Keeping Party Programmes on Track: The Transmission of
the Policy Agendas of Executive Speeches to Legislative
Outputs in the United Kingdom
!"
%
!
&
'
) 12
$
&
'
)
#
*
& & #
%
*+,-./0
)
& & #
)"*3%3*) )%* 4,,5
! & #
"(
) *%
)
1
&
&
!6
!"
1
#
7
Abstract
In the United Kingdom, the transmission between policy promises and statutes is
assumed to be both rapid and efficient because of the tradition of party discipline,
relative stability of government, absence of coalitions and the limited powers of
legislative revision in the second chamber. Even in the UK, the transmission is not
perfect since legislative priorities and outputs are susceptible to changes in public
opinion or media coverage, unanticipated events in the external world, backbench
rebellions, changes in the political parties and the practical constraints of
administering policies or programmes. This paper investigates the strength of the
connection between executive priorities and legislative outputs measured by the
Speech from the Throne and Acts of Parliament from 1911 to 2008. These are
categorised according to the policy content coding system of the UK Policy Agendas
Project (www.policyagendas.org.uk). Time series cross-sectional analyses show that
there is transmission of the policy agenda from the speech to acts. However, the
relationship differs by party, strengthening over time for Conservative governments
and declining over time for Labour and other governments.
2
Political systems operate in time. Policy-making follows an institutionalized
sequence as decisions proceed from agenda-setting to implementation, but this
process is not continuous. The political process has moments in the political cycle,
such as State of the Union addresses or party manifestos prior to an election, when
decisions and agendas are aggregated and priorities are established. While there is
much in public policy that is fluid, institutional rules create junctures that structure the
agenda and force decision-makers to establish priorities.
Almost all political systems have these decision points, which are designed to
provide information to the public and to send signals to other parts of the political
system, such as bureaucracies. These arenas shape the sequence of institutional
decision-making as well as subsequent action. The policy priorities fixed during these
periods act as a means of agenda-setting and credible commitment where political
parties or governments commit to a particular course of action, encouraging them to
follow through on their agenda by implementing policies. Because governments are
faced with a multitude of pressures and problems, each deserving of some level of
attention, decision-makers – with finite attention and resources – must prioritise some
issues ahead of others (see Kingdon 1984; Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Jones and
Baumgartner 2005). Through such decision points governments are able to set the
agenda establishing the priorities they letter plan to act on through policy. Agendasetting by governments entails some correspondence between the priorities of the
stated agenda and subsequent policy outputs, including legislation. Decision-makers
therefore select issues for attention with the intention of acting upon them.
Statements of priorities enable governments to enact political mandates and
programmes (e.g. Budge and Hofferbert 1992, Kingermann et al 1994, Budge et al
2001, MacDonald and Budge 2005) and take credit for delivering their stated agenda.
3
Priorities established by party programmes are transmitted into government spending
and legislative outputs in both the US and Western Europe (see Budge and Hofferbert
1990; 1992; Bara 2005). There is evidence, however, that the policy priorities of such
party programmes have become more fragmented over time as well as exhibiting
uneven patterns of change and stability (see Green-Pedersen 2007; Walgrave and
Nuytemans 2009).
The expectation is that when governments use these decision points to set out
their priorities and policy programmes, they do so with the intention of matching them
with attention to the same issues in other institutional domains, such as legislation.
The act of agenda-setting therefore precedes programme enactment and other outputs
of government. However, governments respond to broad and often unrelated
concerns, such as crime, health and the economy, and these can change in priority as
new issues land on the agenda. The allocation of attention on the government agenda
is therefore a stochastic process, where randomness and uncertainty are inherent to
decision-making because of the complexity of the policy environment (Jones and
Baumgartner 2005, pp. 115-116). Implementation or bureaucratic control problems
may bedevil the ability of governments to follow through on their agendas and it may
make sense to revise its priorities in response to new issues, policy solutions or
emergencies. The transmission from policy priorities to policy outputs should
therefore be less than one-to-one in most political systems, but there nevertheless
should be a noticeable connection between the two.
We use the United Kingdom (UK) as the case for exploring the transmission
of executive priorities into legislative outputs. The UK is a unitary, majoritarian
political system with few veto points making it a good general case for the analysis of
government agendas and programmes (Lijphart 1984; 1999; Tsebelis 1995). Other
4
things being equal, we expect the proposed agenda to be reflected strongly in policy
outputs. The decision point considered here is the Speech from the Throne,1 which is
a formal annual statement, on behalf of the executive, setting out its priorities for the
year ahead and is found across a range of political systems. The outputs we consider
are Acts of the UK Parliament. Through time series cross-sectional analyses of one
hundred parliamentary sessions between 1911 and 2008, we find a positive and
significant relationship between executive priorities and legislative outputs. This
transmission of the policy agenda from executive speeches to legislative outputs is
less than one hundred percent. Furthermore, there are significant differences the level
of transmission over time according to political party. The connection has
strengthened for the Conservatives and weakened for Labour and other governments.
This paper takes the following structure. First, we discuss the political and
institutional function of the Speech from the Throne, the likelihood of transmission
from speech (priorities) to acts (outputs) and the importance of credible commitment
from policy priorities and promises, from which we formulate two hypotheses. The
paper then introduces the data and presents the results of time series cross-sectional
analyses. Finally, we discuss these results and draws implications for the study of
government agendas.
The Institutional Structure of Decision-Making – From Priorities to Outputs
In many political systems the head of state or head of government delivers an
annual formal statement, on behalf of the executive, setting out the government
agenda for the year ahead. These speeches are forward-looking, communicating
general priorities as well as specific measures that the executive intends to address in
1
The speech is more widely known as the Queen’s Speech or the King’s Speech depending upon the
sex of the monarch.
5
the following year (e.g. Cohen 1995; 1997; Hobolt and Klemmensen 2005; 2008;
Breeman et al. 2009; Green-Pedersen et al. 2009; Jennings and John 2009; Jennings et
al. n.d.). Such speeches articulate the government agenda, prioritise some issues ahead
of others and are intended to lead to a corresponding set of policy outputs.
The Speech from the Throne is an integral feature of the State Opening of UK
Parliament where the sovereign addresses the chamber of the House of Lords with
members of the House of Commons watching from the galleries. Such an
institutionalised ritual is characteristic of what Bagehot (1867) described as the
dignified part of the British constitution, in which political custom and tradition
perform a stabilizing function and allow the ‘efficient secret’ of cabinet government
to operate effectively (Cox 1987). Since 1901, the Speech from the Throne has been a
permanent fixture of the parliamentary calendar delivered at the start of a new
parliamentary session. It normally takes place toward the end of the calendar year or
just after an election when a new government enters office.2 The speech highlights
matters of importance and details the legislative programme that the government
intends to enact in the forthcoming year. By highlighting certain issues and ignoring
others, the Speech from the Throne provides an annual platform for government to
shape the policy agenda (see Jennings, Bevan and John, n.d.).
The unification of executive and legislative powers in Britain’s Westminster
system, combined with its longstanding tradition of party discipline, means a close
link between manifesto pledges, the legislative proposals of governing parties and
policy outputs exists (Bara 2005). The speech also enables government to ‘go public’
(Kernell 1997; Canes-Wrone 2001; 2005), either to set the tone of national debate
2
Until 1928, the start of a new parliamentary session generally occurred early in the year, January or
February. Since then, the parliamentary year has begun in October or November except after an
election, where the first act of business for an incoming government is the opening of parliament with a
Speech from the Throne.
6
over a particular issue or to highlight promises that it intends to later claim credit for
(Strøm 2000; 2001; Bara 2005). Studies show that despite the separation of powers in
the US presidents can influence the Congressional agenda through public appeals and
through the annual State of the Union address, the American executive speech (see
Rudalevige 2002; Canes-Wrone 2005). Such effects should, in theory, be stronger
under the unified executive and legislative powers of the British political system. The
Speech from the Throne integrates both the executive and legislative agendas of the
prime minister and cabinet, providing an annual signal of executive priorities, as well
as an indication of its commitment to specific legislative proposals (Jennings, Bevan
and John n.d.).
Government, Credible Commitment and Policy Priorities
The Speech from the Throne is a costly signal. The policy agenda set out in
the speech creates future potential costs for the prime minister and the government if
the priorities in the speech were not followed by policy outputs. In this way, the
speech commits the government to the agenda expressed in the speech and conveys a
credible signal to their party, the rest of parliament and the public that this set of
issues will be dealt with. By mentioning policies in the speech it can be difficult for
the government to back down from its agenda without paying some political cost that
may jeopardize its ability to hold power (see Fearon 1997; Kernell 1997; CanesWrone 2001; 2005). Given that the speech also contains manifesto commitments, not
following the agenda may alienate sections of the party and create problems for the
leadership. Because of these costs, the government wants the policy agenda presented
in the Speech from the Throne to translate directly into policy outputs in the form of
Acts of Parliament. In this way the speech acts as a form of credible commitment
7
(North and Weingast 1989) forcing the governing party to stick to its agenda or risk
damaging its reputation and political authority.
The Speech from the Throne is a political mechanism for British government
to highlight its policy priorities (Jennings, Bevan and John n.d.), as well as to respond
to public opinion (Jennings and John 2009). Not defining priorities and not delivering
on its agenda can both damage the impression of the government with the electorate
and make it easily assailable by its political opponents. As Laver observes, “…If party
leaders cannot deliver on commitments that their parties will behave in certain ways,
then the entire system of parliamentary government has the potential to become
chaotic and unpredictable” (1999: 11). The electorate are known to punish
government for failure to perform (e.g. Fiorina 1981; Anderson 1995). Far better is to
gain a reputation as a strong government that retains its priorities and implements its
programme, but this is a balancing act and only promises likely to be fulfilled are also
likely to be made (Strøm 2000; 2001; Bara 2005; Cohen 1995; 1997). This process of
credit-taking is not unique to parliaments and prime ministers either, as presidents
also often choose to go public to claim a desired outcome (Kernell 1997; CanesWrone 2001; 2005). In a unitary system, it is even more important to act credibly,
since there is no other branch of government to deflect blame onto if policy priorities
are not acted upon (e.g. Anderson 1995). Further, electoral mandates in the UK and in
the US have been shown to lead policy programmes to be translated into policy
outputs (Budge and Hofferbert 1990; 1992).
Keeping the agenda of government on track also serves a wider purpose. The
notions of government accountability and transparency are at the heart of the
democratic ideal. Representative government depends on the public being responsive
to what government actually does (Wlezien 1995; 1996) and citizens holding
8
government accountable (Strøm 2000). This is the essence of responsible party
government (Ranney 1954) upon which parties seek to take control of policy in the
legislature (Cox and McCubbins 2004), and from which they seek an electoral reward.
Democracy is about the mandate that electors give to parties to implement their
preferences: “what distinguishes democracy from benevolent despotism are precisely
the institutional mechanisms for ensuring a necessary correspondence between
government policy and individual preferences” (Budge and McDonald 2005: 4).
In theory, then, credible commitment implies a high degree of transmission of
the policy agenda contained in the Speech from the Throne into Acts of Parliament.
On average the relationship between the policy priorities contained in the speech and
acts should be strong, with the policy programme presented in the executive speech
mirrored by subsequent legislative outputs. For example, a speech that prioritises the
economy would be expected to lead to a series of legislative outputs that also
prioritise the economy. This expectation of credible commitments and agenda
transmission in the Westminster system is due to the power of the prime minister who
leads the party with a monopoly of power over the legislature and with powers of
appointment. Typically a single party forms the UK government, which have been
historically strong (Cox 1987; Strøm 2000). The transmission of the agenda from the
speech to laws will never be absolute because of the timing of the legislative process
and the emergence of new issues on the political agenda (Goodin 1982; Kingdon
1984). Events and public opinion may also shift the legislative outputs in a given year
away from the policy priorities and commitments made at the start of a parliamentary
session.
Change in British Politics
9
Besides those ever-present influences, the relationship between the speech and
legislative outputs has changed in line with developments in British politics.
Historically, British political parties tended to be centralised with control by elites
over their members and their representatives flying the party flag (McKenzie 1955).
This has however declined over time with party whips exercising less control than
they did in the past. The cohesiveness of parties trying to push their legislation
through parliament has weakened since the 1970s (Norton 1975; 1978; 1980), partly
due to MPs gaining the habit of rebelling (Cowley 1999; 2002). Studies also suggest
that ministers do not have total control over their departments due to the growth in
what government does, if not necessarily a decline in executive power (Mueller 1987;
Huber 2000). The growth of complexity of government, both in the details of laws in
and the number of issues government attends to (Heclo 1978 along with the demands
of a globalised economy, may have reduced the control that executives have over
policy. The expansion of the activities of interest groups politics and the growth in the
venues for policy-making, such as the European Union (Richardson 2000), may be
another explanation. On the other hand, it is possible that the power of the executive
has increased alongside prime ministerial powers (Foley 1993) and because of
ministerial activism.
The Divergence of Political Parties in Britain
Over the last hundred years both parties have become more internally
differentiated and less susceptible to rule by a centralising clique, but these long-term
shifts have led Labour and the Conservatives to govern in different ways (McKenzie
1955; Beer 1965; Kavanagh 1985; Ware 1992). The Labour Party has evolved from
being a party focused on a social movement and a clear programme of social and
10
economic reform to more of a catch-all party pursuing a more comprehensive party
platform. Labour has adapted to the concerns of British society and government over
time, pursuing a more comprehensive policy programme compared to its formation
(Pelling 1996). Furthermore, the historical roots of Labour Party as a mass social
movement has influenced development of an adaptive approach to government with
the party focused more on accommodating public preferences rather than shaping
them over time (Hay 1994; Smith 1994).
The Conservative Party evolved from a Victorian era party where government
was smaller and less complex, dealing with fewer issues, into modern political party
facing a wide assortment of issues (Blake 1985). Sweeping reforms concerning the
social welfare state have changed the nature of government and the increasing
technicalities of policy-making are both changes to which the Conservatives adapted.
The Conservative Party had laid claim to the mantle of being the ‘natural’ party of
British government until the breakdown of the post-war consensus (Kavanagh 1987;
Kavanagh and Morris 1994; Marquand 1988) and has since pursued more
concentrated policy programmes under the reforming governments of Thatcher aimed
at shaping public preferences (Hay 2007). It has also maintained its hierarchical
structure and deferential political tradition that values delivering on their policy
programmes (Ludlam and Smith 1995).
Hypotheses
The importance of credible commitment and the effect of political changes on
political parties generate two hypotheses about the link between the Speech from the
Throne (priorities) and Acts of the UK Parliament (outputs).
11
The first of these two hypotheses states that due to the institutional power of
the prime minister and cabinet, and the nature of the Westminster system the
relationship between the Speech from the Throne and Acts of the UK Parliament
should be strong. This suggests that the policy priorities put forward in the speech are
a good, but imperfect, predictor of the legislative outputs in the parliamentary year
following the speech.
H1: Policy priorities indicated in the Speech from the Throne are transmitted into a
number of corresponding Acts of the UK Parliament.
Over time, British politics and government has become more complex, with
the introduction of new issues, greater inclusion of various actors (interest groups, the
EU), and ever more technical legislation. These changes have led to a more complex
system of government but, as we discussed above, the parties have reacted differently
to these changes.3 The Conservative Party evolved into a modern political party with
a strong hierarchy focused on implementing its agenda and we expect its governments
to more effectively transmit its policy priorities mentioned in the speech into acts over
time. In contrast, Labour has become more of a catch-all party concerned with
responding to public preferences and events and so we expect the policy priorities
presented by Labour governments in the speech to have become harder to follow
through on over time.
H2a: The rate of transmission of Conservatives’ priorities expressed in the Speech
from the Throne into Acts of the UK Parliament increases over time.
H2b: The rate of transmission of Labour’s priorities expressed in the Speech from the
Throne into Acts of the UK Parliament decreases over time.
3
In this paper, time is used as a proxy for the increasing complexity of government, from 1911 to
2008. There are a number of possible sources of this increasing political complexity, which we expect
to affect the transmission of the speech to acts differently for the parties. Determining which type or
types of complexity to measure and how to measure it over one hundred parliaments detracts from the
central question of this paper: that is, the differing rates of transmission from speech to acts between
parties and over time. We expect, however, that future research will investigate the cause of differences
between parties.
12
Hypotheses 1, 2a and 2b suggest a system where governments generally keep
to their priorities, but where changes to British politics and the parties themselves
have affected the maintenance of those commitments over time. So while the nature
of the Speech from the Throne has remained stable (see Jennings, Bevan and John
n.d.), its effect on legislative outputs has changed due to the responses of parties to
their political environment.
Data and Methods
To test these hypotheses, we use data from the UK Policy Agendas Project
(www.policyagendas.org.uk) on policy content of the Speech from the Throne and
Acts of UK Parliament from 1911 to 2008,4 spanning one hundred parliamentary
sessions and covering nineteen major topic codes that encompass all the issues the
UK Parliament deals with. Furthermore, the topic coding scheme is comparable
across both speeches and laws. So, for example, what is health policy in the Speech
from the Throne is health policy for Acts of the UK Parliament. This general coding
scheme for policy enables the comparison of all government policy activity over time
and allows for the testing of a time bound population of all activities, rather than just a
sample of those activities.
For the analyses, we employ a time series cross-sectional design with panel
corrected standard errors.5 This modelling strategy is preferred to separate analyses of
each issue area because it allows for the estimation of how well governments keep
4
The analyses were also conducted separately on the post-war period, 1946-2008 and the same
inferences were drawn from this version of the model.
5
The data used in this paper is over-dispersed count data, but to ease interpretation and to allow for the
use of panel corrected standard errors we present a time series cross-sectional regression. The use of
ordinary least squares analyses with count data still produces the best linear unbiased estimates, but can
lead to predictions outside the range of the data. This does not occur in this case. Running the models
as time series cross-sectional negative binomial models as a robustness check led to the same
inferences as the models presented here.
13
their commitments in general.6 The unit of analysis is the policy topic, parliamentary
year, where each parliamentary year is the time value and each major topic is treated
as an individual panel. This resulted in a total N of 1900 (101-1 parliamentary years
(T) * 19 major topics (n)) observations.7 The pooled time series cross-sectional design
also allows for the estimation of the autoregressive nature and trend in acts over time.
By using parliamentary sessions rather than calendar years, the occasional occurrence
of multiple sessions in a single year do not affect the analysis.
The model used to test the relationship between the Speech from the Throne
and Acts of the UK Parliament takes the following form:
Actsit = α 0 + α 1 Actsit −1 + β1 Speechit + β 2 ( Speech * Time) it + β 3 ( Speech * Conservati ve) it
+ β 4 ( Speech * Time * Conservati ve) it + β 5Timet + β 6 Conservati vet + β 7 Preelectiont + β 8 Postelectiont
+ β 9Wart + β10 SpecialShort t
The dependent variable is Acts of the UK Parliament (Actsit), specifically acts
by policy topic, parliamentary year. For example, the number of acts on healthcare in
the 30th session in the dataset is one observation, as is the number of acts on
healthcare in the 31st, and so is the number of acts on Defence in the 31st, and so forth.
The aggregated acts measure was generated from the UK Agendas Project database of
Acts of the UK Parliament. Two researchers blind-coded each act from their long and
6
The use of a pooled analysis most closely fits the question and theory advanced in this paper. These
concern the overall transmission of the priorities expressed in the Speech from the Throne, which
suggests pooling, and not how well government keeps its commitments on social welfare separate from
housing and other issues. While a concern with this strategy is the exclusion of issue specific controls
or events, such as the unemployment rate for macro-economics or military conflicts for international
affairs the use of separate models issue area models would still not allow for these additional controls if
comparisons between issue areas were to be made. Acts of Parliament themselves follow a stochastic
process where randomness and uncertainty are inherent to legislative enactment of the government
agenda due to the complexity of the policy environment. This means that events are just as likely to
cause increases or decreases in rates of transmission across all topics, so if acts follow a stochastic
process then events do not introduce systematic bias into their enactment. The omission of events or
socio-economic variables from our model therefore increases the standard errors of our estimates but
otherwise does not affect the results.
7
Note that while one hundred and one parliamentary years exist during this period, that only one
hundred parliamentary years are used for the analyses due to the lagged dependent variable which
requires that the first year be dropped from the analyses.
14
short-title and assigned a single major topic code.8 For each act the date of royal
assent of Acts of the UK Parliament is the observed time point, in other words when
an act has officially became law. Since all acts in a parliamentary year receive royal
assent prior to the start of a new parliamentary session, which is marked by the
Speech from the Throne, all acts are attributed to the correct parliamentary year.
With a few exceptions most speeches have two parts.9 One focuses on an
executive agenda, primarily composed of international affairs, defence, as well as
colonial and territorial issues. However, almost all issues can and do receive some
attention in this part of the speech at some point in our dataset.10 The other section of
the speech presents the legislative agenda and consists of policy promises, including
many non-specific mentions of forthcoming bills,11 and other general legislative
intentions directed toward the House of Commons intended for parliamentary action.
The split between these two sections is generally obvious and marked by formal nonpolicy statements indicating the shift in attention from one agenda contained in the
speech to the other. Historically, the first section of the speech contained the
executive agenda; however, the Labour Government changed the format in 1997,
which instead put the legislative section of the speech first. However, the transition
between the two parts can still be clearly seen in direct and formalized non-policy
8
This procedure led to eighty-five per cent inter-coder reliability for major topic codes in most years.
The remaining differences were resolved through discussion and the project leaders made the final
decision in the few cases where coders could not agree.
9
In 1921 a second speech was given that only focused on the executive portion of the agenda, in
particular the Irish Free State. For more details on this and other specifics concerning the Speech from
the Throne historically see Jennings, Bevan and John n.d.
10
With the exception of Banking, Finance and Domestic Commerce, and Space, Science, Technology
and Communications all issues are mentioned at least once in the executive part of the Speech from the
Throne over the 100 speeches contained in our dataset.
11
The legislative portion of the speech mostly contains statements such as “measures will be put before
you…” or “a bill will be introduced on…”. These statements indicate parliamentary legislation and that
an Act of Parliament is the intended, final outcome of the mention in the Speech from the Throne. The
identity and number of resulting legislative outputs cannot always be identified with this data, as often
the language used in the speech can be non-specific and does not refer to intended titles of legislative
acts (constraining direct mapping of intentions to outputs). Because in most instances mentions are
non-specific we believe a probabilistic model is the best method for examining the general pattern of
transmission of intentions from speech to act.
15
statements. For the analyses, we use both the total number of mentions in the speech
by policy topic, parliamentary year (Speechit), and the number of mentions in the
legislative section also by policy topic, parliamentary year in separate versions of the
analyses. To create the data two researchers first separately broke each speech into
quasi-sentences achieving an inter-coder reliability of ninety-five per cent. A quasisentence represents a complete thought, but not necessarily a complete sentence.12
The researchers then blind-coded the quasi-sentences assigning each a single major
topic code achieving an inter-coder reliability for major topic codes of eighty-five
percent for most years.
Figure 1 displays the total number of mentions and legislative mentions in the
Speech from the Throne and Acts of the UK Parliament from 1911-2008. As this
figure shows, both the total number of mentions and those in the legislative section of
the speech have grown slightly over time while the number of Acts of the UK
Parliament has decreased although not without momentary shifts.
[insert Figure 1 about here]
Following hypothesis 2a and 2b we expect the effect of the Speech from the
Throne on Acts of the UK Parliament to change over time and in different ways for
each party. In other words, the relationship between the speech and acts is conditional,
both on time and on the party in power. A conditional hypothesis requires the use of
an interaction term or terms as the underlying relationship is modified by the other
factors expressed in the hypothesis. To test whether the transmission from the speech
12
A quasi-sentence (or policy statement) constitutes an expression of a single policy idea or issue (see
Volkens 2002). Often this unit of analysis is identifiable from the use of punctuation, though it is
possible for sentences to include multiple references to policy content (in particular those which
address a series of major policy issues in a list).
16
to acts has changed over time and has done so differently for the parties, the model
includes a three-way multiplicative interaction term between the Speech from the
Throne, a Conservative party variable and a time variable ((Speech * Conservative *
Time)it).13 The proper use of an interaction term in statistical modelling further
requires the inclusion of the interaction’s component parts. These additional variables
are often called constitutive terms as they constitute the various elements of the
interaction itself. Our analyses therefore also include a time (Timet) and Conservative
(Conservativet) party variable in the model, along with interactions between the
Speech from the Throne and time ((Speech * Time)it) and the speech and Conservative
((Speech * Conservative)it).14 Including these terms in the model allows for proper
estimates and the calculation of substantively meaningful marginal effects,
conditional on the party in power and the parliamentary year (see Brambor et al.
2006).
The model includes a time variable (Timet) to control for a general trend in the
number of acts over time and as a constitutive term. This variable takes the value of 1
in the first parliamentary session in our time span (1911), and counts to 101 in the last
(2008).15 The Conservative Party variable (Conservativet) is coded 1 when the
Conservative Party is in government and 0 when there is a Labour, Liberal or
13
A split the sample is often used in place of interactions to test conditional hypotheses as it is easier
to interpret directly. However, splitting our dataset in this way through the Conservative Party variable
would lead to a series of non-random gaps in the time series as only one party is in government at any
point in time. Each half of the sample would therefore contain gaps that would need to be addressed in
the time series modelling. Techniques that deal with such gaps assume a linear trend over gaps.
However, we know that this if not the case with our data, as during these gaps another party with a
different rate of transmission between the speech and acts is in power. Therefore, use of a split sample
would at the very least produce biased estimates.
14
The model excludes an interaction between time and Conservative, theoretically assuming this value
to be 0 as there is no systematic pattern in the number of acts based on the party in power. Excluding
this constitutive term is acceptable from a methodological standpoint as it does not directly modify the
calculation of the marginal affects their standard errors. Additionally, including this term in the model
does not affect the inferences gained from the statistical analyses.
15
Parliamentary years do not exactly match calendar years, with multiple speeches sometimes
occurring within the same calendar year which is the cause of this difference between the number of
parliamentary years and calendar years during this period.
17
National/Coalition government. This coding captures party differences during this
period as the Conservative Party is consistently further to the right of the political
spectrum than other parties.16
The model also includes interactions between the speech and time ((Speech *
Time)it) and between the speech and Conservative ((Speech * Conservative)it). These
interactions enable estimation of the marginal effects required to test the transmission
effect of the speech on acts, conditional upon party and time. In effect, these
variables, through the calculation of the marginal effects of the Speech from the
Throne on Acts of Parliament, allow the size of the speech coefficient to change based
on the parliamentary year (Timet) and the party in power (Conservativet).
We introduce other control variables to account for the general pattern of Acts
of the UK Parliament over time. Two of these controls address the effect of general
elections on the passage of acts. Parliamentary years immediately following elections,
particularly when party control changes, are likely to have a higher than average
number of acts than non-election years due to the early implementation of manifesto
promises. As such, the model includes a post-election variable (Postelectiont) that
takes the value of 1 for parliamentary sessions immediately following an election and
0 otherwise. Following a similar logic, parliamentary years just before an election
tend to be shorter than normal as elections often happen in the spring months. As a
result, there is less time to pass legislation which likely reduces the average number of
acts in those years. To control for this, the model includes a pre-election variable
16
Other coding options for party we also investigated, including dummies for each party with
Conservative omitted, and a left to right variable, with parties coded from -1 to 1 according to their
relative positioning on the liberal to conservative dimension. Both of these of these options were
unsatisfactory and their inclusion or exclusion did not alter the other findings presented in this paper,
leading to alterations in coefficients, but not signs or significances. Furthermore, a version of the
analysis excluding the liberal governments from 1911-1922 led to the same inferences.
18
(Preelectiont) that takes the value of 1 for parliamentary sessions just before an
election and 0 otherwise.17
The two World Wars are major system changing events in this period. During
their conduct policy outputs altered fundamentally, not only for defence, but also for
other policy fields, such as labour and welfare, with many changes to British
government and society occurring during this time. As Figure 1 shows, the war
periods generally experienced a higher than average number of acts. The model
therefore includes a dummy variable (Wart), coded as 1 during wartime (1914-1918
and 1939-1945) and 0 otherwise.18
The dataset includes three special short sessions. Special short sessions occur
when parliament reopens for a specific purpose rather than for a full session. Two
sessions dealt with the independence of the Irish Free State in 1921 and 1922. The
third occurred in 1948 on the passage of the third Parliament Act to resolve the
gridlock between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Only one of these,
1922, saw any acts actually passed. These re-openings were also marked by a
significant decrease in the length of the speech, with only a single policy statement
occurring in the 1948 speech for instance. Since these parliamentary years are clearly
17
Logically the inclusion of these two variables might indicate over-fitting, as the yearly variation for
two years out of a five year election cycle are accounted for with just these two controls. However,
these variables only vary by parliamentary year, while the speech variable and the interactions it is
included in vary by policy topic, parliamentary year. Furthermore, while incorrectly specified a version
of the model that excludes these two variables and one which excludes all controls, which are not also
constitutive terms, produce the same inferences although the models are somewhat poorer fitting.
18
As also seen in Figure 1, the World Wars also led to a significant decline in the length of the Speech
from the Throne, in particular the legislative section of the speech. It is therefore logical to assume that
an interaction between the Speech from the Throne measures and our war dummy would be negative
and significant. However, during model specification tests this interaction proved to be positive and
insignificant. This is because the transmission from speech to acts remained strong for those issues that
still received attention in the speech during wartime, and those issues which did not receive attention in
the speech represented true 0’s which had no effect on the calculation of the coefficients.
19
different than the norm, the model includes a dummy variable for short sessions
(SpecialShortt), coded 1 during a special short session and 0 otherwise.19
Finally, there is a strong reason to believe that acts follow an autoregressive
process, which is confirmed by inspections of autocorrelation and partial
autocorrelation functions for each individual panel for the majority of topics. In other
words, one of the best possible predictors for the number of acts on healthcare in a
given year is the number of acts on healthcare in the previous year. Like most
autoregressive processes, the transmission will not be perfect and only a percentage of
acts in the previous year should transmit to the current year. This is especially true as
breaks in government generally weaken the strength of that relationship, although
they do not break it, as events and other matters of context will mean that any
government will often have to face the same issues as their predecessor (Jennings and
John n.d.). This suggests that a lagged dependent variable will better fit the model
than an AR(1) process simply because a lagged dependent variable accounts for
history of the series beyond a single previous period.20 Therefore, we include a lagged
acts variable (Actsit-1) in the model to control and test for the autoregressive nature of
acts.
Results
19
As these are true parliamentary years, although of a different sort, it is important to include them in
the model, as parliament was free to pass as many acts on whatever issues they wanted during these
special short sessions. The fact that they only passed acts in the 1922 special short session does not
change the need to include these years, especially since acts were passed on issues which were not
mentioned in the corresponding Speech from the Throne. However, a version of the model which does
not include special short sessions was also tested and put through the same robustness checks as the
model tested in this paper and this led to the same inferences.
20
A version of the model using an AR(1) term rather than a lagged dependent variable was also ran as
a robustness check. This model produced the same inferences, with key variables maintaining the same
signs and levels of statistical significance.
20
Table 1 presents the results for the time series cross-sectional models using the
different speech variables.21
[insert Table 1 about here]
The positive and significant coefficient for the Speechit in both versions of the
analysis presented in Table 1 indicates the average effect of a mention in the Speech
from the Throne on acts across all nineteen major topic codes. In other words, on
average a mention in the legislative half of the speech will result in 0.716 acts on the
same topic holding all three interaction terms to 0. However, all three interactions are
never 0 in the model and the Speechit variable only represents one part of the story.
The tests of hypotheses 1 and 2a and 2b occur as part of several interactions meaning
they cannot be directly interpreted from the coefficients alone. Each variable or
interaction presents a different part of the story.22 To understand the effect of the
Speech from the Throne on Acts of Parliament given the interactions between the
speech, time and party control of government requires Speechit variable’s marginal
effects, the strong negative coefficient for the (Speech * Time)it variable, the (Speech
* Conservative)it interaction, and the three-way interaction requires additional
empirics beyond the regression models, the results of which are best presented and
interpreted graphically. Figures 2 and 3 graph the marginal effects of the speech on
acts and show the 95% confidence intervals for All Mentions and Legislative
21
Two panels in each version of the model exhibited autocorrelation in their residuals. Environment
and International Trade for All Mentions and Defence and International Trade for Legislative
Mentions. Dropping these panels from data and running the analyses on the remaining cases did not
alter the signs or significances of the results.
22
The Speechit variable is the effect of the speech on acts for non-Conservative governments not
accounting for change over time. The Speechit variable minus the (Speech * Conservative)it interaction
represents the effect of the speech on acts for Conservative governments also not accounting for change
over time. The (Speech * Time)it interaction shows the change in the speech acts relationship over time
for non-Conservative governments. Similarly, the (Speech * Time * Conservative)it interaction shows
the change in the speech acts relationship over time for Conservative governments.
21
Mentions respectively. The figures mark changes in party control of government by a
vertical dotted line through the first year of a new government. The figures also label
the party in control of government during each period of at the top.
[insert Figures 2 and 3 about here]
The Y axis in Figures 2 and 3 indicates the marginal effects and confidence
intervals of the speech while the X axis indicates the parliamentary year. The solid
line indicates the combined effects for the Speechit variable, (Speech * Time)it
interaction, the (Speech * Conservative)it interaction and the three-way interaction
(Speech * Time * Conservative)it at a given point in time. The dashed lines represent
the 95% confidence intervals for these calculated effects for the speech by time and
party.23
23
These effects were calculated by taking the coefficient for the Speechit variable in each sample minus
the coefficient for the (Speech * Time)it interaction which is multiplied by each parliamentary year in
those years without a Conservative government. In those years with Conservatives in power the
(Speech * Conservative)it interaction plus the (Speech * Time * Conservative)it, which is multiplied by
each parliamentary year, is added to the previous value. This produces the dynamic marginal effects
over time and by party. Calculation of the 95% confidence intervals (represented by the dashed
lines)for Figures 2 and 3 is more difficult to explain verbally, but is done following the formulas laid
out by Brambor et al (2006) where the standard deviation is the square root of the variance- covariance
matrix of the Speech variable and the three constitutive terms. The resulting number is then multiplied
by 2 and -2 to calculate the upper and lower confidence bands respectively.
Mathematically in relation to the model as presented in the data section, the calculation of the marginal
effects and 95% confidence intervals can be expressed as follows:
MarginalEffectt = β1 + β 2Timet + β 3Conservativet + β 4 (Time * Conservative) t
2
2
CIs t = MarginalEffect t ± 2[ sqrt{var( βˆ1 ) + Timet var( βˆ 2 ) + Conservativet var(βˆ3 )
2
2
+ Timet * Conservativet var( βˆ 4 ) + 2 * Timet cov( βˆ1βˆ 2 ) + 2 * Conservativet cov( βˆ1βˆ 3 )
+ 2 * Timet * Conservativet cov( βˆ1βˆ 4 ) + 2 * Timet * Conservativet cov( βˆ 2 βˆ3 )
+ 2 * Timet * Conservativet cov( βˆ 2 βˆ 4 ) + 2 * Timet * Conservativet cov( βˆ 3 βˆ 4 )}]
22
Both Figures 2 and 3 show that the average effect of the speech declines over
time. The decline is slightly sharper in the legislative version of the analysis which
also has a greater average effect overall. The marginal effects for both analyses
remain significant for most of time span (indicated by the 95% confidence intervals),
with the only exceptions being early on during a Conservative government in the All
Mentions series, and during the most recent years in both cases indicated by the
confidence bands dropping below 0.
Combined, Figures 2 and 3 and the results in Table 1 present the tests and
offer a visual explanation of hypotheses 1, 2a and 2b. To interpret these results fully
with regard to each hypothesis it is best to turn to the marginal effects presented in
Figures 2 and 3. For the purposes of this discussion we focus on Figure 3 and the
Legislative Mentions analysis presented in Table 1, although the same interpretation
can be made for the All Mentions analysis. In Figure 3, the marginal effects of the
speech on acts are positive throughout the time span and are statistically significant
for all but the last four parliamentary years of data. This offers support for hypothesis
1, that there is a positive and significant relationship between the speech and acts.
More important than the level of statistical significance is the strength of these results.
As the transmission of the policy agenda of the speech to acts is conditional, changing
over time and by party, the size of the effect cannot be discussed through a single
coefficient value. It is best illustrated by the marginal effects presented in Figure 3.
From visual inspection, it appears that the marginal effect is near to 0.4 in most years,
indicating that each mention in the legislative section of the speech translates into 0.4
of an act on the same topic. This means that two and a half speech mentions are
required on average to result in a single act, if the number of previous acts and the
other controls are held equal to 0. Overall, the level of transmission over time is lower
23
than might be expected as the majority of mentions in the legislative section of the
speech, which sets the legislative agenda for the forthcoming parliamentary year, are
direct references to forthcoming bills. The marginal effects presented in Figure 3 also
show a strengthening of the relationship between the speech and acts for Conservative
governments indicated by the increasing marginal effect for the speech during
Conservative control of parliament, supporting hypothesis 2a, that Conservative
governments have a higher rate of transmission of the policy agenda. These figures
further demonstrate a decline in the transmission of the agenda between the speech
and acts for Labour governments indicated by the decreasing marginal effect for the
speech during non-Conservative control of parliament, supporting hypothesis 2b, that
Labour governments find it harder to maintain the agenda presented in the Speech
from the Throne over time.
Figures 2 and 3 show clear differences in the relationship between the speech
and acts for parties, but those differences are dynamic in nature. An alternative
version model which does not include a three-way interaction between the speech,
time and Conservative Party showed no statistically significant differences between
the parties in a (Speech * Conservative)it interaction. This alternative model
specification suggested that on average, over a hundred parliamentary years, the
ability for either party to maintain their agenda was the same. From the trends
observed in Figure 3, it is clear why this result occurs. While the relationship between
the speech and acts differs between parties dynamically, over the past hundred
parliaments there has been no difference on average in the rate of transmission from
the speech to acts, with the parties essentially changing places around the mid-point of
this period. The difference between the parties is only observed when accounting for
the dynamic change in this relationship over time, which is achieved through use of
24
the three-way interaction. Overall, the model offers strong support for hypotheses 1,
2a and 2b.
Moving onto the estimates for the other constitutive and control variables,
Timet is negative in both models as should be expected given the decline in the
number of acts historically. This is only significance in the Legislative Mentions
analysis, suggesting that the year-to-year change has been small. However, from the
first parliamentary session to the last in the dataset, the number of acts, when
considering the legislative version of the model, decreases by 1 for each issue area,
meaning that holding all else constant, there are 19 fewer acts of parliament now than
there were in 1911.
The Conservativet variable is positive in both models, but insignificant
indicating no difference in the total number of acts passed by each party. The
Preelectiont variable is negative in both models and nears statistical significance,
indicating that fewer acts are passed on average in the parliamentary session
immediately before an election. Similarly, the Postelectiont variable is positive and
statistically significant in both versions of the model, showing that more acts are
passed following an election than in other parliamentary years. Both of these results
fit with theoretical expectations concerning acts and the election cycle. The Wart
variable is also positive, but insignificant in both versions of the model, indicating
that no more acts were passed during the two World Wars than the average number of
acts in all other parliamentary years. The remaining control variable in the model
SpecialShortt is negative and statistically significant in both versions of the model.
This is consistent with evidence from the data in Figure 1, that the number of acts was
0 or very low in these parliamentary years due to the exceptional nature of the
sessions themselves. The large negative effect of this variable in both versions of the
25
model is logically consistent with that observation, as the average number of acts in
each issue area is at or near 0 for these three sessions. Removal of these parliamentary
years and of the control variable from the model does not however affect the other
inferences presented in this paper.
Table 1 also shows positive and significant coefficients for Actsit-1. Acts are
indeed autoregressive, meaning that on average if there were two acts on a topic in the
previous year, holding all else constant there will be at least one act in the current
year. While this effect is smaller than many autoregressive time series using social
science data, it is not surprising. Breaks in government, events and the absence of
follow-up legislation to maintain existing laws mean that the number of acts by policy
topic, parliamentary year is governed by many factors in addition to previous
legislative activity.
Finally, our analyses demonstrate that the degree of transmission of the agenda
from speech mentions to acts is stronger when considering just the legislative section
of the Speech from the Throne for the entire period between 1911 and 2008 (see
Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3). The large increase in the effect of the speech variable
and the interaction terms are most likely because the legislative section of the Speech
from the Throne refers to specific legislative intentions for the following session.
Moreover, the model using only legislative mentions explains more variance the
model using all mentions suggesting it is the more appropriate model specification.24
The differences in results of these alternative specifications suggest that the legislative
section of the speech is key source of transmission to acts of parliament, not the
content of the speech in its entirety.
24
Note that the coefficient estimates for other variables included in the model for all mentions (see
Table 1) also change when compared against the model for legislative mentions only. For example, the
effect of lagged acts is weaker, which can be explained due to the increase in explanatory power of the
speech variable and interaction terms.
26
Conclusion
There is a relationship between the Speech from the Throne and Acts of the
UK Parliament, but it is not as strong or as historically stable as the classic
formulation of the Westminster model might suggest. Our study shows that the annual
statement of executive priorities is both a statistically significant and substantial
predictor of legislative outputs. However, this relationship has changed over time in
different directions for the two major parties in British politics. While Conservative
governments have steadily strengthened the relationship between the Speech from the
Throne and Acts of the UK Parliament, this relationship has been in decline over the
same period Labour and other governments. The degree of transmission from the
speech to acts is also weaker than might be expected given the agenda-setting
function of the Speech from the Throne itself and the strength of the executive in the
Westminster system.
The results here further show that the transmission the agenda expressed in the
speech to Acts of Parliament is far stronger when considering only the legislative
section of the speech. This makes logical sense and shows that the institution of the
Speech from the Throne has two distinct functions, namely an executive focus
concerned primarily with international relations, territorial issues, and defence, and a
legislative focus that highlights the legislation the government intends to see through
in the coming parliamentary year (Jennings, Bevan and John n.d.). While the Speech
from the Throne is a ceremonial event in the parliamentary calendar, it performs a
clear and direct function in setting the executive agenda of British government,
articulating both its executive and legislative priorities.
27
This paper considers how the relationship between the speech and acts
changes over time both generally and by party. While there is some evidence of a
general decline in the relationship between the Speech from the Throne and Acts of
the UK Parliament, the stronger inference is that this decline has been party specific.
Labour and other governments have experienced a general decline in this relationship,
while Conservative governments have had a gradual upward trend. While the
evidence of these party differences is strong and robust, the exact reason or reasons
why the parties have moved in different directions in their ability to maintain the
priorities mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is not clear. As this paper has
noted, many factors may explain the change in these party specific trends. In
particular, changes to internal party organisation provide a plausible account of this
changing degree of transmission over time. Labour has evolved from a single issue
party to a centrist party concerned with public and media opinion, while historically
the Conservatives have adapted from being a Victorian era party in a period when the
legislative agenda addressed fewer issues, modernising to pursue a more ideological
legislative programme concerned with shaping public opinion and setting the political
agenda. For example, this explanation is consistent with popular characterisations of
the governing styles of the Thatcher government, pursuing a focused programme of
reform despite opposition, and that of the Blair government, with its sofa-style cabinet
and its preoccupation with media management. This paper has offered a general
explanation for these findings, but this requires further research into the reasons why
this pattern exists.
More broadly this paper has highlighted important methodological and
theoretical points concerning political parties and their policy programmes.
Methodologically, its findings demonstrate that there are significant party differences
28
in the UK concerning the degree to which the Labour and Conservative parties enact
the priorities in the Speech from the Throne in terms of Acts of the UK Parliament,
but that these differences are dynamic in nature. While it is possible to observe
significant differences between the parties during certain time periods, the largest
differences between the parties is in the changing strength of the relationship between
the speech and acts over time. Other studies, particularly those using time series data
that postulate party differences, should take care to consider whether those differences
are dynamic. Political parties change over time and so does the environment in which
they operate.
Our findings concerning the differences over time in the degree to which the
legislative agenda of political parties are transmitted into legislative outputs do not,
however, inform normative claims regarding whether higher or lower degrees of
transmission indicate a more efficient or responsive functioning of democracy. For
instance, a government that is more sensitive to changes in public opinion, events or
the media might be considered responsive, but also may find it more difficult to
implement its legislative agenda. There are, however, trade-offs between enacting an
agenda and responding to events or other external forces. Finding a middle ground
between shaping and accommodating policy, between acting as a trustee and a
delegate, is likely the most desirable option.
29
References
Anderson, Christopher. 1995. Blaming the Government: Citizens and the Economy in
Five European Democracies. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Bagehot, Walter. 1872 [1867]. The English Constitution, Second Edition. London:
Henry S. King and Company.
Bara, Judith. 2005. “A Question of Trust: Implementing Party Manifestos.”
Parliamentary Affairs 58(3): 585-599.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in
American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beer, S. 1965. Modern British Politics. London: Faber.
Blake, Robert. 1985. The Conservative Party from Peel to Thatcher London: Methuen
Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. “Understanding
Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14: 63-82.
Breeman, Gerard, Laura Chaques, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, Will Jennings, Peter
B. Mortensen, Ana Palau and Arco Timmermans. 2009. "Comparer les Agendas
Gouvernementaux: les Discours du Trône aux Pays-Bas, au Royaume-Uni, au
Danemark et en Espagne", Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée: Les
Agendas Politiques, 16 (3): 405-422.
Hay, Colin. 1994. "Labour’s Thatcherite Revisionism: Playing the ‘Politics of CatchUp’." Political Studies. 42(4): 700-707.
Budge, Ian and Dennis Farlie. 1983. ‘Party Competition - Selective Emphasis or
Direct Confrontation? An Alternative View with Data,’ pp. 267-305 in Hans
Daalder and Peter Mair (eds.). West European Party Systems. Continuity &
Change. London: Sage Publications.
Budge, Ian, and Richard I. Hofferbert. 1990. “Mandates and Policy Outputs: U.S.
Party platforms and Federal Expenditures.” American Political Science Review
84(1): 111-132.
Budge, Ian, and Richard I. Hofferbert. 1992. ‘The Party Mandate and the Westminster
Model: Party Programmes and Government Spending in Britain, 1948-1985.’
British Journal of Political Science 22(2): 151-182.
Budge, Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingeman, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara and Eric
Tanenbaum. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors,
and Governments 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canes-Wrone, Brandice. 2001. “A Theory of Presidents' Public Agenda Setting”.
Journal of Theoretical Politics 13(2):183-208.
Canes-Wrone, Brandice. 2005. Who Leads Whom? The Policy Effects of Presidents'
Relationship with the Masses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carmines, Edward G., and James A. Stimson. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the
Transformation of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cohen, Jeffrey E. 1995. “Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda.” American
Journal of Political Science 39(1): 87-107.
30
Cohen, Jeffrey E. 1997. Presidential Responsiveness and Public Policy-Making: The
Publics and the Policies that Presidents Choose. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Cox, Gary W. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of
Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, G. and McCubbins, M. 2004. Setting the Agenda. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cowley, P. 1999. ‘Rebels and rebellions: Conservative MPs in the 1992 Parliament.’
British Journal of Politics and International Relations,
Cowley, P. 2002. Revolts and Rebellions: Parliamentary Voting Under Blair London:
Politicos.
Foley, M. 1993. The Rise of the British Presidency. Manchester, Manchester
University Press.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Fearon, James D. 1997. “Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands versus
Sinking Costs.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(1): 68-90.
Green, Jane and Sara B. Hobolt. 2008. ‘Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies
and Vote Choices in British Elections’, Electoral Studies 27(3): 460-476.
Green-Pedersen, Christoffer. 2007. ‘The growing importance of issue competition:
The changing nature of party competition in Western Europe.’ Political Studies
55: 607-628.
Hay, Colin. 2007. ‘Whatever happened to Thatcherism?’, Political Studies Review 5:
183-201.
Hobolt, Sara B., and Robert Klemmensen. 2005. “Responsive Government? Public
Opinion and Government Policy Preferences in Britain and Denmark.” Political
Studies 53(2): 379-402.
Hobolt, Sara B., and Robert Klemmensen. 2008. “Government Responsiveness and
Political Competition in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Political Studies
41(3): 309-337.
Heclo, Hugh 1978. ‘Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment’, in A. King
(ed.) The New American Political System. Washington D.C.
Huber, John D. 2000. “Delegation to civil servants in parliamentary democracies.”
European Journal of Political Research 37:397-413.
Jennings, Will, and Peter John. 2009. “The dynamics of political attention: public
opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom.” forthcoming in the
American Journal of Political Science 53(4): 838-854.
Jennings, Will and Peter John. 2010. “Punctuations and Turning points in British
Politics: the Policy Agenda of the Queen’s Speech, 1940-2005.” British Journal of
Political Science 40(3): 561-586.
Jennings, Will, Shaun Bevan and Peter John. n.d. “The Agenda of British
Government: the Speech from the Throne, 1911-2008.” forthcoming, Political
Studies.
31
Jennings, Will Arco Timmermans, Shaun Bevan, Laura Chaques, Gerard Breeman,
Sylvain Brouard, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, Peter John, Peter B. Mortensen and
Anna Palau, n.d. “Effects of the Core Functions of Government on the Diversity
of Executive Agendas.” forthcoming in Comparative Political Studies.
Jones, Bryan D., and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How
Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kavanagh, Dennis. 1985. 'Power in British political parties: Iron law or special
pleading?', West European Politics, 8(3): 5-22.
Kavanagh, Dennis. 1987. Thatcherism and British Politics: The End of Consensus?
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Kavanagh, Dennis, and Peter Morris. 1994. Consensus Politics from Attlee to Major.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York:
HarperCollins.
Kernall, Samuel. 1997. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. 3rd
edition Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Richard I. Hofferbert and Ian Budge. 1994. Parties,
Policies and Democracy. Boulder: Westview Press.
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York:
HarperCollins.
Laver, M. 1999. ‘Divided parties, divided government’, Legislative Studies Quarterly
24: 5-29.
Lijphart, A. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus
Government in Twenty-one Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in
Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ludlam, Steve and Smith, Martin (eds.). 1995. Contemporary British Conservatism.
London: Macmillan.
Marquand, David. 1988. The Unprincipled Society: new demands and old politics.
London: Cape.
McDonald Michael D. and Ian Budge. 2005. Elections, Parties, Democracy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
McKenzie, R. T. 1955 British Political Parties: the Distribution of Power Within the
Conservative and Labour Parties London: Heinemann.
Mueller, D. 1987. “The growth of government. A public choice perspective.”
International Monetary Fund 34(1): 115-149.
Norton, P. 1975. Dissension in the House of Commons: Intra-Party Dissent in the
House of Commons Division Lobbies 1945-74. London: Macmillan
Norton, P. 1978. Conservative Dissidents: Dissent Within the Parliamentary
Conservative Party 1970-74. London: Temple-Smith.
Norton, P. 1980. Dissension in the House of Commons 1974-79. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
32
Pelling, H., 1996. A Short History of the Labour Party London: Macmillan.
Petrocik, John R. 1996. ‘Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case
Study.’ American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825-50.
Ranney, Austin. 1954. The Doctrine of Responsible Party Government: Its Origins
and Present State. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.
Richardson, J. 2000. “Government, interest groups and policy change.” Political
Studies, 48: 1006–1025
Rudalevige, Andrew. 2002. Managing the President’s Program: Presidential
Leadership and Legislative Policy Formulation. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Sabatier, P. A. 1991. “Toward better theories of the policy process," PS: Political
Science and Politics 24: 147-156.
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of
Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Wilson.
Seyd, Patrick. 1999. ‘New Parties/New Politics?: A Case Study of the British Labour
Party’ Party Politics 5: 383-405.
Soroka, Stuart and Christopher Wlezien. 2005. ‘Opinion-policy dynamics: public
preferences and public expenditure in the United Kingdom’, British Journal of
Political Science 35: 665–89.
Smith, Martin J. 1994. “Understanding the ‘Politics ofCatch-Up’: the Modernization
of the Labour Party.” Political Studies 42(4): 708-715.
Strøm, Kaare. 2000. “Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies.”
European Journal of Political Research 37: 261-289.
Strøm, Kaare. 2003. “Parliamentary Democracy and Delegation.” in Delegation and
Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Strøm, Muller, and Bergman, eds.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsebelis, G. 1995. “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in
Presidentialism, Parliamentariam, Multicameralism and Multipartyism.” British
Journal of Political Science 25(3): 289-325
Volkens, Andrea. 2002. Manifesto Coding Instructions. Discussion Paper FS III 02201. Berlin: WZB, 2002.
Walgrave, Stefaan and Michiel Nuytemans. 2009. “Friction and Party Manifesto
Change in 25 Countries.” American Journal of Political Science 53(1): 190-206.
Ware, Alan. 1992. “Activist–Leader Relations and the Structure of Political Parties:
'Exchange' Models and Vote-Seeking Behaviour in Parties.” British Journal of
Political Science 22: 71-92.
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995, "The public as thermostat: dynamics of preferences for
spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 981-1000.
Wlezien, Christopher. 1996. “Dynamics of Representation: The Case of U.S.
Spending on Defense.” British Journal of Political Science 26(1): 81-103.
33
Labour
Conservative
Labour
Conservative
Labour
160
Conservative
180
Labour /
National
Liberal
200
Conservative
Figure 1: Acts of Parliament, All Mentions, and Legislative Mentions in the Speech
from the Throne.
140
Total
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1911
1929
1948
1968
1987
Year
Acts
Legislative Mentions
34
All Mentions
2008
Table 1: Acts of Parliament by Major Topic
All Mentions Legislative Mentions
Actsit-1
Speechit
(Speech * Time)it
(Speech * Conservative)it
0.506***
0.438***
(0.039)
(0.039)
0.285**
0.715***
(0.064)
(0.138)
-0.003**
-0.006**
(0.001)
(0.002)
-0.200†
-0.459*
(0.103)
(0.213)
(Speech * Time * Conservative)it 0.002
Timet
Conservativet
Preelectiont
Postelectiont
Wart
SpecialShortt
Constant (α0)
R2
0.009**
(0.002)
(0.003)
-0.006
-0.009*
(0.005)
(0.005)
0.263
0.042
(0.270)
(0.275)
-0.449
-0.400
(0.306)
(0.300)
1.015***
0.874**
(0.303)
(0.295)
0.172
0.450
(0.469)
(0.458)
-3.142***
-2.802***
(0.766)
(0.748)
1.322***
1.378***
(0.352)
(0.347)
.329
.364
Note: * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤ .001, † p ≤ .10, N=1900
35
Marginal Effect
Labour
Conservative
Labour
Conservative
Labour
Conservative
.8
Labour /
National
Liberal
1
Conservative
Figure 2: Marginal Effects and Confidence Intervals of Speech from the Throne
Mentions Over Time – All Mentions
.6
.4
.2
0
1911
1929
1948
1968
Year
36
1987
2008
Marginal Effect
Labour
Conservative
Labour
Conservative
Labour
Conservative
.8
Labour /
National
Liberal
1
Conservative
Figure 3: Marginal Effects and Confidence Intervals of Speech from the Throne
Mentions Over Time – Legislative Mentions
.6
.4
.2
0
1911
1929
1948
1968
Year
37
1987
2008
Shaun Bevan