Politics in Wales is often portrayed as being relatively consensual and enjoying healthy levels of trust between voters and elites when compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Recent events, like the decision of Welsh voters to reject membership of the EU against the advice of most of its political establishment, are however calling into question this perception. Using the 2016 Welsh Candidate Study and 2016 Welsh Election Study data, this article evaluates the extent of policy divisions between voters and candidates in Wales. I find that candidates hold more liberal policy positions and are less likely than voters to think of immigration as the most important policy priority. In addition, they tend to favour a different approach to parliamentary representation, deeming it more acceptable for Assembly Members to discard the views of their voters in favour of their own views or those of their party.
AndewegRBThomassenJJA (2005) Modes of political representation: Toward a new typology. Legislative Studies Quarterly30(4): 507–528.
2.
AndréADepauwS (2017) The quality of representation and satisfaction with democracy: The consequences of citizen-elite policy and process congruence. Political Behaviour39(2): 377–397.
3.
AndréADepauwSDeschouwerK (2016) State structure and political representation: Comparing the views of statewide and sub-state legislators across 14 countries. European Journal of Political Research55(4): 866–884.
4.
BelchiorAM (2013) Explaining left–right party congruence across European party systems: A test of micro-, meso-, and macro-level models. Comparative Political Studies46(3): 352–386.
5.
BelchiorAMFreireA (2012) Is party type relevant to an explanation of policy congruence? Catchall versus ideological parties in the Portuguese case. International Political Science Review34(3): 273–288.
6.
Bengtsson WassÅH (2011) The representative roles of MPs: A citizen perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies34(2): 143–167.
7.
BevanSJenningsW (2014) Representation, agendas and institutions. European Journal of Political Research53(1): 37–56.
8.
BlaisABodetMA (2006) Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policy makers. Comparative Political Studies39(10): 1243–1262.
9.
BowlerS (2017) Trustees, delegates, and responsiveness in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies50(6): 766–793.
10.
BrandenburgHJohnsR (2014) The declining representativeness of the British Party System, and why it matters. Political Studies62(4): 704–725.
11.
CampbellRLovenduskiJ (2015) What should MPs do? Public and parliamentarians’ views compared. Parliamentary Affairs68(4): 690–708.
12.
CarmanCJ (2007) Assessing preferences for political representation in the US. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties17(1): 1–19.
13.
CostelloRThomassenJRosemaM (2012) European Parliament elections and political representation: Policy congruence between voters and parties. West European Politics35(6): 1226–1248.
14.
DenverDCarmanCJJohnsR (2012) Elections and Voters in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
DohertyD (2013) To whom do people think representatives should respond: Their district or the country?Public Opinion Quarterly77(1): 237–255.
16.
DolnýBBabošP (2015) Voter-representative congruence in Europe: A loss of institutional influence?West European Politics38(6): 1274–1304.
17.
DuncanODDuncanB (1955) A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. American Sociological Review20(2): 210–217.
18.
FieldhouseEGreenJEvansGet al. (2016) British Election Study, 2015: Face-to-Face Post-Election Survey (UK Data Service, SN: 7972). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7972-1 (accessed 19 October 2017).
19.
FordRGoodwinM (2014) Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain. Abingdon: Routledge.
20.
FreireABelchiorA (2013) Ideological representation in Portugal: MPs’-electors’ linkages in terms of left-right placement and substantive meaning. The Journal of Legislative Studies19(1): 1–21.
21.
GolderMStramskiJ (2010) Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science54(1): 90–106.
22.
HainesK (2010) The dragonisation of youth justice. In: TaylorWEarleRHesterR (eds) Youth Justice Handbook: Theory, Policy and Practice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp.231–242.
23.
HakhverdianA (2010) Political representation and its mechanisms: A dynamic left–right approach for the United Kingdom, 1976–2006. British Journal of Political Science40(4): 835–856.
24.
HanrettyCLauderdaleBEVivyanN (2017) Dyadic representation in a Westminster System. Legislative Studies Quarterly42(2): 235–267.
25.
HeathO (2016) Policy alienation, social alienation and working-class abstention in Britain, 1964–2010. British Journal of Political Science. Epub ahead of print 22September2016. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123416000272.
26.
HeitshusenVYoungGWoodDM (2004) Electoral context and MP constituency focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science49(1): 32–45.
27.
HoboltSKlemmensenR (2008) Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies41(3): 309–337.
28.
HowlettMRameshMPerlA (2009) Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
HuberJDPowellGB (1994) Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics46(3): 291–326.
JenningsWJohnP (2009) The dynamics of political attention: Public opinion and the Queen’s speech in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science53(4): 838–854.
32.
JonesRWScullyR (2008) The end of one-partyism? Party politics in Wales in the second decade of devolution. Contemporary Wales21(1): 207–217.
33.
KaryotisGRüdigWJudgeD (2014) Representation and austerity politics: Attitudes of Greek voters and elites compared. South European Society and Politics19(4): 435–456.
34.
KimHPowellGBFordingRC (2010) Electoral systems, party systems, and ideological representation: An analysis of distortion in Western democracies. Comparative Politics42(2): 167–185.
35.
KnillCTosunJ (2012) Public Policy: A New Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
36.
KrimmelKLaxJRPhillipJH (2016) Gay rights in Congress: Public opinion and (mis)representation. Public Opinion Quarterly80(4): 888–913.
37.
LaxJRPhillipsJH (2012) The democratic deficit in the state. American Journal of Political Science56(1): 148–166.
38.
LeimgruberPHangartnerDLeemannL (2010) Comparing candidates and citizens in the ideological space. Swiss Political Science Review16(3): 499–531.
39.
LindeboomG-J (2012) Public priorities in government’s hands: Corresponding policy agendas in the Netherlands. Acta Politica47(4): 443–467.
40.
McAllisterI (1991) Party elites, voters and political attitudes: Testing three explanations for mass-elite differences. Canadian Journal of Political Science24(2): 237–268.
41.
MayneQHakhverdianA (2017) Ideological congruence and citizen satisfaction: Evidence from 25 advanced democracies. Comparative Political Studies50(6): 822–849.
42.
Méndez-LagoMMartínezA (2002) Political representation in Spain: An empirical analysis of the perception of citizens and MPs. The Journal of Legislative Studies8(1): 63–90.
43.
MoonDS (2013) Welsh labour in power: ‘One Wales’ vs. ‘One Nation’?Renewal21(1): 77–86.
44.
MoonDS (2016) ‘We’re internationalists, not nationalists’: The political ramifications of Welsh labour’s internal power struggle over the ‘one Wales’ coalition in 2007. Contemporary British History30(2): 281–302.
45.
MorganKMunghamG (2000) Redesigning democracy: The making of the Welsh assembly. Bridgend: Seren.
ÖnnudóttirEH (2014) Policy congruence and style of representation: Party voters and political parties. West European Politics37(3): 538–563.
49.
PowellGB (2009) The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative measures, data, and time periods on the effect of election rules. Comparative Political Studies41(12): 1475–1497.
50.
ReherS (2014) The effect of congruence in policy priorities on electoral participation. Electoral Studies36: 158–172.
51.
ReherS (2015) Explaining cross-national variation in the relationship between priority congruence and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research54(1): 160–181.
52.
Research Councils UK. (2017) The 2016 Welsh Election Study: A Study of the 2016 election to the National Assembly for Wales. Available at: gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/projects?ref=ES/M011127/1 (accessed 19 October 2017).
53.
RushM (2001) The Role of the Member of Parliament since 1868: From Gentlemen to Players. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54.
SabatierPA (1991) Toward better theories of the policy process. PS: Political Science and Politics24(2): 147–156.
ScullyRJonesRW (2015a) The public legitimacy of the national assembly for Wales. The Journal of Legislative Studies21(4): 515–533.
57.
ScullyRJonesRW (2015b) Welsh Election Study, 2011 (SN: 7779). UK Data Service. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7779-1 (accessed 19 October 2017).
58.
SpoonJ-JKlüverH (2014) Do parties respond? How electoral context influences party responsiveness. Electoral Studies35: 48–60.
VasilopoulouSGattermannK (2013) Matching policy preferences: The linkage between voters and MEPs. Journal of European Public Policy20(4): 606–625.
61.
Von Schoultz WassÅH (2016) Beating issue agreement: Congruence in the representational preferences of candidates and voters. Parliamentary Affairs69(1): 136–158.
62.
WalczakAvan der BrugW (2012) Representation in the European Parliament: Factors affecting the attitude congruence of voters and candidates in the EP elections. European Union Politics14(1): 3–22.
