Parliamentary Questions as Instruments of Substantive Representation: Visible Minorities in the UK House of Commons, 2005–10

Saalfeld, Thomas

doi:10.1080/13572334.2011.595121

Cited by 128 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the data clearly demonstrate the extensive use of OMSs by the opposition MKs, regardless of whether the opposition is strong or weak. Furthermore, this tendency accords with the literature both on light parliamentary tools such as parliamentary questions (Akirav, 2011;Saalfeld, 2011;Wiberg, 1994) and one-minute speeches (e.g., Maltzman & Sigelman, 1996;Morris, 2001;Rocca, 2007). This result supports Hypothesis 1, demonstrating that opposition members do use OMSs more frequently than members of the coalition.…”

Section: Review Of European Studiessupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Only a few scholars have examined the use of parliamentary questions or questioning time as a means by which the opposition can oversee the government (e.g., Proksch & Slapin, 2011;Saalfeld, 2011;Salmond, 2004). Even fewer have investigated OMSs as a tool for opposition members to take a position (Hall, 2002;Morris, 2001;Rocca, 2007).…”

Section: The Definition and Role Of The Oppositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Weapon of the Weak: One-Minute Speeches in the Israeli Parliament

Osnat¹

2017

RES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Position taking is an important legislative area that scholars have investigated extensively. Since one of the main roles of the opposition is to present an alternative to the government, the question is, how does the opposition establish its positions? To address this question, we analyze the use of One-Minute Speeches (OMSs) by opposition members in the Israeli parliament (the Knesset) during 2000-2013. There were four Knesset terms during these years, so we have the opportunity to study the opposition's behavior over a period of time. We decided to analyze OMSs because they are considered an easy tool to use and as such can be considered a weapon of the weak. The study uses mixed research methods, beginning with a statistical analysis (both at the legislator level and at the OMS level) and continuing with a content analysis of the speeches and the interviews conducted with members and leaders of the opposition. The statistical analysis shows that opposition members use OMSs more extensively than coalition members. Among the opposition members, we also found different behavior patterns based on nationality and seniority. In addition, the qualitative analysis of both the OMSs and the interviews shows that opposition members are active in two ways. First, they react to government-initiated proposals. Second, they raise topics for the Knesset's agenda, a move that the coalition generally does not appreciate. Third, members of the opposition consider OMSs an effective tool in that it allows them to create a relevant debate on current issues. Finally, ministers and other MKs often respond to the opposition's OMSs that are controversial and provoke debate. Thus, we conclude that the OMS is a weapon of the weak.

show abstract

Section: Review Of European Studiessupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: The Definition and Role Of The Oppositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weapon of the Weak: One-Minute Speeches in the Israeli Parliament

Osnat¹

2017

RES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He argues that "political scientists have largely ignored the fact that politicians are people too" (see also Jones 2009) and that personal backgrounds and experiences are of importance in the formation of parliamentarians' preferences. By focusing on a small set of issues, he shows that legislators' personal experiences as well as their ethnicity, gender, and further personal characteristics influence their legislative behavior (see also Saalfeld 2011). …”

Section: The Role Of Gender In Speech-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent research analyzing the decisions of individual MPs has shown that their legislative behavior is not only shaped by incentives arising from the constituency and their party but also influenced by their own personal background (e.g., Saalfeld 2011). This line of reasoning can be traced back to the early 1960s (Matthews 1960;Woshinsky 1973) and has been restated by Searing (1994) with respect to parliamentary roles played by MPs.…”

Section: The Role Of Gender In Speech-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Takes the Parliamentary Floor? The Role of Gender in Speech-making in the Swedish Riksdag

Bäck

Debus

Müller

2014

Political Research Quarterly

148

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legislative speeches are an important instrument for parties and members of parliament (MPs) to signal their positions and priorities. This raises the question of who speaks when. We evaluate whether a MP's presence on the floor depends on his or her gender. We hypothesize that female MPs give in general less speeches in parliament and that this pattern results from debates dealing with "harder" policy issues. Our expectations are supported when analyzing a new data set containing information on the number and content of speeches given in the Swedish Riksdag between 2002 and 2010.

show abstract

“…Political scientists usually approach the actions of legislators through an analysis of their careers and how they represent their constituencies, an approach which has been applied to the UK Parliament (Norton and Wood, 1993) and to its parliamentary questions (see Bertelli and Dolan, 2009;Saalfeld 2011). But the wider agenda of As with other opportunities to debate, the venue of PMQs may reflect the selective attention of its participants and leaders to concentrate on one policy topic as opposed to another, in other words to take ownership (e.g.…”

Section: Policy Representation and Questions In Parliamentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy Representation by Party Leaders and Followers: What Drives UK Prime Minister’s Questions?

Bevan¹,

John

2015

Gov. & oppos.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper demonstrates how party leaders (frontbenchers) and backbenchers use their access to UK Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) to represent the policy agenda. Building on comparative research on parliamentary questions and agenda-setting as well as taking account of the particular context of PMQs, we argue that party leaders and followers draw attention to different kinds of policy topics with the express purpose of influencing the government. Based on a content analysis of over 9,000 questions between 1997 and 2008, our analysis demonstrates how the posing of questions affects subsequent agenda, varying according to whether questions come from the front or backbench, from government and opposition and from different parties. The findings demonstrate that PMQs helps both the opposition and backbenchers draw attention to issues that the government and opposition party leadership does not always wish to attend to. UK Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) is potentially one of the most important means for the opposition to challenge the government on the major issues of the day.During PMQs opposition Members of Parliament put questions to the prime minister in full view of the public and expect well-briefed answers in return. However, the value and the purpose of PMQs has increasingly been called into question by recent research (for a summary see Bates et al, 2012) and even internal government debates (see UK Parliament, 1996) contain comments about the shallowness and shortcomings of PMQs.As it currently stands PMQs is widely believed to show off the rhetorical skills of the leaders of the main political parties attracting the attention of the media rather than to hold the government of the day to account.Even though there is a theatrical aspect to PMQs, we argue that the practice can still ensure the government addresses concerns that it might not otherwise wish to talk about and therefore is an important venue for ensuring accountability and responsiveness.As a result of the topics stressed in PMQs, the government has to confront the difficult issues of the day, which can advantage the opposition by putting the government on the defensive regardless of the completeness of the government's answers. Due to these efforts, the party or parties in control of government respond to other parliamentarian and To advance this argument, the paper first briefly outlines the procedure of PMQs for the period of our analyses (1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008) followed by a review of the literature on agenda-setting through parliamentary questions. The paper then describes the data and methods used, before reporting the findings from graphical and statistical analyses. The conclusions draw out implications for the study of parliamentary representation. What are Prime Minister's Questions?Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) is a parliamentary convention whereby the prime minister answers questions in the House of Commons from Members of Parliament (including the leader(s) of the oppo...

show abstract

Parliamentary Questions as Instruments of Substantive Representation: Visible Minorities in the UK House of Commons, 2005–10

Cited by 128 publications

References 12 publications

Weapon of the Weak: One-Minute Speeches in the Israeli Parliament

Weapon of the Weak: One-Minute Speeches in the Israeli Parliament

Who Takes the Parliamentary Floor? The Role of Gender in Speech-making in the Swedish Riksdag

Policy Representation by Party Leaders and Followers: What Drives UK Prime Minister’s Questions?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About