Exploring a New Role in Policy Making: The British House of Commons in the 1970s

Abstract

The British House of Commons is frequently used in comparative analysis as a model of the kind of legislative institution that ratifies and legitimizes public policy decisions taken by the government. It debates but rarely does it actually legislate. Examination of the House of Commons of the 1970s reveals a very different legislature, one that regularly overturns the government on significant policy matters. Furthermore, backbench members of the government's own parliamentary party frequently join coalitions to defeat the government in standing committee and on the floor. The research describes the development of the House of Commons as a decision-making unit in the 1970s, compares its record during the 1970s to the workings of the Commons over preceding decades, and examines various factors that help explain why the behavior of the House and its members changed so over the recent decade.

The Theory of Legislative Institutionalization and the California Assembly

“…Legislators in an institutionalized or institutionalizing body have the motivation to seek power within it, and evidence from legislatures undergoing significant changes as disparate as the British House of Commons (Schwarz 1980;King 1981;Smith and Polsby 1981, 122-26), U.S. Senate (Polsby 1986,88-113;Davidson 1989) and the Kentucky General Assembly (Jewell and Miller 1988) substantiates this trend. Although each legislature started at a different level of centralization and still are different, over time power has become more equitably distributed among each of their memberships.…”

The absence of war? New Labour in parliament

“…Members of Parliament (MPs) in the three parliaments of the 1970s voted against their own side on more occasions than before, in greater numbers and with greater effect (Norton, 1975(Norton, , 1980. Having previously claimed that party cohesion was *so close to 100 per cent that there was no longer any point in measuring it ' (1969: 350-1), Samuel Beer was now to talk of the 'rise of Parliament ' (1982: 181; also see Schwarz, 1980). Such rebellious behaviour continued through the 1980s and into the 1990s.…”

Introduction: Comparing the legislative performance of legislatures

“…26 These might include measures containing significant monetary sums, that affect a broad spectrum of the population or that run counter to proposals built into the executive's programme. 27 Clearly, an element of informed judgement is involved here, although in most cases it should not be an unduly difficult one. Of all bills gaining the Royal Assent in the bicameral parliament of Canada between January 2001 and November 2005 9.3 per cent comprised private members' bills but, typically, these included legislation creating a national day of remembrance of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, recognising the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada and setting up the post of Parliamentary Poet Laureate.…”