Accountability, analysis and avoidance: how PMO data impacts on Westminster

References

• Alexandre-Collier, A. (2020a). From rebellion to extinction: Where have all the Tory Remainer MPs gone? The Political Quarterly, 91(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexandre-Collier, A. (2020b). Brexit and anti-parliament discourses among conservative MPs (2016–2019). Parliamentary Affairs, 75(2), 239–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allington, N. F., & Peele, G. (2010). Moats, duck houses and bath plugs: Members of Parliament, the expenses scandal, and the use of web sites. Parliamentary Affairs, 63(3), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsq010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, R. D. (2009). Congress, the press, and political accountability. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Auel, K., & Umit, R. (2018). Explaining MPs’ communication to their constituents: Evidence from the UK house of commons. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20(3), 731–752.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baack, S. (2018). Practically engaged: The entanglements between data journalism and civic tech. Digital Journalism, 6(6), 673–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1375382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauhr, M., & Grimes, M. (2014). Indignation or resignation: The implications of transparency for societal accountability. Governance, 27(2), 291–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BBC. (2017, September 21). House of Lords rejects ‘couch potato peers’ allegation.
   Google Scholar
• BBC. (2019, September 12). Here’s how data science has changed the way we cover parliamentary votes.
   Google Scholar
• Beer, D. (2016). Metric power. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Benesch, C., Bütler, M., & Hofer, K. E. (2018). Transparency in parliamentary voting. Journal of Public Economics, 163, 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., & Pfetsch, B. (2018). Rethinking political communication in a time of disrupted public spheres. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blick, A. (2021). Electrified democracy: The internet and the United Kingdom parliament in history. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bush, S. (2021, October 21). TheyWorkForYou is bad – but a world without it would be worse. New Statesman.
   Google Scholar
• Bychawski, A. (2021, November 3). Quarter of MPs calling to replace sleaze watchdog have been punished by it. Open Democracy.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, J. M. (2008). Legislative voting and accountability. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, L. T., & Cheney, G. (2015). Peering into transparency: Challenging ideals, proxies, and organizational practices. Communication Theory, 25(1), 70–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, S. (2020). Re-imagining the democratic public. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), A research agenda for digital politics (pp. 213–223). Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Standards. (2022, January 26). Formal meeting (oral evidence session): Code of Conduct consultation, Wednesday.
   Google Scholar
• Crewe, E. (2015). The House of Commons: An anthropology of MPs at work. Bloomsbury Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Cucciniello, M., Porumbescu, G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2017). Twenty-five years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bois, N. (2018). Confessions of a recovering MP. Biteback.
   Google Scholar
• Dekker, R., Franco Contreras, J., & Meijer, A. (2020). The living lab as a methodology for public administration research: A systematic literature review of its applications in the social sciences. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(14), 1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1668410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeSmog. (2019, November 28). Follow the leader: Conservative candidates failing to attend local climate.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, A., de Kool, D., & Van Ooijen, C. (2015). The information ecology of parliamentary monitoring websites: Pathways towards strengthening democracy. Information Polity, 20(4), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150372
   Google Scholar
• ERS. (2018, June 18). Parliamentary briefing House of Lords ‘abolition’ – Westminster Hall debate 4:30pm.
   Google Scholar
• ERS. (2020a, July 23). Britain’s unelected Lords are signing up to speak in huge numbers. Here’s why.
   Google Scholar
• ERS. (2020b, August 13). Silent Peers and Lords a-claiming: research lifts lid on fresh expenses scandal.
   Google Scholar
• Escher, T. (2011). Analysis of users and usage for TheyWorkForYou.Com. mySociety.
   Google Scholar
• Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/517897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2016). Engines of Anxiety: Academic rankings, reputation, and accountability. Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home style and Washington work: Studies of congressional politics. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferejohn, J. (1986). Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice, 50(1-3), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00124924
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyverbom, M. (2020). The Digital Prism: Transparency and Managed Visibilities in a Datafied World. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friends of the Earth. (2019). General Election 2019: Climate Pledge. https://friendsoftheearth.uk/general-election/climate-pledge
   Google Scholar
• Gilovich, T., & Savitsky, K. (1999). The spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency: Egocentric assessments of how we are seen by others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Google Trends. (2022, February 14). Site search ‘theyworkforyou.com’.
   Google Scholar
• Guardian. (2011, September 8). Reality check: Who are Britain's laziest parliamentarians?
   Google Scholar
• Guardian. (2019a, October 11). Guardian climate score: How did your MP do?
   Google Scholar
• Guardian. (2019b, July 25). Cabinet's voting record shows lack of support for abortion and gay rights.
   Google Scholar
• Hanretty, C., Mellon, J., & English, P. (2021). Members of parliament are minimally accountable for their issue stances (and they know it). American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1275–1291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey, P., Reeves, M., & Ruppert, E. (2013). Anticipating failure: Transparency devices and their effects. Journal of Cultural Economy, 6(3), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2012.739973
   Google Scholar
• Heimstädt, M., & Dobusch, L. (2020). Transparency and accountability: Causal, critical, and constructive perspectives. Organization Theory, 1(4), 263178772096421. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720964216
   Google Scholar
• Hix, S., Hagemann, S., & Frantescu, D.. (2012). Effects of Transparency on Behaviour in the European Parliament. Political Science and Political Economy Working Paper Department of Government London School of Economics.
   Google Scholar
• Hogge, B. (2016). United Kingdom's TheyWorkForYou: Taking the long view. https://odimpact.org/case-united-kingdoms-theyworkforyou.html
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Standards Committee. (2022, January 26). Formal meeting (oral evidence session): Code of Conduct consultation, Wednesday.
   Google Scholar
• IPSA. (2017). Findings from the annual survey of MPs and their staff 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, N., & Kelly, R. (2021, November 9). Recall election research briefing.
   Google Scholar
• Judge, D. (2022). ‘Would I lie to you?’: Boris Johnson and lying in the House of Commons. The Political Quarterly, 93(1), 77–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jungherr, A., Rivero, G., & Gayo-Avello, D. (2020). Retooling politics: How digital media are shaping democracy. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, I. (2019). Cleaning up the mess: After the MPs’ expenses scandal. Biteback Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Korthagen, I., & Dorst, H. (2020). Parliamentary monitoring. In L. Hennen, I. Van Keulen, I. Korthagen, G. Aichholzer, R. Lindner, & R. Ø. Nielsen (Eds.), European e-democracy in practice (pp. 151–163). Springer Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, J. (2009). Electing our masters: The hustings in British politics from Hogarth to Blair. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Le Conte, M. (2019, June 10). Sharing screenshots of an MP’s voting history misses out vital pieces of context. GQ. https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/theyworkforyou
   Google Scholar
• Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (2000). Representation or abdication? How citizens use institutions to help delegation succeed. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007068904236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandelbaum, A. (2011). Strengthening parliamentary accountability, citizen engagement and access to information: A global survey of parliamentary monitoring organizations. NDI and the World Bank Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Mandelbaum, A. G., & Swislow, D. R. (2016). The role of parliamentary monitoring organizations. In M. O'Brien, R. Stapenhurst, & L. Von Trapp (Eds.), The role of parliamentary monitoring organizations (pp. 155–166). World Bank Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, F. (2021). The value of ‘between-election’ political participation: Do parliamentary e-petitions matter to political elites? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 23(3), 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120959041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mau, S. (2019). The metric society: On the quantification of the social. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. Yale Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mckay, L. (2020). Does constituency focus improve attitudes to MPs? A test for the UK. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 26(1), 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, W. C. (2000). Political parties in parliamentary democracies: Making delegation and accountability work. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007073021074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• mySociety. (2021, January 21). A response to Robert Largan, MP.
   Google Scholar
• New Statesman. (2020, August). Peers reviewed: An analysis of the failings of the House of Lords.
   Google Scholar
• Nyhan, B., McGhee, E., Sides, J., Masket, S., & Greene, S. (2012). One vote out of step? The effects of salient roll call votes in the 2010 election. American Politics Research, 40(5), 844–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X11433768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brochta, W. (2021). Do peers respond? Attendance and critical events. British Politics, 16(4), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-020-00154-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Open Democracy. (2021, December 1). UK peers face tighter rules on financial interests, after Open Democracy investigation.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, D. C. (2021). Looking after constituency interests: The utilisation of MP expenses and early Day motions to craft constituency service home styles. Parliamentary Affairs, 74(1), 158–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsz042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsons, A. (2020). Publishing less: Our current thinking about comparative statistics. https://www.mysociety.org/2020/11/16/publishing-less-our-current-thinking-about-comparative-statistics/
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, A. (2022). Party voting instructions should be public. https://www.mysociety.org/2022/01/21/the-voting-instructions-parties-give-their-mps-should-be-public/
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen, H. H., & vanHeerde-Hudson, J. (2019). Two strategies for building a personal vote: Personalized representation in the UK and Denmark. Electoral Studies, 59, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2019.02.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perloff, R. M. (2015). A three-decade retrospective on the hostile media effect. Mass Communication and Society, 18(6), 701–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1051234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Politics Home. (2020, February 23). House of Lords under fire for ‘out of control’ expenses as bill hits £23m a year.
   Google Scholar
• Prat, A. (2005). The wrong kind of transparency. American Economic Review, 95(3), 862–877. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Procedure Committee. (2009). Written Parliamentary questions, Session 2008-09 (HC 859).
   Google Scholar
• Radford, S., Mell, A., & Thevoz, S. A. (2020). ‘Lordy me!’ Can donations buy you a British peerage? A study in the link between party political funding and peerage nominations, 2005–2014. British Politics, 15(2), 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-019-00109-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelofs, P. (2019). Transparency and mistrust: Who or what should be made transparent? Governance, 32(3), 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruppert, E., & Savage, M. (2011). Transactional politics. The Sociological Review, 59(2_suppl), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2012.02057.x
   Google Scholar
• Russell, M. (2013). The contemporary House of Lords: Westminster bicameralism revived. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, M. (2019, October 2). Which MPs are responsible for failing to ‘get Brexit done’? https://ukandeu.ac.uk/which-mps-are-responsible-for-failing-to-get-brexit-done/
   Google Scholar
• Sartori, G. (1987). The theory of democracy revisited. NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist's view of democracy in America. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American civic life. Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sky News. (2021, December 2). MPs give up second jobs worth £250k a year in wake of Westminster sleaze row.
   Google Scholar
• Spectator. (2021, December 13). Who said they would vote against vaccine passports?
   Google Scholar
• Stasavage, D. (2006). Does transparency make a difference? In Proceedings-British Academy (Vol. 135).
   Google Scholar
• Strathern, M. (2000). The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/713651562
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strøm, K. (2003). Parliamentary democracy and delegation. In K. Strøm, W. C. Müller, & T. Bergman (Eds.), Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies (pp. 55–106). OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Strøm, K., & Müller, W. C. (2006). The (moral) hazards of parliamentary democracy. In D. Braun & F. Gilardi (Eds.), Delegation in contemporary democracies (pp. 43–67). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sunday Times. (2009, November 1). Expenses and exposure led to non-claiming: Peers stop claiming discredited expenses.
   Google Scholar
• Sutherland, N., & Priddy, S. (2022, February 14). Apologies by MPs to the House of Commons since 1979. Research Briefing.
   Google Scholar
• Telegraph. (2009, April 4). Best and worst value MPs revealed.
   Google Scholar
• The Sunday Times. (2021, March 20). Revealed: The truth about the peers who are born to rule.
   Google Scholar
• UK Youth Climate Coalition. (2021). Does your MP care about climate change? https://helloukycc.wixsite.com/mps-climate-record/
   Google Scholar
• Valgarðsson, V. O., Clarke, N., Jennings, W., & Stoker, G. (2021). The good politician and political trust: An authenticity gap in British politics? Political Studies, 69(4), 858–880. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720928257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vivyan, N., & Wagner, M. (2012). Do voters reward rebellion? The electoral accountability of MPs in Britain. European Journal of Political Research, 51(2), 235–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.01998.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waylen, G., & Southern, R. (2021). When are women as corrupt as men? Gender, corruption, and accountability in the UK parliamentary expenses scandal. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 28(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxz045
   Google Scholar
• Williams, M. (2016). Parliament Ltd: A journey to the dark heart of British politics. Hachette UK.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, T., & Aronczyk, M. (2020). Publicity and transparency. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(11), 1531–1544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764220945359
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yildirim, T. M. (2020). Politics of constituency representation and legislative ambition under the glare of camera lights. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 45(1), 101–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12256
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YouGov. (2021). Birkbeck MPs polling fieldwork dates: 19th January–9th February 2021.
   Google Scholar