![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper tests four models of political representation in the UK Parliament: the traditional, party, representative and tribune. Each involves a different usage of the Internet in order to fulfil a particular role. A rational choice approach emphasises the utility of the party model, utilising information and communication technologies to reinforce existing patterns within the political system. An empirical study suggests that the party model is the most applicable to the UK Parliament. Few MPs utilise the Internet in a way consistent with the other three models. If innovative use is to be made of the Internet, it may be at the institutional level rather than at the level of the individual MP.
Notes
1. Following the works of Bagehot and Packenham, these can include educating, problem solving, advocacy, legislative scrutiny, administrative oversight, approving, and acting as a recipient of the views of electors. W. Bagehot, The English Constitution (London: Chapman and Hall, 1867). R. Packenham, ‘Legislatures and Political Development’, in A. Kornberg and L. D. Musolf (eds.), Legislatures in Developmental Perspective (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1970).
2. P. Norton, ‘Parliament Since 1945: A More Open Institution?’ Contemporary Record, 5/2 (1991), pp. 217–34.
3. P. Norton, Parliament in British Politics (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), Ch.9.
4. See R. Ware, ‘A New Joint Department at Westminster’, The Table, 74 (2006) pp. 22–34.
5. Data on IT equipment and spend supplied by the House of Commons to Richard Kendall under a Freedom of Information request, August 2006. I am grateful to Richard Kendall for these data.
6. C. Di Gennaro and W. Dutton, ‘The Internet and the Public; Online and Offline Political Participation in the United Kingdom’, Parliamentary Affairs, 59/2 (2006), p. 301.
7. T. Zittel, ‘Political Representation in the Networked Society: The Americanisation of European Systems of Responsible Party Government’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 9/3 (2003), pp. 32–53.
8. Zittel, ‘Political Representation in the Networked Society’, p. 50.
9. D. Judge, ‘Representation in Westminster in the 1990s: The Ghost of Edmund Burke’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 5/1 (1999), pp. 25–8.
10. Judge, ‘Representation Westminster in the 1990s’, p. 28. In the event, they opted for the lobby fodder option.
11. See S. Coleman, Direct representation: towards conversational democracy (London: Institute for Public Policy Research, 1996).
12. P. Norton and D. M. Wood, Back from Westminster (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1993).
13. Hansard Society, Democracy Online: What Do We Want From MPs' Web Sites (London: Hansard Society, 2001).
14. S. Coleman, Technology: Enhancing Representative Democracy in UK? (London: Hansard Society, 2002). S. Coleman and J. Spiller, ‘Exploring New Media Effects on Representative Democracy’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 9/3 (2003), pp. 1–16. S. Coleman and B. Nathanson, Learning to Live with the Internet, EPRI Knowledge, available at www.epri.org/epriknowledge/contents/7thconference_mat/20050606_1stEPRI_workshop_Backgroundreading.pdf. See also S. Coleman, J. Taylor and W. Van De Donk (eds.), Parliament in the Age of the Internet (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
15. S. Ward and W. Lusoli, ‘“From Weird to Wired”: MPs, the Internet and Representative Politics in the UK’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 11/1 (2005), pp. 57–81. W. Lusoli, S. Ward and R. Gibson, ‘(Re)connecting Politics? Parliament, the Public and the Internet’, Parliamentary Affairs, 59/1 (2006), pp. 24–42.
16. N. Jackson, ‘MPs and Web Technologies: An Untapped Opportunity’, Journal of Public Affairs, 3/2 (2003), pp. 124–37. N. Jackson, ‘An MP's Role in the Internet Era – the Impact of E-newsletters’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 12/2 (2006), pp. 223–42.
17. Dod's is an annual compendium of the biographies of MPs and peers and is a staple reference work for anyone wanting to know about Members of either House. For the purpose of our analysis, we have utilised Dod's Westminster Contacts, Summer 2006.
18. Information Committee, House of Commons, Digital Technology: Working for Parliament and the Public, First Report, Session 2001–02, HC 1065, p. 9.
19. See P. Norton and D. M. Wood, Back from Westminster.
20. Norton, Parliament in British Politics, p. 235.
21. M. Francoli and S. Ward, ‘21st Century Soapboxes? MPs and their Blogs’, paper presented at the Political Studies Association annual conference, University of Bath, April 2007, p. 7.
22. Francoli and Ward, ‘21st Century Soapboxes? MPs and their Blogs’, p. 9.
23. Francoli and Ward, ‘21st Century Soapboxes? MPs and their Blogs’, p. 9.
24. S. Etherington, Foreword, Weblogs – a powerful voice for campaigns? (London: Crisis/Hansard Society, 2005), p. 2.
25. P. Norton, Dissension in the House of Commons 1945–74 (London: Macmillan, 1975), P. Norton, Conservative Dissidents (London: Temple Smith, 1978), P. Norton, Dissension in the House of Commons 1974–1979 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), P. Cowley, Revolts and Rebellions (London: Politico's, 2002), and P. Cowley, The Rebels (London: Politico's, 2005).
26. The data are taken from P. Cowley and M. Stuart, Dissension in the Parliamentary Labour Party, 2005–2006. A Data Handbook, available at www.revolts.co..uk
27. S. Ward and W. Lusoli, ‘“From Weird to Wired”: MPs, the Internet and Representative Politics in the UK’, p. 73.
28. Francoli and Ward, ‘21st Century Soapboxes? MPs and their Blogs’, p. 8.
31. Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill, Report of the Committee on the Draft Communications Bill, Session 2001–2, HC 876, HL Paper 169, annex 5.
32. Norton, Parliament in British Politics, p. 235.
33. Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, Connecting Parliament with the Public, First Report, Session 2003–4, HC 368, pp. 20–21.
34. Select Committee on the Constitution, House of Lords, Parliament and the Legislative Process, Fourteenth Report, Session 2003–04, HL Paper 173-I, para. 213.
35. Coleman and Spiller, ‘Exploring New Media Effects on Representative Democracy’, p. 9.
36. S. Ward and R. Gibson, ‘Virtual Representation and Parliaments, MPs and the Public in the Internet Age’, Paper presented at the Centre for Legislative Studies, University of Hull, April 2007, p. 6. See also Di Gennaro and Dutton, ‘The Internet and the Public; Online and Offline Political Participation in the United Kingdom’.