Parliament
Hunting for Votes
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6313142 |
|---|---|
| Authors | P Cowley (University of Nottingham, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2005 |
| Volume | 58 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 258-271 |
| Publication date | 2005-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Parliamentary Affairs (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0031-2290 • E-ISSN: 1460-2482 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1093/pa/gsi021 |
| OpenAlex | W2026558811 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
The government’s main difficulty in the Commons in 2004 came over the passage of the Higher Education Bill. Its eventual (narrow) success was due to four factors: a desire amongst Labour MPs not to damage the government, the inability of the rebels to concentrate their forces; the extensive consultation between front- and backbenchers, and the changes made to the bill to meet the concerns of would-be rebels. Backbench rebellions over a range of other issues meant that the Parliamentary Labour Party maintained its record as one of the most rebellious parliamentary parties in post-war history. The government also suffered a string of defeats in the Lords, where opposition over hunting was only overcome through the use of the Parliament Act. Although widely seen as an example of executive arrogance, this was in reality yet another example of an increasingly assertive Parliament. Also widely misunderstood were the various internal reforms of the Commons
Commons · Government (linguistics · House of Commons · Opposition (politics · Parliament · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Irish and British Studies · Law · Political and Economic history of UK and US · Political Systems and Governance
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,36 |
| Citation span | 2012 - 2025 (14) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |