IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v28y1998i04p573-590_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Euroscepticism and Conservative Electoral Support: How an Asset Became a Liability

Author

Listed:
  • EVANS, GEOFFREY

Abstract

This article uses the British Election Panel Study to assess the impact of voters' and party positions vis-à-vis European integration on Conservative electoral support between 1992 and 1996. Over this period levels of public support for European integration declined markedly, so that by 1996 the Conservative party was even closer to aggregate public opinion, when compared with its main competitors, than it had been at the time of the 1992 election. However, an analysis of the proximity between individuals' positions on integration and the positions they then attributed to the parties indicates that Conservative divisions over Europe helped turn this potential electoral asset into a liability, leaving the party further from individual voters' own positions than were either of the other two main political contenders. Moreover, as issue proximity on integration predicts voting even when past vote and proximity on other issues are controlled for, it is likely that the European question will have resulted in electoral costs rather than the benefits it could have produced. One implication of these findings is that if the Conservatives hope to do well on this issue they will need to adopt a consistent Eurosceptic line, but such a strategy is unlikely to be easily maintained.

Suggested Citation

  • Evans, Geoffrey, 1998. "Euroscepticism and Conservative Electoral Support: How an Asset Became a Liability," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 573-590, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:28:y:1998:i:04:p:573-590_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123498000258/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sean Carey & Jonathan Burton, 2004. "Research Note: The Influence of the Press in Shaping Public Opinion towards the European Union in Britain," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 52(3), pages 623-640, October.
    2. Hermann Schmitt & Jacques J. A. Thomassen, 2000. "Dynamic Representation," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(3), pages 318-339, October.
    3. Catherine E. de Vries, 2007. "Sleeping Giant: Fact or Fairytale?," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(3), pages 363-385, September.
    4. Timothy Heppell & Andrew Crines & David Jeffery, 2017. "The United Kingdom Referendum on European Union Membership: The Voting of Conservative Parliamentarians," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 762-778, July.
    5. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    6. Matthew Gabel & Kenneth Scheve, 2005. "Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on Public Opinion Using Instrumental Variables," Working Papers 2005-02, University of Kentucky, Institute for Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations.
    7. Catherine E. de Vries, 2010. "EU Issue Voting: Asset or Liability?," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(1), pages 89-117, March.
    8. Matthew Gabel & Simon Hix & Gerald Schneider, 2002. "Who is Afraid of Comulative Research?: Improving Data on EU Politics," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(4), pages 481-500, December.
    9. Erika van Elsas & Wouter van der Brug, 2015. "The changing relationship between left–right ideology and euroscepticism, 1973–2010," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 194-215, June.
    10. Hermann Schmitt & Jacques Thomassen, 2000. "Dynamic Representation: The Case of European Integration," MZES Working Papers 21, MZES.
    11. Gabriel S. Lenz, 2009. "Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 821-837, October.
    12. Erik R Tillman, 2012. "Support for the euro, political knowledge, and voting behavior in the 2001 and 2005 UK general elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(3), pages 367-389, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:28:y:1998:i:04:p:573-590_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.