Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T04:28:46.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to Hope's Note

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Ivor Crewe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hope's comments provide me with the opportunity to correct one statistical error which unfortunately found its way into the original article. He points out that, as the correlations rac and rbc were each about +0.2, deviations from the expected level of car- and house-ownership given a constituency's proportion of manual workers can only account for about 4 per cent of the variance in deviations from the expected Conservative share of the two-party vote. This, it is gently implied, hardly amounts to convincing evidence on behalf of the embourgeoisement thesis. The correlation coefficients given in the article were serious underestimates, however, and are in fact +0.571 and +0.328 respectively. Thus, deviations from the expected level of houseownership explain almost a third (32.6 per cent) of the variance in deviations from the expected Conservative share of the two-party vote, and deviations from the expected level of car-ownership explain over one-tenth (10.8 per cent) – which is more substantial

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , April 1975 , pp. 258 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Rogin, Michael, ‘Politics, emotion and the Wallace Vote’, British Journal of Sociology, XX (1969), 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See Butler, David and Stokes, Donald, Political Change in Britain (London: Macmillan, 1969) p. 147.Google Scholar