Information for Members of Parliament: the service provided by the House of Commons Library

1973 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 477-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Menhennet
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
Members Of Parliament

scholarly journals Disability, Rights and Vulnerability in British Parliamentary Debate

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Odell
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Government Policies ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Disabled People ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Parliamentary Debate ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Disability Movement ◽  
The Welfare State

This paper examines discussion of disability and disabled people by Members of Parliament (MPs) in the UK House of Commons from 1979–2017. It examines general trends in the number of speeches mentioning disability, including the parties and MPs most likely to mention disability issues, and examines how disability is used in conjunction with two keywords: ‘rights’ and ‘vulnerable’. It uses these keywords to explore two conceptions of how the state should engage with disability and disabled people: a paternalistic conception (which post-2010 has become more common) and a rights-based conception (which has been in decline since the 1990s). I conclude with a discussion about how this reflects the disability movement in the UK, and what it means for the future of disability politics, the welfare state and how disabled people themselves might view paternalistic government policies.

“The Fittest Subject for A King's Quarrel”: An Essay on the Militia Controversy 1641-1642

1971 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lois G. Schwoerer
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Military Power ◽  
Fundamental Issue ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Charles I ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
King Charles I

The struggle between King and Parliament in 1641-42 for command of the militia was to King Charles I “the Fittest Subject for a King's Quarrel.” As the King himself and a group of pamphleteers, preachers and members of Parliament realized, the controversy was not just a contest for control of military power. The fundamental issue was a change in England's government, a shift in sovereignty from King or King-in-Parliament to Parliament alone. As Charles explained, “Kingly Power is but a shadow” without command of the militia. His contemporaries, representing various political allegiances, also testified to the significance of the contest over the militia. They described it as the “avowed foundation” of the Civil War, “the greatest concernment” ever faced by the House of Commons, and the “great quarrel” between the King and his critics. To some men it was this dispute over military authority and the implications for government which were inherent in it, rather than disagreements about religion, taxes or foreign policy, that made civil war unavoidable.Concern about military authority first erupted in the fall of 1641 in response to a series of events – rumors of plots involving the King, the presence in London of disbanded soldiers who had returned from the war with Scotland, the “Incident” in Scotland, and above all the rebellion in Ireland which required the levying of an army to subdue those rebels.

The Franklin search in Parliament

Polar Record ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (182) ◽  
pp. 209-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian R. Stone
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
Main Subject ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Government

ABSTRACTThe record of Parliamentary proceedings relating to the Franklin search covers the period 1848–1863. The main subject of discussion was the need for the government to mount search expeditions, while topics such as rewards for successful expeditions and the question of the provision of monuments to Sir John Franklin also occupied Parliamentary time. Interest in the matter among Members of Parliament crossed party boundaries. Most of the activity was in the House of Commons rather than in the House of Lords, because the former House had control of expenditure. A further reason was that the government was more exposed to questioning in the House of Commons, because, for most of the period, the First Lord of the Admiralty was a member of that House. Lady Franklin also had a wider range of acquaintance in the House of Commons and was able to conduct a lobbying campaign using it as a medium.

22. Women in the House of Commons

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosie Campbell ◽  
Sarah Childs ◽  
Elizabeth Hunt
Keyword(s):  
Supply And Demand ◽  
Descriptive Representation ◽  
The Political ◽  
Demand Model ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Substantive Representation ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Women's Participation ◽  
Political Recruitment ◽  
Supply And Demand Model

This chapter examines the progress of women's participation and representation in the House of Commons. It first considers women's descriptive representation in the House of Commons over the last century, with emphasis on the differences in the proportion of women Members of Parliament (MPs) elected by the main political parties. It explains improvements in the numbers of women MPs in the last decade or so, together with the party asymmetry, by reference to the supply and demand model of political recruitment. It then reviews arguments for women's equal participation in politics, taking into account how women's descriptive representation intersects with symbolic and substantive representation. It also discusses resistance to the claim that women's representation matters and concludes with an analysis of the masculinized nature of the political institution that women MPs inhabit, along with the recommendations made in the 2016 The Good Parliament report.

5. The Significance of Rituals in Parliament

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Crewe ◽  
Paul Evans
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
Parliamentary Debates ◽  
Political World ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Power Hierarchy ◽  
The Way

This chapter examines the significance of rituals in the UK Parliament, focusing on the centrality of rules in such rituals, how parliamentary debates are ritualized, and how ceremonies order relationships between different groups in our political world. It first explains the purpose of parliamentary rituals and how they are regulated, showing that the value attached to the way Parliament ritualizes its interaction is strongly contested between Members of Parliament (MPs) and by outside commentators. In particular, it considers Standing Orders, rules made by either the House of Commons or the House of Lords to set out the way certain aspects of House procedures operate. The chapter also discusses how rituals result in conflict and conciliation and as markers of power, hierarchy, and identity in Parliament.

A General Model of Author “Style” with Application to the UK House of Commons, 1935–2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-434
Author(s):  
Leslie Huang ◽  
Patrick O. Perry ◽  
Arthur Spirling
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Model ◽  
General Model ◽  
Panel Regression ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Covariate Effects ◽  
The Uk

We consider evidence for the assertion that backbench members of parliament (MPs) in the UK have become less distinctive from one another in terms of their speech. Noting that this claim has considerable normative and substantive implications, we review theory and findings in the area, which are ultimately ambiguous on this question. We then provide a new statistical model of distinctiveness that extends traditional efforts to statistically characterize the “style” of authors and apply it to a corpus of Hansard speeches from 1935 to 2018. In the aggregate, we find no evidence for the claim of more homogeneity. But this hides intriguing covariate effects: at the MP-level, panel regression results demonstrate that on average, more senior backbenchers tend to be less “different” in speech terms. We also show, however, that this pattern is changing: in recent times, it is more experienced MPs who speak most distinctively.

scholarly journals Unity and divisions on departmental select committees: A Brexit effect?

2020 ◽  
pp. 136914812096174
Author(s):  
Philip Lynch ◽  
Richard Whitaker
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Fault Line ◽  
New Members ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Union Committee ◽  
Opposition Parties

Most reports from UK departmental select committees are agreed by consensus, underpinning their reputation for non-partisan working in an adversarial House of Commons. However, divisions (formal votes) are more common than is often assumed, occurring on 9% of reports between 2010 and 2019. This article provides the first comprehensive analysis of unity and divisions on select committees. It finds that the incidence of divisions increases when opposition parties chair committees, when there are more rebellious members of parliament present and when more new members of parliament are in attendance. Brexit provoked significant inter-party and intra-party divisions in the Commons. In committees, divisions on Brexit reports are higher than those on other reports and the Exiting the European Union Committee has a clear Leave-Remain fault line. But, more broadly, the Brexit effect on select committees is limited and unanimity remains the norm even when there are policy differences between parties.

II. Irish Parliamentary Elections and the Influence of the Catholic Vote, 1801–20

1967 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. J. Jupp
Keyword(s):  
Electoral Politics ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Parliamentary Elections ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Degree Of Certainty ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
George Iii ◽  
Parliamentary Politics ◽  
Fair Degree

One generalization which can be made about politics in the reign of George III with a fair degree of certainty is that the vast majority of M.P.s did not consider their conduct in the House of Commons as predetermined by the wishes of their electors; they preferred to see themselves as elected as members of Parliament rather than as delegates to Parliament. Moreover, despite the recent concentration of some historians upon the history of Parliament, the discipline of psephology rarely engaged the attention of politicians after a general election. These two attitudes of mind, which together indicated a clear division between electoral and Parliamentary politics, were nowhere more prevalent than in constituencies where landed interests were predominant. These, which comprised the majority in Scotland and Wales, were, after 1801, also thought to predominate in Ireland. This, in fact, was part of the reason why the Whigs at Westminster so firmly opposed the Union during the debates in 1799 and 1800. They argued in effect that in Ireland, as in Scotland, there was little dependence upon electors and a great dependence upon patronage; that the union with Scotland had added a substantial proportion of the forty-five M.P.s to the ranks of the government of the day; and that the union with Ireland would add near a 100 more. In fact the traditional picture of Irish electoral politics between 1801–26 is that, notwithstanding the fact that in Ireland the economic and social position and above all the religious sentiments of the majority of the electors were nowhere more clearly opposed to those of their M.P.s, the constituencies remained firmly controlled by the leading landed, and therefore Protestant, interests, the majority of whom supported every administration. The purpose of this article, however, is to argue that the Catholic vote in Irish constituencies was an integral and important factor in elections before 1820; that it not only played its part at elections but that it also affected in some degree the conduct of Irish M.P.s in the House of Commons towards the question of Catholic emancipation.

The Manipulation of Committees in the Long Parliament, 1641-1642

1965 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lotte Glow
Keyword(s):  
Critical Period ◽  
English Civil War ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Grass Roots ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Vital Functions ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Peace Negotiation ◽  
Parliamentary Politics

Historians of politics of the English Civil War have until recently studied the behaviour of members of Parliament through their speeches on the floor of the Houses. This practice led to the view that parliamentary policy was determined by the ascendancy of one of two opposing factions, composed of the most outspoken and influential members. J. H. Hexter's analysis of the tellers in divisions during the critical period of peace negotiation with the King in 1642 and 1643 expanded this rigid dichotomy and showed that political opinion in the House of Commons was divided into three “Parties,” the less committed centre being most susceptible to the winds of political change. He also showed that policy decisions did not depend solely upon the persuasiveness and stature of the leading politicians, but were shaped according to the temporary allegiances of a body of enthusiastic, though inconsistent, followers. The work of M. Frear Keeler, and of D. Brunton and D. H. Pennington shifted the emphasis further from the leadership to the rank and file by their interest in the background and grass roots of the most insignificant member alongside his more illustrious colleagues.The aim of this article is to examine another aspect of the dynamics of parliamentary politics. It seeks to show how the leadership of the Commons gained control over the members by skilfully delegating vital functions to carefully chosen committees, for the committee system, as it evolved during the early months of the Long Parliament and as it developed during the years of war, met the challenge of the absent Privy Council in providing Parliament with a new and responsible executive.

scholarly journals What Motivates an Oligarchic Elite to Democratize? Evidence from the Roll Call Vote on the Great Reform Act of 1832

2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 773-825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toke S. Aidt ◽  
Raphaël Franck
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Roll Call ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Roll Call Vote ◽  
Members Of Parliament

AbstractThe Great Reform Act of 1832 was a watershed for democracy in Great Britain. We study the vote on 22 March 1831 in the House of Commons to test three competing theories of democratization: public opinion, political expedience, and threat of revolution. Peaceful agitation and mass-support for reform played an important role. Political expedience also motivated some members of Parliament to support the reform, especially if they were elected in constituencies located in counties that would gain seats. Violent unrest in urban but not in rural areas had some influence on the members of Parliament. Counterfactual scenarios suggest that the reform bill would not have obtained a majority in the House of Commons in the absence of these factors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document