Free Vote Patterns on ‘Conscience Issues’ in Westminster Style Parliaments

Legislative politics in Westminster Parliaments are characterised by strong party discipline and, as a consequence, highly cohesive political parties in the voting lobbies. Studies have shown, in the UK at least, that dissent by backbench MPs is becoming more frequent (Norton, 1978; 1980; Cowley, 2002). Although this varies between parties and across parliaments, high levels of intra-party cohesion during voting on legislation remain the norm (see Kam, 2009). However, there is a set of issues, on which MPs are left to their own consciences to decide how to proceed. Although a rare occurrence, parliamentary free votes on ‘issues of conscience’, are interesting to study as they allow an insight into cohesiveness of political parties when MPs are not subject to discipline from party whips. To gain an insight into the operation of political parties in free vote circumstances through a comparative lens, the paper will address the following main research questions: one, how cohesive are political parties during ‘unwhipped’ free voting on ‘conscience issues’ and two, how do levels of cohesion vary across Westminster Parliaments? The analysis will focus on the lower houses of the Australian, Canadian, British and New Zealand Parliaments, on three controversial moral issues, which generated a significant amount of media attention and interest group activity in each of the respective countries: abortion, euthanasia and civil unions.