¹ Stanwick, K. and Kleeman, K., Women Make a Difference (New Brunswick, NJ: Center for the American Woman and Politics, Rutgers University, 1983)Google Scholar; see also Carroll, S., ‘Women Candidates and Support for Feminist Concerns: The Closet Feminist Syndrome’, Western Political Quarterly, 37 (1984), 307–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Leader, S. G., ‘The Policy Impact of Elected Women Officials’, in Maisel, L. and Cooper, J., eds, The Impact of the Electoral Process (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1977)Google Scholar; Frankovic, K., ‘Sex and Voting in the US House of Representatives, 1961–1975’, American Politics Quarterly, 5 (1977), 315–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Gehlen, F. L., ‘Women Members of Congress: A Distinctive Role’, in Githens, M. and Prestage, J., eds, A Portrait of Marginality (New York: McKay. 1977)Google Scholar; Norris, P., ‘Women in Congress: A Policy Difference?’. Politics, 6 (1986), 34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Welch, S., ‘Are Women More Liberal than Men in the US Congress?’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10 (1985), 125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Baxter, S. and Lansing, M., Women and Politics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1983), p. 133Google Scholar; Soule, J. W. and McGrath, W. E., ‘A Comparative Study of Male-Female Political Attitudes at Citizen and Elite Levels’Google Scholar, in Githens, and Prestage, , A Portrait of MarginalityGoogle Scholar; Diamond, I., Sex Roles in the State House (New Haven. Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

⁴ Dahlerup, D. and Haavio-Mannila, E., in Haavio-Mannila, E. et al. , eds, Unfinished Democracy: Women in Nordic Politics (London: Pergamon Press, 1985)Google Scholar: Eduards, M., ‘Sweden’, in Lovenduski, J. and Hills, J., eds, The Politics of the Second Electorate (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981).Google Scholar

⁵ Randall, V., Women and Politics (London: Macmillan, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Vallance, E., Women in the House (London: Athlone, 1976)Google Scholar; see also Currell, M., Political Women (London: Croom Helm, 1974).Google Scholar

⁷ Vallance, E. and Davies, E., Women of Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

⁸ Diamond, , Sex Roles in the State HouseGoogle Scholar; Bers, T., ‘Local Political Elites’, Western Political Quarterly, 31 (1978), 381–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mezey, S., ‘Support for Women's Rights' Policy’, American Politics Quarterly, 6 (1978), 485–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gehlen, , ‘Women Members of Congress’Google Scholar; Frankovic, , ‘Sex and Voting in the US Representatives’Google Scholar; Mueller, C., ‘Feminism and the New Women in Public Office’, Women and Politics, 2 (1982), 7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carroll, , ‘Women Candidates and Support for Feminist Concerns’.Google Scholar

⁹ Holsti, and Rosenau, , in Boneparth, E., ed., Women, Power and Policy (New York: Pergamon, 1982).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Sapiro, V., The Political Integration of Women (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1983).Google Scholar

¹¹ Vallance, E., ‘Two Cheers for Democracy: Women Candidates in the 1987 General Election’, Parliamentary Affairs, 41 (1988), 86–91.Google Scholar

¹² For other results from the survey see Lovenduski, J. and Norris, P., ‘Political Recruitment and the Masculine Candidate Model in the British General Election of 1987: Obstacles to the Feminisation of Political Elites’, European Journal of Political Research (1989).Google Scholar

¹³ The survey included responses from 139 MPs, who represented 24 per cent of the sample, compared with 633 elected British MPs out of 2,004 candidates, which represents 31.5 per cent of all candidates for the major parties.

¹⁴ Wood, Alan H., ed., The Times Guide of the House of Commons, 1987 (London: The Times, 1987).Google Scholar

¹⁵ As a result of the first mailing, 542 completed questionnaires were received, along with some refusals (N = 28) and non-contacts at the given address (N = 10). Given limited resources we were unable to send a second mailing to all non-respondents, but reminders were sent out after the election to female non-respondents because we were concerned about the number in the sub-sample. Following the second reminder we received 628 replies in total, including 590 completed questionnaires (29.5 per cent of all candidates). The response rate from Conservative candidates was slightly lower (26.2 per cent) than from Labour (33.5 per cent) or the Alliance (31.6 per cent). Accordingly, the Conservative response was adjusted by applying a positive weighting (1.26) to the results so that the sample remained representative of all candidates. It should be noted that given the small number of cases in some sub-samples (e.g. female Conservative candidates) considerable caution is needed when interpreting the results in cross-tabulations.

¹⁶ The items were as follows: ‘Can you say whether the following have gone too far, not far enough or are they about right: (a) Welfare benefits that are available to people today (WELFARE); (b) Attempts to give equal opportunities to women in Britain (WOMEN); (c) Government spending on defence (DEFENCE); (d) The building of nuclear power stations (NUCLEAR); (e) Attempts to give equal opportunities for black people and Asians in Britain (RACE); (f) The availability of abortion on the NHS (ABORTION)’.

¹⁷ Pearson correlations between attitudes on these items were significant (p > 0.01 in each case, N = 585).