Politics | 23 May 2009

It is typical of Michael Martin that his laughably short resignation statement contained a fundamental misunderstanding of parliament. ‘This House is at its very best when it is united,’ he said. The precise opposite is true. Gordon Brown and David Cameron’s places are precisely two sword lengths apart because it is intended to be an adversarial system. When the Commons chamber was bombed in 1941, Churchill rejected plans to rebuild it in a more collegiate semi-circular format. ‘We shape our buildings,’ he said, ‘But then our buildings shape us.’

Churchill understood that the slightest change in parliament, from the architecture to the rule book, alters the balance of power. And this is why, today, there is no such thing as an objective answer as to how precisely the Commons should reform. Each leader is careful to talk about the need for radical change — but defines it in a way that suits his party agenda.