Oxbridge and its debating unions are known to be places of political intrigue, where the future politicians of the day test their mettle and learn the skills they will be using when they inevitably run the country. The appeal of a show about the election of a Union president is understandable, but with a muddled performance and intrigue which isn’t very intriguing, This Side of the House made me struggle to walk out of the 'aye' door, despite some very fun moments.
An interesting concept that doesn't quite hit the mark
Set during the presidential campaign in the 1980s, This Side of the House explores the campaign from each side, as presidential hopefuls Geoffrey Cormick and Gideon Meller battle it out with whatever they can swing. The premise of the story is strong and its depictions of the formal goings-on in the union are fun to see - yet the bulk of the story is based around meetings of intrigue, which at times fail to sell the stakes properly, and often feel like a simple pastiche of Posh more than saying anything new about the Unions or the Oxbridge culture’s that grow within them.
The big gimmick of the show is the audience’s ability to “vote” on who wins the election. It is a fun concept, yet one which I didn’t feel was fully realised, the ending which I saw didn’t feel like it was particularly impacted either way by the audience vote. That alongside some scene transitions which felt stilted and awkward made the show feel like it was too ambitious to fully realise its aims.
There is a lot that is interesting in This Side of the House, it's well acted and has some fun scenes. The broader narrative however struggles with not making its intrigue as interesting as it can be, leaving a play which feels like it has a lot of potential looking for space to realise it.