Skip Navigation


Parliamentary Affairs Advance Access originally published online on June 6, 2007
Parliamentary Affairs 2007 60(3):492-509; doi:10.1093/pa/gsm029
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
60/3/492    most recent
gsm029v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Power, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government; all rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

The Politics of Parliamentary Reform: Lessons from the House of Commons (2001–2005)

Greg Power1

The 2001 parliament saw a renewed interest in Commons reform. Between 2001 and 2005 the House of Commons Modernisation Committee put forward several significant reports recommending changes to the select committees, sitting patterns, questioning of ministers and engaging with the public. The article examines the political factors that shaped the development and implementation of those reforms, and in particular assesses the role of the Leader of the Commons in managing the divergent expectations of MPs, committees, ministers and whips. It argues that too many analyses assume government conspiracy as the main blockage when reforms fail to get through, and therefore miss the inherently political nature of the process. In conclusion, it suggests five areas likely to have a bearing on the success or failure of proposed reforms. These include acknowledging the personal and political incentives that shape MPs' own attitudes to reform, and recognising that MPs are not necessarily the best defenders of parliamentary principle.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.