¹ Ranney, A., Pathways to Parliament: Candidate Selection in Britain (London: Macmillan, 1965)Google Scholar; Rush, M., The Selection of Parliamentary Candidates (London: Nelson, 1969).Google Scholar

² Holland, M., ‘The Selection of Parliamentary Candidates and the Impact of the European Elections’, Parliamentary Affairs, XXXIV (1981), 28–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Hills, J., ‘Life-Style Constraints on Formal Political Participation – Why So Few Women Local Councillors in Britain?’ Electoral Studies, II (1983), 39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bochel, J. and Denver, D., ‘Candidate Selection in the Labour Party: What the Selectors Seek’, British Journal of Political Science, XIII (1983), 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Mellors, C., The British M P (Farnborough, Hants: Saxon House, 1978), p. 1Google Scholar; Gordon, I., ‘The Recruitment of Local Politicians: An Integrated Approach with Some Preliminary Findings from a Study of Labour Councillors’, Policy and Politics, VII (1979), 2–3.Google Scholar

⁵ For a fuller account of this literature, see Holland, M., Candidates for Europe: The British Experience (Aldershot: Gower Press, 1986), pp. 8–16.Google Scholar

⁶ Seligman, L. G.. ‘Political Recruitment and Party Structure: A Case Study’, American Political Science Review, LV (1961), p. 85.Google Scholar

⁷ Why certain individuals possessing similar personality and background attributes do not enter the candidate process cannot, however, be tested by this approach.

⁸ The following lists were used: the Co-operative party Euro-Panel, the Labour Common Market Safeguards Committee list and the Labour party's ‘List of Possible Candidates for the European Assembly Elections’.

⁹ Northern Ireland was treated as a three-member STV constituency, giving the United Kingdom a total of eighty-one MEPs.

¹⁰ The study adopted the five-fold classification of electoral status as used by Finer, S. E., Berrington, H. R. and Bartholomew, D. J., in Backbench Opinion in the House of Commons, 1955–59 (Oxford: Pergamon, 1961)Google Scholar. The European break-down was as follows: marginal seats (Conservative 8, Labour 6, SNP 1); semi-marginals (Conservative 9, Labour 10, SNP 2); comfortable (Conservative 12, Labour 11); safe (Conservative 5, Labour 9); and impregnable seats (Labour 5).

¹¹ Reif, K. and Schmitt, H., ‘Nine Second Order Elections: A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results’, European Journal of Political Research, VIII (1980), p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² See for example Dalton, R. J. and Duval, R., ‘The Political Environment and Foreign Policy Opinions: British Attitudes Toward European Integration, 1972–1979’, British Journal of Political Science, XVI (1986), 113–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ N = 385 aspirants. The distribution for the initial stimulus for European candidacy was as follows: own idea to run 39.5 per cent (126); CLPs 25.1 per cent (80); trade-union/Co-operative party 8.8 per cent (28); party secretaries 1.3 per cent (4); family/friends 5.6 per cent (18); own idea plus CLP/trade-union/Co-operative 10.3 per cent (33); own idea plus family/friends 4.7 per cent (15); CLP plus trade-union/Co-operative 4.7 per cent (15); not known (66); total 100.0 per cent (385); all self-starters 54.5 per cent (174).

¹⁴ These were the Electrical Electronic Telecommunications and Plumbing Union, the National Union of Mineworkers and the Union of Post Office Workers.

¹⁵ Butler, D. and Marquand, D., European Elections and British Politics (London: Longmans, 1981). p. 51.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The distribution for the total number of CLP nominees forwarded to ESOs was as follows: 1–5 nominees, 18.3 per cent of ESOs (13); 6–10 nominees, 45.1 per cent (32); 11–15 nominees, 33.8 per cent (24) 16 or above, 2.8 per cent (2); not known (7).

¹⁷ The size of CLP delegate bodies sent to ESOs varied as follows: 10–14 delegates per CLP, 12.7 per cent (9); 15–19 delegates, 14.1 per cent (10); 20 delegates, 73.2 percent (52); not known (7).

¹⁸ Butler, and Marquand, , European Elections, p. 66.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Rush, , The Selection of Parliamentary Candidates, p. 143.Google Scholar

²⁰ Butler, and Marquand, , European Elections, p. 62.Google Scholar

²¹ Data relating to pro- or anti-ESO attitudes is based on the postal survey of ESO secretaries.

²² In Figure 5 the first division separated the thirty-five aspirants who failed to gain a CLP nomination (either because of voluntary withdrawal or selection criteria) from the remaining 350 who secured CLP nominations. From this new population further profiles subsequently distinguished between those who made an ESO short-list and those who were rejected on biographical notes by the Executive Committee. The next procedure divided the short-listed nominees into two new subgroups: those selected as PEPCs and those defeated at the ESO selection meeting.

²³ The mean age for aspirants without a CLP nomination was 41.8 compared with 46.7 for ESO rejects, 44.6 for defeated short-listed nominees and 43.5 for PEPCs.

²⁴ See Kohn, W., ‘Women in the European Parliament’, Parliamentary Affairs, XXXIV (1981), 210–20.Google Scholar

²⁵ Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Classification of Occupations (London: HMSO, 1970)Google Scholar. The categories are: groups I-XX (manual, engineering, transport, industrial and agricultural workers); groups XXI-XXIII, XXVII (clerical, sales, service and unclassified); group XXIV (administrators and managers); and group XXV (professional, technical workers and artists).

²⁶ Butler, D., Marquand, D. and Gosschalk, B., ‘The Euro-Persons’, New Society, 3 05 1979, p. 260Google Scholar; and Gordon, I., ‘The Recruitment of British Candidates for the European Parliament’, paper given at a meeting of the PSA at Hull, 1981, p. 13.Google Scholar

²⁷ For a fuller analysis of the profile characteristics of the sub-groups, see Holland, , Candidates for Europe, pp. 120–52.Google Scholar

²⁸ Butler, and Marquand, , European Elections, p. 63Google Scholar; Gordon, , ‘Recruitment of British Candidates’, p. 19.Google Scholar