BJ.Pol.S.

24, 403-417 Printed in Great Britain

Copyright 1994 Cambridge University Press

Notes and Comments

Merger or Bust: Whatever Happened to Members of the SDP? DAVID DENVER AND HUGH BOCHEL*

The Social Democratic Party (SDP) was perhaps the nearest thing to a 'flash' party seen in British politics in modern times. It was formed in March 1981, largely on the initiative of four leading figures in the Labour party (Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and William Rogers), following the apparent success of the left in dominating the party, and initially it had a sensational impact on British politics. It had thirty MPs by March 1982 (mostly as a result of defections by Labour MPs); in alliance with the Liberals it immediately went to first place in the opinion polls and stayed in that position until May 1982. The Alliance won four by-elections between 1981 and 1983, and in the 1983 general election, with 25.4 per cent of the vote, came within two points of ousting Labour from its second place. For the next four years the Alliance held its position and in the 1987 election its vote fell only slightly to 22.6 per cent. Immediately following the 1987 election, however, things started to go wrong for the SDP. The party decided to enter full merger negotiations with the Liberals but a group of die-hards, led by the party leader David Owen, vigorously opposed any merger. After tortuous negotiations, SDP members voted by 65 per cent to 35 per cent in favour of merger in February 1988, and the party submerged its separate identity in a new Liberal Democratic party (as it was eventually named). Opponents of merger re-established a separate 'continuing' SDP, but it performed lamentably in local elections and by-elections. In June 1990 the continuing party was formally closed down. David Owen did not seek re-election to the House of Commons in 1992 and the two remaining SDP MPs lost their seats.' Flash parties experience rapid rises in support followed by rapid declines. Public
opinion, wrote Duverger, 'seems to display a sudden flash of temper, a gust of passion'. 2 It is true that the SDP did not simply collapse. Rather, the majority of members voluntarily transferred themselves to a new party. None the less, the sudden rise and subsequent disappearance of the party is close to what would be expected of a flash party and, as such, it was a unique phenomenon in modern British politics.

* Department of Politics and International Relations, Lancaster University; Department of Politics, University of Humberside, respectively. The survey on which this Note is based was made possible by a grant from the Nuffield Foundation's small grants scheme. We are grateful for this assistance. We are also grateful to Patrick Seyd for helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1 For an account of the merger between the SDP and the Liberals and the subsequent collapse of the continuing SDP, see D. Denver, 'The Centre' in A. King, ed., Britain At the Polls 1992 (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1992). 2 M. Duverger, Political Parties (London: Methuen, 1964), p. 313.

404

Notes and Comments

Voting support for the SDP and Alliance has been extensively analysed,3 and detailed accounts of the course of SDP and Alliance politics at leadership level have been given by some leading figures.4 Little is known, however, about members of the SDP. Within eight weeks of its formation the party had 52,000 members. Membership peaked at 78,000 in 1982 and eventually stabilized at 50,000 to 60.000.5 The sudden rise and fall of the party raises a number of questions about people who joined the party. What kind of people were they? Why did they join the party? What happened to them when the main body merged with the Liberals and the continuing SDP collapsed? We seek to answer these and other questions in this Note. Our discussion is based upon a postal survey of former members of the SDP, which we undertook in late 1991 and early 1992. From a list of the names and addresses of 50,841 people who had been SDP members in June 1987 we were able to obtain a random sample of 3,911 (one in fourteen).6 A total of 2,073 questionnaires were returned - a response rate of 53.0 per cent, which is remarkably high given that almost five years had elapsed between the last revision of the list of members and our survey.7

WHO WERE SDP MEMBERS?

Social and Political

Characteristics

Table I shows some of the social characteristics of SDP members and for comparison also shows the characteristics of members of the Labour party in 1988-89, as reported by Seyd and Whiteley. 8 The variables on the left-hand side of the table show that differences in terms of sex, age and religion were not marked. The age profile of the parties is slightly different, with the largest proportion of SDP members being in later middle age while Labour members tend to be younger. SDP members were also more inclined than Labour to ascribe themselves a religious affiliation, and were more likely to be nonconformists and less likely to be Catholics than Labour members. The major differences between the parties are class-related, however. As the right-

3 See, for example, A. Heath, R. Jowell and J. Curtice, How Britain Votes (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1985), and A. Heath et al., Understanding Political Change (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1991). 4 See, for example, D. Steel, Against Goliath (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989); R. Jenkins, A Life at the Centre (London: Macmillan, 1991); D. Owen, A Time To Declare (London: Michael Joseph, 1991). 5 See D. Denver, 'The SDP-Liberal Alliance: The End of Two-party Politics?' in H. Berrington, ed., Change in British Politics (London: Frank Cass, 1984). 6 The names and addresses were supplied by the Liberal Democratic party who hold the membership records of the former SDP. We are grateful for the assistance and co-operation of the party. 7 Respondents (N - 2,073) can be compared with non-respondents (N = 1,821) in terms of sex and region of residence. Thefiguresare as follows: males (respondents 62.9 % and non-respondents 56.8%); females (36.9% and 43.2%). By region - London & South East (49.3 and 48.3); South West (12.4 and 11.8); East Anglia (4.4 and 6.6); Midlands (11.2 and 9.5); Yorks/North West/North (17.1 and 16.0); Wales (2.6 and 3.8); Scotland (2.9 and 3.7); N. Ireland (0.2 and 0.2). As can be seen, men are somewhat over-represented among respondents, while the regional distribution of non-respondents is close to that of the sample as a whole. The concentration of SDP members in London and the South East is worth noting. 8 P. Seyd and P. Whiteley, Labour's Grass Roots (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).

TABLE 1
SDP 63 37 100 61 39 100 5 43 33 19 100 3 36 44 17 100 49 16 4 31 100 71 17 12 100 92 3 5 100 61 29

The Social Characteristics of SDP and Labour Party Members

(Percentages)
SDP

Labour Labour Social class S atari at Rout, non-man Petty Bourgeois Working class
47 31 19 3 100

Sex Male Female

Age 25 and under 26-45 46-65 Over 65

Housing Owner occupiers Council tenants Other Education With degree

Religion None C of E/Anglican C of Scot/Presbyterian Nonconformist Roman Catholic Other

34 37 3 11 8 8 101 41 26 3 8 11 11 100

Newspaper read Guardian Mirror Independent

26 3 37

35 29 7

Sources: SDP survey and P. Seyd and P. Whiteley, Labour's Grass Roots (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). Notes: The age of SDP members is as in 1987, not at the time of the survey. Under class, 'foremen and technicians' have been included in the working class. Ns for SDP respondents vary slightly in this and other tables, due to missing data etc., but are always large by the standards of most surveys - rarely falling below 1,900. The Ns for Labour respondents in this table are in no case less than 4,600.

406

Notes and Comments

hand side of the table shows, just under half of the members of both parties could be described as belonging to 'the salariat' - professional and managerial employees. What is clearly absent among SDP respondents, however, is a significant working-class presence. This is reflected in the other variables. SDP members were more likely to be owner occupiers, and much more likely to be graduates and read the 'quality' press (although, interestingly, while The Guardian is the most popular paper for Labour members, The Independent is most popular with the SDP). These data confirm much impressionistic evidence that, while their voters were relatively evenly drawn from different classes, the SDP tended to attract middle-class recruits as members. Labour party membership is also predominantly middle class, of course, but while the salariat formed the largest group in both parties, the SDP were better able than Labour to attract routine non-manual workers and middle-class people from the business world. They had a larger proportion of members than Labour who were 'petit bourgeois' - i.e. were self-employed or had small businesses. More generally, 47 per cent of SDP members worked in the private sector compared with 37 per cent of Labour members.

TABLE 2

Previous Party Membership and Voteof SDP Members (Percentages) None Conservative 4 20 Labour 10 45 Liberal 4 26 Other 10*

Previous membership Previous vote

82

* 'Other' for previous vote includes both those who regularly voted for another party (1.5 per cent) and those who did not regularly vote for one party (8.6 per cent).

The political origins of SDP members is shown in Table 2. It can be seen that the overwhelming majority (82 percent) had not previously been members of a party. Thus the SDP certainly brought new people into political activity. Those who had previously been party members were mainly defectors from Labour - reflecting the origins of the SDP - although there was also a sprinkling from the Conservatives and Liberals. The previous partisan leanings of those who joined the SDP are indicated more fully by the figures for previous vote. The largest group (45 per cent) was formed of former Labour supporters, but it is over-simple to view the SDP as a 'Mark II Labour Party', since 20 per cent had previously voted Conservative and 26 per cent Liberal. Policy Opinions Although it was internal constitutional changes in the Labour party that finally provoked the defection of the founders of the SDP from Labour - with the election of Michael Foot as leader perhaps proving the last straw - underlying this were sharp policy divisions within the Labour party, notably over defence and the European Community. Differences over defence policy are reflected in the opinions of party

Notes and Comments

TABLE 3

407

Policy Opinions ofSDP and Labour Party Members (Percentages)* SDP Labour

Keep independent nuclear weapons Have nothing to do with nuclear weapons Withdraw from EEC Approve of further integration of EEC Reform electoral system Raise taxes to increase spending Redistribute income Against privatisation Approve of reduced power of trade unions Disapprove of increased use of nuclear energy

19 16 1 93 89 80 68 75 75 57

5 72 11 72 58 92 88 82 13 80

Source: The data relating to Labour members are taken from Seyd and Whiteley, Labour's Grass Roots. The questions used were not always exactly the same in the two surveys. They were, however, close enough to enable comparison between the two sets of respondents. Details are given in the Appendix.

members. 9 As Table 3 shows, more than 70 per cent of Labour members favoured unilateral nuclear disarmament compared with only 16 per cent of SDPmembers. (The bulk of SDP members favoured Britain having nuclear weapons within the context of NATO.) Differences over Europe are less marked but are in the expected direction. Seyd and Whiteley found that Labour members were more integrationist than expected only 1 1 per cent favoured leaving the Community while 72 per cent disagreed with the statement that Labour should resist further moves to integrate the Common Market. Hardly any SDP members wanted to leave the Community, however, and 93 per cent favoured further integration. A major plank in the SDP's platform was its support for proportional representation, and electoral reform was favoured by 88 per cent of members. Support for reform has been increasing in the Labour party, however, and at the time of Seyd and Whiteley's survey a clear majority of party members (58 per cent) declared themselves in favour of proportional representation. In the areas of taxation, government spending, redistribution and privatization

The discussion in this section rests on the assumption that the policy opinions of our respondents in 1991-92 were consistent with their opinions in 1987, when the SDP was still in existence. While it is true that changed circumstances may result in changed views, the issues considered here are relatively enduring and by definition the respondents are highly interested in politics, so that it is not unreasonable to assume a considerable level of consistency.

408

Notes and Comments

there is not much difference in the views of SDP and Labour members. In all cases large majorities support what might be called the 'liberal' position. Attitudes towards trade unions are very different, however. While 13 per cent of Labour respondents agreed with the view that it is better for Britain when trade unions have little power, 75 per cent of SDP respondents agreed that recent legislation restricting the activities of trade unions have been generally good for Britain. Finally, members of both parties were hesitant about increased use of nuclear energy. This might be interpreted as a 'green' view, and the extent of environmental concern among SDP members is further indicated by the fact that 73 per cent of them agreed that preserving a good environment is more important than raising the standard of living. It would appear, then, that members of the SDP had a distinctive set of political attitudes. Like Labour party people, they were generally liberal in favouring government expenditure on public services and the redistribution of wealth and income and in believing that the privatization programme had gone too far; and they were generally 'green' on environmental issues. But they diverged from Labour members in their support for nuclear weapons and in their antipathy towards trade unions. SDP members were also more strongly in favour of electoral reform and further integration of the European Community. This mix of policy positions makes it difficult to classify SDP members as a whole in conventional left-right terms, although there is nothing internally inconsistent about the mix.
REASONS FOR JOINING THE SDP

The reasons people give for joining parties are many and varied. Seyd and Whiteley, for example, categorize the reasons given by Labour respondents into six types 'altruistic concerns', 'collective positive incentives', 'collective negative incentives', 'selective outcome incentives', 'selective process incentives' and 'social norms'.10 Given that the SDP appeared on the scene in 1981 in a blaze of publicity as an entirely new party, we might expect that people would have clear reasons for becoming members and also would have a fairly clear recollection of what motivated them to join. In Table 4 we present our categorization of the responses given when our respondents were asked what the main reasons were for their joining the SDP. A general sense of disillusion with one or other of the major parties, or with both, figures prominently ('collective negative incentives', perhaps) being mentioned by 38 per cent of respondents. Specific attractions - support for proportional representation (9 per cent) or the quality of the party leaders (6 per cent) are mentioned less frequently. The most common positive reasons given are broad and general - a desire to change British politics, general support for the stand being taken by the SDP and a perception of the party as new and exciting. It would appear, overall, that people took the step of joining the SDP as a result of a vague desire for change coupled with a generalized belief that the major parties had failed or become too extreme.

' Seyd and Whiteley, Labour's Grass Roots, chap. 4.

Notes and Comments TABLE 4 Reasons for Joining SDP Percentage of sample mentioning each reason* Disillusion with Labour Disillusion with Conservatives Disillusion with both major parties Support for PR/electoral reform Attracted by leaders To break mould/strengthen centre Supported policies in general New/exciting party Other 19 4 15 9 6 27 34 11 12

409

*The percentages do not total 100 because up to two reasons were coded. The A' for this table is 1,998.

REACTIONS TO MERGER

The merger negotiations between the SDP and the Liberal party were traumatic for many SDP members. The initial ballot of the membership on whether to start negotiations (during the summer of 1987) was accompanied by a near civil war in the party and produced a relatively close result (57 per cent in favour to 43 per cent against). Throughout the merger negotiations and after, ructions continued with much 'bitterness and poison', according to Roy Jenkins, flowing along the divide between pro- and anti-mergerites. This ensured that David Owen's hope for an 'amicable divorce' could not be fulfilled." As noted above, the final vote on merger (in which David Owen advised his supporters to abstain) was 65 per cent in favour. Among our sample, excluding those who did not vote, 61 per cent (N = 1,748) voted for merger. This proportion varied sharply, however, according to the political background of respondents. Among former Conservative supporters only 48 per cent (N = 325) voted for merger compared with 60 per cent of former Labour supporters (N = 766) and 76 per cent of former Liberals (N = 450). The relative enthusiasm of former Liberal supporters to merge with the party they had formerly supported and had long been in alliance with is easy to understand. It is less clear why former Conservatives were so hesitant. It seems likely, however, that the more radical image of the Liberal party, its 'unreliability' on nuclear defence and penchant for 'protest' politics was too much for some former Conservatives to accept. Following the merger ballot, the various factions in the SDP went their separate ways. As Table 5 shows, overall only about two-fifths of the membership joined the newly-created Liberal Democrats while 21 per cent stayed with the continuing SDP and the largest group (41 per cent) did not join either party. Most of those who " The quotations are cited in Denver, 'The Centre'.

 a.

TABLE 5

Post-merger Decisions of SDP members (Percentages)

Vote on merger Did not vote

Con Lab Lib

Previous vote
All

For

Against 7 49 44 (684) 8 19 73 (254) 29 29 42 (396) 39 20 41 (898)

Joined Lib Dems Continued in SDP Joined neither party

68 4 29 (1,059)

46 14 40 (514)

38 21 41 (2,055)

Notes and Comments

411

had voted against merger were clearly unhappy with the result, since only 7 per cent joined the new party, while those who had abstained appear to have been fed up with the whole business - 73 per cent of them dropped out of party membership altogether. Given their relative lack of enthusiasm for merger mentioned above, it is not surprising to note that a higher proportion of ex-Conservatives continued in the SDP (29 per cent) than did former supporters of the other parties. The effect was that, on these figures, ex-Conservatives constituted 27 per cent of the continuing SDP as compared with 19 per cent of the 'original' SDP. Among respondents who opted to continue in the SDP (N = 412), the reasons given for not joining the Liberal Democrats suggest a positive antipathy to the Liberals. The most common reason given (30 per cent) echoes David Owen's view that the new party would simply be a continuation of the old Liberal party. A further 19 per cent blamed the Liberals and/or David Steel for forcing or tricking the SDP into an unnecessary merger while 29 per cent asserted that they did not like the Liberals or their policies. These sorts of reasons were less likely to be given by people who opted out of both parties. Among these respondents a sense of general disillusion is more common. Thus 22 per cent (A/ = 797) said that they were put off by the quarrels over merger or just fed up.
POLITICAL DESTINATIONS

Having analysed the political destinations of SDP members at the time of merger, we now consider their positions in early 1992, as the general election approached. In the first few months of 1992 there was a good deal of publicity given to the decisions of some former SDP members ('the best and the brightest', according to the publicity) to come out in support of the Conservatives, and there was speculation that David Owen might do likewise. It is questionable, however, whether this was typical of the inclinations of former SDP members. Table 6 shows first the party membership of our respondents in early 1992. Just over three-quarters of those who had joined the Liberal Democrats in 1988 were still members four years later. Such 'leakage' as there had been was not to other parties but into non-activity. The vast majority of those who continued in the SDP or opted out of membership were not members of any party by 1992, although a few had drifted into the Liberal Democrats. There is certainly no evidence in these data of a significant proportion of continuing or former SDP members going over to the Conservatives. (The 6 per cent of continuing SDP respondents shown as being members of 'other' parties is inflated by the fact that 4 per cent claimed to be still members of the SDP, although the SDP was defunct by the time of the survey.) The figures for voting intention are a little more complex. Once again the vast majority (84 per cent) of those who joined the Liberal Democrats intended to support that party in the general election. The minority who intended to vote for other parties or were undecided frequently cited tactical considerations for this. Among those who had continued with the SDP the largest proportion (30 per cent) intended to vote Liberal Democrat but in this case a significant minority (23 per cent) intended to support the Conservatives, and this was larger than the 19 per cent intending to vote Labour. In addition, this group also had the largest proportion of 'undecideds' at the time of the survey. The intentions of those who had dropped out of active party politics were somewhat different. They were more likely to support the Liberal Democrats and Labour with only 15 per cent intending to vote Conservative. Overall it seems wrong

412

Notes and Comments Former SDP Members' Party Membership and Voting Intention in 1992 (Percentages) At time of merger Joined Lib Dems Party membership None Lib Democrat Conservative Labour Other Voting intention Lib Democrat Conservative Labour Other Undecided 22 76 0 1 0 (782) 84
1

TABLE 6

Stayed in SDP 83 7 3 1 6 (425) 30

23 19

Joined neither 90 4 2 4 1 (835) 40

15 23

All 62 32 1 2 2 (2,053) 55
11 16

7 1 6 (784)

3 24 (410)

2 18 (817)

2 15 (2,029)

to infer from a few highly publicized cases that former SDP members provided a sizeable pool of recruits for the Conservatives or acted as a sort of transit vehicle for party activists moving from the left to the right of the political spectrum. By 1992 only 11 per cent of all former SDP members intended to vote Conservative compared with 20 per cent who had regularly done so before they joined the SDP (see Table 2). Since the 1992 voting intentions of those who joined the Liberal Democrats are easy to understand, most interest here focuses upon those who had joined the continuing SDP or had dropped out of party membership. How can their political destinations, in terms of 1992 voting intentions, be explained? A first possibility is that the two major parties had changed considerably since the formation of the SDP. The Conservatives were no longer led by Mrs Thatcher and Mr Major appeared to give the party a less harsh and uncaring image. In Labour's case, Mr Kinnock had sought to root out the extreme left and cultivate an image of moderation and responsibility. Given that disillusion with the major parties had figured prominently among the reasons given for supporting the SDP in the first place, it would be surprising if these changes did not have some effect. In fact 43 per cent (N = 1,261) of respondents who had not joined the Liberal Democrats said that the replacement of Mrs Thatcher by Mr Major made them more likely to vote Conservative compared with only 3 per cent who said that it made them less likely to do so (with the remainder saying that it made no difference). And among those who said that it made them more likely, the Conservatives had 41 per cent of voting intentions for the three parties {N = 389), compared with 14 per cent among all respondents. Similarly, 46 per cent of non-Liberal Democrat respondents said that the changes wrought by Mr Kinnock made

Notes and Comments TABLE 7 Voting Intentions in 1992 of Former SDP Members Who Did Not Join the Liberal Democrats by Previous Vote, Rating of Party Leaders and Position on Left-Right Scale (Percentages)* Previous vote Conservative Conservative Labour Liberal Democrat 52 18 31 (231) Labour 15 44 41 (403) Rating of leaders Owen over Ashdown Conservative Labour Liberal Democrat 36 27 37 (419) No idifference 23 21 55 (107) Ashdown over Owen 10 32 58 (952) Liberal 9 12 79 (216)

413

Position on left-right scale Left Conservative Labour Liberal Democrat 3 47 50 (367) Centre 28 19 53 (447) Right 80 _ 20 (96)

*The table refers only to respondents stating a voting intention for one of the three parties. Ratings of leaders is explained in the text. The left-right scale is a simple index summarizing opinions on taxation and government spending, privatization, trade-union legislation and redistribution. It was calculated by scoring 5 for the most right-wing position on each issue (agreeing or disagreeing very strongly) and I for the most left-wing position, summing the scores and dividing by 4. In this table resulting scores from I to 2.25 are categorized as 'left', 2.5 to 3.5 as "centre" and 3.75 to 5 as "right".

them more likely to vote Labour (A' = 1,255) as against 14 per cent saying less likely, with 53 percent of the 'more likely' group intending to vote Labour compared with 20 per cent of all respondents. Table 7 presents data relevant to three further hypotheses. First, it might be suggested that following the merger and collapse of the continuing SDP, disappointed party members simply 'homed' back to the party that they had previously supported.

414

Notes and Comments

As the table shows, there is clear evidence of such a 'homing' tendency. More than half of former Conservatives and 44 per cent of former Labour supporters intended to return to their original party in the 1992 election. None the less, there was still a considerable benefit to the Liberal Democrats, even from these respondents who did not join the party when the merger took place. The second section of the table shows the extent to which voting intentions may have been influenced by attitudes towards Paddy Ashdown and David Owen. Respondents were asked to give each a mark out of ten for their effectiveness as party leaders, and the table shows that a clear majority of non-Liberal Democrat members who gave Ashdown a higher score intended to vote Liberal Democrat, compared with only 37 per cent of those who rated Owen more highly. Those who rated Ashdown more highly were also more likely to intend to vote Labour, while among those favouring Owen there was a relatively even division of support for the three parties. Finally, Table 7 tests the hypothesis that the 1992 voting intentions of former SDP members reflected their basic ideological position. Using responses to four of the opinion questions discussed above, it was possible to construct a simple left-right scale and it can be seen that 47 per cent of respondents who can be classified on this basis as being on the left intended to vote Labour, while an impressive 80 per cent of those classified as being on the right intended to vote Conservative. There is some support here, therefore, for each suggestion put forward to explain the 1992 party preferences of former members of the SDP who had not become members of the Liberal Democrats - changes in the major parties, 'homing' to previously supported parties, assessments of Alliance leaders and ideological position. In order to explore the relative importance of these we undertook a series of regression analyses with intention to vote Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat as a series of dummy variables. In addition to the effect of Major and Kinnock, previous vote, ratings of Owen and Ashdown and position on the left-right scale, four other attitudinal variables were included in the analysis - an index of 'greenness' (based on two questions relating to nuclear energy and the environment generally), and opinions on nuclear weapons, the EC and the electoral system. The results are summarized in Table 8, where the figures shown are unstandardized Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimates and their associated standard errors (in parentheses). 12 The most important factor influencing former SDP members towards the Conservatives was their basic ideological orientation, followed by the facts that they had previously voted Conservative and were unimpressed with the 'new model' Labour party under Kinnock. Quite why these respondents had joined an avowedly left-of-centre party in the first place is unclear - especially given that the analysis suggests that they were even lukewarm about electoral reform. The best predictors of a Labour preference are a perception that the Labour party had changed for the better, relatively left-wing views, including on nuclear weapons, and previous support for the party. It would appear that these respondents had joined the SDP because of disillusion with Labour in the early 1980s. They did not rate Ashdown highly and, in a sense, the obvious thing for them to do was to return to the reformed Labour party. Previous vote

12 Ordinary Least Squares estimates are given for ease of comprehension but, since the dependent variables are dichotomous, logit analyses were also undertaken. In terms of significant variables and of order of significance, the results are exactly the same as those shown in Table 3 for Conservative and Liberal Democrat voting intention. In the Labour case, however, previous vote becomes the most significant predictor and opinion on nuclear weapons just fails to reach significance.

Notes and Comments

TABLE 8

415

Regression Analyses of 1992 Voting Intention of Former SDP Members Who Did Not Join the Liberal Democrats* Conservative Labour -0.132 (0.023) 0.161 (0.027) 0.199 (0.019) - 0.093 (0.026)
-

Liberal Democrat
-

Right-wing opinions Previously voted for party Labour party changes Conservative changes For electoral reform Ashdown rating For nuclear weapons Owen rating Constant Adjusted R2

0.172 (0.020) 0.200 (0.027) -0.113 (0.016) 0.121 (0.022) - 0.059 (0.011) - 0.025 (0.006) 0.060 (0.020) 0.011 (0.004) 0.891 (0.112) 0.449

0.343 (0.037) - 0.059 (0.022)

-

- 0.038 (0.007) - 0.054 (0.023)

-

0.085 (0.015) 0.062 (0.008)

-

1.393 (0.119) 0.304

0.430 (0.096) 0.202

*The analyses are restricted to respondents who intended to vote for one of the three parties and in each case the dependent variable is a dummy (1 = intended to vote for the party concerned, 0 = did not). Previous vote is scored in the same way. The left-right scale is scored from 1 (left) to 3 (right) as are the effects of changes in the parties (1 = made supporting the party less likely, 2 = made no difference, 3 = made support more likely). Opinions on electoral reform are on a scale from 1 (strongly against) to 5 (strongly in favour) and ratings of leaders on a scale of 1 to 10. Attitudes to nuclear weapons are scored 1 (favour unilateralism), 2 (favour as part of Western defence) and 3 (favour independent British weapons). Attitudes towards the EEC and on 'green' issues were included in the analyses but were not significant in any case. Constant terms are all non-significant and are not reported.

is the strongest influence on intending Liberal Democrats but they are distinguished from the other two groups by their rating of Paddy Ashdown and their enthusiasm for electoral reform.
CONCLUSION

After the 1987 general election, some pro-merger members of the SDP believed that for the party it was a case of 'merger or bust'. What happened might perhaps be described as 'merger and bust'. By 1992, those who accepted the merger ballot result and joined the Liberal Democrats were mostly still members and/or supporters of the merged party. Those who had sought to preserve a 'continuing' SDP or opted out of party

416

Notes and Comments

membership had gone different ways, however. The continuing SDP was 'bust'; and while some were now willing to vote for the party that they had refused to join, for others Duverger's 'sudden flash of temper' or 'gust of passion' was over and they returned to supporting the major parties consistent with their basic ideological beliefs, their previous vote, their attitudes towards changes in the parties and their assessment of the current leader of the Liberal Democrats.

APPENDIX: DETAILS OF 'ISSUE' QUESTIONS IN THE SDP AND LABOUR PARTY SURVEYS USED IN TABLE 3

Nuclear Weapons SDP: Which of these statements comes closest to your views on what British policy on nuclear weapons should be? Britain should keep its own nuclear weapons independent of other countries (19 per cent). Britain should have nuclear weapons only as part of a Western defence system (66 per cent). Britain should get rid of its nuclear weapons as soon as possible (16 per cent). Labour: Which of the following statements comes closest to what you feel should be done? Britain should keep her own nuclear weapons, independent of other countries (5 per cent). Britain should have nuclear weapons as part of a Western defence system (23 per cent). Britain should have nothing to do with nuclear weapons (72 per cent).

EEC SDP: Which of these statements comes closest to your views on how the European Community (EEC) should develop? Towards a fully integrated Europe with most decisions taken by a European Government (24 per cent) Towards a Europe more integrated than now but with decisions mainly affecting Britain staying in British hands (69 per cent) The situation should stay much as it is now with Britain retaining a veto over major policies that it does not like (6 per cent)Britain should withdraw from the European Community (1 per cent). Labour: Do you think Britain should continue to be a member of the EEC (89 per cent) or should withdraw (11 per cent)?Labour should resist further moves to integrate the European Common Market (16 per cent agree, 72 per cent disagree, 12 per cent neither). Electoral System SDP: The British electoral system should be left as it is (6 per cent agree, 89 per cent disagree, 6 per cent not sure).

Notes and Comments

417

Labour: Britain's present electoral system should be replaced by a system of proportional representation (58 per cent agree, 31 per cent disagree, 11 per cent neither). Taxes and Spending SDP: Taxes should be put up to increase government spending on health and social services (80 per cent agree, 10 per cent disagree, 10 per cent not sure). Labour: Suppose the government had to choose between the following three options. Which do you think it should choose? Reduce taxes and spend less on health, education and social benefits (2 per cent). Keep taxes and spending on these services at the same levels as now (6 per cent). Increase taxes and spend more on health, education and social benefits (92 per cent). Redistribution SDP: Government should redistribute income from the better-off to the less well off (68 per cent agree, 18 per cent disagree, 14 per cent not sure). Labour: Income and wealth should be redistributed towards ordinary working people (88 per cent agree, 5 per cent disagree, 8 per cent neither). Privatization SDP: Privatization of publicly-owned industries has gone too far (75 per cent agree, 15 per cent disagree, 10 per cent not sure). Labour: The Public Enterprises privatized by the Tory government should be returned to the public sector (82 per cent agree, 8 per cent disagree, 10 per cent not sure). Trade Unions SDP: Recent laws restricting the activities of trade unions have been generally good for Britain (75 per cent agree, 10 per cent disagree, 15 per cent not sure). Labour: It is better for Britain when Trade Unions have little power (13 per cent agree, 74 per cent disagree, 13 per cent neither). Nuclear Energy SDP: Britain should build more nuclear power stations (19 per cent agree, 57 per cent disagree, 23 per cent not sure). Labour: Further nuclear energy development is essential for the future prosperity of Britain (12 per cent agree, 80 per cent disagree, 8 per cent neither).