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

The 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.

Temporal Augmentation: A Systematic Review

Clinicians employ various modalities in order to achieve temporal augmentation; however, no literature comprehensively describes these methods or provides perspective on available options. Understanding the available methodologies for cosmetic temporal augmentation allows for improved patient satisfaction with limited risk of complications. To synthesize the available literature on cosmetic temporal augmentation, including all available methodologies, patient satisfaction data, and complication rates, as well as to identify gaps in the available literature to encourage further research. A literature search was performed using the databases PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Using the key terms “temporal” or “temple” and “augmentation” or “rejuvenation,” all article formats presenting primary literature data involving cosmetic temporal augmentation were included. Articles not presenting patient data or not discussing cosmetic indications were eliminated. A total of 12 articles were deemed appropriate for analysis. Of the 12 articles included, 6 (50%) evaluated filler techniques, 3 discussed fat grafting (25%), and 3 reviewed solid implant (25%) techniques. Eight (67%) of these were retrospective reviews, with the remaining being prospective trials (33%). All studies found high patient satisfaction rates and a small number of complications with their respective methodology. Several methods are employed for cosmetic temporal augmentation, including various types of injectable fillers, solid implants, and fat grafting, with all reporting successful satisfaction and complication outcomes. Further research is necessary to properly compare these modalities. Clinician discretion should guide procedural choice until future well-controlled studies are able to provide standardized outcomes.