Search

The creation of the Scottish Parliament provided Scottish citizens with an additional layer of politicians to represent them. But to whom do constituents turn when seeking help with a problem—councillors, MSPs or MPs? We assess how partisanship, national identity and shared competences affect public perceptions of the governing responsibilities of the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament and local councils. We find that an individual's national identity considerably affects perceptions of the political powers delegated to Scottish political institutions. We conclude by considering the implications for efforts to further devolve powers to the devolved legislatures in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

More than 300 Members of Parliament (MPs) found themselves in an awkward position after the vote on Britain's membership in the EU: They had taken a public stance on Brexit in opposition to their constituents. We investigate whether MPs attempted to bolster their personal vote in response and if this provided electoral protection. Using Early Day Motions (EDMs), we find that MPs supporting Leave in Remain constituencies sponsored more EDMs after Brexit but were also more likely to lose re-election in 2017. Remain supporting MPs in Leave constituencies switched their position on Brexit when voting to trigger Article 50, but did not sponsor more EDMs post-Brexit and did not lose disproportionately compared to Brexit-aligned MPs. We conclude by considering whether the value of the personal vote and incumbency may have declined as affective polarization (Mason, 2018) among the British electorate may be on the rise during the era of Brexit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In most democratic regimes, the public often dislikes and distrusts parliamentarians. This should not surprise: the public likes neither compromise nor conflict, both of which are legislative hallmarks. One of the most famous examples of parliamentary conflict is Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) in the British House of Commons. It is the most viewed and commented upon part of the parliamentary week, but attracts strong criticism as a noisy charade promoting a poor image of politics. Does PMQs undermine individual levels of political efficacy and trust in Parliament, as some commentators suggest? We use an experimental design to answer this question and find evidence to suggest that, contrary to its negative reputation, PMQs does not adversely affect most citizens' perceptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]