View in EDS

The origins of centralized agenda control at Westminster: Consensus or controversy?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The origins of centralized agenda control at Westminster: Consensus or controversy?
Authors: Fleming, Thomas G.1 (AUTHOR) tom.fleming@ucl.ac.uk, Hix, Simon2 (AUTHOR), Zubek, Radoslaw3 (AUTHOR)
Source: Legislative Studies Quarterly. Aug2025, Vol. 50 Issue 3, p1-8. 8p.
Subject Terms: *LEGISLATIVE bodies, POLITICAL opposition, PARLIAMENTARY practice, HISTORICAL analysis, LEGISLATIVE reform, LEGISLATIVE power
Geographic Terms: UNITED Kingdom
Company/Entity: GREAT Britain. Parliament. House of Commons
Abstract: Centralized agenda control is a feature of many parliaments, with important consequences for the conduct and outcomes of legislative politics. Much previous work has thus sought to understand the emergence of centralized agenda‐setting rules. We extend this literature by studying the "Balfour reforms", which centralized agenda control in the early twentieth century UK House of Commons. Our aim is to probe a conventional claim in the existing literature: that the opposition supported these reforms. This is a counter‐intuitive claim, which rests on relatively little direct evidence. We analyze historical roll‐call data from 1902 to assess how far the opposition supported agenda centralization. We complement this analysis by examining attempted amendments and speech contributions to parliamentary debates. Contrary to the standard view, we find that the primary opposition party consistently resisted these reforms. This evidence of controversy rather than consensus revises our understanding of a key milestone in the development of the Westminster parliament, and contributes to the wider literature on the choice of agenda‐setting procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Legislative Studies Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Business Source Index
Description
Abstract:Centralized agenda control is a feature of many parliaments, with important consequences for the conduct and outcomes of legislative politics. Much previous work has thus sought to understand the emergence of centralized agenda‐setting rules. We extend this literature by studying the "Balfour reforms", which centralized agenda control in the early twentieth century UK House of Commons. Our aim is to probe a conventional claim in the existing literature: that the opposition supported these reforms. This is a counter‐intuitive claim, which rests on relatively little direct evidence. We analyze historical roll‐call data from 1902 to assess how far the opposition supported agenda centralization. We complement this analysis by examining attempted amendments and speech contributions to parliamentary debates. Contrary to the standard view, we find that the primary opposition party consistently resisted these reforms. This evidence of controversy rather than consensus revises our understanding of a key milestone in the development of the Westminster parliament, and contributes to the wider literature on the choice of agenda‐setting procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:03629805
DOI:10.1111/lsq.12480