We are grateful to Professor Pearson for her thoughtful review of our book. In addition to effectively highlighting our theoretical arguments and empirical evidence, she raises three important questions regarding our work that we briefly address here.

First, she asks whether parliamentary speeches can serve as an effective communication tool between MPs and voters. She asks about the precise mechanism that leads MPs’ speeches to alter voters’ perceptions of parties. Her comment suggests that media ought to play an important role. We agree with this point. While voters do not follow parliamentary debate directly, they do have opportunities to inform themselves of summaries of parliamentary debates through the news media. It is likely the case that informed voters learn about parliamentary activity through television news reports or through snippets of speech reported in the papers. Future work can examine how the media covers debate in parliament, as well as other parliamentary activity.

Nevertheless, we would argue that we are unlikely to find an independent effect of speeches on individual voting behavior and aggregate electoral outcomes. However, as long as parties believe that perceived party cohesion may positively or negatively affect the party image, and consequently electoral fortunes, then party leaders have an interest to structure parliamentary debate accordingly. We hold that debates are one primary source for portraying the cohesiveness of party positions via the media. Importantly, politicians act as if they matter, as our survey results suggest. After all, it may only take a very small number of high profile rebellious acts to have an effect that parties wish to avoid.

Second, Professor Pearson suggests that we ought to differentiate among backbenchers. This is a useful suggestion for future research. While we do capture MP-specific random effects and look at differences in electoral tiers in Germany, it may be useful to explore the effects of socio-demographic characteristics on participation. However, we believe that distinctions among backbenchers are likely to matter less in parliamentary systems compared to the US presidential system due to differences in paths for career advancement, coupled with different candidate selection mechanisms. She also suggests that we look more closely at the content of the speeches of different kinds of backbenchers, and we agree that this could be a valuable addition to our book’s argument.

Finally, given her book’s focus on the US Congress, Professor Pearson highlights that speeches in the House of Representatives are increasingly under party control. We agree that party control in Congress is increasing, but by comparative standards speeches in the US remain weakly coordinated within parties. However, as Congressional parties experience more leadership involvement and greater discipline, scholars of US politics can perhaps learn from and draw upon findings in the comparative legislatures literature going forward.