¹ Francis, J. and Payne, C., ‘The Use of Logistic Linear Models in Political Science: the British Elections 1964–70’, Political Methodology (1977) 233–70Google Scholar; Rose, R., The Problem of Party Government (London: Macmillan, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Appendix A, and ‘Britain: Simple Abstractions and Complex Realities’, in Rose, R., ed., Electoral Behavior: a Comparative Handbook (New York: Free Press, 1974), 481–541Google Scholar; Crewe, I., Särlvik, B. and Alt, J., ‘Partisan Dealignment in Britain, 1964–1974’, British Journal of Political Science, VII (1977), 124–90Google Scholar; Franklin, M. N. and Mughan, A., ‘Class Voting in Britain: Decline or Disappearance?’, American Political Science Review, LXXII (1978), 523–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Rae, D. W. and Taylor, M., The Analysis of Political Cleavages (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1970).Google Scholar

³ Crewe, I., ‘Party Identification Theory and Political Change in Britain’, in Budge, I., Crewe, I. and Farlie, D., eds., Party Identification and Beyond (London: Wiley, 1976), p. 46Google Scholar, my emphases.

⁴ Lipset, S. M., ‘The Changing Class Structure and Contemporary European Politics’, Daedalus, XCIII (1964), 271–303Google Scholar; Bell, D., The End of Ideology (New York: Crowell-Collier, 1961)Google Scholar, and The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (New York: Basic Books, 1973).Google Scholar

⁵ Westergaard, J., ‘The Withering Away of Class’ in Anderson, P. and Blackburn, R., eds., Towards Socialism (London: Fontana, 1965).Google Scholar

⁶ Dunleavy, P., ‘Some Political Implications of Sectoral Cleavages and the Growth of State Employment’, Political Studies, XXIX (1980), forthcoming.Google Scholar

⁷ Because of concentrations of young single people and single old age pensioners in these categories; see Sociol Trends, v (1974), p. 130Google Scholar; Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Census 1971: Housing Report (London: HMSO, 1974), ‘Households’, Table 5.Google Scholar

⁸ Pulzer, P., Political Representation and Elections in Britain (London: Allen and Unwin, 1967)Google Scholar; Butler, D. and Stokes, D., Political Change in Britain (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1969)Google Scholar; Rose, , ‘Britain: Simple Abstractions and Complex Realities’.Google Scholar

⁹ Rose, , Problem of Party Government, Chap. 2, especially pp. 33–5Google Scholar; Franklin, and Mughan, , ‘Class Voting in Britain’, passim.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Jessop, B., Traditionalism, Conservatism and British Political Culture (London: Allen and Unwin, 1974), pp. 159–62Google Scholar; Rose, , Problem of Party Government, pp. 34–41.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E. and Stokes, D., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960)Google Scholar, and Butler, and Stokes, , Political Change in Britain.Google Scholar

¹² Miller, W. L., ‘Social Class and Party Choice in England: a New Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, VII (1978), 257–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Electoral Dynamics (London: Macmillan, 1977), Chap. 2Google Scholar; Garrahan, P., ‘Housing, The Class Milieu and Middle-Class Conservatism’, British Journal of Political Science, VII (1977), 125–6.Google Scholar

¹³ Miller, , Electoral Dynamics, p. 220.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For example, Young, M. and Wilmott, P., Family and Kinship in East London, (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1962)Google Scholar influenced much electoral analysis in Britain; see also Frankenberg, R., Communities in Britain (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1966).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Goldthorpe, J., Lockwood, D., Bechofer, F. and Platt, J., The Affluent Worker in the Class Structure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), Chap. 4Google Scholar; Parkin, F., ‘Working Class Conservatives’, British Journal of Sociology, XVIII (1967), 278–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Abrams, M., Rose, R. and Hinden, R., Must Labour Lose? (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1960)Google Scholar; Butler, D. and Rose, R., The British General Election of 1959 (London: Macmillan, 1960), pp. 15–16Google Scholar; and see Roberts, K., Cook, F. G., Clarke, S. C. and Semenoff, E., The Fragmentary Class Structure (London: Heinemann, 1977)Google Scholar, Chap. 3, and Goldthorpe, J., Lockwood, D., Bechofer, F. and Platt, J., The Affluent Worker: Political Attitudes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969) for critical reviews.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Rose, , Problem of Party GovernmentGoogle Scholar, Chap. 2 and Roberts, et al. , Fragmentary Class Structure, Chap. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Dunleavy, P., ‘State Intervention in Consumption Processes and the Local Bases of Political Alignment’ (paper to the Urban Politics Seminar, Nuffield College, Oxford, 1978).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Dunleavy, P., ‘The Empiricist Treatment of Class Environmental Influence’, unpublished paper, Open University, 1979.Google Scholar

²⁰ For example, Miller, , ‘Social Class and Party Choice in England’.Google Scholar

²¹ Rose, , ‘Britain: Simple Abstractions and Complex Realities’, p. 504.Google Scholar

²² Most empiricist accounts fail to acknowledge this logical corollary of their approach; at the same time their failure to offer any theorization of consumption cleavages is tacit acknowledgement of this implication.

²³ The apparent empirical importance of telephone rental is dubious. Telephone ownership is highly correlated with income (Department of Employment, Family Expenditure Survey, 1974 (London: HMSO, 1975), p. 104.)Google Scholar But accounts such as Rose, , ‘Britain: Simple Abstractions and Complex Realities’Google Scholar, and Franklin, and Mughan, , ‘Class Voting in Britain’Google Scholar take at face value an empirical ‘finding’ where telephone rental is almost certainly acting as a dichotomized income variable.

²⁴ See Taylor, C., ‘Interpretation and the Science of Man’, Review of Metaphysics, xxv (1971), 1–32, 35–45.Google Scholar

²⁵ Lockwood, D., ‘Sources of Variation in Working Class Images of Society’, Sociological Review, XIV (1966), 249–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Rex, J. and Moore, R., Race, Community and Conflict (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 273–4, 36.Google Scholar

²⁷ Rex, and Moore, , Race, Community and Conflict, p. 274.Google Scholar

²⁸ Rex, J., ‘The Sociology of a Zone of Transition’, in Pahl, R., ed., Readings in Urban Sociology (Oxford: Pergamon, 1968), p. 215.Google Scholar

²⁹ Haddon, R., ‘A Minority in a Welfare State Society’, New Atlantis, II (1970), 80–133.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Rex, , ‘Sociology of a Zone of Transition’, p. 215Google Scholar, where five of seven ‘housing classes’ incorporate references to housing amenity or spatial location (as a surrogate for amenity). See also Lambert, J., Paris, C. and Blackaby, R., Housing Policy and the State (London: Macmillan, 1978), Chaps, 1 and 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ See Pahl, R., ‘Urban Social Theory and Research’ and ‘Urban Managerialism Reconsidered’, in his Whose City?, 2nd edn. (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1975).Google Scholar

³² Saunders, P., ‘Domestic Property and Social Class’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, II (1978), 233–51, especially pp. 234–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ Saunders, , ‘Domestic Property and Social Class’, pp. 242–4.Google Scholar

³⁴ Saunders, , ‘Domestic Property and Social Class’, p. 245.Google Scholar

³⁵ Pahl, , Whose City?, p. 291.Google Scholar

³⁶ Saunders, , ‘Domestic Property and Social Class’, p. 248Google Scholar; ‘the point about house ownership, therefore, is that it functions both for use and for accumulation.’

³⁷ For a revised Weberian statement of occupational class divisions see Goldthorpe, J. and Llewellyn, C., ‘Class Mobility in Modern Britain: Three Theses Examined’, Sociology, XI (1977), 257–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ Saunders, , ‘Domestic Property and Social Class’, p. 234.Google Scholar

³⁸ Pahl, , Whose City?, p. 298.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Saunders, , ‘Domestic Property and Social Class’, pp. 246–8.Google Scholar

⁴¹ The only theoretically sophisticated attempt to apply Rex and Moore's approach to electoral analysis is Davies, P. and Newton, K., ‘An Aggregate Data Analysis of Turnout and Party Voting in Local Elections’, Sociology, VIII (1974), 213–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar: the theoretical vacuity of Rex and Moore's explanation clearly affects this analysis, however, for Davis and Newton equate housing classes with tenure groups with no real explanation of the bases for doing so.

⁴² Habermas, J., Legitimation Crisis (London: Heinemann, 1976)Google Scholar, Part II; O'Connor, J., The Fiscal Crisis of the State (New York: St Martin's Press, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, passim.

⁴³ Castells, M., The Urban Question (London: Arnold, 1977)Google Scholar; City, Class and Power (London: Macmillan, 1978)Google Scholar; ‘Theory and Ideology in Urban Sociology’, in Pickvance, C. G., ed., Urban Sociology: Critical Essays (London: Tavistock, 1976)Google Scholar; ‘Towards a Political Urban Sociology’, in Harloe, M., ed. Capitve Cities (London: Wiley, 1977).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Castells, , The Urban Question, pp. 454–62Google Scholar; this is not to say that ‘collective consumption’ can be reduced in meaning to ‘state provision’ as claimed by Pahl, R., ‘Castells and Collective Consumption’, Sociology, XII (1978), 309–15.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Of course, the relative autonomy of consumption locations is common ground to Weberian approaches and to Castells; but whereas the former sees the most individualized form of housing consumption as constituting the autonomous input into urban conflicts, Castells locates the source of this autonomy in the process of state intervention.

⁴⁸ The ‘collective’ nature of collective consumption is in part an active sharing of a common experience; hence Pahl's claim that for Castells ‘collective’ only means ‘large scale’ is wholly misplaced: see ‘Castells and Collective Consumption’. Buyers from mail-order catalogues or hypermarkets are engaged in large scale but highly individualized consumption.

⁴⁷ In this I contradict Lojkine, J., ‘Contribution to a Marxist Theory of Capitalist Urbanization’Google Scholar, in Pickvance, , ed., Urban Sociology: Critical Essays, p. 121.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Dunleavy, , ‘Some Political Implications of Sectoral Cleavages’Google Scholar, for a discussion of this point.

⁴⁹ Macpherson, C. B., ‘Do We Need a Theory of the State?’, European Journal of Sociology, XVIII (1977), 223–44.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Castells, , The Urban Question.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Dunleavy, P. J., Urban Political Analysis (London: Macmillan, 1980), Chap. 3 for a discussion of this point.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵² Castells, , City, Class and Power, p. 170.Google Scholar

⁵³ There are a number of bases for such a view; see Saunders, , ‘Domestic Property and Social Class’, pp. 239–40Google Scholar; Ball, M., ‘Owner Occupation’Google Scholar, in Political Economy of Housing Workshop, Housing and Class in Britain (London: Conference of Socialist Economists, 1976)Google Scholar; Castells, , The Urban Question, pp. 422–5.Google Scholar We need only note the contingent quality of the mechanisms Saunders sees as underlying real accumulation in housing to appreciate that it is meaningless to see this process as constituting a basis for defining social class, within a theoretically adequate conceptualization of class divisions and conflicts.

⁵⁴ Both housing and transport are key items in consumer expenditures, although since existing figures take no account of extensive subsidization, their importance is grossly understated at 13·4 and 13·7 per cent of expenditure respectively: see Social Trends, No. 6 (1975), p. 124.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ This is a very early and tentative formulation. The basic reason for articulating it is the fundamental impossibility of attempting to discuss political alignment within a radical theoretical framework while remaining dependent on social psychological models of voting and political mobilization. See Dunleavy, ‘Some Political Implications of Sectoral Cleavages’, for a slightly more extended discussion.

⁵⁶ Parkin, F., Class Inequality and Political Order (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1971), pp. 82–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Dunleavy, , ‘Some Political Implications of Sectoral Cleavages’Google Scholar, and Wright, E. O., Class, Crisis and the State (London: New Left Books, 1978)Google Scholar, for a discussion of interest displacement.

⁵⁸ Balbus, I., ‘The Concept of Interest in Pluralist and Marxian Analysis’, Politics and Society, I (1971), 151–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Connolly, W. E., ‘On Interests in Politics’, Politics and Society, II (1972), 459–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lukes, S., Power: A Radical View (London: Macmillan, 1975).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ These social grades are the standard ‘class’ controls used by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. A is professional, B managerial, C₁ lower non-manual, C₂ skilled manual, D unskilled manual, E a residual grade for people with low buying power, chiefly pensioners and welfare recipients. For a discussion of the inadequacies of these social grades as ‘class’ indices, see p. 436 below. I would like to thank the SSRC Survey Archive at the University of Essex for making this data available and the staff of Oxford University Social Studies Faculty Computing Unit for setting it up for analysis. Neither Gallup nor the Survey Archive are responsible in any way for the analysis made here.

⁶⁰ This table is based on: Shelter, No Place to Grow Up (London: Shelter, 1975), pp. 23–5Google Scholar; Department of the Environment, Housing Policy: Technical Volume 3 (London: HMSO, 1977)Google Scholar, Chap. 9; C. Hamnett, , ‘Inequalities in Housing’Google Scholar, Unit II in Open University, D302. Patterns of Inequality (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1976), pp. 30–7.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Shelter, , No Place to Grow Up, pp. 24–5.Google Scholar

⁶² In the run up to the October 1974 election the Labour government forced the building societies to accept a state loan to keep interest rates down.

⁶³ The incidence of enforced underpricing within the private rental sector remains a controversial area; it seems likely that it has been falling sharply in the recent period.

⁶⁴ Table 4 and the analysis in this paragraph are based on Department of Transport, Transport Policy (London: HMSO, Cmnd. 6836, 1977), pp. 74–5Google Scholar; Department of Transport, Survey of Concessionary Bus Fares for the Elderly, Blind and Disabled (London: Department of Transport, 1977)Google Scholar; National Transport Survey 1975/6, primary analysis carried out by Stephen Potter, Open University; Gray, P. G., Private Motoring in England and Wales (London: HMSO, 1969).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Hamer, M., Wheels Within Wheels: a Study of the Road Lobby in Britain (London: Friends of the Earth, 1975)Google Scholar; Hillman, M., with Henderson, I. and Whalley, A., Personal Mobility and Transport Policy (London: Political and Economic Planning Broadsheet 542, 1973)Google Scholar; and Transport Realities and Planning Policy (London: Political and Economic Planning Broadsheet 567, 1974)Google Scholar; Hamer, M., Getting Nowhere Fast (London: Friends of the Earth, 1976).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Gray, , Private Motoring in England and Wales, p. 82.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ National Transport Survey 1975/6, analysis by S. Potter, Open University.

⁶⁸ This was largely because, as Schifferes, S. notes, ‘The tenants movement in Britain reached its historical peak in the rent strikes in the First World War which led to the passage of rent control legislation. But these tenants organizations were never intended to be permanent, but militant pressure groups on the government. When their object was met, they disbanded. The long term goal of the leadership was not rent control, but council housing’Google Scholar: see ‘Council Tenants and Housing Policy in the 1930s’, in Political Economy of Housing Workshop, Housing and Class in Britain, p. 64Google Scholar; see also Bowley, M., Housing and the State, 1919–44 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1945).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Department of the Environment, Housing Policy: a Consultative Document (London: HMSO, Cmnd. 6851, 1977), pp. 39–41Google Scholar, and Housing Policy: Technical Volume 2, Chap. 5.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Hutber, P., Decline and Fall of the Middle Class (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1977).Google Scholar See also the comments of P. Ambrose on ‘the current ideological hegemony’ in housing, in ‘The Determinants of Urban Land Use Change’, Units 25–26 in Open University, D204: Fundamentals of Human Geography, (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1977), p. 41Google Scholar; Ball, , ‘Owner Occupation’Google Scholar and Boddy, M., ‘Building Societies and Owner Occupation’Google Scholar in Political Economy of Housing Workshop, Housing and Class in Britain.

⁷¹ Building Economic Development Committee, Housing for All: a Discussion DocumentGoogle Scholar, and BMRB Housing Consumer Survey (London: HMSO, 1977).Google Scholar

⁷² Grant, J., The Politics of Urban Transportation (London: Earth Resources Research, 1977), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

⁷³ See also Illich, I., Energy and Equity (London: Caldar and Boyars, 1974)Google Scholar, for an analysis of the social inequities fostered by such a focus.

⁷⁴ Hamer, , Wheels Within Wheels, passim.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Hamer, , Wheels Within Wheels, p. 10Google Scholar; Plowden, W., The Motor Car and Politics in Britain (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1973), Chaps. 16 and 17.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Hamer, , Wheels Within Wheels, pp. 38–41.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See Rees, M., The Public Sector in the Mixed Economy (London: Balsford, 1973)Google Scholar, Chap. 3; Keith-Lucas, B. and Richards, P., A History of Local Government in the Twentieth Century (London: Allen and Unwin, 1978), p. 53Google Scholar; Gwiiliam, K. M., Transport and Public Policy (London: Allen and Unwin, 1964).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Department of Transport, Survey of Concessionary Bus Fares, Figures 1 and 2.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ This table is derived principally from Hillman, et al. , Personal Mobility and Transport PolicyGoogle Scholar, and Hamer, , Getting Nowhere Fast.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Hillman, et al. , Personal Mobility and Transport Policy, pp. 76–9.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Newton, K., Second City Politics (London: Oxford University Press, 1976). Chap. I.Google Scholar

⁸² The analysis in this paragraph is drawn from: Cullingworth, J. B., Housing and Local Government in England and Wales (London: Allen and Unwin, 1966)Google Scholar; Donnison, D. V., Housing Policy Since the War (Welwyn, Herts: Codicote Press, 1960)Google Scholar and The Government of Housing (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1967)Google Scholar; Community Development Project Teams, Whatever Happened to Council Housing? (London: CDP Information and Intelligence Unit, 1976)Google Scholar; Dunleavy, P., The Politics of Mass Housing in Britain: Corporate Power, Professional Influence and the Welfare State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar; Murie, A., Niner, P. and Watson, C., Housing Policy and the Housing System (London: Allen and Unwin, 1976).Google Scholar

⁸³ The analysis in this paragraph is drawn from Hindess, B., The Decline of Working Class Politics (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1971)Google Scholar; Moorhouse, H. F., ‘The Political Incorporation of the British Working Class’, Sociology, VII (1973), 341–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dickens, P., ‘Social Change, Housing and the State: Some Aspects of Class Fragmentation and Incorporation, 1915–46’ (paper to the Centre of Environmental Studies Conference, ‘Urban Change and Conflict’, University of York, 01 1977).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ The analysis in this paragraph is drawn from Saunders, P., Who Runs Croydon? Power and Politics in a London Borough (PhD dissertation, University of London, 1974)Google Scholar; and ‘They Make the Rules: Political Routines and the Generation of Political Bias’, Policy and Politics, IV (1974), 31–58Google Scholar; and ‘Domestic Property and Social Class’; and Urban Politics: a Sociological Approach (London: Hutchinson, 1979)Google Scholar, Part 2; Young, K. and Kramer, J., ‘Local Exclusionary Policies in Britain: the Case of Suburban Defence in a Metropolitan System’, in Cox, K., ed., Urbanization and Conflict in Market Societies (London: Methuen, 1978), pp. 229–51Google Scholar; and Strategy and Conflict in Metropolitan Housing (London: Heinemann, 1978)Google Scholar; Harloe, M., Issacharoff, R. and Minns, R., The Organization of Housing (London: Heinemann, 1974)Google Scholar; King, R. and Nugent, N., ‘Ratepayers Associations in Newcastle and Wakefield’, in Garrard, J., Jary, D., Goldsmith, M. and Oldfield, A., eds., The Middle Class in Politics (Farnborough, Hants: Saxon House, 1978).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ The analysis in this paragraph is drawn from Plowden, , The Motor Car and Politics in BritainGoogle Scholar, Chaps. 15–20; Hamer, , Wheels Within WheelsGoogle Scholar, Chap. 6; Grant, , Politics of Urban Transportation, Chap. 4.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Block, G., The Plight of the Motorist (London: Conservative Political Centre, 1968), p. 1.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Hart, D., Strategic Planning in London: the Rise and Fall of the Primary Road Network (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Jenkins, S., ‘The Politics of London Motorways’, Political Quarterly, XLIV (1973), 257–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar, characterizes the ringways as ‘a last attempt by those who had already fled the city for the suburbs to recapture it and bend it to their personal convenience’.

⁸⁸ Hart, , Strategic Planning in London, p. 172.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Grant, , Politics of Urban Transportation, passim.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Dunleavy, , Urban Political Analysis, Chaps. 3 and 5.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Cable, J. V., ‘Glasgow's Motorways: a Technocratic Blight’, New Society, 2 09 1974, pp. 605–7Google Scholar; Richardson, H., ‘Glasgow's Hollow Crown’, New Statesman, 19 09 1975, pp. 344–6.Google Scholar

⁹² Department of Transport, Survey of Concessionary Bus FaresGoogle Scholar, Figures 1 and 2, show this clearly; Conservative authorities in urban areas have been forced into accepting concessionary fares in order to retain their large pensioner vote.

⁹³ For an extreme view of elections as rituals see Lukes, S., ‘Political Ritual and Social Integration’, Sociology, IX (1975), 289–308, pp. 304–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Castells, in contrast argues that elections ‘lie at the heart of the liberal democratic state’, City, Class and Power, p. 7.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See Rose, , ‘Britain: Simple Abstractions and Complex Realities’Google Scholar for the use of Gallup data, and Butler, and Stokes, , Political Change in BritainGoogle Scholar for the ‘social grades’ used in political science surveys. Weberian class boundaries are used by Thorburn, P., ‘Political Generations: the Case of Class and Party’, European Journal of Political Research, V (1977), 135–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The best Marxist empirical work on social class boundaries is Wright, E. O. and Perrone, L., ‘Marxist Class Categories and Income Inequality’, American Sociological Review, XLII (1977), 32–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁵ This should not be taken to imply a single dimension along which consumption locations can be ranked; to this extent the necessary omission of respondents in two-car, private rental and local authority households from the table may produce a false impression of the effect under analysis.

⁹⁶ Social Trends, No. 5 (1974), p. 130.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ A classification of this type is widely used by the Department of Environment in analysing housing data; for example, see The Estate Outside the Dwelling (London: HMSO, 1972).Google Scholar We would argue that the variations in transport location reflect material differences in their situations; for example, average weekly running costs for a car exceed the old age pension, while the high levels of car ownership amongst family households reflects their greater transport needs and the costs and difficulty of taking children on public transport. Thus a household control is more appropriate than an age control.

⁹⁸ See Goodman, L. A., ‘A Modified Multiple Regression Approach to the Analysis of Dichotomous Variables’, American Sociological Review, XXXVII (1972), 28–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Payne, C., ‘The Log-Linear Model for Contingency Tables’, Chap. 4 in O'Muircheartaigh, C. A. and Payne, C., eds., The Analysis of Survey Data, Volume II: Model Fitting (London: Wiley, 1977).Google Scholar See also Francis, and Payne, , ‘Use of Logistic Models in Political Science’.Google Scholar I would like to thank Clive Payne for his help in using this technique.

⁹⁸ Because social grade E is a residual category we have excluded it in the results presented here: its inclusion does not alter the results much for any variable apart from social grade, and even here has little impact. We fitted models to the two party vote for ease of interpretation.

¹⁰⁰ Goodman, , ‘A Modified Multiple Regression Approach to the Analysis of Dichotomous Variables’.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Payne, , ‘Log-Linear Model for Contingency Tables’, pp. 138–9Google Scholar, for an account of the derivation of odds ratios; and Francis and Payne, , ‘Use of Logistic Linear Models in Political Science’.Google Scholar

¹⁰² See Franklin, and Mughan, , ‘Class Voting in Britain’Google Scholar, passim. A residual doubt of considerable significance remains, however. This concerns the role which a mediating income variable might play in linking occupational class and consumption locations. The problems of operationalizing adequate income measures in survey research prevent us from tackling this question from existing data. In a new paper, ‘The Social Bases of Contemporary British Polities’, given to the Nuffield College Politics Seminar, May 1978, I analyse individualized and collective consumption locations together with income. One would expect an adequate income control, on the basis of the preliminary analysis, to leave the relationships analysed here substantially unchanged. Indeed if income is controlled and levels of consumption amenity are also controlled, the ‘pure’ impact of housing tenures and transport locations may be greater than that estimated here.

¹⁰³ See Saunders, , ‘Domestic Property and Social Class’, pp. 239–42Google Scholar; Lambert, et al. , Housing Policy and the StateGoogle Scholar, Chap. 7; Ball, , ‘Owner Occupation’.Google Scholar