¹ Mughan, Anthony, Party and Participation in British Elections (New York: St Martin's Press, 1986), pp. 1–21Google Scholar. However, research on political participation in Britain is showing signs of increasing vitality as seen in the recent work of Moyser, George and Parry, Geraint, ‘Class, Sector and Political Participation in Britain’, Manchester Papers in Politics (Manchester: Department of Government, University of Manchester, 1987), pp. 1–47.Google Scholar

² Johnston, R. J., The Geography of English Politics (London: Croom Helm, 1985), p. 135.Google Scholar

³ Lane, Robert, Political Life: Why and How People Get Involved in Politics (New York: Free Press, 1959).Google Scholar

⁴ Parry, Geraint and Moyser, George, ‘Political Participation in Britain: A Research Agenda for a New Study’, Government and Opposition, 19 (1984), p. 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Parry, and Moyser, , ‘Political Participation in Britain’, p. 80.Google Scholar

⁶ Crewe, Ivor, Fox, Tony and Alt, Jim, ‘Non-Voting in British General Elections, 1966–October 1974’, in Crouch, Colin, ed., Participation in Politics, British Political Sociology Yearbook, Vol. III (London: Croom Helm, 1977), p. 46.Google Scholar

⁷ Electoral returns for this study have been taken from the ‘Nuffield’ series on British general elections. The relevant sources in chronological order are: Butler, David and King, Anthony, The British General Election of 1964 (London: Macmillan, 1964)Google Scholar; Butler, David and King, Anthony, The British General Election of 1966 (London: Macmillan, 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Butler, David and Pinto-Duschinsky, Michael, The British General Election of 1970 (London: Macmillan, 1970)Google Scholar; Butler, David and Kavanagh, Dennis, The British General Election of 1983 (London: Macmillan, 1983)Google Scholar. Estimated 1979 results on the basis of the constituency boundaries used in 1983 were taken from The BBC ITN Guide to the New Parliamentary Constituencies (Chichester: Parliamentary Research Services, 1983)Google Scholar. Unfortunately, these estimates did not include turnout figures. Census data for 1966 were taken from Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, 1966 Census: General and Parliamentary Tables (London: HMSO, 1969)Google Scholar, 1981 census data came from Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Census 1981: Parliamentary Constituency Monitors (London: Government Statistical Service, 1983).Google Scholar

⁸ Huckfeldt, Robert H., Politics in Context (New York: Agathon Press, 1986), pp. 104–16Google Scholar; Giles, Michael and Dantico, Marilyn K., ‘Political Participation and Neighborhood Social Context Revisited’, American Journal of Political Science, 26 (1982), 144–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tarrow, Sidney, ‘The Urban–Rural Cleavage in Political Involvement: The Case of France’, American Political Science Review, 65 (1971), 341–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Muir, Richard and Paddison, Ronan, Politics, Geography and Behaviour (London: Methuen, 1981), pp. 88–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Crewe, et al. , ‘Non-Voting in British General Elections’, pp. 38–109.Google Scholar

⁹ Denver, D. T. and Hands, H. T. G., ‘Marginality and Turnout in British General Elections’, British Journal of Political Science, 4 (1974), 31–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Crewe, Ivor, ‘The Politics of “Affluent” and “Traditional” Workers in Britain: An Aggregate Data Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, 3 (1973), 29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lockwood, David, ‘Sources of Variation in Working-Class Images of Society’, in Bulmer, Martin, ed., Working-Class Images of Society (London: Groom Helm, 1975, originally published in 1966), pp. 16–31Google Scholar; Denver, D. T. and Hands, Gordon, ‘Marginality and Turnout in General Elections in the 1970s’, British Journal of Political Science, 15 (1985), 382–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Johnston, , The Geography of English Politics, p. 138.Google Scholar

¹¹ Denver, and Hands, , ‘Marginality and Turnout in General Elections in the 1970s’, p. 384Google Scholar; although see also Crewe, et al. , ‘Non-Voting in British General Elections, 1966–October 1974’, p. 56.Google Scholar

¹² Cohen, Gaynor, ‘Community Cohesion and Space Planning’, in Frankenberg, Ronald, ed., Custom and Conflict in British Society (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1982), p. 259.Google Scholar

¹³ Milbrath, Lester, Political Participation (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), pp. 97–8.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Tingsten, Herbert, Political Behaviour (London: P. S. King, 1937), pp. 126–7.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Lane, , Political Life, pp. 262–3.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For a general discussion of this and other indices of size inequality see Scherer, F. M., Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 2nd edn (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1980), pp. 58–9.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Storper, Michael and Walker, Richard, ‘The Theory of Labour and the Theory of Location’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1 (1983), 32–3.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Bulmer, Martin, ‘The Rejuvenation of Community Studies? Neighbours, Networks and Policy’, The Socioloyical Review, 33 (1985), p. 442.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Royal Commission on Local Government, Community Attitudes Survey: England (London: HMSO, Research Study Number 9, 1969), pp. 143–4.Google Scholar

²⁰ Pahl, Ray E., Patterns of Urban Life (London: Longman, 1970), pp. 56–7.Google Scholar

²¹ Eagles, Munroe and Erfle, Stephen, ‘Community Cohesion and Working Class Politics: Workplace-Residence Separation and Labour Support, 1966–1983’, Political Geography Quarterly, 7(1988, forthcoming).Google Scholar

²² The 1981 census tables only provide figures on those travelling to work by car, bus, rail or underground. Those remaining must, therefore, travel to work on foot or by bicycle, but there is no way to distinguish the relative proportions of these. We report coefficients for both the percentage walking (WALK) and walking and cycling (BALK) for the earlier time periods since the former permits a stronger inference about the proximity of homes and workplaces.

²³ The logistic transformation of the percentage of voter turnout is defined as: Logistic (turnout) = log (turnout/OCX) – turnout)) where turnout is the percentage of the eligible voters in a constituency who cast a ballot in the election. This transformation is appropriate in situations where the dependent variable has a limited range (in this case the range is zero to 100 per cent). The transformed variable has a range of negative infinity to positive infinity; thus predictions cannot be made outside the allowable range of the dependent variable (as would be the case if the dependent variable were bounded by 0 and 100).

²⁴ Mughan, , Party and Participation in British Elections, p. 26.Google Scholar

²⁵ Denver, and Hands, , ‘Marginalily and Turnout in British General Elections’Google Scholar; and Denver, and Hands, , ‘Marginality and Turnout in General Elections in the 1970s’.Google Scholar

²⁶ We departed from Denver and Hands by excluding the census category ‘non-manual workers’ from this class measure because the class location of these lower white-collar workers is ambiguous. Moreover, the proportion of employers and managers alone was identified by Miller, William, Electoral Dynamics in Britain Since 1917 (London: Macmillan, 1977), p. 64CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as one of the strongest single predictors of turnout.

²⁷ Denver, and Hands, , ‘Marginality and Turnout in British General Elections’Google Scholar; Denver, and Hands, , ‘Marginality and Turnout in General Elections in the 1970s’Google Scholar; and Mughan, , Party Participation in British Elections.Google Scholar

²⁸ Denver, and Hands, , ‘Marginality and Turnout in British General Elections’, pp. 23–4Google Scholar; and Denver, and Hands, , ‘Marginality and Turnout in General Elections in the 1970s’, pp. 383–4.Google Scholar

²⁹ Crewe, et al. , ‘Non-Voting in British General Elections’, p. 56.Google Scholar

³⁰ Wolfinger, Raymond and Rosenstone, Steven, Who Votes? (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1980), pp. 34–6. and p. 103.Google Scholar

³¹ Denver, and Hands, , ‘Marginality and Turnout in British General Elections’, pp. 26–9Google Scholar; and Denver, and Hands, , ‘Marginality and Turnout in General Elections in the 1970s’, pp. 381–5.Google Scholar

³² The same pattern holds in other years as well. Indeed, three of the four largest residuals in 1970 are these three constituencies. The fourth, Morpeth, is also a mining constituency (34.8 per cent mining), which has the fifth highest H_scg score. Morpeth also exhibited the fifth largest positive residual in 1966.