Author: psaparliaments

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. 

Categories
Urgent Questions

Dr Mark Bennister

MARK BENNISTER

Mark Bennister is an Associate Professor of Politics at the University of Lincoln. He is Director of the Lincoln Policy Hub and ParliLinc, the Lincoln Parliamentary Research Centre. He was awarded a parliamentary academic fellowship (2016-19) and has published on political leadership, prime ministerial power, and political oratory. He is also co-convenor of the PSA Political Leadership Specialist Group.

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

I took a rather roundabout route into an academic career. I started off working in an independent record shop Selectadisc in Nottingham and had various jobs in the theatre after completing my degree at Nottingham Trent University. I returned to academia to complete an MA at Loughborough University in Contemporary European Studies. I managed to get a job working for Alan Simpson, the Nottingham South Labour MP, and then worked for an MEP in Kent before a year working at LSE and then several years at the Australian High Commission in London as a locally engaged officer supporting diplomats. My time at the High Commission really got me interested in comparative political leadership. I was lucky enough to get a ESRC 1+3 studentship at Sussex with Paul Webb and Tim Bale looking at comparative prime ministerial power in the UK and Australia. After some associate lecturer posts at Sussex and UCL, I landed a lectureship at Canterbury Christ Church University, moving on to the University of Lincoln in 2018.

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

Political Leadership by Jean Blondel first got me thinking about the topic. I was lucky enough to later meet with Jean after he took part in our ECPR joint sessions and delighted that he wrote a chapter for our book.

Political Leadership in Liberal Democracies by Robert Elgie introduced me to comparative research possibilities through the interactive approach.

The House of Commons by Emma Crewe was a revelation and got me interested in anthropological approaches to studying legislatures.

Paul ‘t Hart’s work has always been particularly influential as he gets readers to think about research ‘puzzles’ and Understanding Public Leadership has been a key teaching text for me.

Jim Walter’s biography of Gough Whitlam provides a real insight into political leadership and introduced me to political psychology in leadership studies.

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

In no particular order: my Dad who passed away long before I started my academic career, but as a chemist he passed on his inquisitive mind; Lindsey for everything especially supporting my late career change; and Bea for questioning the way we older folk think about stuff. In academia: Larry Wilde who sadly passed away recently, Paul ‘t Hart, Jim Walter, Alix Kelso, Ben Worthy, Kevin Theakston, Paul Webb, Tim Bale, Dan Hough, David Bates, Frank Dabba Smith, Matt Flinders, Sarah Childs, Meg Russell, Andrew Defty, Anitha Sundari, Hugh and Cath Bochel.

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

Turning my PhD into a book Prime Ministers in Power. Completing the challenge of co-editing a book. To be honest just getting stuff published is something to be proud of.

What has been your greatest achievement in academia?

Becoming an academic is an achievement itself! Publishing a book. Gaining an academic fellowship in the House of Commons attached to the Liaison Committee and being around in Westminster during the turbulent Brexit years. Being awarding a contract to deliver Parliamentary Studies module at Canterbury Christ Church.

What has been your greatest disappointment in academia?

Numerous unsuccessful funding applications – so much effort for so little reward.

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

It’s all about relationships between parties, MPs, parliamentary staff, public, etc.

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

I was born in the northwest London suburb of Queensbury, near Wembley. Went to the local comprehensive school. I now divide my time between High Barnet in North London and Lincoln.

What was your first job?

Packing frozen rabbits (lasted a week), then runner in the City, clearing cheques in the pre-digital era.

What was the toughest job you ever had?

See above – frozen rabbits. Working backstage on Panto at Nottingham Playhouse (oh yes I did!) was great fun, but 3 shows a day was exhausting. Screaming kids, hectic scene changes, early start and late finishes mopping the stage at midnight.

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

Cricket commentator – travel the world, watch cricket, talk about it. Perfect.

What are your hobbies?

Used to be playing cricket, now just watching. Football – I share an Arsenal season ticket (lucky me this year!). Going to watch live music. I volunteer at the Roundhouse in Camden. Travel – India, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Canada, etc. etc. Hiking – have walked London to Brighton, round the Isle of Wight, and have completed 2 stages of the Pennine Way. Knees knackered though.

What are your favourite novels?

Taken to audiobooks in the last few years and best recent books I’ve listened to are Shuggie Bain by Douglas Stuart and Mayflies by Andrew O’Hagan. Beekeeper of Aleppo and the Taliban Cricket Club deserve a mention. Mark Lanegan’s rock ‘n’ roll autobiography read by the author was a harrowing listen.

What is your favourite music?

Big Bowie fan and Low, Ziggy Stardust and Hunky Dory are my top 3 albums. Missed seeing The Clash but London Calling is still the best. Last 3 gigs were Kae Tempest, Ezra Furman and Fontaines DC – all brilliant. Nick Cave keeps getting better. Recently got into ambient classical such as Olafur Arnalds and Nils Frahm (great for working to). Thom Yorke’s new venture The Smile at Edinburgh Usher Hall – probably the best live gig I’ve seen for a long while.

What is your favourite artwork?

Blown away by Kusama at Tate Modern recently. As a kid I was fascinated by Dali’s Metamorphosis of Narcissus. My aunt’s Marching on Parliament abstract painting in our sitting room is a particularly favourite.

What is your favourite film?

Tough one. Kes is an amazing film and still Loach’s best. We did a school production of it, and I played the unfortunate lad who got caned for nothing.

What is your favourite building?

Big fan of the British Library, if you can get a seat to work. St Pancras station shows what can be done with great architecture and public spaces. Lord’s Cricket ground manages to blend old and new.

Favourite parliament –Reichstag Building in Berlin, the public space in the roof looking down on the proceedings is spectacular.

What is your favourite tv show?

Anything with Stephen Graham in.

What is your favourite holiday destination?

Love the food and wine in Portugal. Landscape in Iceland. Vastness of Australia. Could go back to Berlin again and again. St Agnes in Cornwall is fab too.

What is your favourite sport?

Cricket and football. Played both, but never good enough. Honourable mentions to rugby union having travelled to watch England lose and synchronised (now artistic) swimming having watched my daughter in countless competitions.

What is your favourite restaurant?

Cant beat a really good fish restaurant or indeed fish fresh from the sea in Portugal.

Hybrid proceedings in Parliament: yes please or no thanks?

Yes, please.

Appointed or elected upper chamber?

Elected.

Restoration or Renewal?

Both.

Cat or Dog?

Dog.

Trains, planes or automobiles?

Trains – I’m always on them!

Fish and chips or Curry?

Fish and chips.

And, finally, two questions asked by Ira and Bernadette, who have just turned four: What’s your favourite colour and why? And have you ever had a pet?

Red – see my team above.

Dougie the dog who is 10 years old (see below).

Categories
Blog

Evidence use by parliamentary committees: what is it good for?

Select committees in the UK House of Commons are the principal mechanism by which Parliament holds government to account, which can be highly influential on government policy and legislation. While many adopt distinctive approaches and styles to undertake their scrutiny work, a key element of all committee work is the basis of their scrutiny through an evidence-gathering process. Many of us are familiar with oral evidence: combative sessions between chairs and ministers, emotional testimony from high-profile witnesses, or significant and detailed information-gathering with academics, NGOs, think tanks and businesses. Alongside these sessions, committees receive large volumes of written evidence from a whole host of groups and individuals to share their perspectives on a policy question under scrutiny. Evidence, then, is an everyday part of committee work. But how well is the process working? What are the practices of gathering and using evidence? That’s exactly what I wanted to find out in my 12-month parliamentary academic fellowship, organised by the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST).

In autumn 2021, I set out to review and study trends and practices of evidence use by committees. Although recent research has begun to shed light on the role of evidence in Parliament (especially POST’s own landmark report from 2017), I was intrigued to examine the everyday practices and judgements made by MPs and officials as they directly engage with, question and handle evidence. To study their views, I therefore undertook interviews with 50 participants (26 MPs and 24 officials) to reflect on the processes and practices for gathering, analysing and using select committee evidence. There are some unsurprising findings: written evidence makes up the bulk of evidence and is indeed seen as the main source of information for officials. MPs’ own engagement focuses on oral evidence, which are usually divided into information-gathering or accountability types of hearing.

Alongside these findings, I found three trends that are impacting the way that committees gather, analyse and use evidence. First, there is a much bigger focus on ‘lived experience’ as a form of evidence to support formal and informal evidence-gathering than in the past. Committee members, in particular, value direct engagement with the public and with those that come into direct contact with government policy. As a result, committees have sought to innovate with the use of social media to elicit questions, use of surveys to understand the public’s views of government policy, and focus groups to get more qualitative and in-depth knowledge. 

Second, committees’ long-standing interest and tradition in gaining a diversity of political viewpoints is being matched by an emphasis of diversity on witnesses’ personal characteristics. Increasingly, committees see it as important to make sure that their evidence reflects the make-up of wider society. 

Both of these factors come out of a third trend that I have observed, namely that the role of select committees is changing. Committees exist not only to provide scrutiny of government policy, but increasingly for MPs (and officials, though this was less noticeable) committees should be vehicles for public participation. This builds on previous initiatives and academic research on how to combat public disaffection with politics and political institutions. 

The three trends – especially the final one – raise really interesting questions about the democratic and institutional design of parliaments. First, it raises a normative question about how far committees should pursue a role of public participation. Second, relatedly, it raises a practical question of how well committees are equipped to fulfil this, and other, roles.  These are important questions because I have found, in my research, several challenges that the changing trends and patterns seem to give rise to: a significant growth in the volumes of evidence, which has created pressures on committee teams; a lack of clarity over the principles and values of using ‘lived experience’ as a form of evidence in committee inquiries; a continuing tension in promoting diversity of evidence, which some see as a normative good but others do not; and resultant pressures on resources, including time, training and staff to fulfil the growing number of tasks being given to committees. At the same time, the process for gathering evidence has remained largely the same – despite innovations, improved technological advances, and changing practices and values.

Based on my research, and interviewees’ reflections, there are lots of ways that evidence-gathering could be improved (in my report, I list 14 small suggestions), but there are two areas I want to focus on. First, we need to open a debate about what ‘good’ evidence use in Parliament looks like. These choices are not without consequences. And while I can sketch out broad principles – appropriateness, diversity and representativeness, systematic analysis, and focused on the needs of MPs – much more work could be done about what values parliamentary democracies need to hold to promote use of evidence. 

Second, regarding the procedures of evidence-gathering, I want to suggest that maybe the traditional process for gathering evidence – that will be familiar to an MP from today as much as it would for one in the nineteenth century – needs updating. I would re-think evidence in terms of ‘pillars’, each recognised formally as evidence in Parliament:

  • Pillar 1. Submissions of information/evidence. Formerly known as written evidence, this would include other formats except Word or PDF documents written by professionals, such as video evidence, pictures, graphs, etc.
  • Pillar 2. Committee hearings. Formerly known as oral evidence, this part of the process would be kept largely the same but with a plainer form of language.
  • Pillar 3. Consultation and engagement. Rather than classing all non-written/oral evidence as ‘informal’, I would give other processes for gathering information a formal status through a summary document within Pillar 3, which summarises the findings from surveys, focus groups, or large volumes of written evidence received by individuals.

I am aware that this suggestion is not without its own problems – but once again I want to open a debate to question whether the way that the process currently works is working well in light of the changing practices of evidence use by Parliament.

This gives you a flavour of some of the findings and conclusions from my research project. You can find the full report on which this blog is based here. I am hugely grateful to have had the support from Parliament to pursue this research, and time and funding from my university to pursue it. Most of all, my interview participants have been incredibly kind in giving up their time for this research.

—

Dr Marc Geddes is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh. His research focuses on how MPs and officials interpret and undertake their roles in parliaments. He has published widely on the role of select committees in the UK House of Commons, including an award-winning book, Dramas at Westminster (Manchester University Press, 2020), and in a range of specialist journals and for public audiences.

Categories
News

January 2023 Newsletter

Happy New Year! We have some updates for you in this slightly later than normal newsletter:

  1. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panels!
  2. PSA Annual Conference 2023 in Liverpool & Online
  3. Urgent Questions with Emma Crewe
  4. PSA Parliaments Book Launch: Henry J. Miller’s A Nation of Petitioners
  5. IPSA RCLS Online Seminars on Legislative & Parliamentary Committees
  6. Call for Papers: RCLS at the IPSA World Congress
  7. Call for Papers: Party Politics at the Local Level
  8. Job Opportunity: Research Fellowship – Addressing Barriers in Political Engagement
  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 prizewinning group, please let us know.

Best wishes

Stephen, Seán, Caroline, Chris and Ruxandra.

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

After a very successful annual conference in Birmingham at the start of November, PSA Parliaments will be holding two extra online panels in the new year.

Our first panel is on representatives and representation and will be held on Wednesday 25th January 2023 at 2pm (GMT). 

Full details of the panel, including how to book tickets (for free) can be found here.

Our second panel is called Parliaments & Parliamentarians in Context and 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.

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 Emma Crewe

This month’s interviewee is Professor Emma Crewe (SOAS)!

Head over to Urgent Questions to read about Himachal Pradesh, Rodin, Bourdieu, and chatting to daughters!

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.

5. IPSA RCLS Online Seminars on Legislative & Parliamentary Committees

Our very good friends on IPSA’s Research Committee of Legislative Specialists are holding two online seminars in the new year on legislative and parliamentary committees.

The first is On the Outskirts of Parliament – the Delegation for Women’s Rights where Claire Bloquet (Institute for Parliamentary Research, Berlin) will be discussing their prize-winning work about the French National Assembly. The seminar will take place on Monday 23rd January 2023, 14:00–15:30 UTC.

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

The second is a book launch for Maya Kornberg‘s Inside Congressional Committees: Function and Dysfunction in the Legislative Process (Columbia University Press). The launch 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.

6. Call for Papers: RCLS at the IPSA World Congress

RCLS are also hosting a number of panels at the IPSA World Congress in Buenos Aires and online, 15-19 July 2023.

Please see here for more details.

7. Call for Papers: Party Politics at the Local Level

The call for papers for the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops 2023 in Toulouse (25-28 April) is open until January, 9, 2023. 

One workshop is endorsed by the ECPR Standing Group on Parliaments. It concerns ‘Party Politics at the Local Level’ and will be directed by Simon Otjes (Leiden University) and Christina-Marie Juen (Darmstadt University).

This Workshop aims to shed more light on the role of political parties in local politics. It focuses on the interaction, competition and cooperation between parties in the electoral arena and local councils.

More information can be found here.

8. Job Opportunity: Research Fellowship – Addressing Barriers in Political Engagement

Are you interested in working on perceptions and barriers to political engagement? If so, this post may be for you. 

You’d be working with Prof. Cristina Leston-Bandeira together with staff in the UK and Welsh Parliaments to explore people’s perceptions of political engagement through focus groups. 

Deadline for application: 10 January 2023. Feel free to contact Cristina for more details.

9. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye

Philip Cowley and Resul Umit have published Legislator Dissent Does Not Affect Electoral Outcomes in the British Journal of Political Science.

Simon Weschle has published Politicians’ Private Sector Jobs and Parliamentary Behavior in the American Journal of Political Science.

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 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
News

December 2022 Newsletter

We hope that you are keeping safe and 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 Felicity Matthews
  4. Welcome to Ruxandra Serban!
  5. PSA and Specialist Group Membership
  6. New Parliament Thematic Research Lead: Congratulations to Rick Whitaker!
  7. IPSA RCLS Online Seminars on Legislative & Parliamentary Committees
  8. Petition against Job Losses at Birkbeck
  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 prizewinning group, please let us know.

We’ll see you in 2023!

Best wishes

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

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

After a very successful annual conference in Birmingham at the start of November, PSA Parliaments will be holding two extra online panels in the new year.

Our first panel is on representatives and representation and will be held on Wednesday 25th January 2023 at 2pm (GMT). 

Full details of the panel, including how to book tickets (for free) can be found here.

Our second panel is called Parliaments & Parliamentarians in Context and 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.

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 Felicity Matthews

This month’s interviewee is Professor Felicity Matthews (University of Sheffield)!

Head over to Urgent Questions to read about Suede, architecture, cakes, pizzas and wood pigeons!

4. Welcome to Ruxandra Serban!

Welcome to Ruxandra Serban who joins the PSA Parliaments team as our new Membership Officer and Treasurer!

Ruxandra is a political scientist specialising in comparative legislative studies and UK parliamentary politics. She is an LSE Fellow in Qualitative Research Methods in the Department of Methodology at the LSE. She holds a PhD in Political Science from UCL, where she also worked as a Research Assistant at the Constitution Unit. 

Ruxandra has published on procedures and practices of prime ministerial questioning in different parliaments, and she maintains a research agenda on parliamentary questioning procedures.

You can follow her on Twitter here (if it’s still working by the time you read this).

5. PSA and Specialist Group Membership

If you receive this newsletter and are not a PSA member, please consider joining. You enjoy lots of benefits as a PSA member, such as subscriptions and free or discounted access to events. More information on how to join can be found here.

If you are already a PSA member and enjoy this newsletter and our activities, could we kindly ask you to check that you have also formally joined our group via your PSA account.

Joining our group officially will help us with our funding and capacity to host events and support early career scholars, and we would greatly appreciate it!

For any questions, please contact our membership officer, Ruxandra.

6. New Parliament Thematic Research Lead: Congratulations to Rick Whitaker!

Congratulations to Rick Whitaker of the University of Leicester on becoming the first Thematic Research Lead on Parliament, Public administration and the Constitution.

The thematic research leads have been established by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) and the holders will each join new thematic policy hubs which will bring together staff from POST, the House of Commons Library and Select Committee teams, ensuring greater co-ordination and a better flow of research information through Parliament.

More details about the initiative can be found here.

7. IPSA RCLS Online Seminars on Legislative & Parliamentary Committees

Our very good friends on IPSA’s Research Committee of Legislative Specialists are holding two online seminars in the new year on legislative and parliamentary committees.

The first is On the Outskirts of Parliament – the Delegation for Women’s Rights where Claire Bloquet (Institute for Parliamentary Research, Berlin) will be discussing their prize-winning work about the French National Assembly. The seminar will take place on Monday 23rd January 2023, 14:00–15:30 UTC.

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

The second is a book launch for Maya Kornberg‘s Inside Congressional Committees: Function and Dysfunction in the Legislative Process (Columbia University Press). The launch 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.

8. Petition against Job Losses at Birkbeck

You may have already heard the depressing news about the potential job losses at Birkbeck, including up to 7 in the Politics Department where PSA Parliaments has many friends.

You can read a BISA, UACES and PSA joint letter on the future of politics at Birkbeck here and you can sign a petition against the job losses here.

9. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye

John Connolly, Matthew Flinders, David Judge, Michael Torrance and Philippa Tudor have published an article, Institutions Ignored: A History of Select Committee Scrutiny in the House of Lords, 1968–2021, in Parliamentary History.

Anja Osei and Daniel Wigmore-Shepherd have published an article, Personal Power in Africa: Legislative Networks and Executive Appointments in Ghana, Togo and Gabon, in Government & Opposition.

And there are new issues of the Journal of Legislative Studies , the International Journal of Parliamentary Studies and Legislative Studies Quarterly out.

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 seven(!) great blogs this 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

Information Literacy for Scrutiny: Equality and Diversity in research

Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) “ensures fair treatment and opportunity for all. It aims to eradicate prejudice and discrimination on the basis of […] protected characteristics” (University of Edinburgh, 2021[1]). In the workplace, EDI is usually addressed centrally, through policies and Human Resources training. 

In this blog post I will share the development of an Information Literacy (IL) framework to strengthen scrutiny within Select Committee proceedings. The framework is aimed at highly skilled researchers through an EDI lens.

My role in the House of Commons Library is to work closely with the Select Committee Team and to perform a knowledge exchange role. My work can be summarised in three areas of focus: liaison, outreach, and training. 

Information Literacy

One of my first projects after joining Parliament in 2020 was to introduce IL to select committee specialists.

Information Literacy is defined by CILIP; the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals as “the ability to think critically and make balanced judgements about any information we find and use”. 

Information Literacy is not a new concept, but it can be divisive amongst scholars and information professionals especially in terms of what it encompasses and how it applies in different context.

Early in the process of creating training content, I knew I had to make this concept meaningful within Parliament: through its “branding” and its applicability. 

I chose the term Information Scrutiny. Scrutiny relates back to a familiar concept whilst the introduction of the word “information” introduces a new layer of knowledge and expertise that enhances current practices and encourage reflection on methodology. 

To develop an appropriate and challenging Information Literacy framework, I needed an approach suited to this very particular audience and to find a hook to get them to see Information Literacy as an integral part of research and scrutiny. 

EDI

EDI has been a focus in Parliament like in many workplaces across the United Kingdom with efforts on recruitment, on progression for colleagues and all the training we can think of to address systemic imbalances.

For Select Committees this is underpinned by the 2019 Liaison Committee report on the effectiveness and influence of the select committee system. 

It leant on the work prompted by the 2018 Witness Gender Diversity report to increase gender diversity of witnesses and encouraged committees to continue their efforts and share good practice to increase witness diversity and to go further on BAME representation. .  

In practical terms this translates into increasing the diversity of evidence received, the diversity of witnesses, the effort to make everybody able to participate in this democratic process, from start to finish.

It is something I feel strongly about; with my education background, this aligns well with wider decolonisation and critical librarianship practice in the academic sector. 

So, I chose to focus on IL and research through a diversity and inclusion angle. 

Information behaviour analysis

However, the last thing I wanted to do was to stand in front of an expert crowd and tell them what they already know! This is where the concept of enrichment is key. 

To develop the below modules, I conducted information needs and information behaviour analysis to better understand select committee specialists:

  • Their research practices
  • How they had evolved to suit the needs of the Select Committee
  • How policy area affects their research
  • The typical running of an inquiry

I conducted 15 interviews with specialists across the Select Committee Team and carried out other activities to help me understand research in a Select Committee context such as shadowing inquiries or examining scoping documents and reports.

Co-creation

Co-creation is the practice of creating content with the intended audience. It is a process I found immensely valuable when I worked in Further and Higher Education, and I wanted to explore how I could replicate this in a workplace environment. 

From the start, I had the intention of anchoring the knowledge of the modules with clear examples of how some issues or solutions looked like in day-to-day work practices, so I chose to run a peer-review programme. 

The peer-review process was easy and straightforward:

  • Peer-reviewers had a month to submit feedback. They would receive a shared link to the PowerPoint with slides, slide notes and instructions by email and then 3 weeks later, a gentle reminder
  • Two types of responses about the content were sought:
  • General comments such as answers to “does the knowledge flow well?” or “Is this advice practical for your job role? Why?” Peer-reviewers were asked to send answers to those by email.
  • Using the “comment” function in PowerPoint; targeted questions on slides were asked, usually when specific feedback or an example were needed.

A concerted effort was made to make the peer-review process easy for all users and this included not taking for granted their level of digital literacy so all instructions for the peer-review were included in the PowerPoint. 

All the received feedback was imported into a shared document and colour-coded by peer-reviewer to analyse the response. Similar comments were collated and differences in opinion highlighted. This resulted in a list of changes to be made. 

Impact

The modules have been extremely well-received. Select Committee colleagues understand why Information Scrutiny is important and how it benefits their practice. 

Though the content was developed with specialist researchers in mind, the sessions have been attended widely across teams and departments. 

The feedback was mostly positive with some, welcome, suggestions for improvement such as leaving more room for discussion or sharing more examples of how some issues had manifested in Select Committee inquiries. 

Measuring the long-term impact of Information Literacy interventions is challenging as it relies on assessing personal development and day-to-day working practices but already colleagues have seen the value of being more reflective on their research, of including EDI as an essential component of their strategy.

Measuring impact by following small cohorts going through the whole course of the framework would provide better impact data. New joiners in the Select Committee Team, for example, would be an ideal target.

Applicability 

If you too would like to run an Information Literacy programme here are my top tips: 

  • Make sure to research how your audience research: why, how, who do they talk to, how much time do they dedicate to this. Carry out observations, interviews, have a look at outputs
  • Find an angle: here I used EDI to enrich my content and have a concrete impact in and beyond Parliament. This could be different for you: look at your department/organisation’s aims and objectives are a good place to start
  • Get buy-in involve colleagues in your decision –making
  • Do not assume levels of digital literacy or understanding of key concepts. 
  • Think strategically about knowledge sharing: how can you use the time in your modules more efficiently by sharing content ahead of time
  • Establish early on how you will measure your impact. 

Biography

Anne-Lise Harding (she/elle) is Senior Liaison Librarian at the House of Commons and Deputy Chair of the CILIP Information Literacy Group (ILG). 

Anne-Lise’s interests lie in Information Literacy, decolonisation, information behaviour and trainer education. After graduating with an MA in Librarianship in 2011, Anne-Lise held several roles in the education sector; making the transition to the government sector in 2020.  

In her role, Anne-Lise supports both the House of Commons Library and Select Committee Teams; focusing mainly on Information Literacy training, liaison and outreach. She is leading on Information Literacy work to make research for scrutiny more diverse, inclusive and representative.

[1] https://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/about-edi/what-does-equality-diversity-and-inclusion-mean#:~:text=EDI%20(Equality%2C%20Diversity%20and%20Inclusion,group%20of%20individual’s%20protected%20characteristics.