By Stephen Holden Bates
This blog was part of a larger project undertaken on policy specialisation and parliamentary roles with Caroline Bhattacharya and Stephen McKay, both of whom were involved in the collection and analysis of the data used in this blog. A draft of this blog has been hanging around for a few years now which explains why it doesn’t cover the 2019-2024 Parliament – apologies for that!
Backbench MPs can submit Early Day Motions (EDMs) “to put on record [their] views … or to draw attention to specific events or campaigns“. In this blog we show which groups of MPs are more likely to use EDMs, and which topics they focus on.
Popularity of EDMs over time
Table 1 shows the most popular EDMs submitted between the 1989-90 parliamentary session and the 2019 General Election. During this time, 50,849 EDMs were submitted, receiving 1,968,850 signatures from 1,722 signatories. This means the average MP sponsored and signed 29.5 and 1143.4 EDMs respectively with the average EDM receiving 38.7 signatures (although the mode is one).
The number of EDMs submitted per sitting day decreased after 2010, but the average number of signatures attracted remained comparable over time. The average number of EDMs per sponsor and per signatory remained comparable; MPs remained as likely to sponsor and sign at least one EDM.
Table 1: Top 10 most popular EDMs, 1989-2019
| Title | Parl. Session | Num. Signatories |
| INDIA AND PAKISTAN | 2001-02 | 503 |
| MAKE POVERTY HISTORY IN 2005 CAMPAIGN | 2004-05 | 455 |
| CLIMATE CHANGE | 2004-05 | 416 |
| FIRST AID IN SCHOOLS | 1991-92 | 416 |
| BBC WORLD SERVICE | 1992-93 | 408 |
| PRESIDENTIAL & PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN SIERRA LEONE (No. 2) | 2001-02 | 402 |
| ABOLITION OF THE POST OFFICE CARD ACCOUNT | 2005-06 | 398 |
| WARM HOMES & ENERGY CONSERVATION | 1999-2000 | 396 |
| POST OFFICE CARD ACCOUNTS | 2002-03 | 392 |
| PRESIDENTIAL & PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN SIERRA LEONE | 2001-02 | 387 |
| [source: EDM database] |
Popularity of EDMs among (different groups of) MPs
Some MPs were (very) prolific in terms of signing or being the primary sponsor on EDMs with most of the most prolific being white and male, usually from the Labour Party (see Table 2).
Table 2: Top 10 most prolific primary sponsors and signatories of EDMs overall and per Sitting Day not in Government, 1989-2019
| Rank | Name | Gender | Ethnicity | Party | Num. EDMs Overall | Num. EDMs per Sitting Day |
| Sponsored | Sponsored | |||||
| Number Sponsored Overall | ||||||
| 1 | Jeremy Corbyn | Male | White | Lab. | 833 | 0.06 |
| 2 | Paul Flynn | Male | White | Lab. | 792 | 0.07 |
| 3 | Keith Vaz | Male | British Asian | Lab. | 731 | 0.07 |
| 4 | Alan Meale | Male | White | Lab. | 731 | 0.07 |
| 5 | John McDonnell | Male | White | Lab. | 694 | 0.09 |
| 6 | Lindsay Hoyle | Male | White | Lab. | 622 | 0.08 |
| 7 | Peter Bottomley | Male | White | Con. | 563 | 0.05 |
| 8 | Bob Russell | Male | White | Lib. Dem. | 545 | 0.08 |
| 9 | Harry Barnes | Male | White | Lab. | 493 | 0.08 |
| 10 | Bob Spink | Male | White | Con. | 471 | 0.09 |
| Number Sponsored per Sitting Day not in Government | ||||||
| 1 | Paul Monaghan | Male | White | SNP | 101 | 0.14 |
| 2 | Jim Shannon | Male | White | DUP | 411 | 0.12 |
| 3 | Robert Halfon | Male | White | Con. | 298 | 0.11 |
| 4 | David Linden | Male | White | SNP | 83 | 0.09 |
| 5 | Bob Spink | Male | White | Con. | 471 | 0.09 |
| 6 | Greg Mulholland | Male | White | Lib. Dem. | 399 | 0.09 |
| 7 | Simon Thomas | Male | White | PC | 165 | 0.09 |
| 8 | John McDonnell | Male | White | Lab. | 694 | 0.09 |
| 9 | Bob Russell | Male | White | Lib. Dem. | 545 | 0.08 |
| 10 | Kirsten Oswald | Female | White | SNP | 59 | 0.08 |
| Signed | Signed | |||||
| Number Signed Overall | ||||||
| 1 | Jeremy Corbyn | Male | White | Lab. | 19460 | 1.49 |
| 2 | Alan Meale | Male | White | Lab. | 18366 | 1.77 |
| 3 | Mike Hancock | Male | White | Lib. Dem. | 17778 | 2.36 |
| 4 | Alan Simpson | Male | White | Lab. | 17660 | 2.71 |
| 5 | John McDonnell | Male | White | Lab. | 17504 | 2.17 |
| 6 | Lynne Jones | Female | White | Lab. | 16636 | 2.56 |
| 7 | Bill Etherington | Male | White | Lab. | 16575 | 2.55 |
| 8 | Kelvin Hopkins | Male | White | Lab. | 15543 | 1.92 |
| 9 | Peter Bottomley | Male | White | Con. | 15373 | 1.24 |
| 10 | Ann Cryer | Female | White | Lab. | 15281 | 3.26 |
| Number Signed per Sitting Day not in Government | ||||||
| 1 | Ann Cryer | Female | White | Lab. | 15281 | 3.26 |
| 2 | Rudi Vis | Male | White | Lab. | 14816 | 3.16 |
| 3 | Alan Simpson | Male | White | Lab. | 17660 | 2.71 |
| 4 | John Leech | Male | White | Lib. Dem. | 9268 | 2.58 |
| 5 | Lynne Jones | Female | White | Lab. | 16636 | 2.56 |
| 6 | Bill Etherington | Male | White | Lab. | 16575 | 2.55 |
| 7 | Mike Hancock | Male | White | Lib. Dem. | 17778 | 2.36 |
| 8 | Martin Caton | Male | White | Lab. | 15155 | 2.34 |
| 9 | Chris Stephens | Male | White | SNP | 3622 | 2.25 |
| 10 | John McDonnell | Male | White | Lab. | 17504 | 2.17 |
Network analysis can be used to identify clusters of EDM co-signatories (i.e. MPs who are more likely to sign the same EDMs). Figure(s) 1 shows the EDM co-signatory networks for each of the five parliaments between 2001 and 2019, switching between showing the network by party and then by cluster for each Parliament. For the Party view, the nodes in the figures are colour-coded by party with the edges also colour coded to indicate (cross-)partisan linkages. For example, a red node with a purple edge would indicate a Labour MP with cross-partisan links with Conservative MPs. For the Cluster view, the nodes are simply colour coded by cluster. For both, the size of the node relates to the likelihood of an MP acting as a bridge between different parts of the network with larger nodes indicating a greater propensity to broker.
The figure shows that three clusters of EDM co-signatories can be identified in each parliament from 2001 onwards, except for 2015-17 where there were two. Where there are three clusters, two of these are mainly comprised of Conservative MPs and Labour MPs respectively with the third being mainly made up of another group of Labour MPs and MPs from smaller parties. For 2015-17, there is a smaller cluster mainly comprising SNP MPs and then a large cluster made up of everyone else. However, none of the clusters are particularly distinct with all being cross-partisan and with lots of interaction taking place between them and the MPs therein. The network of EDM signatories is thus generally a tightly knit one with the clusters which comprise it not being separate but rather interrelated. The network has become more clustered over time however.
Focusing on some key figures within these EDM networks, Figure(s) 2 shows the core group networks of the most active EDM co-signatories (co-signing at least 40% of EDMs) for each of the five parliaments. The fact that there is only one core group for each parliament reinforces the idea that the EDM network is an integrated one without particularly distinct clusters. Mirroring the results presented in Table 2, the networks are dominated by white, male Labour MPs, and perhaps more accurately Labour MPs who are members of the Socialist Campaign Group, at least until 2015 after which MPs from smaller parties – specifically, the SNP and the DUP – become dominant. This trend is probably a result of MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell moving into leadership positions and not having the time and/or proclivity to sign (as many) EDMs as previously. This would then have a knock-on effect of disrupting relationships in the cluster of which these MPs were a part and, consequently, the wider network. Other relationships would then come to the fore.
Figure(s) 1: Early Day Motion Co-Signatory Networks by Parliament
Figure(s) 2: Core group networks of most active EDM co-signatories by Parliament
Characteristics of MPs who sponsor & sign EDMs
Conservative MPs were less likely to sponsor and sign EDMs than Labour and other party MPs (Figure(s) 3) and, when they did, they were also less likely to sponsor and sign as many: the average Conservative MP sponsored and signed 8.6 and 140 EDMs, whereas the figures for the average Labour MP and other party MP were 15.7 and 533, and 26.0 and 874 respectively.
Figure(s) 3: Percentage point difference between proportion of EDM activity and proportion of MPs in Parliament by party, 1989-2019
Female and ethnic minority MPs tended to be sponsors and signatories of EDMs roughly in line with their presence in Parliament (Figure(s) 4). There is some evidence that male sponsors and signatories were more likely to sponsor and sign more EDMs than their female counterparts, especially after 1997 but this gap closed during the last two Parliaments in our analysis. White sponsors were more likely to sponsor more EDMs than ethnic minority sponsors since 2001 but there was no clear trend regarding ethnicity and the ratio of signatories to signatures.
Figure(s) 4: Percentage point difference between proportion of EDM activities and proportion of female and ethnic minority MPs in Parliament, 1989-2019
EDM topics
EDMs are not directed to a particular department so we used topic modelling to identify 27 different policy areas. social welfare, macroeconomics and international affairs are the most popular topics mentioned in EDMs with at least a quarter being related to at least one of these topics (Figure 5). Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the least popular topics.
Perhaps the most notable trend in the popularity of topics is the steady increase over time in EDMs which mention social policy (Figure(s) 6). Other topics which tended to increase in popularity over time, at least to a certain extent, are civil rights, domestic commerce, education, energy, health, and technology. Topics which tended to decrease in popularity over time, again at least to a certain extent, are agriculture, foreign trade, government operations, international affairs, and law & crime. Other topics remained broadly flat (although macroeconomics did have an increase around the time of the financial crash before falling back slowly to around the same level of popularity as previously).
When comparing different groups of MPs, what is most notable is the consistency in the topic rankings for MPs from different parties. The top five topics are the same for Conservative MPs, Labour MPs and MPs from other parties, even if the order of the ranking is not the same. Perhaps the only notable difference is the ranking of the topic labour. This topic is ranked 13th out of 27 for EDMs sponsored by a Labour MP, whereas it’s ranked 23rd and 20th for EDMs sponsored by a Conservative MP and an MP from another party respectively.
With regard to gender, Civil rights, education, health and social welfare are all more popular topics with female sponsors compared to their male counterparts with international affairs having the biggest difference between the popularity among male sponsors compared to their female counterparts. With regard to ethnicity, the biggest differences in the popularity among sponsors from an ethnic minority background compared to their white counterparts are for the topics civil rights, defence, immigration, international affairs, and social welfare.
Figure 5: Percentage of EDMs which mention topic
Figure(s) 6: Percentage of EDMs which mention topic by parliamentary session
About the author
Dr Stephen Holden Bates is a Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the Department of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Birmingham.