Search

In this article we empirically test the impact of ideological distance between opposition parties and incumbents on consensus in parliament in two different countries, Portugal and Spain, amid changing economic conditions. To do so, we employ the Comparative Manifesto Project database and develop a measure of ideological distance on the left-right and the centre-periphery dimensions based on parties' preferences as expressed in their manifestos. We demonstrate that the economic crisis had different effects in the two countries. In Portugal, it amplified the negative impact on consensus of ideological distance between the incumbent and opposition parties. As expected, parties more distant from the incumbent on the left-right continuum were more likely to vote against legislation. In Spain, by contrast, changes in the party system forced traditional mainstream parties, especially the socialists, to increase their opposition in parliament. Moreover, the crisis amplified the effect of the centre-periphery dimension on parliamentary conflict. As a result, not only parties ideologically distant from the incumbent on the left-right continuum were more likely to vote against legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research demonstrates that the salience of EU affairs in domestic parliaments is mainly driven by government parties. This has been interpreted as illustrating the so-called opposition deficit thesis and mainly explained considering governments' informational advantages and reporting duties. Drawing on a dataset on oral questions introduced in plenary meetings in the Spanish parliament, this article sheds new light on government and opposition MPs' incentives to raise attention to the EU. Results show that in Spain, where there is no party conflict on European integration, government MPs pay attention to EU affairs following credit-claiming strategies. These strategies are likely in the context of EU events and when the perceived benefits of integration are high, and unlikely under critical junctures, when the EU cannot be framed as a governmental success. Opposition MPs pay less attention to EU affairs but they still use the EU to give visibility to issues that are of interest to their voters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Government–opposition relations in Spain have been long characterised by a high level of consensus and cooperation. The question analysed here is whether the economic crisis initiated in 2008 has created unprecedented levels of conflict in the political system or whether opposition parties have maintained a cooperative strategy oriented to influence far-reaching policy decisions. Results illustrate that patterns of consensus have decreased significantly since the outbreak of the crisis, and this is partly explained by the rising amount of legislation with socio-economic content, variations in the government's popularity, and the type of government. The analysis also shows that the crisis has increased the incentives of opposition parliamentary groups to oppose European Union legislation, especially among left parties. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper analyses media coverage of corruption scandals in Spain between 1996 and 2009. The fi rst aim is to determine to what extent the two most-read newspapers in Spain, El País and El Mundo, cover corruption scandals following different political orientations. Results illustrate highly partisan media coverage: there are important differences in how these newspapers cover corruption cases, depending on the political party involved (PP or PSOE). A second goal is to analyse whether the media influence citizens' perception of corruption as a public problem. Results show that, when the number of news stories on political corruption increases, the percentage of citizens that consider corruption as one of the most important problems in Spain also increases. Media impact on public opinion is high and occurs in the short- to mid-term. Finally, the paper analyses to what extent the perception of corruption is influenced by changes in the perception of the economic situation, by showing that this variable has low explanatory power compared to media coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the beginning of each parliamentary session, almost all European governments give a speech in which they present the government’s policy priorities and legislative agenda for the year ahead. Despite the body of literature on governments in European parliamentary democracies, systematic research on these executive policy agendas is surprisingly limited. In this article the authors study the executive policy agendas—measured through the policy content of annual government speeches—over the past 50 years in three Western European countries: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Contrary to the expectations derived from the well-established “politics matters” approach, the analyses show that elections and change in partisan color have little effect on the executive issue agendas, except to a limited extent for the United Kingdom. In contrast, the authors demonstrate empirically how the policy agenda of governments responds to changes in public problems, and this affects how political parties define these problems as political issues. In other words, policy responsibility that follows from having government power seems much more important for governments’ issue agendas than the partisan and institutional characteristics of governments. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]