{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02547169811320755, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.026490066225166, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Parliamentary Opposition in Westminster Democracies: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand

Based on an actor-centred institutionalist approach, parliamentary oppositions in Westminster democracies are analysed through three dimensions. Firstly, through institutional opportunity structures for opposition parties: in all four countries there are comparatively few opportunities for the opposition to affect policy-making. However, there are variances between the four countries and they change over time. Secondly, they are analysed through the parties' policy positions and the potential for cohesive behaviour by non-governmental parties. Within this aspect, there are different constellations. In most cases, opposition parties do not coordinate their strategies. Thirdly, they are viewed through bicameralism and federalism, as external veto points that may be employed by opposition parties in Australia and in Canada. Therefore, there is not only one pattern of parliamentary opposition in Westminster democracies, rather, a considerable diversity.