Dissension in the House of Commons, 1945-1974

This is a really good example of back-breaking, detailed, academic work making a really important substantive point. When he published the book in the middle of the 1970s everybody claimed that modern MPs were weak and feeble, but in the past had been very independent. Norton showed that actually the reverse was true, and that British MPs were becoming much more radical. I think a lot of journalists have to read the conclusion before they can comment on Parliament. And, in fact, all students studying politics should at least read the conclusion.