co operation without consequence
play

Co-operation without Consequence? Participation in All-Party - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 26, 2023 •224 likes •534 views

Co-operation without Consequence? Participation in All-Party Parliamentary Groups by members of the British House of Lords versus members of the House of Commons Paul Thomas SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellow Carleton University Research problem

  1. Co-operation without Consequence? Participation in All-Party Parliamentary Groups by members of the British House of Lords versus members of the House of Commons Paul Thomas SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellow Carleton University

  2. Research problem • How do legislators behave when not subject to the need to compete for re-election? Challenge given different venues, procedures •

  3. APG characteristics • Voluntary • Informal • Backbench driven • Two types • Inter-country • Subject • Externally supported

  4. APG activities • Distribute information • Meet with stakeholders • Conduct inquiries • Lobby ministers • Introduce motions and legislation • Some policy influence

  5. APG Growth in the UK 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 Inter-country Subject Total

  6. Methodology • Datasets on APG participation by member

  8. Methodology • Datasets on APG participation by member • Executive positions: 1996, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2014 • Qualifying positions: 2005, 2010, 2014 • Longitudinal data structure • Negative binomial regression with robust standard errors

  9. Methodology Dependent variables Executive positions held: inter-country, subject- • focused, total • Qualifying memberships held: inter-country, subject-focused, total Common independent variables • First-term • Gender • Party affiliation • Front-bench positions

  10. Methodology MP specific variables Margin of victory • Peer specific variables • Hereditary peer • Former MP Attendance as percentage of total days in session • ** Peers not attending at least once excluded**

  11. Executive posts – MPs Memberships held – MPs Total Inter- Subject Total Inter- Subject country country Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Ln margin -0.0960**** 0.0104 -0.1347**** -0.0878**** 0.0057 -0.1165**** of victory First term -0.2063**** -0.7515**** -0.0449 -0.2737**** -0.7656**** -0.1735**** Female 0.0449 -0.4522**** 0.1741*** 0.0334 -0.3634**** 0.1148** Cons. 0.4541**** 0.6452*** 0.3835*** 0.6830**** 0.8068**** 0.6558**** Labour 0.2397* 0.2908 0.2412* 0.5407**** 0.5210*** 0.5424**** Lib Dem 0.8126**** 0.3761 0.9354**** 0.6180**** 0.1400 0.7252**** Gov. -2.2194**** -2.3007**** -2.2009**** -1.3403**** -1.6227**** -1.2728**** minister Shadow -1.1601**** -1.3394**** -1.0900**** -0.5460**** -0.7449*** -0.4871**** cabinet

  12. Executive posts – MPs Memberships held – MPs Total Inter- Subject Total Inter- Subject country country Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Ln margin -0.0960**** 0.0104 -0.1347**** -0.0878**** 0.0057 -0.1165**** of victory First term -0.2063**** -0.7515**** -0.0449 -0.2737**** -0.7656**** -0.1735**** Female 0.0449 -0.4522**** 0.1741*** 0.0334 -0.3634**** 0.1148** Cons. 0.4541**** 0.6452*** 0.3835*** 0.6830**** 0.8068**** 0.6558**** Labour 0.2397* 0.2908 0.2412* 0.5407**** 0.5210*** 0.5424**** Lib Dem 0.8126**** 0.3761 0.9354**** 0.6180**** 0.1400 0.7252**** Gov. -2.2194**** -2.3007**** -2.2009**** -1.3403**** -1.6227**** -1.2728**** minister Shadow -1.1601**** -1.3394**** -1.0900**** -0.5460**** -0.7449*** -0.4871**** cabinet

  13. Executive posts – MPs Memberships held – MPs Total Inter- Subject Total Inter- Subject country country Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Ln margin -0.0960**** 0.0104 -0.1347**** -0.0878**** 0.0057 -0.1165**** of victory First term -0.2063**** -0.7515**** -0.0449 -0.2737**** -0.7656**** -0.1735**** Female 0.0449 -0.4522**** 0.1741*** 0.0334 -0.3634**** 0.1148** Cons. 0.4541**** 0.6452*** 0.3835*** 0.6830**** 0.8068**** 0.6558**** Labour 0.2397* 0.2908 0.2412* 0.5407**** 0.5210*** 0.5424**** Lib Dem 0.8126**** 0.3761 0.9354**** 0.6180**** 0.1400 0.7252**** Gov. -2.2194**** -2.3007**** -2.2009**** -1.3403**** -1.6227**** -1.2728**** minister Shadow -1.1601**** -1.3394**** -1.0900**** -0.5460**** -0.7449*** -0.4871**** cabinet

  14. Executive posts – MPs Memberships held – MPs Total Inter- Subject Total Inter- Subject country country Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Ln margin -0.0960**** 0.0104 -0.1347**** -0.0878**** 0.0057 -0.1165**** of victory First term -0.2063**** -0.7515**** -0.0449 -0.2737**** -0.7656**** -0.1735**** Female 0.0449 -0.4522**** 0.1741*** 0.0334 -0.3634**** 0.1148** Cons. 0.4541**** 0.6452*** 0.3835*** 0.6830**** 0.8068**** 0.6558**** Labour 0.2397* 0.2908 0.2412* 0.5407**** 0.5210*** 0.5424**** Lib Dem 0.8126**** 0.3761 0.9354**** 0.6180**** 0.1400 0.7252**** Gov. -2.2194**** -2.3007**** -2.2009**** -1.3403**** -1.6227**** -1.2728**** minister Shadow -1.1601**** -1.3394**** -1.0900**** -0.5460**** -0.7449*** -0.4871**** cabinet

  15. Executive posts – MPs Memberships held – MPs Total Inter- Subject Total Inter- Subject country country Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Ln margin -0.0960**** 0.0104 -0.1347**** -0.0878**** 0.0057 -0.1165**** of victory First term -0.2063**** -0.7515**** -0.0449 -0.2737**** -0.7656**** -0.1735**** Female 0.0449 -0.4522**** 0.1741*** 0.0334 -0.3634**** 0.1148** Cons. 0.4541**** 0.6452*** 0.3835*** 0.6830**** 0.8068**** 0.6558**** Labour 0.2397* 0.2908 0.2412* 0.5407**** 0.5210*** 0.5424**** Lib Dem 0.8126**** 0.3761 0.9354**** 0.6180**** 0.1400 0.7252**** Gov. -2.2194**** -2.3007**** -2.2009**** -1.3403**** -1.6227**** -1.2728**** minister Shadow -1.1601**** -1.3394**** -1.0900**** -0.5460**** -0.7449*** -0.4871**** cabinet

  16. Executive posts – MPs Memberships held – MPs Total Inter- Subject Total Inter- Subject country country Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Ln margin -0.0960**** 0.0104 -0.1347**** -0.0878**** 0.0057 -0.1165**** of victory First term -0.2063**** -0.7515**** -0.0449 -0.2737**** -0.7656**** -0.1735**** Female 0.0449 -0.4522**** 0.1741*** 0.0334 -0.3634**** 0.1148** Cons. 0.4541**** 0.6452*** 0.3835*** 0.6830**** 0.8068**** 0.6558**** Labour 0.2397* 0.2908 0.2412* 0.5407**** 0.5210*** 0.5424**** Lib Dem 0.8126**** 0.3761 0.9354**** 0.6180**** 0.1400 0.7252**** Gov. -2.2194**** -2.3007**** -2.2009**** -1.3403**** -1.6227**** -1.2728**** minister Shadow -1.1601**** -1.3394**** -1.0900**** -0.5460**** -0.7449*** -0.4871**** cabinet

  17. Executive posts – MPs Memberships held – MPs Total Inter- Subject Total Inter- Subject country country Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Ln margin -0.0960**** 0.0104 -0.1347**** -0.0878**** 0.0057 -0.1165**** of victory First term -0.2063**** -0.7515**** -0.0449 -0.2737**** -0.7656**** -0.1735**** Female 0.0449 -0.4522**** 0.1741*** 0.0334 -0.3634**** 0.1148** Cons. 0.4541**** 0.6452*** 0.3835*** 0.6830**** 0.8068**** 0.6558**** Labour 0.2397* 0.2908 0.2412* 0.5407**** 0.5210*** 0.5424**** Lib Dem 0.8126**** 0.3761 0.9354**** 0.6180**** 0.1400 0.7252**** Gov. -2.2194**** -2.3007**** -2.2009**** -1.3403**** -1.6227**** -1.2728**** minister Shadow -1.1601**** -1.3394**** -1.0900**** -0.5460**** -0.7449*** -0.4871**** cabinet

  18. Executive posts – MPs Memberships held – MPs Total Inter- Subject Total Inter- Subject country country Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Ln margin -0.0960**** 0.0104 -0.1347**** -0.0878**** 0.0057 -0.1165**** of victory First term -0.2063**** -0.7515**** -0.0449 -0.2737**** -0.7656**** -0.1735**** Female 0.0449 -0.4522**** 0.1741*** 0.0334 -0.3634**** 0.1148** Cons. 0.4541**** 0.6452*** 0.3835*** 0.6830**** 0.8068**** 0.6558**** Labour 0.2397* 0.2908 0.2412* 0.5407**** 0.5210*** 0.5424**** Lib Dem 0.8126**** 0.3761 0.9354**** 0.6180**** 0.1400 0.7252**** Gov. -2.2194**** -2.3007**** -2.2009**** -1.3403**** -1.6227**** -1.2728**** minister Shadow -1.1601**** -1.3394**** -1.0900**** -0.5460**** -0.7449*** -0.4871**** cabinet

  19. Executive posts – MPs Memberships held – MPs Total Inter- Subject Total Inter- Subject country country Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE) Ln margin -0.0960**** 0.0104 -0.1347**** -0.0878**** 0.0057 -0.1165**** of victory First term -0.2063**** -0.7515**** -0.0449 -0.2737**** -0.7656**** -0.1735**** Female 0.0449 -0.4522**** 0.1741*** 0.0334 -0.3634**** 0.1148** Cons. 0.4541**** 0.6452*** 0.3835*** 0.6830**** 0.8068**** 0.6558**** Labour 0.2397* 0.2908 0.2412* 0.5407**** 0.5210*** 0.5424**** Lib Dem 0.8126**** 0.3761 0.9354**** 0.6180**** 0.1400 0.7252**** Gov. -2.2194**** -2.3007**** -2.2009**** -1.3403**** -1.6227**** -1.2728**** minister Shadow -1.1601**** -1.3394**** -1.0900**** -0.5460**** -0.7449*** -0.4871**** cabinet

Recommend

As a consequence of armed conflicts in As a consequence of armed conflicts in the 1990s, over 3

As a consequence of armed conflicts in As a consequence of armed conflicts in the 1990s, over 3

J OINT R EGIONAL P ROGRAMME ON D URABLE S OLUTIONS FOR R EFUGEES AND D ISPLACED P ERSONS D S R D P P ROGRAMME B ACKGROUND As a consequence of armed conflicts in As a consequence of armed conflicts in the 1990s, over 3 million people were

132 views • 9 slides
Admissibility for multi-conclusion consequence relations and universal classes Micha l

Admissibility for multi-conclusion consequence relations and universal classes Micha l

Admissibility for multi-conclusion consequence relations and universal classes Micha l Stronkowski Warsaw University of Technology TACL, Prague, June 2017 plan single-conclusion consequence relations and quasivarieties

362 views • 23 slides
Propositional Logic: Tautological Consequence and Translations Alice Gao Lecture 6 CS 245

Propositional Logic: Tautological Consequence and Translations Alice Gao Lecture 6 CS 245

Propositional Logic: Tautological Consequence and Translations Alice Gao Lecture 6 CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 Alice Gao 1 / 25 Outline Learning goals Satisfaction of a Set of Formulas Tautological Consequence

394 views • 25 slides
From conversation to inference, via consequence Dave Ripley University of Connecticut

From conversation to inference, via consequence Dave Ripley University of Connecticut

1/ 38 From conversation to inference, via consequence Dave Ripley University of Connecticut http://davewripley.rocks Charles Sturt University May 2015 davewripley@gmail.com From conversation to inference, via consequence 2/ 38 From bounds

507 views • 38 slides
Logics Definition A logic is a consequence relation over the set of formulas Fm of The

Logics Definition A logic is a consequence relation over the set of formulas Fm of The

Logics Definition A logic is a consequence relation over the set of formulas Fm of The computational complexity of the Leibniz an algebraic language,which is substitution invariant in the sense hierarchy that if , then ( )

584 views • 4 slides
Operation: River Watch Presented By: Alex Mrotek Operation: River Watch Our Purpose: Operation:

Operation: River Watch Presented By: Alex Mrotek Operation: River Watch Our Purpose: Operation:

Operation: River Watch Presented By: Alex Mrotek Operation: River Watch Our Purpose: Operation: River Watch is a campus-based initiative in La Crosse, Wisconsin that seeks to prevent alcohol-related tragedies that result in accidental drowning

228 views • 11 slides
SIP Operation in SIP Operation in SIP Operation in 2003 2003 2003 Iptel.org builders of

SIP Operation in SIP Operation in SIP Operation in 2003 2003 2003 Iptel.org builders of

SIP Operation in SIP Operation in SIP Operation in 2003 2003 2003 Iptel.org builders of SER Jiri Kuthan, Founder http://www.iptel.org/ 1 International SIP, January 2004, Paris About iptel.org About About iptel.org iptel.org iptel.org

460 views • 18 slides
CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT OF CO 2 PIPELINES J.M. Race a , K. Adefila a , B.

CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT OF CO 2 PIPELINES J.M. Race a , K. Adefila a , B.

SHELTER MODELS FOR CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT OF CO 2 PIPELINES J.M. Race a , K. Adefila a , B. Wetenhall b , H. Aghajani b , B. Aktas b a Department of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Marine Engineering, University of Strathclyde b

441 views • 19 slides
Logical Consequence: From Logical Terms to Semantic Constraints Gil Sagi Munich Center for

Logical Consequence: From Logical Terms to Semantic Constraints Gil Sagi Munich Center for

Logical Terms Semantic Constraints Logical Consequence: From Logical Terms to Semantic Constraints Gil Sagi Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy August 21, 2014 Gil Sagi Logical Consequence Logical Terms The Thesis of the Centrality

850 views • 62 slides
Risk risk = consequence * probability This is the classical definition that we will use in

Risk risk = consequence * probability This is the classical definition that we will use in

Risk analysis Marcus Bendtsen Department of Computer and Information Science (IDA) Division for Database and Information Techniques (ADIT) Risk risk = consequence * probability This is the classical definition that we will use in this

1.18k views • 61 slides
GOALS FOR THIS PRESENTATION Be able to describe the unique antecedent and consequence

GOALS FOR THIS PRESENTATION Be able to describe the unique antecedent and consequence

7/15/16 ADVANCED MAND PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS D AV I D R O T H GOALS FOR THIS PRESENTATION Be able to describe the unique antecedent and consequence variables that control multiple component mands, mands for missing items, and mands for

867 views • 43 slides
The case of Description Logics Fuzzy DLs The semantics is an immediate consequence of the

The case of Description Logics Fuzzy DLs The semantics is an immediate consequence of the

The case of Description Logics Fuzzy DLs The semantics is an immediate consequence of the First-Order-Logic translation of DLs expressions = t-norm I I = = s-norm I [ 0 , 1 ] C I Interpretation: : = negation

312 views • 16 slides
Implementing Consequence-Driven Cybersecurity with Continuous ICS Monitoring & Threat Modeling

Implementing Consequence-Driven Cybersecurity with Continuous ICS Monitoring & Threat Modeling

Implementing Consequence-Driven Cybersecurity with Continuous ICS Monitoring & Threat Modeling Phil Neray, VP of Industrial Cybersecurity Agenda NotPetya: How a Single Piece of Code Crashed the World (Wired) VPNFilter Update

610 views • 24 slides
Word frequency effects in sound change as a consequence of perceptual asymmetries: An

Word frequency effects in sound change as a consequence of perceptual asymmetries: An

Word frequency effects in sound change as a consequence of perceptual asymmetries: An exemplar-based approach Paper by S. Todd, J. B. Pierrehumbert, J. Hay Presenter: Sven Kirchner Seminar: Exemplar Theory, Prof. Dr. Bernd Mbius SS 2020

674 views • 44 slides
A Consequence of Scale Interaction? De-Zheng Sun CIRES, University of Colorado & Earth

A Consequence of Scale Interaction? De-Zheng Sun CIRES, University of Colorado & Earth

Decadal Variability in the State of the Upper Tropical Pacific: A Consequence of Scale Interaction? De-Zheng Sun CIRES, University of Colorado & Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/dezheng.sun/ Collaborators:

400 views • 22 slides
Consequence relations old and new Workshop Proofs Paris, 1 June, 2017 Rosalie Iemhoff

Consequence relations old and new Workshop Proofs Paris, 1 June, 2017 Rosalie Iemhoff

Consequence relations old and new Workshop Proofs Paris, 1 June, 2017 Rosalie Iemhoff Utrecht University 1 / 25 Logics A logic L can be given via semantics (algebras, Kripke models, valuations, . . . ), proof systems (sequent

566 views • 25 slides
Questions: What Was The Commandment? Why Was A Commandment Necessary? What Was the Consequence

Questions: What Was The Commandment? Why Was A Commandment Necessary? What Was the Consequence

Questions: What Was The Commandment? Why Was A Commandment Necessary? What Was the Consequence of Disobedience for Adam & Eve? How Does Their Disobedience Affect Us? Were Adam & Eve Supposed to Die The Literal Day They Sinned? And

290 views • 18 slides
OFFICIAL USE ONLY State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Regulatory Information

OFFICIAL USE ONLY State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Regulatory Information

OFFICIAL USE ONLY State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Regulatory Information Conference March 11, 2008 1 Agenda Opening Remarks and Overview Sequence Selection Accident Mitigation Accident Analysis

238 views • 12 slides
STARS HPS COVID-19 or other high consequence infectious diseases (HCIDs) DISPATCH CALL

STARS HPS COVID-19 or other high consequence infectious diseases (HCIDs) DISPATCH CALL

STARS HPS COVID-19 or other high consequence infectious diseases (HCIDs) DISPATCH CALL IFT to a facility which is an approximately 30-minute flight The patient is a 65-year old male who is suffering hypoxemic respiratory failure

614 views • 13 slides
In-operation structural health monitoring: Problems : In-operation modal identification a

In-operation structural health monitoring: Problems : In-operation modal identification a

In-operation structural health monitoring: Problems : In-operation modal identification a statistical approach and damage detection and localization The excitation is typically: Mich` ele Basseville, Laurent M evel, Albert Benveniste

681 views • 6 slides
VMP in food-producing animals Pragmatic consequence assessment Focus group meeting, 19 Sep

VMP in food-producing animals Pragmatic consequence assessment Focus group meeting, 19 Sep

Guideline on the assessment of the risk to public health from AMR due to use of an antimicrobial VMP in food-producing animals Pragmatic consequence assessment Focus group meeting, 19 Sep 2018, London Presented by Damien Bouchard An agency

158 views • 12 slides
Application of DICE (Dynamic Integrated Consequence Evaluation) Case Study on Branching Rules

Application of DICE (Dynamic Integrated Consequence Evaluation) Case Study on Branching Rules

Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Virtual Spring Meeting July 9-10, 2020 Application of DICE (Dynamic Integrated Consequence Evaluation) Case Study on Branching Rules Examples Sejin Baek a , Taewan Kim b , Jonghyun Kim c , Gyunyoung Heo

318 views • 4 slides
Truth and Logical Consequence Volker Halbach Bristol-Mnchen Conference on Truth and Rationality

Truth and Logical Consequence Volker Halbach Bristol-Mnchen Conference on Truth and Rationality

Truth and Logical Consequence Volker Halbach Bristol-Mnchen Conference on Truth and Rationality 11th June 2016 Consequentia formalis vocatur quae in omnibus terminis valet retenta forma consimili. Vel si vis expresse loqui de vi

893 views • 46 slides
Consequence (LPHC) Failure Scenarios of CO 2 Pipelines and Wells Curtis Oldenburg Robert Budnitz

Consequence (LPHC) Failure Scenarios of CO 2 Pipelines and Wells Curtis Oldenburg Robert Budnitz

Risk Assessment Framework for Evaluating Low-Probability High- Consequence (LPHC) Failure Scenarios of CO 2 Pipelines and Wells Curtis Oldenburg Robert Budnitz March 22, 2017 Rev. 1.0 ENERGY GEOSCIENCES DIVISION LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL

483 views • 32 slides

More recommend