No abstract

The parliamentary decline thesis formed the dominant theory and narrative of legislative behaviour and capacity during the 20th century. And yet in analytical terms the thesis provides a relatively blunt instrument for dissecting complex socio-political relationships. The bluntness of this tool has not been remedied by the lazy thinking and unconscious theorising that has too often dominated research in this field. The central argument of this article is that the dominant public, media and academic perception of an eviscerated and sidelined parliament provides a misleading caricature of a more complex institution. Moreover the constant promotion and reinforcement of this caricature by scholars arguably perpetuates and fuels public disengagement and disillusionment with politics.

Concern about political disengagement is prevalent in British politics, and this article seeks to examine what the Westminster parliament has been doing to address it. Recent reforms and recommendations from various parliamentary committees are examined, including increased use of the internet to disseminate information about parliament, the use of online consultation mechanisms, and the tentative extension of parliament's petitioning processes. The discussion is couched in the representative origins of parliament, its adaptation to democratic politics and the extent to which its response to political disengagement is contextualised by its representational, rather than its democratic, role. The article addresses whether parliament can approach these issues in a 'holistic' fashion, and as a 'unified' institution within the political system.

In May 2009, revelations made in The Daily Telegraph about the way that MPs had used and abused the House of Commons expenses and allowances regime threw the British political system into turmoil, forced the resignation of the Speaker of the Commons along with a number of implicated MPs, and ignited talk about a crisis in parliamentary democracy and a collapse of public trust in politics. This article explores the events that led to this situation, from the structure of MPs pay and allowance system, the Freedom of Information context that framed the disaster, and the crisis of transparency which the House of Commons has itself precipitated. It argues that, talk of parliamentary reform aside, MPs must radically rethink the way that they approach their representative role and the nature of their broader engagement with the public they claim to serve.

An extensive literature on aversive constitutionalism and elite blockages outlines the manner in which embedded political elites will generally reject or dilute reform agendas that threaten their privileged position within a constitutional configuration. It is for exactly this reason that the same seam of scholarship frequently highlights the role of crises in terms of providing a 'window of opportunity' through which a significant or fundamental recalibration of a political system may be achieved. 'The Palace of Westminster' the Joint Committee on Restoration and Renewal (R&R) concluded in September 2016 'faces an impending crisis which we cannot possibly ignore' Their recommendation was that the Palace be completely vacated for five to eight years so that a multi-billion-pound programme of rebuilding work can be undertaken. This article offers the first research-based analysis of the 'Scoping & Planning' stage (2012-17) and reveals the 'hidden politics' of R&R in the sense of how it threatens both the British political tradition and the position of the two main parties. This explains the nature of the very closed and secretive decision-making processes that have characterised this stage and why a number of formative decision-making points that have been deployed to frame and restrict the reform parameters.