The quality of political leadership: A case study of John Major

British Journal of Political Science

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 229-244

  Jones, Philip ^a   Hudson, John ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030531951     PISSN: 00071234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0007123400000430     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. See, for example, A. Mughan, 'Party Leaders and Presidentialism in the 1992 Election: A Post War Perspective', in D. Denver, P. Norris, C. Rallings and D. Broughton, eds, British Elections and Parties Yearbook 1993 (Hemel Hempstead, Herts: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993), pp. 193-204.
2. For example, J. A. Brown, 'The Major Effect: Changes in Party Leadership and Party Popularity', Parliamentary Affairs (1993), 549-64.
3. D. Denver, Elections and Voting Behaviour in Britain, 2nd edn (Hemel Hempstead, Herts: Harvester Wheatsheaf, Contemporary Political Studies, 1994).
4. Brown, 'The Major Effect: Changes in Party Leadership and Party Popularity'.
5. Brown, 'The Major Effect: Changes in Party Leadership and Party Popularity', p. 561.
6. I. Crewe and A. King, 'Did Major Win? Did Kinnock Lose?' in A. Heath, R. Jowell, J. Curtice and B. Tayler, eds, Labour's Last Chance? The 1992 Election and Beyond (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1994), pp. 125-47.
7. Crewe and King, 'Did Major Win? Did Kinnock Lose?' p. 144.
8. Crewe and King, 'Did Major Win? Did Kinnock Lose?' p. 127.
9. Crewe and King, 'Did Major Win? Did Kinnock Lose?' p. 125.
10. C. Bean and A. Mughan, 'Leadership Effects in Parliamentary Elections in Australia and Britain', American Political Science Review, 83 (1989), 1165-80, at p. 1176.
11. Although there are similarities, the approach is different to the two strategies outlined in Crewe and King - the improved prediction strategy and the thought experiment strategy.
12. Used, for example, by J. M. Shanks and W. E. Miller, 'Partisanship, Policy and Performance: The Reagan Legacy in the 1988 Election', British Journal of Political Science, 21 (1991), 129-97; and M. C. Stewart and H. D. Clarke, 'The (Un)Importance of Party Leaders: Leader Image and Party Choice in the 1987 British Election', Journal of Politics, 54 (1992), 447-70.
13. Used, for example, by J. M. Shanks and W. E. Miller, 'Partisanship, Policy and Performance: The Reagan Legacy in the 1988 Election', British Journal of Political Science, 21 (1991), 129-97; and M. C. Stewart and H. D. Clarke, 'The (Un)Importance of Party Leaders: Leader Image and Party Choice in the 1987 British Election', Journal of Politics, 54 (1992), 447-70.
14. Crewe and King, 'Did Major Win? Did Kinnock Lose?'; and Bean and Mughan, 'Leadership Effects in Parliamentary Elections in Australia and Britain'.
15. Crewe and King, 'Did Major Win? Did Kinnock Lose?'; and Bean and Mughan, 'Leadership Effects in Parliamentary Elections in Australia and Britain'.
16. This would have been possible in this article.
17. See, for example, W. C. Mitchell and M. C. Munger, 'Doing Well While Intending Good: Cases in Political Exploitation', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 5 (1993), 317-48; and R. G. Holcombe, The Economic Foundations of Government (New York: New York University Press, 1994).
18. See, for example, W. C. Mitchell and M. C. Munger, 'Doing Well While Intending Good: Cases in Political Exploitation', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 5 (1993), 317-48; and R. G. Holcombe, The Economic Foundations of Government (New York: New York University Press, 1994).
19. B. Jones, Political Issues in Britain Today, 4th edn (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994).
20. Bean and Mughan, 'Leadership Effects in Parliamentary Elections in Australia and Britain', p. 1168.
21. Bean and Mughan, 'Leadership Effects in Parliamentary Elections in Australia and Britain', p. 1175.
22. G. S. Maddala, Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
23. Maddala, Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics.
24. This can be illustrated by reference to column 3 of their Table 4. Someone who rated Michael Foot positively on all characteristics but did not rate Thatcher would have a 'probability' of voting Conservative of -0.72. This may be exaggerated due to the non-reporting of a positive constant term. If such a constant term were sufficient to transform this into a non-negative number then the probability of someone voting Conservative who rated Thatcher positively on all characteristics, but did not rate Foot, would substantially exceed one. Clearly, the predicted values from these coefficients cannot be regarded as probabilities.
25. See, for example, J. Hudson, 'The Relationship between Government Popularity and Approval for the Government's Record in the United Kingdom', British Journal of Political Science, 15 (1985), 165-86; D. A. Hibbs Jr, 'Economic Outcomes and Political Support for British Governments among Occupational Classes: A Dynamic Analysis', American Political Science Review, 76 (1982), 259-84; and D. Sanders, H. Ward and D. Marsh, 'Government Popularity and the Falklands War: A Reassessment', British Journal of Political Science, 17 (1987), 281-313.
26. See, for example, J. Hudson, 'The Relationship between Government Popularity and Approval for the Government's Record in the United Kingdom', British Journal of Political Science, 15 (1985), 165-86; D. A. Hibbs Jr, 'Economic Outcomes and Political Support for British Governments among Occupational Classes: A Dynamic Analysis', American Political Science Review, 76 (1982), 259-84; and D. Sanders, H. Ward and D. Marsh, 'Government Popularity and the Falklands War: A Reassessment', British Journal of Political Science, 17 (1987), 281-313.
27. See, for example, J. Hudson, 'The Relationship between Government Popularity and Approval for the Government's Record in the United Kingdom', British Journal of Political Science, 15 (1985), 165-86; D. A. Hibbs Jr, 'Economic Outcomes and Political Support for British Governments among Occupational Classes: A Dynamic Analysis', American Political Science Review, 76 (1982), 259-84; and D. Sanders, H. Ward and D. Marsh, 'Government Popularity and the Falklands War: A Reassessment', British Journal of Political Science, 17 (1987), 281-313.
28. Crewe and King, 'Did Major Win? Did Kinnock Lose?'
29. The figures in parenthesis in Equation (3) are again standard errors and the right-hand side variables are defined as in Table 1. Chi-squared (10) reflects the insignificance, at the 10 per cent level, of a vector of long-term variables: age; age squared; educational age; gender; owner of a car; owner of a phone; owner of a home; an occupational business class variable (constructed by Gallup) and two regional dummy variables (one for Wales and one for Scotland).
30. A discussion of two-stage estimation techniques within a limited dependent variable context and their properties can be found in Maddala, Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics; C. D. Mallar, 'The Estimation of Simultaneous Probability Models', Econometrica, 45 (1977), 1717-22, was the first to use the two-stage approach for two discrete variables.
31. A discussion of two-stage estimation techniques within a limited dependent variable context and their properties can be found in Maddala, Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics; C. D. Mallar, 'The Estimation of Simultaneous Probability Models', Econometrica, 45 (1977), 1717-22, was the first to use the two-stage approach for two discrete variables.
32. This was used as a proxy for income.