Categories
Events

PSA Parliaments at #PSA24

PSA Parliaments will be convening a number of panels at PSA24. The 74th Annual Conference of the Political Studies Association will be held in Glasgow between 25-27 March 2024 (full details can be found here).

The submission process is the same as last year. All specialist groups have an exclusive timeframe until the 8th September for them to receive papers and propose panels ahead of the open call later in the autumn..

If you would like to propose a paper or a panel to be held under the auspices of the PSA Parliaments group, then please fill out this form.

As always, we do not have any preferences in terms of theory, method or empirical focus and we welcome papers from PhD students through to professors, as well as from practitioners. We are fully committed to avoiding all-male panels. We are also seeking to increase the proportion of papers on our panels from people from an ethnic minority background so please get in touch with Seán if you come from an ethnic minority background and would like to discuss how your research could be highlighted on our panels.

We hope to see as many of you there as possible for what promises to be another great conference!

Categories
News

June 2023 Newsletter

We hope you’re well. We have some updates for you:

  1. PSA Parliaments Conference 2023: Call for Papers
  2. PSA Parliaments Undergraduate Essay Competition
  3. Parliamentary Studies Module: Call for Applications
  4. POST Fellowship (UK Parliament): Mapping Public Engagement in Parliaments across the World
  5. Survey on the Importance & Prestige of Parliamentary Work in the House of Commons
  6. Hanna Pitkin & David Olson
  7. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye
  8. Recently on the Blog

If you have any notices/messages you would like us to circulate to our group, please let us know.

This is our last newsletter of the academic year. We’ll see you all again in September!

Best wishes

Stephen, Seán, Caroline, Diana, Chris and Ruxandra.

1. PSA Parliaments Conference 2023: Call for Papers

We are very pleased to announce that our annual conference will take place at the LSE and online on Thursday 2nd and Friday 3rd November!

As usual, we will be holding the conference on the Friday and a drinks reception on the Thursday evening. However, in an exciting new development, we will also be holding a working papers workshop, co-hosted by the PSA Early Career Network, for early career researchers during Thursday daytime.

Full details about the conference and workshop, including how to apply and/or volunteer as a workshop discussant, can be found here.

We are very grateful to Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey for helping us to organise the conference and to the Department of Government at LSE for co-sponsoring the event.

2. PSA Parliaments Undergraduate Essay Competition

There’s still time to submit an entry for our undergraduate essay competition! In fact, due to the UCU marking and allocation boycott, we’ve decided to extend the closing date to the 15th September 2023.

If, once you’ve done your marking, one of your undergraduate students has produced an exceptional piece of work, then please consider submitting it on their behalf (no self-nominations allowed).

Every year we want to reward the best assignments written by UK-based undergraduate students on any aspect of parliamentary and legislative studies. The entries which display the most originality, analytical rigour and significant contributions to the field will be awarded a prize of £100 for the winner and £50 for the runner-up.

Full details of the competition, including how to submit nominations, can be found here. For any questions, please get in touch with Caroline.

3. Parliamentary Studies Module: Call for Applications

Applications will open next week for Higher Education institutions to deliver the Parliamentary Studies module for academic years 2024/5 – 2029/30.

This will be the third time that the UK Parliament has sought collaborators to teach the Parliamentary Studies module. For this five year cycle we have made provision for 20 universities or other higher education institutions to deliver the Parliamentary Studies module in partnership with Parliament, and those currently delivering the module are welcome to apply again.

Applications will be judged by a panel of staff from the Houses of Parliament and representatives from the Higher Education sector. The deadline for applications is Thursday 6 July 2023. We aim to inform successful institutions by the end of July/early August.

If you’re interested in further information and/or wish to request an application pack, please contact ppoe@parliament.uk

4. POST Fellowship (UK Parliament): Mapping Public Engagement in Parliaments across the World

Faced with rising populism and political disengagement, parliaments across the world are making efforts to connect with their citizens. What do these activities look like, who undertakes them, where do they take place? Help us answer these questions and create a map of public engagement activities happening in parliaments across the world (rather like this brilliant map showing parliaments’ access to academic research), to enable the International Parliament Engagement Network to foster lesson sharing, knowledge exchange and collaborations.

This opportunity is open to university-based researchers or knowledge exchange professionals. Ideally, you would be working with us 60% of your time for one year, but we can be flexible about these arrangements. You will be able to shape the project and have access to existing networks. More information is available here. Prof. Cristina Leston-Bandeira is also happy to give further details and/or discuss this opportunity further. You can contact her here.

5. Survey on the Importance & Prestige of Parliamentary Work in the House of Commons

Stephen Holden Bates, Caroline Bhattacharya and Stephen McKay are running a survey on the importance of different aspects of parliamentary work and the prestige of different select committees and they would like to hear your views. The survey should take less than 5 minutes to complete and can be found here.

If you have any questions about the survey, then please contact Stephen.

6. Hanna Pitkin & David Olson: In Memory

We were very sad to hear last month of the deaths of both Hanna Pitkin and David Olson.

You can read an obituary of Hanna Pitkin here and a tribute to David Olson here.

7. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye

Sebastian Dettman has published The Geographic Scope Of Opposition Challenges In Malaysia’s Parliament in Pacific Affairs.

Boydell & Brewerhave published the 9(!) volume The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1640-1660 edited by Stephen K. Roberts.

Christian D. Phillips has published Nevertheless, He Persisted: White Men and the Links Between Incumbency and Group Descriptive Representation in Political Research Quarterly.

Daniel Stockemer and Aksel Sundström have published Age Inequalities in Political Representation: A Review Article in Government & Opposition.

And new issues of Representation and Legislative Studies Quarterly are out.

If you would like your published research to be featured in this section, please email Stephen with details.

8. Recently on the Blog

We published one great blog last month.

If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our communications officer, Chris.

Categories
Blog

A Nation of Petitioners: people and Parliament in the nineteenth century United Kingdom

Between 1780 and 1918 over 1 million public petitions were sent to the House of Commons from across the UK. These petitions contained a staggering 165 million signatures. While was part of a wider growth of mass, collective petitioning to national legislatures across North America and western Europe, the scale of petitions in the nineteenth-century UK was historically exceptional. In this blog, I discuss themes from my recent book A Nation of Petitioners: Petitions and Petitioning in the United Kingdom, 1780-1918 (Cambridge University Press, 2023) relevant to those working on parliamentary studies. 

During the nineteenth century, petitioning was transformed in the UK and other polities, including the USA, into its modern form as a participatory practice linked to representative institutions. Older traditions of petitioning the monarch sought the redress of personal, local, or sectional grievances. By contrast, the new style of petitioning was used by citizens and subjects to raise topics of national importance, make claims for citizenship and political rights, and organise massive popular campaigns in a pre-democratic era, including for the abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage

Through examining the monumental scale of petitions in this period, A Nation of Petitioners has a number of themes relevant those interested in parliaments in general and the UK Parliament in particular. 

First, petitions are crucial to understanding the authority and legitimacy of Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, during an era of democratisation but not democracy. Petitions institutionalised regular public engagement with Parliament on a colossal scale. Millions of British people interacted with Parliament and parliamentarians through petitions, and this remained the case even after the franchise was extended by the First and Second Reform Acts passed in 1832 and 1867. Indeed, it was not until the later 1880s, after the passing of the Third Reform Act (1885), that the registered electorate began to exceed the annual total of signatures on petitions to the House of Commons. The position of the aristocratic House of Lords was also strengthened by the tens of thousands of petitions it received. The massive waves of petitioners, even radical critics, submitting their requests to Parliament, confirmed the legislature’s authority and to an extent, legitimated, an assembly elected under limited suffrage.  

At the same time, petitions could challenge the authority and legitimacy of Parliament when they claimed to represent a wider people than that which elected MPs. The three massive Chartist petitions of 18391842, and 1848, calling for democratic reforms and signed by millions of working-class men and women presented just such a challenge. Recent studies of the post-2016 debates over Brexit have noted the tension between parliamentary sovereignty (based on an electoral mandate) and popular sovereignty (based on the majority in the referendum). The example of the nineteenth century suggests that the tension between parliamentary and popular sovereignty is a latent dynamic in parliamentary systems of government, albeit one that has been relatively well-contained in an era of universal suffrage when MPs could usually claim an unmatched democratic mandate. 

Second, petitions were central to the evolving system of parliamentary representation. Like e-petitions today, nineteenth-century petitions provided a form of ‘linkage’ between citizens and Parliament, particularly outside elections. Petitions were an essential tool for making representative claims by both parliamentarians and petitioners. Through presenting petitions and interacting with petitioners, MPs and peers acted as representatives, even when they disagreed with petitioners. Presenting petitions enabled both geographic and issue-based representation. Petitioning also enabled the representation from different nations (Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as well as England) within the UK and also from groups, such as women, who were formally excluded from voting in elections or sitting in Parliament at this time. Petitions were also presented from settlers and colonised peoples from within the British empire who were not formally represented in Parliament. 

MPs typically presented petitions from their constituencies or on issues that they were associated with. Peers usually presented petitions from areas they were associated with through landownership or had formerly represented when in the Commons; bishops, or spiritual peers, were often tasked with presenting petitions on religious or moral questions, including temperance. Presenting petitions allowed Victorian MPs who did not trouble Hansard reporters to represent their constituents. Henry Lowther, who sat as MP for Westmorland for 55 years was known as the ‘silent colonel’ due to his lack of contribution to debates; yet he still presented over 400 petitions. Presenting petitions and corresponding with petitioners was an important part of the hidden, largely unsung practice of representation that MPs like Lowther did, and emphasises the varied ways that parliamentarians represented the public outside elections.

Finally, petitions to the House of Commons declined in the early twentieth century. This was part of a trend also evident in other countries such as the USA or France. Petitioning did not decline as a form of political participation, but was rather displaced from national legislatures to a wider range of national and international authorities, including in the British case, Number 10 Downing Street. Unlike petitions to Parliament, these other types of petitions were rarely formally recorded which explains their invisibility in studies of twentieth-century British politics and history. The executive’s increasing control of the legislature in the twentieth century encouraged British citizens to appeal to other authorities, although Parliament did still receive large mass petitions on occasion, such as the three petitions about pensions during the Second World War. MPs and officials missed an opportunity to rethink petitioning tool for public engagement with Parliament in the 1970s; the unimaginative conventional wisdom of the time preferred to abolish the Petitions committee instead.

Given this historical context, the recent emergence of legislative e-petitions systems in the UK and in many other democracies is significant for reasserting parliaments as the primary institution for receiving petitions from citizens. There are some important differences of course. In an era of universal suffrage, petitioners do not perhaps pose the same challenge to representatives. In terms of representation, because citizens can usually upload their petitions to a parliamentary web platform rather than through the medium of an MP, they do not provide the same interaction between citizen and representative, although they do provide a form of public engagement with Parliament as an institution. Today, the UK Parliament’s Petitions Committee offers a wide range of actions that go far beyond the limited or ‘descriptive’ petitions system of the nineteenth century, where petitions were presented but no further action was taken. E-petitions then provide an opportunity for the UK Parliament and other legislatures to re-engage citizens, albeit in very different ways from the nineteenth century. 

Henry Miller is Associate Professor (Research) at Durham University. This blog draws on his book A Nation of Petitioners: Petitions and Petitioning in the United Kingdom, 1780-1918 published by Cambridge University Press in February 2023. 

Categories
News

May 2023 Newsletter

We hope you’re well. We have some updates for you:

  1. PSA Parliaments Conference 2023: Call for Papers
  2. PSA Parliaments Book Launch: Henry J. Miller’s A Nation of Petitioners
  3. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panel
  4. Welcome to Diana Stirbu!
  5. PSA Parliaments Undergraduate Essay Competition
  6. Parliamentary Studies Module: Call for Applications
  7. Congratulations to Lotte Hargrave!
  8. Other Events: ECPR Gender & Politics Seminar & PSA ECN Workshops
  9. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye
  10. Recently on the Blog

If you have any notices/messages you would like us to circulate to our group, please let us know.

Best wishes

Stephen, Seán, Caroline, Chris, Ruxandra and, for the first time, Diana.

1. PSA Parliaments Conference 2023: Call for Papers

We are very pleased to announce that our annual conference will take place at the LSE and online on Thursday 2nd and Friday 3rd November!

As usual, we will be holding the conference on the Friday and a drinks reception on the Thursday evening. However, in an exciting new development, we will also be holding a working papers workshop for early career researchers during Thursday daytime.

Full details about the conference and workshop, including how to apply and/or volunteer as a workshop discussant, can be found here.

We are very grateful to Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey for helping us to organise the conference and to the Department of Government at LSE for co-sponsoring the event.

2. PSA Parliaments Book Launch: Henry J. Miller’s A Nation of Petitioners

We are delighted to announce that PSA Parliaments will be hosting a book launch for Henry J. Miller’s new book, A Nation of Petitioners: Petitions and Petitioning in the United Kingdom, 1780-1918 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023).

The event will take place via Zoom on Wednesday 3rd May at 2pm BST.

Full details, including how to book your free ticket, can be found here.

The book launch is part of our Online Brown Bag Seminar Series. If you have an article or book that has been accepted for publication and you would like to present it as part of our series, then please get in contact with Stephen.

3. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panel

Our rescheduled panel on Parliaments in Context will take place on Wednesday 24th May at 2pm BST.

We have three great papers. Full details, including how to book your free ticket, can be found here.

4. Welcome to Diana Stirbu!

We are very pleased to announce that Diana Stirbu has become a co-convenor of PSA Parliaments.

Diana is Professor of Public Policy and Governance at the London Metropolitan University and is probably best known for her work on the Welsh Senedd. You can read her Urgent Questions here.

Diana will be replacing Stephen who is stepping down as co-convenor in November after our annual conference.

5. PSA Parliaments Undergraduate Essay

Our undergraduate essay competition is running again this year!

Many of you have probably been busy marking over the last few weeks. If one of your undergraduate students has produced an exceptional piece of work, then please consider submitting it on their behalf (no self-nominations allowed).

Every year we want to reward the best assignments written by UK-based undergraduate students on any aspect of parliamentary and legislative studies. The entries which display the most originality, analytical rigour and significant contributions to the field will be awarded a prize of £100 for the winner and £50 for the runner-up.

The closing date is 12th June 2023.

Full details of the competition, including how to submit nominations, can be found here. For any questions, please get in touch with Caroline.

6. Parliamentary Studies Module: Call for Applications

Applications will open next week for Higher Education institutions to deliver the Parliamentary Studies module for academic years 2024/5 – 2029/30.

This will be the third time that the UK Parliament has sought collaborators to teach the Parliamentary Studies module. For this five year cycle we have made provision for 20 universities or other higher education institutions to deliver the Parliamentary Studies module in partnership with Parliament, and those currently delivering the module are welcome to apply again.

Applications will be judged by a panel of staff from the Houses of Parliament and representatives from the Higher Education sector. The deadline for applications is Thursday 6 July 2023. We aim to inform successful institutions by the end of July/early August.

If you’re interested in further information and/or wish to request an application pack, please contact ppoe@parliament.uk

7. Congratulations to Lotte Hargrave!

Congratulations to Lotte Hargrave for winning the PSA’s 2023 McDougall Trust Prize for her dissertation which examines the impact of gender stereotypes on politicians’ behaviour and voter attitudes.

More details can be found here.

8. Other Events: ECPR Gender & Politics Seminar & PSA ECN Workshops

The ECPR Gender & Politics Standing Group are holding a series of online seminars on ‘feminist dialogues on the classics’. The first considers gender and sexuality representation in politics on Tuesday 30th May at 2pm (BST).

Full details can be found here.


The PSA’s Early Career Network are holding two online workshops on knowledge exchange. The first is on May 3rd and considers demonstrating knowledge exchange and impact in grant applications. The second is on June 7th and focuses on developing ethical knowledge exchange and impact.

Full details can be found here and here.

9. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye

Temitayo Isaac Odeyemi, Damilola Temitope Olorunshola and Boluwatife Solomon Ajibolad have published Turning public engagement into standard practice: institutionalisation in the work of the South African Parliament in the Journal of Legislative Studies.

Mette Marie Staehr Harder has published Parting with ‘interests of women’: how feminist scholarship on substantive representation could replace ‘women’s interests’ with ‘gender equality interests’ in the European Journal of Politics and Gender.

Jonathan Malloy has published The Paradox of Parliament with the University of Toronto Press.

Mihail Chiru has published Seniority and Ideological Proximity? A Longitudinal Analysis of the Appointment of Party Group Coordinators in the European Parliament in the Journal of Common Market Studies.

Elizabeth Evans and Stefanie Reher have published Gender, disability and political representation: understanding the experiences of disabled women in the European Journal of Politics and Gender.

The Routledge Handbook of Parliamentary Administrations edited by Thomas Christiansen, Elena Griglio and Nicola Lupo has been published.

If you would like your published research to be featured in this section, please email Stephen with details.

10. Recently on the Blog

We published one great blog last month.

If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our communications officer, Chris.

Categories
News

April 2023 Newsletter

We hope you’re well. We have some updates for you:

  1. PSA Parliaments at PSA23!
  2. PSA Parliaments Book Launch: Henry J. Miller’s A Nation of Petitioners
  3. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panel
  4. PSA Parliaments Undergraduate Essay Competition
  5. PSA Trustee Elections
  6. ALCS Membership: Public Service Announcement
  7. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye
  8. Recently on the Blog

If you have any notices/messages you would like us to circulate to our group, please let us know.

Best wishes

Stephen, Seán, Caroline, Chris and Ruxandra.

1. PSA Parliaments at PSA23!

We had a great time in Liverpool for the Annual PSA Conference. 

We convened four panels on parliamentary processes and procedures, comparative analysis of legislatures, scrutiny and legislation, and rhetoric and representation, which were all very well attended and which all contained some very interesting and important papers.

We believe all panels were recorded by the conference organisers so, if you missed the conference or just want to relive the experience, you’ll hopefully have access to all presentations soon.

2. PSA Parliaments Book Launch: Henry J. Miller’s A Nation of Petitioners

We are delighted to announce that PSA Parliaments will be hosting a book launch for Henry J. Miller’s new book, A Nation of Petitioners: Petitions and Petitioning in the United Kingdom, 1780-1918 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023).

The event will take place via Zoom on Wednesday 3rd May at 2pm BST.

Full details, including how to book your free ticket, can be found here.

The book launch is part of our Online Brown Bag Seminar Series. If you have an article or book that has been accepted for publication and you would like to present it as part of our series, then please get in contact with Stephen.

3. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panel

We have not forgotten about our postponed online panel Parliaments & Parliamentarians in Context.

We will be rearranging this panel very soon and will hopefully announce a new date and time next month.

Details of the panel can be found here.

4. PSA Parliaments Undergraduate Essay Competition

Our undergraduate essay competition is running again this year! 

Many of you have probably been busy marking over the last few weeks. If one of your undergraduate students has produced an exceptional piece of work, then please consider submitting it on their behalf (no self-nominations allowed).

Every year we want to reward the best assignments written by UK-based undergraduate students on any aspect of parliamentary and legislative studies. The entries which display the most originality, analytical rigour and significant contributions to the field will be awarded a prize of £100 for the winner and £50 for the runner-up.

The closing date is 12th June 2023.

Full details of the competition, including how to submit nominations, can be found here. For any questions, please get in touch with Caroline.

5. PSA Trustee Elections

Two of our members, Nicholas Allen and Matthew Hepplewhite, are standing to become trustees of the PSA. 

You can read their pitches and details of how to vote here.

6. ALCS Membership: Public Service Announcement

If you publish books and in journals that are based in the UK and you are not yet a member, then please consider joining the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Societyso you can receive payment for secondary uses of your work.

One of our convenors hadn’t even heard of it until this time last year and doesn’t know why this isn’t the first thing you are told when you start your PhD. 

Anyway, it can earn you hundreds and even thousands of pounds each year!

7. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye

Orly Siow has recently published two articles: Needles in a haystack: an intersectional analysis of the descriptive, constitutive and substantive representation of minoritised women in the European Journal of Politics and Gender and What Constitutes Substantive Representation, and Where Should We Evaluate It? in Political Studies Review.

Nic Cheeseman and Marie-Eve Desrosiers have published How (not) to engage with authoritarian states and Douglas Thorkell has published Futureproofing democracy: Principles of foresight-based policy analysis and stress-testing for national parliaments and governments, both with the Westminster Fotw-text-wideundation for Democracy.

Franklin De Vrieze has published Advancing parliamentary innovation through Post-Legislative Scrutiny in The Parliamentarian

Jelena Lončar has published Evoking the resemblance: Descriptive representation of ethnic minorities in Ethnicities.

Meg Russell has published a working paper House of Lords reform: navigating the obstacles with the Bennett Institute for Public Policy.

And new issues of the Journal of Legislative Studies and the International Journal of Parliamentary Studies have been published.

If you would like your published research to be featured in this section, please email Stephen with details.

8. Recently on the Blog

We didn’t publish anything this past month because we were too busy on the picket lines winning back our pensions and trying to get better pay and conditions.

If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our communications officer, Chris.

Categories
News

March 2023 Newsletter

We hope you’re well. We have some updates for you:

  1. PSA Annual Conference 2023 in Liverpool & Online
  2. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panel
  3. PSA Parliaments Undergraduate Essay Competition Launch!
  4. Urgent Questions with David Parker
  5. PSA Parliaments Book Launch: Henry J. Miller’s A Nation of Petitioners
  6. PSA Trustees Wanted!
  7. Job: British Politics Lecturer, University of Leeds
  8. Other Events: Book Launch of The Parliamentary Battle Over Brexit
  9. Other Events: 100 more by 2030! How to Create a More Gender-balanced Democracy
  10. Other Events: Austrian Day of Parliamentary Research
  11. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye
  12. Recently on the Blog

If you have any notices/messages you would like us to circulate to our prizewinning group, please let us know.

Best wishes

Stephen, Seán, Caroline, Chris and Ruxandra.

1. PSA Annual Conference 2023 in Liverpool & Online

Registration has opened for the 2023 PSA Annual Conference being held in Liverpool and virtually in April 2023. Early bird registration ends on 4 February 2023, and accepted paper-givers must register by then to guarantee their place. Full details of the conference and how to register can be found on the PSA23 website.

PSA Parliaments are running four panels on the Monday and Tuesday, as can be seen from the conference programme here.

The PSA offers support to UK based PhD students and early career researchers as well as scholars from the Global South. See the website for more information.

Whether in person or online, we hope to see you there!

2. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panel

Due to the on-going UCU industrial action, we postponed our online panel Parliaments & Parliamentarians in Context on Wednesday 15th February 2023.

We will rearrange the panel once it is clear what is happening with the industrial action (and/or employers have given staff in UK higher education a decent pay rise, restored lost pension benefits and addressed casualisation, workload and the gender, disability and ethnicity pay gaps).

Details of the panel can be found here.

3. PSA Parliaments Undergraduate Essay Competition Launch!

We are very pleased to announce the launch of our 2023 undergraduate essay competition! 

Many of you have probably been busy marking over the last few weeks. If one of your undergraduate students has produced an exceptional piece of work, then please consider submitting it on their behalf (no self-nominations allowed).

Every year we want to reward the best assignments written by UK-based undergraduate students on any aspect of parliamentary and legislative studies. The entries which display the most originality, analytical rigour and significant contributions to the field will be awarded a prize of £100 for the winner and £50 for the runner-up. The closing date is 12th June 2023.

Full details of the competition, including how to submit nominations, can be found here. For any questions, please get in touch with Caroline.

4. Urgent Questions with David Parker

This month’s interviewee is Prof. David Parker (Montana State University)!

Head over to Urgent Questions to read about soaking and poking, Red Sox, Star Trek and lots, lots more!

5. PSA Parliaments Book Launch: Henry J. Miller’s A Nation of Petitioners

We are delighted to announce that PSA Parliaments will be hosting a book launch for Henry J. Miller’s new book, A Nation of Petitioners: Petitions and Petitioning in the United Kingdom, 1780-1918 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023).

The event will take place via Zoom on Wednesday 3rd May at 2pm BST.

Full details, including how to book your free ticket, can be found here.

The book launch is part of our Online Brown Bag Seminar Series. If you have an article or book that has been accepted for publication and you would like to present it as part of our series, then please get in contact with Stephen.

6. PSA Trustees Wanted!

The PSA are currently calling for nominations from their membership for three trustees to ensure the PSA continues its journey to excellence, sustainability, diversity, and growth.

These positions are open to all Academic Members and the PSA would very much welcome nominations from women and scholars from groups generally under-represented in the discipline. 

The deadline for nominations closes on Wednesday 8th March.

You can find out more about governance of the PSA and the role of the trustees here, and there is information about how to apply here.

7. Job: British Politics Lecturer, University of Leeds

The University of Leeds are advertising for a Lecturer in British Politics (Grade 8). More details can be found here.

8. Other Events: Book Launch of The Parliamentary Battle Over Brexit

The Constitution Unit at UCL are holding an online book launch for Meg Russelland Lisa James’s new book The Parliamentary Battle Over Brexit (OUP) on Thursday 23rd March 2023. Other speakers include David Gauke, Joanna Cherry and Robert Saunders.

More details, including how to book your free ticket, can be found here.

9. Other Events: 100 more by 2030! How to Create a More Gender-balanced Democracy

The Mile End Institute at Queen Mary University of London are holding an event on how to create a more gender-balanced democracy on Thursday 23rd March 2023. Speakers include Frances Scott and Rainbow Murray

The event is on later than the book launch above so you can go to both!

More details, including how to book your free ticket, can be found here.

10. Other Events: Austrian Day of Parliamentary Research

The Legal, Legislative and Research Services (RLW) of the Austrian Parliamentary Administration, in cooperation with the International Journal of Parliamentary Studies, is holding the first “Austrian Day of Parliamentary Research” on 26th June 2023. 

This one-day conference in the premises of the Austrian Parliament will bring together scholars from various disciplines to discuss current developments in parliamentary research, as well as their reception in and potential contribution to parliamentary practice.

More details, including how to submit a paper proposal, can be found here.

11. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye

Silje Hermansen and Andreja Pegan have published Blurred lines between electoral and parliamentary representation: The use of constituency staff among Members of the European Parliament in European Union Politics.

The Hansard Society has published a new working paper Proposals for a New System for Delegated Legislation.

Matthew Smith and Jack Newman have published MPS, Outside Interests, and Corporate Boards: Too Busy to Serve? in Parliamentary Affairs.

Erica Rayment and Elizabeth McCallion have published Contexts and Constraints: The Substantive Representation of Women in the Canadian House of Commons and Senate in Representation.

Punam Yadav has published Do political quotas work? Gender quotas and women’s political participation in Nepal in the European Journal of Politics and Gender.

If you would like your published research to be featured in this section, please email Stephen with details.

12. Recently on the Blog

We published one blog last month:

If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our communications officer, Chris.

Categories
News

February 2023 Newsletter

We hope you’re well. We have some updates for you:

  1. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panels!
  2. PSA Annual Conference 2023 in Liverpool & Online
  3. Urgent Questions with Mark Bennister
  4. PSA Parliaments Book Launch: Henry J. Miller’s A Nation of Petitioners
  5. New Overview of the US Congress!
  6. IPSA RCLS Online Seminars on Legislative & Parliamentary Committees
  7. Call for Papers: ECPR Standing Group on Parliaments Conference
  8. Gen+ParlNet Online Seminar: Designing for Listening in Feminist Democratic Representation
  9. Gendering Multi-Level Parliamentary Democracy Workshop
  10. Tribute to Jean Blondel
  11. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye
  12. Recently on the Blog

If you have any notices/messages you would like us to circulate to our prizewinning group, please let us know.

Best wishes

Stephen, Seán, Caroline, Chris and Ruxandra.

1. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panel!

After a very successful annual conference in Birmingham at the start of November, PSA Parliaments will be holding another extra online panel.

At the moment, Parliaments & Parliamentarians in Context will be held on Wednesday 15th February 2023 at 2pm (GMT). Full details of the panel, including how to book tickets (for free) can be found here.

However, this date is currently a strike day for the on-going UCU industrial action. If employers have not given staff in UK higher education a decent pay rise, restored lost pension benefits and addressed casualisation, workload and the gender and ethnicity pay gaps by then, and the strike day goes ahead, we will need to move the seminar. We will send round an update on this at some point before the 15th.

2. PSA Annual Conference 2023 in Liverpool & Online

Registration has opened for the 2023 PSA Annual Conference being held in Liverpool and virtually in April 2023. Early bird registration ends on 4 February 2023, and accepted paper-givers must register by then to guarantee their place. Full details of the conference and how to register can be found on the PSA23 website.

The PSA offers support to UK based PhD students and early career researchers as well as scholars from the Global South. See the website for more information.

We are running at least four panels. More information will follow soon.

Whether in person or online, we hope to see you there!

3. Urgent Questions with Mark Bennister

This month’s interviewee is Dr Mark Bennister (University of Lincoln)!

Head over to Urgent Questions to read about record shops, frozen rabbits, synchronised swimming and lots, lots more!

4. PSA Parliaments Book Launch: Henry J. Miller’s A Nation of Petitioners

We are delighted to announce that PSA Parliaments will be hosting a book launch for Henry J. Miller’s new book, A Nation of Petitioners: Petitions and Petitioning in the United Kingdom, 1780-1918 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023).

The event will take place via Zoom on Wednesday 3rd May at 2pm BST.

Full details, including how to book your free ticket, can be found here.

The book launch is part of our Online Brown Bag Seminar Series. If you have an article or book that has been accepted for publication and you would like to present it as part of our series, then please get in contact with Stephen.

5. New Overview of the US Congress!

Many thanks to Caroline Leicht for writing an overview of the US Congress for our website!

You can read Caroline’s overview, as well as many others, here.

If you would like to write an overview of a parliament or legislature not yet coloured red on one of our maps (and the UK is notable for still being grey!), then please let Chris know.

6. IPSA RCLS Online Seminars on Legislative & Parliamentary Committees

Our very good friends on IPSA’s Research Committee of Legislative Specialists are holding another online seminars on legislative committees.

The book launch of Maya Kornberg‘s Inside Congressional Committees: Function and Dysfunction in the Legislative Process (Columbia University Press) will take place on Monday 13th February 2023, 14:00–15:30 UTC.

Full details of the event, including how to book your free tickets, can be found here.

If you are not yet a member of RCLS, you can join (for free) here.

7. Call for Papers: ECPR Standing Group on Parliaments

The ECPR Standing Group on Parliaments will host its 8th conference in Vienna from Thursday July 6th to Saturday July 8th, 2023. There is no regional or methodological restriction.

Please see here for more details, including how to submit a proposal.

8. Gen+ParlNet Online Seminar: Designing for Listening in Feminist Democratic Representation

Gen+ParlNet are holding on online seminar on Thursday, 2nd February at 15:30 (Brussels time). The title of the seminar is Designing for Listening in Feminist Democratic Representation. The presenters are Karen Celis and Sarah Childs and the discussant is Mette Marie Stæhr Harder.

To sign up, please email Mette Marie Stæhr Harder or Cherry Miller.

9. Gendering Multi-Level Parliamentary Democracy Workshop

Cherry Miller is organising a hybrid international workshop to explore parliaments as both gendered workplaces and gendered sites of policy-making at multiple state levels.

Full details of the workshop, including how to book your free ticket, can be found here.

10. Tribute to Jean Blondel

PSA Parliaments were very sad to hear the news that Jean Blondel, who made such a contribution to parliamentary and legislative studies, as well as political science more broadly, had died on Christmas Day. 

You can read a tribute to him written by his colleague and friend, David Sanders, here.

11. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye

Ville Aula and Tapio Raunio have published The conditions of committee importance – drawing lessons from a qualitative case study of Finland in the Journal of Legislative Studies.

Xuhong Su and Wenbo Chen has published Pathways to women’s electoral representation: the global effectiveness of legislative gender quotas over time also in the Journal of Legislative Studies.

If you would like your published research to be featured in this section, please email Stephen with details.

12. Recently on the Blog

We published two great blogs last month:

If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our communications officer, Chris.

Categories
Blog

The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit: The Story in Brief

Our new book, The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit, was published on 23 March. It focuses on the disputed role of parliament in the Brexit process, exploring how this most central UK democratic institution became embroiled in such controversy, and what the Brexit period demonstrates about the wider state of politics. 

The first and most basic question answered by the book is what actually happened in these troubled years. This is a long and complex story. Different narratives developed, often fed by competing players, which were frequently partial and sometimes downright misleading. The book seeks to provide an objective account, based on the public record and interviews with insiders. What follows is only a very brief summary (adapted from part of the closing chapter), drawing out some important themes.

The need to restore sovereignty to parliament was a long-time argument of Eurosceptics. While the institution’s own role in Brexit rose to prominence after the referendum, it also served (as discussed in Chapter 2) as a key forum for helping to bring this vote about. Backbench MPs—assisted on occasion by Speaker John Bercow’s unconventional interpretation of the rules—generated significant pressure for a referendum. Notably, not all of them favoured exiting the EU. Some, in a similar way to Prime Minister David Cameron, saw the referendum as a way to make an awkward question go away. Based on polling, there was little expectation of a Leave victory, and this prospect was not taken particularly seriously. Parliament held no major debate on the merits of Brexit to air the arguments; the Leave campaign set out no detailed prospectus to voters; and the civil service was forbidden from preparing. Consequently, the dilemmas and trade-offs that dominated subsequent debates were barely mentioned before the referendum. As an interviewee from the strongly pro-Brexit European Research Group of MPs (ERG) acknowledged, ‘it was only [after the referendum] that different types of Brexit started coming to the fore. Soft Brexit and hard Brexit had never been canvassed before the referendum; the expressions were coined afterwards.’ This lack of definition greatly stoked the bitterness of the following years.

The unexpected Leave result triggered the Prime Minister’s resignation, and Conservative MPs elected Theresa May in his place (Chapter 3). She was, in the words of one interviewee, ‘blood and bone a party woman’, with her deep commitment to public service if anything surpassed by her commitment to the Conservative Party. But that party was severely divided over Brexit. Labour, too, was now internally split, with some party heartlands having voted strongly for Remain and others for Leave. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was already unpopular in his parliamentary party, and it tried but failed to remove him after his lacklustre performance in the referendum campaign. This left both party leaders significantly compromised.

The uncertain question of how to implement Brexit now passed over to parliament. Many feared that a Remainer-dominated House of Commons would seek to undermine the referendum result, and May’s instinct was to rely as far as possible on pursuing Brexit using prerogative powers. But the enormity of the question understandably led parliamentarians to seek oversight of the next steps (Chapter 4). This provoked an institutional conflict between government and parliament. The courts were also drawn in, via Gina Miller’s first legal case arguing for parliament’s role in the triggering of Article 50. This resulted in defeat for the government and the infamous Daily Mail headline labelling the judges ‘enemies of the people’. Rather than cooling down the conflict, May’s government sought to exploit it, in order to appear the people’s defender.

Shortly afterwards, the Prime Minister justified her calling of a snap election in 2017 (Chapter 5), by arguing—on shaky empirical grounds—that parliament was standing in the way of Brexit. But the election weakened her position, resulting in a minority government, dependent on a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Northern Ireland DUP. The closeness of the result raised hopes among former Remainers that Brexit might be blocked, which further fuelled polarization and discouraged the spirit of compromise required to navigate the subsequent stages.

May’s early positioning (her initial ‘red lines’) incorporated the demands of her party’s hardliners—including that the UK should leave the Single Market and Customs Union. But when formal negotiations with the EU began (Chapter 6), her team came to recognize the trade-offs, particularly concerning the protection of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Avoidance of a hard border on the island of Ireland would require continued close alignment with the EU, which was unacceptable to hardline Brexiteers, while a ‘border down the Irish Sea’ between Great Britain and Northern Ireland was unacceptable to unionists, and in particular the DUP.

These difficulties, and May’s rhetoric that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’, raised concerns about failure to reach an agreement with the EU, and a possible no-deal Brexit. That would imply a hard border for Northern Ireland, and likely severe economic consequences. Partly to avoid it, a small number of moderate Conservative rebel MPs backed demands for a ‘meaningful vote’ in parliament on the final Brexit plan (Chapter 7). The extent of Conservative splits became very apparent when David Davis and Boris Johnson resigned from May’s Cabinet over her ‘Chequers’ proposals in July 2018, and further ministers departed in November over her final Brexit deal. The primary sticking point was the ‘backstop’—a compromise arrangement to avoid the border problem, demanding significant future all-UK alignment with EU rules (plus some special arrangements for Northern Ireland). When MPs voted on this deal in January 2019 it was overwhelmingly defeated, by 432 votes to 202. More than a third of the parliamentary Conservative Party—118 MPs—opposed it, 90 of whom were former Leave supporters. Most former Conservative Remain supporters, in contrast, voted for the deal.

There followed months of parliamentary wrangling, during which May’s deal was defeated twice more (Chapter 8). Crucially, hardline Conservative Brexiteers (dubbed the ‘Spartans’) repeatedly refused to accept it. May expressed strong frustrations with parliament, but never explicitly criticized her backbench opponents. Boris Johnson)—who had voted against the deal on the first two occasions—responded by arguing that it was ‘wrong in every sense to blame MPs for blocking Brexit’.

At this point, Conservative backbench moderates took further action to avoid a no-deal Brexit, including through backing temporary suspension of ministers’ control of the Commons agenda to facilitate ‘indicative’ votes on alternative Brexit options. But with near-universal Conservative opposition to every option, they were all defeated. Meanwhile, other parties continued to reject the deal. All that MPs could agree on was instructing Theresa May to negotiate extensions to the Article 50 period. The polarization and failure to compromise which characterized this period was painfully summed up by senior Conservative Brexiteer Charles Walker, who commented that ‘the losers do not know how to lose and the winners do not know how to win’.

It was in these circumstances that Boris Johnson—who had adopted a mantle as the authentic voice of Brexit, denouncing May and voting against her deal—was elected in her place (Chapter 9). Parliament entered its 2019 summer recess immediately afterwards, without any formal test of confidence in Johnson. Before its return, he requested a five-week prorogation, potentially to help facilitate a no-deal Brexit. This led to the second government defeat in the Supreme Court on a Brexit-related matter. Before the court case, Johnson had stripped the whip from 21 Conservative MPs (17 of whom had consistently voted for May’s deal), for facilitating what he dubbed the ‘Surrender Act’—a non-government bill requiring pursuit of a further Article 50 extension unless parliament voted for a Brexit plan.

This parliamentary blocking of a no-deal Brexit drove Johnson to agree an alternative deal with the EU, which was put to the House of Commons in October (Chapter 10). It was essentially a package previously rejected by Theresa May, which included close EU alignment for Northern Ireland only, thus requiring a ‘border down the Irish Sea’. Rather than subjecting the deal to parliamentary scrutiny, Johnson demanded a new general election, which was eventually conceded by MPs. He fought this on a slogan to ‘get Brexit done’, and a manifesto which—in direct contradiction to his own earlier comments—accused MPs of ‘refus[ing] to deliver Brexit’, and of ‘thwarting the democratic decision of the British people’. The Conservatives won an 80-seat majority, and the UK’s exit from the EU followed on 31 January 2020.

This story clearly contains many contradictions. In particular, Johnson’s rhetoric that parliament had failed to ‘get Brexit done’ was fundamentally inaccurate. He himself had voted with the hardliners against May’s deal on the basis that it wasn’t an authentic Brexit. They dismissed it instead as ‘BRINO’—Brexit in name only. But this group never had a detailed plan of its own. A ‘pure’ Brexit, eschewing all EU regulatory alignment, would have required a hard border on the island of Ireland, and presented major obstacles to an ambitious trade deal with the EU. May’s negotiated compromise sought to avoid these risks, while delivering on the Leave result. Johnson only ‘got Brexit done’ by returning to a version of the deal that May had rejected, due to the problems that it threatened for Northern Ireland. This central disagreement about what Brexit should mean was facilitated by the original lack of clarity in the referendum. But it took place between May’s government and Johnson’s supporters—not between the institution of government and the institution of parliament. The Conservative MPs who blocked May’s deal, including Johnson himself, believed that they were defending Brexit, rather than undermining it. This made it wholly misleading to blame parliament for ‘thwarting’ Brexit, when those involved had in fact used parliament to pursue an argument with May’s government. Yet this was the story that Johnson’s manifesto told, profiting from a growing anti-parliamentary rhetoric that had developed under her premiership.

Summing up, a saga that began with demands to enhance the sovereignty of parliament gradually developed into one where parliament was vilified. The central arguments over Brexit were always—and indeed remain—those inside the Conservative Party. However, it suited most of these internal protagonists for parliament to get the blame.

Meg Russell is Professor of British and Comparative Politics and Director of the Constitution Unit at UCL.

Lisa James is a Research Fellow in the Constitution Unit. 

© Meg Russell and Lisa James

Adapted extract from The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit published by Oxford University Press in March 2023, available in paperback and eBook formats, £25.00 

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-parliamentary-battle-over-brexit-9780192849717?q=parliamentary%20battle&lang=en&cc=gb
Categories
Urgent Questions

Professor David Parker

DAVID PARKER

David C.W. Parker is professor and head of political science at Montana State University. He has studies the U.S. Congress, the House of Commons, and the Scottish Parliament extensively, with a special focus on legislative oversight of executives and representational relationships.

Please tell us a little bit about how you entered academia and your academic career

After receiving my undergraduate degree, I did a stint in professional politics, working on a mayoral, a presidential, and two U.S. Senate campaigns during the 1995-1996 campaign cycle. After that, I worked for about two years for a small textbook publishing company. The grind and intensity of election politics was not my cup of tea, and sales bored me. Given that I had always loved to learn and to understand, I went to graduate school to fuel that passion and to inspire others to careers in politics and public service. And, 25 years later, I’m still learning, understanding, and inspiring others to service, so it seems to me it was the right choice.

Which five books/articles (written by someone else) have been most important to you in your academic career?

When Incumbency Fails, by Richard Fenno.

Divided We Govern, by David Mayhew.

Legislative Leviathan, by Cox and McCubbins.

The Politics Presidents Make, by Stephen Skowronek.

The Personal Vote, by Cain et al.

Which people have been most influential and important to you in your academic career?

My wife, Hilary, who I met in graduate school, John Coleman—my dissertation advisor, Richard Fenno, and Reviewer #2.

Which of your own pieces of research are you most proud of?

Battle for the Big Sky, in which I followed around two candidates running against each other for the U.S. Senate in Montana. I’m most proud of it because the work was hard—I soaked and poked as Fenno does in his collective work but from the perspective of both candidates—and because I was told that no assistant professor in their right mind should take on that type of a project before receiving tenure. I’m also quite fond of “Back from Holyrood: How Mixed-member Proportional Representation and Ballot Structure Shape the Personal Vote” because the project was inspired by a student’s question while visiting the Scottish Parliament (who co-authored the piece) and because it was my first effort to move into doing research outside of American politics and Congress. Today, I’ve published nearly as much on UK politics as I have on US politics.

What has been your greatest achievement in academia?

Fully embracing the notion that the academia is about discovery, period. This idea that you become an expert in just one thing, and ride that thing until you retire, is nonsense, and frankly, boring. Follow your questions and follow your ideas wherever they lead, no matter who tells you otherwise.

What has been your greatest disappointment in academia?

Not writing “the book” on Congressional Investigations when I had the chance.

What is the first or most important thing you tell your students about parliaments?

Because legislatures generally have the power to coerce citizens through conscription and taxation, they are fundamentally the most powerful and important political institutions in liberal democracies.

Where were you born, where did you grow up, and where do you live now?

Born in Massachusetts, grew up in Londonderry, New Hampshire 45 minutes from Boston. I am a proud Red Sox fan even though I’ve lived in Bozeman, Montana for the past 15 years.

What was your first job?

DePauw University, a small liberal arts college in Greencastle, Indiana.

What was the toughest job you ever had?

Working as a cashier at McDonald’s. Not for the faint of heart.

What  would your ideal job be, if not an academic?

The founder and owner of an educational travel company.

What are your hobbies?

Travel, reading, hiking, and worrying about the fate of democracy.

What are your favourite novels?

I love anything written by John Scalzi, a science fiction author. I’ve re-read his books multiple times and every time, the man makes me laugh out loud. He’s that funny and irreverent.

What is your favourite music?

I’m a huge fan of 80s music generally. My favorite? Probably Take on Me by A-ha because I just can’t help but sing along whenever I hear it and I think the music video is one of the finest ever made.

What is your favourite artwork?

Hard one, but Norman Rockwell’s Freedom of Speech. Why? Because it represents, to me, the most important liberty in a liberal democracy and because it evokes, for me at least, the New England town hall meeting—the purest form of democracy still practiced in the United States and which governed my home town of Londonderry, New Hampshire when I grew up.

What is your favourite film?

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. I’m a huge Trek fan, and the movie—based upon Herman Melville’s Moby Dick—is a story of revenge and great personal sacrifice. Spock’s death scene—still to this day—brings tears to my eyes.

What is your favourite building?

The Palace at Westminster, of course!

What is your favourite tv show?

Breaking Bad because of its fundamental premise: Man chooses life of crime because America doesn’t have an adequate healthcare system free at the point of service like the NHS.

What is your favourite holiday destination?

Moab, Utah. I love the national parks and the silence of the desert.

What is your favourite sport?

Baseball because it is one of the few games where the defense controls the ball.

What is your favourite food?

Like the British, I’m fond of curries generally. But, if I had to say my favorite, it would probably be a Phaal curry—reputed to be the world’s hottest curry and invented in Birmingham’s curry shops!

For UK Parliament:

Hybrid proceedings in Parliament: yes please or no thanks?

This may be the only issue on which we agree, but I’m with Jacob Rees-Mogg: No thanks.

Appointed or elected upper chamber?

Appointed, but subject to retention elections every ten years.

Restoration or Renewal?

There should be a complete decamp to get the work done as quickly as possible.

For US Politics:

Eliminating the Electoral College: yes or no?

Yes.

Eliminating the filibuster: yes or no?

Modify it per Greg Koger’s suggestions (reduce the voting threshold over time), and each filibuster must be in person and fully talked out.

Cat or Dog?

Cat. Unfortunately, my family is allergic and we have a dog (who is lovely, but not a cat).

Trains, planes or automobiles?

Trains.

Fish and chips or Curry?

Curry.

And, finally, two questions asked by 5-year-old Viveka: What’s the most beautiful animal in the world? What’s the scariest animal in the world?

Okapi and leeches respectively.

Categories
Blog

Love in the Legislature: From Proposal to “Aye Do”

Legislators are not often thought of as romantics, yet time and again a representative Romeo has popped the question from the floor of the legislature. The path of Cupid’s arrow through capitals has crisscrossed parliaments and assemblies around the world, and is likely to strike again this Valentine’s Day as legislators hope to go from working across the aisle to walking down it.

Perhaps most famously, a congressman proposed to a congresswoman on the floor of the US House of Representatives in August 1993. As told by Rep. Susan Molinari, when Rep. William L. Paxon dropped to one knee to propose to her mid-sitting, “I said, ‘Yes—but get up’” (available here). While the proposal itself was not on the record, another member later rose to the House to tell the story as follows:

Mr. MCNULTY: Mr. Speaker, while I was acting as Speaker pro tempore yesterday, I was approached on the podium, first by our colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAXON], who notified me that during the course of the debate which was ongoing at the time, he had proposed marriage to our colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, [SUSAN MOLINARI], who then came to the podium and told me she accepted. (Congressional Record – August 5, 1993 at page 19301)

Other Members also offered their good wishes, including one who offered wishes for “many, many healthy and happy children, and may they all grow up to be good Democrats” (ibid at 19305). Reps. Molinari and Paxon were both Republicans. 

Those hoping to hear “Aye Do” can be found in the annals of many US state legislatures. In 1947, the lone woman legislator in Arkansas (Rep. Alene Word) was interrupted mid-speech by Rep. Dan Stephens who asked “Mr. Speaker, is a proposal of matrimony from the floor in order?” The press reported that both the Speaker and Rep. Word responded “Yes”, but that it was unclear whether Ms. Word’s affirmative response was to the proposal being in order or accepting the proposal itself.

Of course, it is not always legislators proposing to one another in the legislature. At the end of its 2015 sitting, Missouri legislators watched as Rep. Shelley Keeney, who was presiding at the time, was proposed to by her boyfriend. Another legislator had gotten the chair’s attention and directed her gaze to the gallery for the “special introduction of a special guest”. As Rep. Keeney was distracted and looking to the gallery, Mr. Taylor appeared on the dais on one knee, ring in hand, and the video (available here) clearly shows Rep. Keeney’s surprise. Rep. Keeney informed the House that her answer was “definitely yes” to applause and cheers, though she added she was “pretty sure there are a lot of people who have some explaining to do”, presumably in reference to Mr. Taylor accessing the House floor and coordinating with other members. 

In a most unique case, in 1994 a TV reporter in Alaska who covers the legislature coordinated with a member of the House to propose to his girlfriend, a newspaper reporter also covering the Alaska State Legislature. The legislator read the first reporter’s proposal aloud on the House floor as the second reporter sat stunned at the press table. The ring was happily accepted and the Speaker announced that the answer was yes. The House erupted in cheers and applause.

Most often, the proposal is one from a representative on the floor to someone in the gallery. Examples include Oklahoma State Rep. Clay Pope proposing to his girlfriend in the gallery in 1990, Washington State Senator Jim West doing the same in 1995, and Georgia State Rep. Rep. Jeff Williams following suit in 2002. A twist, however, can be found in Florida’s House, where a guest from the gallery was escorted to the well of the House whereupon the engagement took place much to her surprise. The presiding officer, Marco Rubio (now US Senator), noted that there was a process to be followed and accordingly asked whether the House supported a resolution affirming of the marriage. While the voice vote was conclusive, the electronic vote tally was announced as 105-0 (video available here, beginning at 42:35, vote result at 47:28).

Legislators hoping for cloture of their courtship within the assembly can be found across the globe. In 2017, a member of Australia’s House of Representatives proposed to his same-sex partner as the legislature debated gay marriage. The Speaker clarified for the Hansard record of debate that there was a resounding yes from the gallery, adding “Congratulations; well done mate” (available here). 

While the debate around love may have inspired the legislative proposal down under, less romantic debates have also cued Cupid’s arrow. In 2013, a member of the Congress of the Philippines popped the question during a heated budget debate (available here). Perhaps this was wise: It’s often said that couples should discuss finances before heading down the aisle! 

At least two Canadian legislators rose during proceedings with rings in hand. In May 2022, Rick Glumac proposed mid-speech in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to his girlfriend, Haven Lurbiecki, who was seated in the gallery. He asked the question but, given the ensuing applause and cheers of collogues, indicated to the Assembly that he was unable to hear the answer and left to verify it. The happily-engaged couple gave many interviews later (available here). 

While some media reports suggested this was a Canadian first, on Valentine’s Day 2018, a member of Quebec’s National Assembly, Éric Lefebvre, proposed to his girlfriend, Geneviève Laliberté, then seated in the gallery. Before proposing, Lefebvre spoke of the role played by politicians’ partners in supporting them and then apologized to the Speaker that he would break protocol by addressing his remarks to the gallery (the video in French is available here). Once the question was popped and the applause died down, the presiding officer – speaking to the gallery – indicated that he did not wish to intrude upon the woman’s personal life but felt that the record should reflect an answer. Indeed, she said “oui” (Québec’s proceedings occur primarily in French). 

A close Canadian call is worth noting. According to a press report, MP Guy Lauzon had hoped to propose in the House itself in 2004 (whether from the floor is unclear) but it was thwarted by an emergency debate. He proposed in the parliamentary restaurant instead. While on the subject of food, a Queensland representative proposed after a members’ swearing-in breakfast 2009, confessing to hiding the ring in a Parliament House fridge. MP Rob Messinger hid the ring alongside some cheese slices and told the press “I was just really happy she wasn’t hungry for cheese this morning!”

Not every marriage proposal in a legislature might be what it first seems. A member of the Italian Parliament took to the floor during a debate on earthquake relief in 2019 to propose, jewelry box in hand (the video in Italian is available here). This grand gesture garnered the support of colleagues, met the scolding of the Speaker (for the breach of protocol) and made headlines across the globe; however, Italian press reports it was actually a stunt: The couple was already engaged with a venue for the wedding already booked (the video in Italian is available here). 

As romantic as some these examples might be, one of the earliest examples of a legislator popping the question mid-session is decidedly the opposite. In 1949, Idaho State Rep. E.A. Snow asked whether the Lady from Ada (Ms. Miller) would take a question. He asked whether or not she would marry him and, according to most press reports, she turned red and sat down leaving the query unanswered. The Speaker ruled the question “leading” and that she did not need to answer, though a short time later she came to the floor to accept the unexpected proposal. Several months later indeed she got married – albeit it to a different man, reporter Sandor S. Klein. In an interesting twist, it was Klein’s reporting on the engagement in the legislature that brought him to Ms. Miller’s attention – reportedly, she called him to a meeting to complain of his reporting only for romance between them to blossom. 

Both for legislators and legislative staff, legislatures can be romantic places. Indeed, engagements involving staffers have happened from the floor of the UK House of Commons (available here) to the floor of the Massachusetts House of Representatives (available here). In 1965, the Associated Press ran a story under the headline “Legislator Wins 1-0 Marriage Proposal Vote” about freshman Congressman Andrew Jacobs Jr. arranging for floor access after an adjournment to pop the question. In a line that would perhaps raise more eyebrows now than it did then, the AP reported that “Ms. Welsh, 22, and her congressman-boss plan to marry sometime in May”.

Legislators planning their nuptials face many of the same struggles as any other couple: ensuring sufficient appropriations for the big day and finding someone who will understand that a toast is not an occasion to filibuster. Planning a wedding and honeymoon around the legislative calendar is no easy feat, nor is figuring out a seating chart that works across party lines. 

Of course, there’s always the possibility of just getting married on the floor of the legislature itself, as one Florida representative did in 2002 (available here). However, it may be that a legislative record of proceedings is less than desirable – as reported in that case “The wedding was approved by an 83 to 9 vote, and [Speaker] Feeney correctly ruled that the nine objections were out of order.” Similarly in 1997, a California rep married in the legislature – reportedly both caucuses wanted to meet privately with the couple beforehand. For the occasion, the aisle that separates Republicans and Democrats was covered in rose petals. Here comes the bipartisan bride indeed. 

Charlie Feldman is President of the Canadian Study of Parliament Group and a hopeless legislative romantic.