Election confusion
Sir: I can appreciate the anxiety that leads Dr Cosgrave (Letters, June 19) to defend himself against a charge which I never made, to contradict by implication a statement made in his previous letter, and more generally to wander from he central point in dispute.
The main substance of Dr Cosgrave's latest letter concerns the timing of the interviews in Political Change in Britain. I am sure that Dr Butler, Dr Cosgrave and I would happily concur that no immutable laws of political behaviour can be framed on the basis of interviews conducted over three years, or even over a longer period. (Compare, for instance, responses to questions on the Common Market in the last five years.) That, however, is not the point, at issue; the question is whether the research conducted by Butler and Stokes in 1969-70 will, inter alia, contradict the general conclusions reached in Political Change. Dr Cosgrave invited me to offer a psephological defence against Mr Macleod's strictures. I pointed out, inter alio, that Macleod's argument was based on a gigantic contradiction. He was certain that if the interviews had been conducted in the late 'sixties, all the conclusions would have been entirely different; but he was equally sure that many of these conclusions would in fact have been confirmed. Because I drew attention to this. Dr Cosgrave accuses me of impertinence and bad temper.
There is, however, one factor crucial to the Macleod/Cosgrave thesis which has not so far been mentioned, and that is the basic premise that the period 1963-1966 was specially favourable to Labour. In one sense, of course, it was. In terms of voting intentions, by-election results, and local council elections, Labour support fell dramatically between 1967-69, but the responses to questions about genera/ party identification (ie, "In general, would you describe yourself as Labour, Conservative or Liberal......) show an astonishing stability over the period from 1963-1969. Most of this informatien is available in the Conservative Research Department, and all of in books which Dr Cosgrave has read. Many of the tables in Political Change are based on responses to questions of this kind, and for these conclusions at legt the Macleod/Cosgrave criticisms are irrelevant. I could extend this argument further — but I forbear.
If I have traced the evolution 'cif Dr Cosgrave's position correctly, he has substantially modified his earlier position; I welcome MS. One valuable by-product of this enjoyable correspondence has been that readers of this journal Will now have a clearer idea of the content of Political Change.
If Dr Cosgrave is still unhappy about my argument, may I suggest that we forget the acrimony that has marred our previous exchanges, and that he comes to Newcastle at some mutually convenient time where I shall be glad to offer him what hospitality I can and go through the arguments With him in a relaxed and amiable manner.
Hugh Berrinitan Department of Politics, The University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. 1.
This correspondence is ngY6' closed. — Editor. The Spectator.
Previous page
