Political Behavior

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 113–135 | Cite as

The calculus of dissent: Party discipline in the British Labour government, 1974–1979

  • Brian J. Gaines
  • Geoffrey Garrett


The strength of political parties is taken to be one central difference between the political systems of the United States and the United Kingdom. We analyze defection from party line voting within the British Labour Party in the House of Commons between 1974 and 1979 to suggest that this dichotomy is overdrawn. In fact, the analysis shows that the dynamics of legislative behavior are quite similar in the two systems, notwithstanding the significant institutional differences between a separation of powers system and the West-minster model. Members of Parliament, like American Congressmen, balance the demands of their constituents, activists within their local party, and party leadership, as well as wage intraparty battles over the direction of policy.


Power System Political Party Political System Central Difference Party Leadership 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agenda for the 73rd Annual Conference of the Labour Party (1974). London: Labour Party.Google Scholar
  2. Agenda for the 74th Annual Conference of the Labour Party (1975). London: Labour Party.Google Scholar
  3. Agenda for the 75th Annual Conference of the Labour Party (1976). London: Labour Party, 1976.Google Scholar
  4. Alford, John R., and Brady, David W. (1989). Personal and partisan advantage in US congressional elections, 1846–1986. In Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce J. Oppenheimer (eds.),Congress Reconsidered (fourth edition), Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  5. Alt, James, Crewe, Ivor, and Sarlvik, B. (1976). Partisanship and policy choice.British Journal of Political Science 6: 273–291.Google Scholar
  6. Beer, Samuel H. (1982).Modern British Politics: Parties and Pressure Groups in the Collectivist Age. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  7. Bochel, John, and Denver, David (1983). Candidate selection in the Labour Party: What the selectors seek.British Journal of Political Science 13: 45–69.Google Scholar
  8. Brady, David, Cooper, Joseph, and Hurley, Patricia A. (1979). The decline of party in the US House of Representatives, 1887–1968.Legislative Studies Quarterly 4: 381–408.Google Scholar
  9. Burke, Edmund (1904) [1770]. Thoughts on the causes of the present discontents. In E.J. Payne (ed.),Burke: Selected Works Volume I (sixth edition), Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, David, and Stokes, Donald (1974).Political Change in Britain. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, David, and Kavanagh, Dennis (1975).The British General Election of October 1974. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Butler, David, and Butler, Gareth (1986).British Political Facts, 1900–1985 (sixth edition), London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John, and Fiorina, Morris (1987).The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Craig, F.W.S. 1984.British Parliamentary Elections, 1974–1983. Chichester, West Sussex: Parliamentary Research Services.Google Scholar
  15. Commentary: The Killing of the Scotland Bill. (1978).The Political Quarterly 49: 127–132.Google Scholar
  16. Cox, Gary W. (1987).The Efficient Secret. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Crewe, Ivor, and Fox, Anthony (1984).British Parliamentary Constituencies: A Statistical Compendium. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  18. Downs, Anthony. (1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  19. Epstein, Leon D. (1980). What happened to the British Party model?American Political Science Review 74: 9–22.Google Scholar
  20. Erikson, Robert S., and Romero, David W. (1990). Candidate equilibrium and the behavioral model of the vote.American Political Science Review 84: 1103–1126.Google Scholar
  21. Fiorina, Morris P. (1981).Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Greene, William H. (1990).Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Guthrie, Roger, and McLean, Iain (1978). Another part of the periphery: Reactions to devolution in an English development area.Parliamentary Affairs 31: 190–200.Google Scholar
  24. Heath, Anthony, Jowell, Roger, and Curtice, John (1985).How Britain Votes. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  25. Hulke, Malcolm (ed.) (1975).Cassell's Parliamentary Directory. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  26. Kavanagh, Dennis (ed.) (1982).The Politics of the Labour Party. London: George, Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  27. Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and McCubbins, Matthew D. (1991).The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kimber, Jon (1987). The ideological position and electoral appeal of Labour Party candidates: An analysis of Labour's performance at the 1983 general election.British Journal of Political Science 17: 371–379.Google Scholar
  29. King, Gary (1989).Unifying Political Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Labour Weekly. London: Labour Party. (various issues)Google Scholar
  31. Lijphart, Arend (1984).Democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lynskey, James J. (1970). The role of British backbenchers in the modification of government policy.Western Political Quarterly 23: 333–347.Google Scholar
  33. McLean, Iain (1977). The politics of nationalism and devolution.Political Studies 25: 425–430.Google Scholar
  34. Mayhew, David R. (1974).Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John R. (1976).The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Norton, Philip (1975).Dissension in the House of Commons. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Norton, Philip (1977a). The influence of the backbench member.The Parliamentarian 58: 164–171.Google Scholar
  38. Norton, Philip (1977b). Intra-party dissent in the House of Commons: The Parliament of 1974.The Parliamentarian 58: 240–245.Google Scholar
  39. Norton, Philip (1978). Government defeats in the House of Commons: Three restraints overcome.The Parliamentarian 59: 231–238.Google Scholar
  40. Norton, Philip (1980a).Dissension in the House of Commons 1974–1979. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  41. Norton, Philip (1980b). The changing face of the British House of Commons in the 1970's.Legislative Studies Quarterly 5: 33–357.Google Scholar
  42. Norton, Philip (1981).The Commons in Perspective. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  43. Norton, Philip (1985).Parliament in the 1980s. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. The Observer. London: Argus Publishing. (various issues)Google Scholar
  45. Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons. fifth series.Google Scholar
  46. Polsby, Nelson W. (1968). The institutionalization of the US. House of Representatives.American Political Science Review 62: 148–68.Google Scholar
  47. Ranney, Austin (1975). Selecting the candidates. In Howard R. Penniman (ed.),Britain at the Polls: The Parliamentary Elections of 1974. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, 33–60.Google Scholar
  48. Report of the Seventy-Fourth Annual Conference of the Labour Party (1975). London: The Labour Party.Google Scholar
  49. Report of the Seventy-Fifth Annual Conference of the Labour Party (1976). London: The Labour Party.Google Scholar
  50. Report of the Seventy-Sixth Annual Conference of the Labour Party (1977). London: The Labour Party.Google Scholar
  51. Richards, Peter G. (1963).Honorable Members: A Study of the British Backbencher. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  52. Richards, Peter G. (1972).The Backbenchers. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  53. Rose, Paul (1981).Backbencher's Dielemma. London: Frederick Muller, Limited.Google Scholar
  54. Sarlvik, Bo, and Crewe, Ivor (1983).Decade of Dealignment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Schwarz, John E. (1980). Exploring a new role in policy making: The British House of Commons in the 1970's.American Political Science Review 74: 23–37.Google Scholar
  56. Stenton, M., and Lee, Stephen (eds.) (1981).Who's Who of British Members of Parliament, Volume IV 1945–1979. Sussex: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  57. The Times Guide to the House of Commons, February 1974 (1974). London: Times Newspaper Limited.Google Scholar
  58. Tsebelis, George (1990).Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  59. Williams, Philip (1983). The Labour Party: The rise of the Left.West European Politics 6: 26–55.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian J. Gaines
    • 1
  • Geoffrey Garrett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations