing the branding for the Prudential in Holborn - which is another Victorian pile designed by - you're way ahead of me - Waterhouse.

    Q. E., and, moreover, D.

    ReplyDelete
  2. xtofersdad7 May 2015 at 00:13

    One of your better political thoughts for some time if I may say; my only improvement would be to restrict the number of political parties at an election to 2 on the grounds that each major party is a coalition of its own left and right wings with the majority of each being somewhere near the middle. This would avoid any possible suggestion of proportional representation.
    Now I'll go and find that stubby pencil and practice how to draw a cross again.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more