The literature review should consider a wide range of sources which assert opinions with regards to the validity of Parliamentary Decline Thesis (PDT). Please consider the validity of the sources, how convincing they are, and how convincing they were within their respective political and historical epochs, and whether there are any epistemological, methodological, or ontological constraints or strengths, as well as a general overview of the ideas within the literature.
I’m not sure what structure would be best, but it makes sense to me to organise it according three main strands of PDT literature: I can see three main themes. The first being those original scholars who forwarded the idea the Parliament was not effective due to an over-extension of the power of the executive and an acquiescent legislature. These were then vastly expanded on throughout the 20th century. The second being a more optimistic strand of literature which offered the practical solution for the alleged issue of an overly powerful executive by suggesting the select committee system. And finally, the strand of literature which purports to have evidence to counter PDT. Relevant sources which do not fit neatly into these three sources can still be mentioned. Flinders and Kelso (2011) offers a good overview of the literature which might be a good starting point.
Potential sources for the first section are:
Low, S. (1906) The Governance of England (London: T. Fisher Unwin)
Redlich, J. (1908) The Procedure of the House of Commons: Volume 1: A Study of its History and Present Form (London).
Hewart, L. (1929) The New Despotism (London: Benn).
Jennings, I. (1934) Parliamentary Reform (London: Victor Gollanz).
Ross, J. F. S. (1943) Parliamentary Representation (New Haven, CT: Yale University P
Hollis, C. (1949) Can Parliament Survive? (London: Hollis & Carter).
Please do make mention of the structural and legal changes to Parliamentary proceedings which prompted scholars to form their view of parliamentary decline. These include the 1867 Reform Act and reforms in 1902 and 1906-7 which prioritized government business in the House cropped the legislative process and increased the volume of legislation examined away from the chamber and in standing committees.
Sources which could be included in the second section still forwarded the idea that Parliament had become unfit for scrutiny, but some for them also suggested the committee system to shift the balance of power back to the legislature as a solution for this. Potential sources for the second section:
Walkland, S. A. (1960) ‘The House of Commons and the estimates’, Parliamentary Affairs, 13:4, 477– 488.
Hanson, A. H. (1963) ‘The purpose of parliament’, Parliamentary Affairs, 17:3, 279 – 295.
Crick, B. (1964) The Reform of Parliament (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Hill, A. and Whichelow, A. (1964) What’s Wrong with Parliament? (London: Penguin).
Robson, W. (1964) ‘The reform of government’, Political Quarterly, 35:2, 193 – 211
Marshall, G. (1965) ‘Parliament and the constitution’, Political Quarterly, 36:2, 255 – 266
Ryle, M. (1965) ‘Committees of the House of Commons’, Political Quarterly, 36:3, 295 – 308
Wiseman, H. V. (1966) Parliament and the Executive (London: Routledge).
Butt, R. (1969) The Power of Parliament (London: Constable).
The third section can point to the literature which counters PDT by offering evidence that there is a much more complicated relationship in parliament that PDT suggests, that there are many informal mechanisms that make the legislature hold power over proceedings, that PDT overlooked informal mechanisms and wrongly assumed a ‘golden age’ in which the legislature had been more powerful and was unsupported by empirical evidence. Potential sources for the third section:
Flinders, M. and Kelso, A., 2011. Mind the Gap: Political Analysis, Public Expectations and the Parliamentary Decline Thesis. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, [online] 13(2), pp.249-268. – DEFINITELY include this source please
Norton, P. (1983) ‘The Norton view’, in D. Judge (ed.), The Politics of Parliamentary Reform (London:
Heinemann), 54 – 69
Riddell, P. (2010) ‘In defence of politicians: In spite of themselves’, Parliamentary Affairs, 63:3
Mullin, C. (2010) A View from the Foothills (London: Profile).
Richards, D. and Mathers, H. (2010) ‘Political memoirs and New Labour: Interpretations of power and the
“club rules” ’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 12:4,
Flinders, M. (2000) ‘The enduring centrality of individual ministerial responsibility within the British
constitution’, Legislative Studies, 6:3,
Russell, M. and Sciara, M. (2007) ‘Why does the government get defeated in the House of Lords?’, British
Politics, 2:3
Cowley, P. and Stuart, M. (2005) ‘Parliament’, in A. Seldon and D. Kavanagh (eds), The Blair Effect,
2001–2005 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press),
Norton, P. (2000) ‘Reforming parliament in the United Kingdom’, Legislative Studies, 6:1
Other potentially relevant sources are:
Flinders, M. (2007) ‘Analysing reform’, Political Studies, 55:2, 174- 200
Kelso, A. (2009) Parliamentary Reform at Westminster (Manchester: Manchester University P, 88-89
Lenman, B. P. (1992) The Eclipse of Parliament (London: Edward Arnold).
Jenkins, S. (1995) Accountable to None (London: Penguin).
Ward, I. (2004) The British Constitution (London: Hart).
Foster, C. (2005) British Government in Crisis (Oxford: Hart Publishing).
