Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:54:47.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Party Cohesion in Westminster Systems: Inducements, Replacement and Discipline in the House of Commons, 1836–1910

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2014

Andrew C. Eggers  and
Arthur Spirling
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers the historical development of a characteristic crucial for the functioning and normative appeal of Westminster systems: cohesive legislative parties. It gathers the universe of the 20,000 parliamentary divisions that took place between 1836 and 1910 in the British House of Commons, construct a voting record for every Member of Parliament (MP) serving during this time, and conducts analysis that aims to both describe and explain the development of cohesive party voting. In line with previous work, it shows that – with the exception of a chaotic period in the 1840s and 1850s – median discipline was always high and increased throughout the century. The study uses novel methods to demonstrate that much of the rise in cohesion results from the elimination of a rebellious ‘left tail’ from the 1860s onwards, rather than central tendency shifts. In explaining the aggregate trends, the article uses panel data techniques and notes that there is scant evidence for ‘replacement’ explanations that involve new members behaving in more disciplined ways than those leaving the chamber. It offers evidence that more loyal MPs were more likely to obtain ministerial posts, and speculates that this and other ‘inducement’-based accounts offer more promising explanations of increasingly cohesive parties.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 567 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Associate Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, and Professorial Fellow, Nuffield College, University of Oxford (email: andrew.eggers@nuffield.ox.ac.uk); Associate Professor, Department of Government, Harvard University (email: aspirling@gov.harvard.edu). Kathy Wang, Tania Amarillas and Jack Blumenau provided excellent research assistance. We are grateful to the History of Parliament Trust for data. We also gratefully acknowledge the financial support of STICERD and IQSS. Michael Gill, J.F. Godbout, Peter Hall, Brandon Stewart, audiences at the IQSS Applied Statistics Seminar, the Australian National University and Midwest Political Science Association provided helpful comments on an earlier draft. All data used for this article will be made available on the DVN network on publication. Data replication sets and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000362.

References

Adelman, P. 1997. Gladstone, Disraeli and Later Victorian Politics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Adyelotte, W. 1954. The House of Commons in the 1840s. History XXXIX:249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, J., and Rohde, D.. 2000. The Consequences of Party Organization in the House: The Role of Majority and Minority Parties in Conditional Party Government. In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, edited by J. Bond and R. Fleisher, 31–72. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Aydelotte, W. O. 1963. Voting Patterns in the British House of Commons in the 1840s. Comparative Studies in Society and History 5 (2):134–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagehot, W. 1873/2011. The English Constitution, 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Available at https://archive.org/details/englishconstitu00bagegoog.Google Scholar
Benedetto, G., and Hix, S.. 2007. The Rejected, the Ejected and the Dejected: Explaining Government Rebels in the 2001–5 British House of Commons. Comparative Political Studies 40 (7):755–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlinski, S., and Dewan, T.. 2011. The Political Consequences of Franchise Extension: Evidence from the Second Reform Act. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 6 (3–4):329–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrington, H. 1968. Partisanship and Dissidence in the Nineteenth Century House of Commons. Parliamentary Affairs XXI:338–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, A. H. 1964. Representative and Responsible Government. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Blake, R. 1985. The Conservative Party from Peel to Thatcher. New York: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
Bogdanor, V., and Butler, D.. 1983. Democracy and Elections: Electoral Systems and Their Political Consequences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, D., and Butler, G.. 1994. Twentieth Century British Historical Facts, 8th ed. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, C., and Wilson, G.. 1995. The End of Whitehall: Death of a Paradigm. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cannadine, D. 1996. The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy. London: Picador.Google Scholar
Coleman, B. 1988. Conservatism and the Conservative Party in Nineteenth-Century Britain. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Cook, C., and Keith, B.. 1975. British Historical Facts 1830–1900. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cooke, A. B., and Vincent, J.. 1974. The Governing Passion: Cabinet Government and Party Politics in Britain, 1885–86. New York: Barnes and Noble Books.Google Scholar
Cowley, P. 2002. Revolts and Rebellions: Parliamentary Voting Under Blair. London: Politicos.Google Scholar
Cowley, P.. 2005. The Rebels: How Blair Mislaid his Majority. London: Politico’s Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Cox, G. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G.. 1992. The Origin of Whip Votes in the House of Commons. Parliamentary History 11 (2):278–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G., and Ingram, J.. 1992. Suffrage Expansion and Legislative Behavior in Nineteenth-Century Britain. Social Science History 16 (4):539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromwell, V. 1982. Mapping the Political World of 1861: A Multidimensional Analysis of House of Commons’ Division Lists. Legislative Studies Quarterly 7 (2):281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromwell, V.. 1985. Computer Analysis of House of Commons Division Lists 1861–1936: A Report on Current Research. Parliaments, Estates and Representation 5 (1):33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewan, T., and Spirling, A.. 2011. Strategic Opposition and Government Cohesion in Westminster Democracies. American Political Science Review 105 (2):337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diermeier, D., and Federsen, T.. 1998. Cohesion in Legislatures and the Vote of Condence Procedure. American Political Science Review 92:611–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowding, K., Berlinski, S., and Dewan, T.. 2012. Accounting for Ministers: Scandal and Survival in British Government 1945–2007. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunning, Thad, Nazareno, Marcelo, and Brusco, Valeria. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/comparative-politics/brokers-voters-and-clientelism-puzzle-distributive-politics.Google Scholar
Economist . 2012. Bagehot. A Damn Good Whipping, Economist, 3 November.Google Scholar
Eggers, A., and Spirling, A.. forthcoming (a). Electoral Security as a Determinant of Legislator Activity, 1832–1918: New Data and Methods for Analyzing British Political Development. Legislative Studies Quarterly.Google Scholar
Eggers, A., and Spirling, A.. forthcoming (b). Ministerial Responsiveness in Westminster Systems: Institutional Choices and House of Commons Debate, 1832–1915. American Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Feuchtwanger, E. 1968. Disraeli, Democracy, and the Tory Party. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gamble, A. 1990. Theories of British Politics. Political Studies 38:404–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godbout, J.-F., and Hoyland, B.. 2013. Parties and Voting in Parliament. Working Paper, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Handcock, M., and Aldrich, E. M.. 2002. Applying Relative Distribution Methods in r, Working Papers No. 27, Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences, University of Washington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handcock, M., and Morris, M.. 1998. Relative Distribution Methods. Sociological Methodology 28:53–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handcock, M., and Morris, M.. 1999. Relative Distribution Methods in the Social Sciences. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Hanham, H. 1978. Elections and Party Management. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, A. 2007. The Forgotten Prime Minister: The 14th Earl of Derby, Volume i: Ascent, 1799–1851. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, T. 1996. Parliament, Party and Politics and Victorian Britain. New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kam, C. 2009a. Partisanship, Enfranchisement, and the Political Economy of Electioneering in the United Kingdom, 1826–1906, Working Paper, London School of Economics. Available at http://www2.lse.ac.uk/government/research/resgroups/PSPE/pdf/Kam.pdf.Google Scholar
Kam, C.. 2009b. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G., Tomz, M., and Wittenberg, J.. 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44:341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, J. 1998. Speaking for the People: Party, Language, and Popular Politics in England, 1867–1914. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, J. 2005. Feminizing Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Lowell, J. 1902. The Influence of Party on Legislation in England and America, Annual Report for the American Historical Association for the Year 1901, I, Washington, DC: American Historical Association.Google Scholar
MacRae, D. 1970. Issues and Parties in Legislative Voting: Methods of Statistical Analysis. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
McLean, I. 2001. Rational Choice and British Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, S., and Reeves, A.. 2013. Taking the Leap: Voting, Rhetoric, and the Determinants of Electoral Reform. Paper prepared for the Westminster Model of Democracy in Crisis? Comparative Perspectives on Origins, Development and Responses, 13–14 May, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P., and Lovenduski, J.. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norton, P. 1978. Conservative Dissidents: Dissent Within the Parliamentary Conservative Party, 1970–74. London: Temple-Smith.Google Scholar
Powell, B. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R., Wanna, J., and Weller, P.. 2009. Comparing Westminster. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, R., and Weller, P.. 2005. Westminster Transplanted and Westminster Implanted: Exploring Political Change. In Westminster legacies: Democracy and Responsible Government in Asia and the Pacific, edited by H. Patapan, J. Wanna and P. Weller, 1–12. Sydney: University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Richards, D., and Smith, M.. 2002. Governance and Public Policy in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rush, M. 2001. The Role of the Member of Parliament Since 1868: From Gentlemen to Players. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rush, M., and Giddings, P.. 2011. Parliamentary Socialisation. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainty, J., and Cox, G.. 1997. The Identification of Government Whips in the House of Commons, 1830–1905. Parliamentary History 16 (3):339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, C. 2003. Ideology, Party and Interests in the British Parliament of 1841–1847. British Journal of Political Science 33:581–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, K. 2006. Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, P. 1967. Disraelian Conservatism and Social Reform. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spirling, A., and McLean, I.. 2007. UK oc Ok? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the United Kingdom House of Commons. Political Analysis 15 (1):85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trevelyan, G. 1922. British History in the Nineteenth Century and After (1782–1901). London: Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Eggers and Spirling Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Eggers and Spirling Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 222.7 KB