I shall deal with the points made by Denver and Hands in the order in which they raise them.

(1) Since my article tries to show that the relationship between marginality and both turnout and changes in turnout is, at best, a faint one, the assumption that ‘parties are more efficient in, or put greater effort into, marginal wards’ is in no way necessary to the argument. On the contrary, the assumption seems to be characteristic of those who claim a relationship between marginality and high turnout.

Denver and Hands point to accumulated evidence that concentrated efforts can have a dramatic effect on turnout. It would be foolish to deny that this can be the case or has, indeed, been the case, but the figures seem to suggest that the effect is usually small to insignificant. Most of their British evidence is based upon general not local election results. While there is clear evidence to show that turnout increases when a constituency becomes marginal (Brighton, Kemptown in 1966 is the classic case), the evidence about local elections is muddled and inconclusive, and has often been used to support conclusions which do not follow.

England has long been fertile ground for scholars (usually American) concerned to locate the antecedents of stable and democratic government. More often than not they have stressed a particular configuration of attitudes as a basic support for such government. Evaluation of the consequences for the political system of these attitudes has frequently proceeded along very inferential and impressionistic lines, and has resulted in a benign view of the British political system.

James E. Alt ('Some Social and Political Correlates of County Borough Expenditures’ in British Journal of Political Science No. I, pp. 49–62) gives as his reasons for choosing to study county boroughs, ‘not only because of the fact that they are urban centres, the uniformity of their electoral procedure, the high level of competition (on terms of contested seats), their financial independence from other local authorities, and their service omnicompetence’. This is a standard explanation for the predominance in research on local government of the county borough to the neglect of other authorities. One positive gain of re-organization may be that future research will give a more rounded picture of local government performance and practice.

James E. Alt ('Some Social and Political Correlates of County Borough Expenditures’ in British Journal of Political Science No. I, pp. 49–62) gives as his reasons for choosing to study county boroughs, ‘not only because of the fact that they are urban centres, the uniformity of their electoral procedure, the high level of competition (on terms of contested seats), their financial independence from other local authorities, and their service omnicompetence’. This is a standard explanation for the predominance in research on local government of the county borough to the neglect of other authorities. One positive gain of re-organization may be that future research will give a more rounded picture of local government performance and practice.

I am grateful to Mr. Brown for quoting enough of my correspondence to necessitate my writing rather little at this point. A great deal of research done on the American states suggests that such variables as party control of legislatures do not explain variations in spending very well. In Britain the assumption is frequently made that each local authority has so many unique features that to attempt to make broad-scale comparisons is either useless or impossible. My article was written to suggest that neither of these notions should be applied uncritically, at least to some services provided by English and Welsh county boroughs.

I am grateful to Mr. Brown for quoting enough of my correspondence to necessitate my writing rather little at this point. A great deal of research done on the American states suggests that such variables as party control of legislatures do not explain variations in spending very well. In Britain the assumption is frequently made that each local authority has so many unique features that to attempt to make broad-scale comparisons is either useless or impossible. My article was written to suggest that neither of these notions should be applied uncritically, at least to some services provided by English and Welsh county boroughs.