UK House Of Commons Research Articles

Which MPs get elevated to the UK House of Lords?

Abstract Using logistic regression and a dataset of 816 MPs who sat in the UK House of Commons between 1997 and 2019, we analyse which MPs get elevated to the upper chamber. Drawing on literatures concerning progressive political ambition, the UK Parliament and the wider nature of the British state, we test hypotheses concerning loyalty, expertise and nepotism. We find evidence to support all three but expertise in the form of frontbench experience and, for those MPs without such experience, loyalty appear to be the most important factors driving elevation. Our research has implications for debates surrounding House of Lords reform.

Estimating Ideal Points of British MPs Through Their Social Media Followership

Abstract Ideal points of MPs in the UK House of Commons (HoC) are characteristically difficult to ascertain due to tight party discipline and strategic voting by opposition members. This research note generates left/right ideal point estimates for 591 British MPs sitting in the HoC as of 22/08/2022, ascertained through their social media followership. Specifically, estimates are derived by conducting correspondence analysis (CA) on MP Twitter (X) follower networks, which are subsequently validated against an expert survey, confirming that these estimates have a high degree of between-party (R2 = 0.93) and within-party (Con: r = 0.84; Lab: r = 0.81) accuracy. The informative value of these estimates is then demonstrated by predicting candidate endorsement in the September 2022 Conservative leadership contest, confirming that an MP's ideal point was a statistically significant predictor of candidate endorsement, with Liz Truss drawing support primarily from the further right of the party.

Emotions in the aisles: Unpacking the use of emotive language in the UK House of Commons

Emotions in the aisles: Unpacking the use of emotive language in the UK House of Commons

Comparing evidence use in parliaments: the interplay of beliefs, traditions, and practices in the UK and Germany

Abstract This article draws on rich qualitative data from two national parliaments—the UK House of Commons and the German Bundestag—to examine knowledge practices in political institutions. This is an important topic, not only because parliaments play a significant role in democratic decision-making, but because it sheds light on debates about how such decision-making is based on and interacts with knowledge and evidence. By adopting an interpretive analytical approach, I analyze the ways in which those practices are shaped by the beliefs and values of parliamentary actors. Indeed, in better understanding everyday practices, beliefs, and ideational traditions, it also contributes to better explaining how components of political and parliamentary cultures contribute to knowledge use more broadly. In the House of Commons, MPs draw on a highly trusted and independent parliamentary administration; meanwhile, committees have become fruitful avenues for MPs to develop policy expertise and engage with knowledge and evidence in a non-partisan way. In the German Bundestag, MPs also develop policy expertise—in fact, they interpret their role as specialists in a “working” parliament—but their knowledge practices are more openly partisan through the structuring role of parliamentary party groups and the skepticism of “neutral” advice from research services. Consequently, committees tend to be sites of political bargaining and conflict, rather than evidence-gathering. In both cases, parliaments’ knowledge practices are shaped by wider webs of beliefs about the role of MPs within the institutions. This suggests that knowledge use in political and policy settings is shaped by broader cultural factors.

Small Opposition Parties in a Westminster System: How Did the COVID-19 Pandemic Affect Participation, Decision-Making and Oversight in the UK House of Commons?

Opposition parties are a key feature of parliamentary democracies, but their participation rights differ markedly. In the UK House of Commons, the institutional operation of the Westminster model facilitates a marked distinction between the rights afforded to the Official Opposition party compared to smaller opposition parties. During times of crisis, these Westminster model dynamics can shift, impacting opposition rights. This article uses a case study of the COVID-19 pandemic to assess institutional inequalities across opposition party groups. Drawing on an analysis of over 4000 contributions to parliamentary debates and interviews with MPs, we examine the pandemic’s impact on the roles of opposition parties beyond the Official Opposition. We find that the pandemic initially generated unprecedented cooperation between the government and small opposition parties but that this was short-lived. In the long term, the pandemic exacerbated existing institutional barriers and the size and geographical concentration of small opposition parties in the devolved nations brought disproportionate participation and oversight barriers. This suggests the need to guarantee formal opposition rights within Westminster systems beyond the Official Opposition party to ensure that all political parties have the capacity to carry out their functions during times of crisis.

Gender Sensitizing Parliaments: Reflections on Becoming a Feminist Academic Critical Actor

Informed by my secondment to the UK Parliament in 2015–2016, and the production and reception of The Good Parliament report—which offered a blueprint for a diversity-sensitive House of Commons—this article reflects on my experiences becoming a feminist academic critical actor. This new type of critical actor extends the conceptualization first developed by Childs and Krook (2006, 2008). A distinctiveness vis. Chappell and Mackay’s (2021) concept of the “feminist critical friend” is also drawn: In addition to researching institutional change and supporting others in their reform work, the feminist academic critical actor is essential to instigate and institute institutional change. In this, the feminist academic critical actor is engaged in quotidian persuasion work and is both the agent as well as the analyst of research, critically reflecting on the dynamics and actors of institutional status, change, and resistance, including their own acts, in situ and after. In making the case for the feminist academic critical actor, the academic is recognized as doing something different, begging important questions of responsibility and accountability, and the opportunities and costs of engaging in such acts, particularly for minoritized and/or precarious academics. In the latter part of the article, I sketch out some of the dilemmas located in the questioning of my authority and legitimacy, and concerning the harm that I faced as a relatively privileged aspirant feminist academic critical actor, acting to rework the highly masculinized institution that is the UK House of Commons.

Are public sector accounts trusted? Exploring the verdict of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the United Kingdom

AbstractLegislatures face difficult challenges holding modern bureaucratic democracies to account due to the scale, complexity, and diverse impacts on citizens' lives. One way that democracies bridge the gap between the legislature and executive is through financial accounts of government departments. This paper examines whether financial accounts are trusted by MPs in the UK Parliament for purposes of transparency in the service of accountability. The article does this through examination of two linked inquiries by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee at the UK House of Commons. The article argues that transparency, accountability, and trust are involved in a rhizomatic relationship where each is related to the other without a hierarchy between them. The article uses a framework proposed by Oomsels and Bouckeart to show the accounts are not trusted, which has implications both for the accounts as a tool of accountability and for creating transparency.

What Constitutes Substantive Representation, and Where Should We Evaluate It?

This short article introduces a novel framework for conceiving of the substantive representation of marginalized groups – in this case, racially minoritized women in the UK House of Commons. I outline a rubric of eight facets of substantive representation. These evaluate the degree to which claims that constitute a group are also substantively representative of that group. In doing so, I contribute a much-needed framework for distinguishing between representative claims which speak on behalf of a group versus those which merely speak about, or even against, that group. I argue that substantive representation must be considered intersectionally, reflecting the multiple structures positioning those represented. Furthermore, all facets of substantive representation can rarely be contributed by a single parliamentary speech, individual, or narrow group of legislators such as descriptive representatives. Therefore, I suggest that empirical studies of substantive representation should include a greater evaluation of the collective work of institutions as a whole.

Playing to the Gallery: Emotive Rhetoric in Parliaments

Research has shown that emotions matter in politics, but we know less about when and why politicians use emotive rhetoric in the legislative arena. This article argues that emotive rhetoric is one of the tools politicians can use strategically to appeal to voters. Consequently, we expect that legislators are more likely to use emotive rhetoric in debates that have a large general audience. Our analysis covers two million parliamentary speeches held in the UK House of Commons and the Irish Parliament. We use a dictionary-based method to measure emotive rhetoric, combining the Affective Norms for English Words dictionary with word-embedding techniques to create a domain-specific dictionary. We show that emotive rhetoric is more pronounced in high-profile legislative debates, such as Prime Minister’s Questions. These findings contribute to the study of legislative speech and political representation by suggesting that emotive rhetoric is used by legislators to appeal directly to voters.

Remote Participation and Proxy Voting in the UK House of Commons

Abstract The UK House of Commons has adopted new ways of working in response to the pandemic. These include hybrid proceedings, where some mp s appear in the Chamber and others dial-in remotely, and proxy voting, where mp s can nominate a colleague to vote on their behalf. This article looks at these two new practices to see if there are any differences in their take up by mp s from different political parties, genders and regions. The article shows that there were differences between these groups of mp s and suggests that political party appears the most important factor in explaining these.

Parliamentary Communication Allowances: Good for Nothing?

In many countries, members of parliament receive publicly funded allowances to communicate with the electorate. Some hope that ensuing parliamentary communication engages the people with politics and increases electoral participation. Others worry that such use of public funds might create an unfair advantage for incumbents and affect electoral results. Yet, the consequences of this practice remain unknown. Data from the UK House of Commons suggest that both the hopes and the worries are baseless: there is no evidence that parliamentary communication allowances increase electoral turnout or affect incumbents’ vote share. If these allowances are not effective, both parliaments and their members might want to reconsider their use and usefulness.

Parliamentary Recruitment in the UK House of Commons: De-Gendering Workplace Structures, Gendering the Applicant

Abstract Recruitment to key positions in institutions can be viewed as one way to introduce strategic reforms; however, little research has been conducted as to the effectiveness of the practice within parliaments. Even less has been written about the recruitment practices for non-elected parliamentary actors. Applying a feminist discursive institutionalist analysis, this article highlights the main discourses prominent in discussions around the recruitment to the Clerk of the House of Commons in 2014. It is argued that there are three discourses that rhetorically de-gendered career structures in the UK House of Commons, while two discourses explicitly gendered the applicant to the position of Clerk. The article discusses the broader significance of these insights for analysing parliaments as gendered workplaces, and for member engagement with parliamentary administrations.

Partisan Dealignment and Personal Vote-Seeking in Parliamentary Behaviour

What shapes legislators’ incentives for personal vote-seeking in parliament? Recent work suggests that partisanship among voters deters personal vote-seeking, by limiting its effectiveness. This has potentially significant implications for policy-making, election results and patterns of accountability. However, empirical tests of this argument remain few in number and have several limitations. This article thus offers a new test of the relationship between partisanship and personal vote-seeking. Using legislators’ bill proposals as an indicator of their personal vote-seeking activity, I analyse legislative behaviour in the UK House of Commons between 1964 and 2017. I find that members of parliament make more legislative proposals when voters are less partisan. Moreover, partisanship appears to moderate the influence of other drivers of personal vote-seeking: electorally vulnerable legislators make more legislative proposals, but only at low levels of partisanship. These findings provide new evidence that voters’ relationships with political parties affect legislators’ electoral strategies and parliamentary behaviour.

Calling Mr Speaker ‘Mr Speaker’

AbstractPrime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the UK House of Commons is a ritual event, governed by a cluster of conventions. Members of Parliament (MPs) must address their remarks to the Prime Minister (PM) through the medium of the Speaker of the House, who is responsible for maintaining order during debates, and determining which MP may speak next. Due to the sacred role of the Speaker and the prevalence of conventionalised conflict avoidance between the PM and those who ask challenging questions, PMQs resembles archaic tribal councils, in which rights and obligations prevail. Yet, the importance of conventionalised indirectness and the sacred role of the Speaker do not correlate with a lack of face-threats and challenges. PMQs represents an aggressive ritual setting in which the ritual roles and rules only offer a façade to package aggression, and indeed may operate as interactional resources whereby participants can even increase the efficiency of their verbal attacks. Thus, PMQs embodies a scene that ritual experts define as ‘anti-structural’ in character: in this setting, the normative expectation in daily life to avoid conflict is temporarily suspended, to such an extent that conflict has become the ritual norm and is regarded as quintessential to this parliamentary institution.

The Politics of Procedural Choice: Regulating Legislative Debate in the UK House of Commons, 1811–2015

AbstractThe historical development of rules of debate in the UK House of Commons raises an important puzzle: why do members of parliament (MPs) impose limits on their own rights? Despite a growing interest in British Political Development and the institutional changes of nineteenth-century UK politics, the academic literature has remained largely silent on this topic. Three competing explanations have emerged in studies of the US Congress, focusing on efficiency, partisan forces and non-partisan (or: ideology-based) accounts. This article falls broadly into the third category, offering a consensus-oriented explanation of the historical development of parliamentary rules. Working from a new dataset on the reform of standing orders in the House of Commons over a 205-year period (1811–2015), as well as records of over six million speeches, the author argues that MPs commit more quickly to passing restrictive rules in the face of obstruction when legislator preferences are proximate within both the opposition and government, and when polarization between both sides of the aisle is low. The research represents, to the author's knowledge, the first systematic and directional test of a range of competing theories of UK parliamentary reform, shedding light on the process of parliamentary reform over a prolonged period of Commons history, and advancing several new measures of polarization in the UK House of Commons.

The Effects of Female Leadership on Women's Voice in Political Debate

AbstractDo female leaders amplify the voices of other women in politics? The author addresses this question by examining parliamentary debates in the UK House of Commons. In the context of a difference-in-differences design that exploits over-time variation in the gender of cabinet ministers, the article demonstrates that female ministers substantially increase the participation of other female MPs in relevant debates, compared to when the minister is male. It also uses a measure of debate influence, based on the degree to which words used by one legislator are adopted by other members, to show that female ministers also increase the influence of female backbenchers. To explore the mechanisms behind these results, the author introduces a new metric of ministerial responsiveness and shows that female ministers are significantly more responsive than their male counterparts to the speeches of female backbenchers.

Departmental Select Committees: The Reform of the Century?

Abstract A set of departmental select committees was agreed by the UK House of Commons in 1979 and has become a core feature of British parliamentary life. This introductory survey examines the genesis of the committees and the extent to which they constituted an evolutionary or radical change to the way that the House of Commons conducted itself. Proposals for such committees were not new, but achieving their realisation was possible only when a reform agenda was complemented by ministerial leadership and, fundamentally, by political will favouring change on the part of MPs. The development of the committees, their membership and work and engagement with those outside Parliament, forms the basis of this issue.

Performing Scrutiny along the Committee Corridor of the UK House of Commons

Abstract In what ways do practices, relationships and interpretations of scrutiny affect accountability relationships in legislatures? This article examines this question through a detailed study of select committees in the UK House of Commons. Drawing on a number of qualitative methods, this article argues that we can understand accountability in the House of Commons more effectively if we examine the underlying beliefs and practices about scrutiny by MPs and parliamentary officials. This article makes an important contribution in helping scholars to better understand how committees behave and from where they derive their authority. These affect the priorities of committee-based accountability, the style and focus of committee hearings, and the ability of committees to build consensus, with wider implications for the study of accountability.

The Sound of Rebellion: Voting Dissent and Legislative Speech in the UK House of Commons

Using data on the content of debate associated with votes in the UK House of Commons from 1992–2015, this article examines how government party MPs employ language in legislative speech when they vote against the party line. We find a robust statistical association between dissent on votes and the use of first‐person pronouns, simpler language, and giving longer speeches. Using a random forest algorithm for classification, we find that these language covariates are predictive of rebellion. The use of simpler, first‐person language has implications for political representation and offers new insight into how MPs use votes to distinguish themselves from their party, perhaps reflecting attempts to connect with constituents.

Representing women, women representing: backbenchers’ questions during Prime Minister’s Questions, 1979–2010

This article investigates linguistic traces of changing trends in the substantive representation of women, as well as broader representational claims related to constituencies, via an analysis of all backbench questions posed during Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK House of Commons during 1979–2010. We investigate the impact of sharp increases in female MPs, in particular, left-wing female MPs, and the presence of a left-wing government on MPs’ talk about women and about constituencies. We find no evidence of curvilinear trends in talk about women related to changes in government and female parliamentary presence. We also find that female MPs can be considered critical actors with regard to constituency talk.