Welsh Journals

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is based on research conducted with the assistance of ESRC grant number L3227253004. We are grateful to those who consented to be inter- viewed in the course of the research, including Anita Gale, formerly general secretary of the Wales Labour Party, Karl Davies, chief executive of Plaid Cymru, Chris Lines, chief executive of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, and Leigh Jeffs, chief executive of the Welsh Conservatives. In addition interviews were conducted with a number of candidates. NOTE 1. Several categories of potential candidate were of interest for their views on the procedures: applicants who were not subsequently approved; approved candidates who made it onto the approved list but did not then get selected as constituency or list candi- dates; and selected candidates who were approved and were then selected as constituency and list candidates. None of the parties would provide details of all unsuc- cessful applicants, and while the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru both provided details of approved candidates, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats declined. All the parties provided details of selected candidates. Labour/Plaid Cymru approved candi- dates and all selected candidates were sent a postal survey questionnaire immediately after the Welsh Assembly elections on 6 May 1999. But the only basis for systematic comparison between the parties was the views of selected candidates, and as a result the data used in the article refer just to selected candidates. Among many other questions, candidates in all the parties were asked the following: Were the procedures used to draw up the panel of approved candidates democratic? Were the procedures used to draw up the panel of approved candidates fair? The same two questions were then asked of the procedures to select constituency and list candi- dates. The candidates were invited to tick one of very/quite/not very/not at all. These questions replicated those asked in the 1997 British Representation Survey. They allowed for candidates to judge on the basis of their own view of democracy and fair- ness and to make a distinction between the two that a procedure that might be very democratic might be very unfair in its outcomes and vice versa. The answers to these questions provided an effective if simple indicator of candidate opinion on procedures, and are provided for each of the parties in tables 8.1-4. The overall response rates for selected candidates were as follows: Lab. 49% PC 55% Lib. Dem. 60% Con. 68% Each of the tables indicates the actual number of selected candidate returns upon which the figures are based. In each case some candidates did not fill in all questions, meaning that the tables are based on slight variations in candidate numbers.