The post-war period has witnessed the Speakership of the House of Commons evolving from an important internal parliamentary office into one of the most recognised public roles in British political life. This historic office has not, however, been examined in any detail since Philip Laundy’s seminal work entitled The Office of Speaker published in 1964. This thesis updates Laundy’s work and brings the examination of the Speakership right up to the election of John Bercow as Speaker in June 2009. The manner by which the Speaker is elected and how this process has changed since 1945 is explored as is the way in which a Speaker contests a general election if he or she wishes to remain in office for longer than one parliamentary session. The powers and responsibilities of the Speaker are identified and the way in which these have changed and developed are discussed. Each of the post-war Speakers is examined to see what his or her personal contribution has been to the ongoing development of the office. The thesis concludes with an analysis of how the Speakership is viewed today compared with the start of the period. The office has always been held in high esteem by fellow parliamentarians but now it enjoys similar recognition by the wider general public thanks to the introduction of radio and television broadcasting of the House of Commons. Whilst the task of chairing the debates in the chamber remains the same, a modern Speaker must also rise to the challenge of being a skilled administrator, diplomat and media personality.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2007. / The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file. Title from title screen of research.pdf file (viewed on December 26, 2007) Includes bibliographical references.

Univ. de Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne), Diss.--Paris, 2002.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1961. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [100]-102).

This thesis deals with the role of House leaders in the organization and conduct of business in the Canadian Parliament. The position of House leader in the parliamentary parties has emerged out of a complexity of factors and pressures placed upon the parliamentary system during the last thirty years. It may now be said that House leaders form the primary communication channel between the political parties concerning the business of the Canadian House of Commons. The adversary system in parliament, reinforced by the traditional position of the opposition, requires that the parties cooperate in organizing the conduct of parliamentary business. The House leaders meet informally and privately to negotiate and to arrange the timing of debates and other matters. The House leaders perform other important duties within their parties. The Government House leader is responsible to the prime minister and cabinet for the overall management of the House, management of the government's legislative schedule, and assistance in the development of legislation. The contemporary Government House leader is also involved in long-range legislative planning. Opposition House leaders keep their parties informed about House activities and perform important strategy and organizational duties. All House leaders are involved in procedural debates and parliamentary reforms. House leaders are appointed from within the parliamentary party and any authority they possess for making interparty agreements comes from the party. That they are normally senior and respected members and have unique contacts with the other House leaders are factors which usually enhance their influence and persuasive powers over the party. The development of the position of House leaders has decreased the influence of party whips; yet the whips remain and the roles of House leaders and party whips may now be seen as complementary. House leaders naturally must operate within the formal rules of the House, and changes in these rules affect the role of the House leaders. The inability to develop a working time allocation mechanism for Commons legislative activity leaves informal communications between the House leaders as the crucial method of scheduling and limiting these debates. The role performed by House leaders has become more significant and it is now recognized that House leaders hold powerful positions in the Canadian House of Commons. As government business increases yet further in amount and complexity the role of House leaders may be expected to become still more significant in the Canadian parliamentary process. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

No description available.

Scrutiny of legislative behaviour of members of parliament (MPs) has a long tradition in Western Europe. Nonetheless, there has been a research gap in the Czech Republic. Thus, the dissertation thesis identifies the most burning and exciting questions and delivers the answers as a collection of to some extent separated but still interconnected studies. To be more specific, I employ quantitative methods of analysis. I deal with the data on all the members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic who held the mandate between 1993 and 2017. Overall, the original and unique dataset consists of 1,518 legislators and their comprehensive parliamentary activity. The results suggest that two main conflicts drive parliamentary politics - the institutional division between ruling parties and opposition, and the ideological left-right socio-economic dimension. Besides this, the thesis shows that both the age and tenure of the MPs noticeably affect their parliamentary activity. While older and more experienced MPs propose more bills, address more speeches and obtain more intra- parliamentary posts than young novices, the latter group focuses on the work outside of the parliament. Next, the gender differences in the parliamentary activity of Czech legislators resemble patterns from...

No description available.

Ethnic minorities in the UK Parliament are numerically under represented, despite recent increases in the number of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Members of Parliament in the 2010 and 2015 General Elections. This under-representation is a problem for several reasons but especially because of the possibility that their interests are not adequately represented. In this thesis I ask the complex question of how, why, and when substantive representation of ethnic minorities takes place in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, using a multi-pronged approach. I draw on theories and concepts developed in studies of representation of other historically marginalised groups, including female political representation, gaining insights mainly from those writing in Europe and the USA. In the first of four empirical chapters I examine substantive representation by those Members of Parliament from BME communities, and who thus are descriptive representatives of those communities. Second, I explore substantive representation amongst those who operate as critical actors, who are not necessarily descriptive representatives of these communities. Third, I ask whether Members of Parliament respond in the same way to BME constituents. Finally, I test certain mechanisms that have been proposed as factors underlying substantive representation. I find considerable evidence for a link between descriptive and substantive representation, with BME Members of Parliament responding in ways that are different from their non-BME counterparts when critical events occur, in the way that they speak about and represent ethnic minorities in debates (Chapter 3). I also find that non-BME Members of Parliament, or their offices, are less responsive to an ethnic minority constituent, even when the question asked of the representative is of critical importance (Chapter 5). In each of these chapters I find evidence that both electoral incentives and the political party of the Member of Parliament are important. I also look at substantive representation without descriptive representation, or the potential for non-BME representatives to act for ethnic minorities. I find, in Chapter 4, that these critical actors are most likely to be in the Labour Party and represent ethnically diverse seats, as well as being most often found among BME Members of Parliament. In Chapter 6 I test certain mechanisms proposed as underpinning the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation. There, I find good evidence supporting intrinsic mechanisms; linked fate and a sense of responsibility to represent, and some evidence for electoral incentives as a mechanism. By taking this multi-pronged approach I am able to capture how the substantive representation of ethnic minorities takes place in the UK Parliament, from initial contacts between constituents and their Members of Parliament to how their interests are presented in the House of Commons. Substantive representation is, I argue, a journey, although not necessarily a linear one, which involves constituents' attitudes, how they communicate their concerns to their representatives, and how their representatives communicate them to Parliament. The approach I have taken has allowed me to understand how substantive representation happens at these different stages, and explore why and when representatives are motivated to act for ethnic minorities.