² Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, The Concept of Representation, Berkeley, University of California Press, [1967] 1972.Google Scholar

³ Fenno, Richard, Home Style: House Members in their Districts, Boston, Little, Brown, 1978 Google Scholar; Norton, Philip and Wood, David M., Back from Westminster: British Members of Parliament and their Constituents, Lexington, University Press of Kentucky, 1993.Google Scholar

⁴ Stokes, Donald E. and Miller, Warren E., ‘Constituency Influence in Congress’, American Political Science Review, 57: 1 (1963), pp. 45–56.Google Scholar

⁵ Norton and Wood, Back from Westminster.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁷ Poole, Keith T. and Rosenthal, Howard, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll-call Voting, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar

⁸ Judge, David, Representation: Theory and Practice in Britain, London, Routledge, 1999.Google Scholar

⁹ Pattie, Charles, Fieldhouse, Edward and Johnston, R. J., ‘The Price of Conscience: The Electoral Correlates and Consequences of Free Votes and Rebellions in the British House of Commons, 1987–92’, British Journal of Political Science, 24: 3 (1994), pp. 359–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Diana Woodhouse, Ministers and Parliament: Accountability in Theory and Practice, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

¹¹ Saalfeld, Thomas, ‘Members of Parliament and Governments in Western Europe: Agency Relations and Problems of Oversight’, European Journal of Political Research, 37: 3 (2000), pp. 353–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Pitkin, The Concept of Representation.Google Scholar

¹³ Stimson, James A., MacKuen, Michael B. and Erickson, Robert S., ‘Dynamic Representation’, American Political Science Review, 89: 3 (1995), pp. 543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Pattie, Fieldhouse and Johnston, ‘The Price of Conscience’.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Norton and Wood, Back from Westminster. Google Scholar

¹⁶ Pattie, Fieldhouse and Johnston, ‘The Price of Conscience’.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Gaines, Brian J., ‘The Impersonal Vote? Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage in British Elections, 1950–92’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23: 2 (1998), pp. 167–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Saalfeld, ‘Members of Parliament and Governments in Western Europe’.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Norton, and Wood, Back from Westminster.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid.; Cain, Bruce E., Ferejohn, John A. and Fiorina, Morris P., ‘The House is Not a Home: British MPs in Their Constituencies’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 4: 4 (1979), pp. 501–23;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gaines, ‘The Impersonal Vote?’.

²¹ Norton and Wood, Back from Westminster.Google Scholar

²² Fenno, Home Style.Google Scholar

²³ Norton and Wood, Back from Westminster.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid.; Fenno, Home Style.Google Scholar

²⁵ Norton, Philip and Wood, David M., ‘Constituency Service by Members of Parliament: Does it Contribute to a Personal Vote?’, Parliamentary Affairs, 43 (1990), pp. 196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Ibid.Google Scholar

²⁷ Norton, Philip, ‘Dissent in the British House of Commons: Rejoinder to Franklin, Baxter, Jordan’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 12: 1 (1987), pp. 143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ Cole, Michael, ‘Accountability and Quasi-Government: The Role of Parliamentary Questions’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 5: 1 (1999), pp. 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁹ Matti Wiberg, ‘Parliamentary Questioning: Control by Communication?’, in H. Döring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, New York, St Martin's Press, 1995, pp. 179–222. The reasons are: ‘To request information[;] To press for action[;] To gain personal publicity[;] To demand an explanation[;] To test ministers in controversial areas of their policies[;] To attack ministers in difficult political situations[;] To dispose of a large number of heterogeneous topics rapidly and conveniently[;] To show concern for the interests of constituents[;] To help build up a reputation in some particular matters[;] To force compromises on an unwilling government[;] To delay a headstrong government until other forces and events make their influence felt[;] To demonstrate the government's faults[;] To rally the troops within an opposition party, with only a remote intention of forcing change on the government[;] To create elements of drama’ (p. 181).Google Scholar

³⁰ Norton and Wood, Back from Westminster.Google Scholar

³¹ Wiberg, ‘Parliamentary Questioning’.Google Scholar

³² Norheim, Ole Frithjof, ‘Healthcare Rationing – Are Additional Criteria Needed for Assessing Evidence Based Clinical Practice Guidelines?’, British Medical Journal, 319: 7222 (1999), pp. 1426–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

³³ Ham, Chris, ‘Tragic Choices in Health Care: Lessons from the Child B Case’, British Medical Journal, 319: 7219 (1999), pp. 1258–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

³⁴ National Institute for Clinical Excellence. ‘A Guide to NICE’ 2005, available at www.nice.org.uk/guidetonice (accessed 15 February 2007).Google Scholar

³⁵ Ham, Chris, ‘Population-Centered and Patient-Focused Purchasing: The U.K. Experience’, Milbank Quarterly, 74: 2 (1996), pp. 194–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

³⁶ Bevan, Gwyn and Robinson, Ray, ‘The Interplay between Economic and Political Logics: Path Dependency in Health Care in England’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 30: 1–2 (2005), pp. 54–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

³⁷ Wailoo, Allan, Roberts, Jennifer, Brazier, John and McCabe, Chris, ‘Efficiency, Equity, and NICE Clinical Guidelines’, British Medical Journal, 328: 7439 (2004), pp. 536–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

³⁸ Norheim, ‘Healthcare Rationing’.Google Scholar

³⁹ Eddy, D. M., ‘Clinical Decision Making: From Theory to Practice. Guidelines for Policy Statements: The Explicit Approach’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 16 (1990), pp. 2239–40, 2243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁴⁰ O'Boyle, Ciaran P. and Coyle, Richard P., ‘Rationing in the NHS: Audit of Outcome and Acceptance of Restriction Criteria for Minor Operations’, British Medical Journal, 323: 7310 (2001), pp. 428–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁴¹ Martin, Stephen and Smith, Peter C., ‘Rationing by Waiting Lists: An Empirical Investigation’, Journal of Public Economics, 71: 1 (1999), pp. 141–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² Goddard, J. A. and Tavakoli, M., ‘Referral Rates and Waiting Lists: Some Empirical Evidence’, Health Economics, 7: 6 (1998), pp. 545–9.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁴³ Lindsay, Cotton and Feigenbaum, Bernard, ‘Rationing by Waiting Lists’, American Economic Review, 74: 3 (1998), pp. 404–17;Google ScholarPubMed

⁴⁴ Timmins, Nicholas, ‘Use of Private Health Care in the NHS’, British Medical Journal, 331: 7525 (2005), pp. 1141–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁴⁵ Warden, John, ‘NHS is Commons Combat Zone’, British Medical Journal, 316: 7146 (1998), p. 1694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Erin Penner, Kelly Blidook and Stuart Soroka, ‘Legislative priorities and public opinion: representation of partisan agendas in the Canadian House of Commons,’ Journal of European Public Policy, 13: 7 (2006), pp. 1006–20 employ a similar technique for statistically analysing questions in the Canadian Parliament. However, they use a proportion of ‘column centimetres’, i.e. the amount of space given on each topic as a proportion of all column centimetres to ascertain relative attention across a number of issues. Our use of numbers of questions does not seem biased in this case, as the overwhelming majority of the questions in our dataset are rather brief and we are not interested in cross-topic comparisons.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The ‘Question Book’ is available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Our measures of constituency health characteristics are based on census data and do not vary over time. We pool all mentions because of this and employ the count regression model described below to take full advantage of the structure of the data available. To respect the simplifications inherent in such pooling, we measure political variables such as frontbench service with a temporal dimension, rather than simply as indicator variables.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ CACI Inc., ‘HealthACORN User Guide’, 2006, available at http://www.caci.co.uk/pdfs/healthacornuserguide.pdf (accessed 29 March 2007).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ The system is available at http://geoconvert.mimas.ac.uk.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Crepon, Bruno and Duguet, Emmanuel, ‘Research and Development, Competition and Innovation Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood and Simulated Maximum Likelihood Methods Applied to Count Data Models with Heterogeneity’, Journal of Econometrics, 79: 2 (1997), pp. 355–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵² This is an improvement over the Poisson regression model in cases, such as ours, where the mean of the count variable (μ_{wait times} = 0.43, μ_rationing = 0.48) is not equal to its variance (σ² _{wait times} = 1.15, σ² _rationing = 2.56).Google Scholar

⁵³ White, Halbert, ‘Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified Models’, Econometrica, 50: 1 (1982), pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴ Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., ‘Cluster-Sample Methods in Applied Econometrics’, American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 93: 2 (2003), pp. 133–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁵ Variance inflation factors for the models range from 1 to 3.74 with a mean of 2.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Vuong, Quang H., ‘Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses’, Econometrica, 57 (1989), pp. 307–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ Primary care trusts (PCTs) in both the most rural and least deprived fifths of all PCTs were most likely to run a deficit (68 per cent). By contrast, only 3 per cent of PCTs in the least rural and most deprived fifth ran deficits ( Asthana, Sheena and Gibson, Alex, ‘Rationing in Response to NHS Deficits: Rural Patients are Likely to be Affected Most’, British Medical Journal, 331: 7530 (2005), p. 1472).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁵⁸ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Norton and Wood, Back from Westminster; Gaines, ‘The Impersonal Vote?’.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Norton and Wood, Back from Westminster.Google Scholar