Why I am sticking with my Cruddas for Deputy bet
December 27th, 2006
How September’s 125/1 shot is making the running
The long holiday weekend and for all but one of the declared candidates in Labour’s deputy race a chance to relax with their families or to get away from the political process.
For John Cruddas, however, this was the ideal time to maximise the headlines on what is always a very slow news period. So his warning about Labour’s membership declining at 27,000 a year made it onto most of the bulletins yesterdays and commands a fair amount of space in today’s papers.
-
This was smart campaigning and shows what an operator Cruddas is. For when it comes to using the media the “unknown candidate” is sweeping the floor with his opponents.
His message that Labour has to be rebuilt from the grassroots in order to reconnect with the electorate seems ideally honed to resonate with those who are still members of the party and will account for a third of the total votes in the electoral college.
It also reinforces his core proposition that his bid is very different from the cabinet ministers whose main concern can be portrayed as jockeying for position in a Brown-led government.
What must have been very satisfying for him yesterday was getting the party chair, Hazel Blears, to respond by saying he was using the membership data in a “sensational way”. It just sounded pathetic and underlined the argument that Cruddas has been making.
My reading of what is happening is that the membership will just about put up with a Brown coronation but they want their chance to vote THEIR man into the deputy slot - a view that is echoed amongst many leading trade union figures.
In the betting my only regret was not getting on at the 125/1 on him that was available just before the Labour conference.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
test
You should win your bet Mike. Cruddas is the only one who appears to be in tune with membership and I know that in my consituency at least he will pick up a lot of support. The great thing is that there are so many lined up against him dissipating the anti-Cruddas moves. Unless the MPs can get behind a single anti-Cruddas candidate then John is in a powerful position. His victory will be good for the party. It will show that ordinary members can still be a force.
2 stats in the telegtaph today
1 immigrant a minute enters the UK and Labour loses 1 member every 20 minutes.
John Cruddas’ stand against immigration is only talk for the newspapers. As such, he is a key part of the media theatre.
For every native Party member lost, Labour gains 20 immigrant voters (deemed most likely to vote Labour).
Simply put, Labour doesnt see members as important. 1 member lost to 20 immigrants gain, is worth it.
The Party is playing the numbers game. Just like PB.com
3. But electoral mathematics aside doesn’t ZanuNuLab need its activist members in addition to voters at election time?
I see our dear leader has given up on Cliff and swapped him for a Bee Gee.
the tories are off to a strong start - continuing to reshape the party image - Nye Bevan in the top 12
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6210159.stm
6 - Where was Polly Toynbee?
Re. 4, yes. Even if state funding of political parties extended free delivery of election leaflets by the Royal Mail in local elections (not just, as now happens, General Elections), the party still needs canvassers, tellers at the polling stations, and people to do last minute knocking up. One of the main worries about Blair having stayed on so long (and staying on till next Summer) is the way it might hollow out Labour’s activist base, not just through resignations over Iraq and the Lebanon, but also the way in which loss of seats in local election thrashings will disillusion key activists, and leave the party without ambassadors in the local community.
As for canvassing, I remember reading some research which showed that Labour gained extra swings in the marginals in 92 (swings which made the difference between a Tory majority of 70 - which might have been manageable - and the one Major got, 21) because it had more telephone canvassers than the Tories.
The Tories eventually paid a very heavy price for the hollowing out of their activist base, and Labour may pay a similarly heavy price if not at the next GE, then certainly the one after that.
Nye Bevan didn’t he once refer to the Tories as vermin? I’ve heard of re-shaping but this is getting silly!
[8] Yes, but do those activities have to be done by party activists? With the present limits on election expenditure, yes - but tellers, for example, could be replaced with candidates’ having a right to an hourly return of who’s voted e-mailed to them by presiding officers. And state funding could lead to a “registered voter” system like the Yanks have, cutting out the need to canvass every address.
Party HQs would all love to do without members, whom they only love for their wallets/purses.
Richard @ 8 — you can hire people to canvass by phone, especially if the state is picking up the bill. It’s just telesales.
Interestingly, since phone pollsters find more Labour supporters, so should telephone canvassers: another win for Labour, like the way their supporters’ homes are closer together so there is less walking for Labour canvassers.
Watching TV a few weeks ago and saw Douglas Alexander. Quite impressed, So why I found myself wondering is Miliband favourite to be next leader but one. Miliband is clever like Alexander same good age range, but unlike him comes across as a nerd frankly on TV and coldly unemotional. Is the only answer the question as to whether the Labour Party itsef never mind the country will smile on two successive Scottish labour party leaders.
6: The Tories putting in Thomas Gresham is a pethetic sop to free-market fundamentalists in the party (and why not use Adam Smith?). Ditto Robert Clive to the Blue rinse Imperial brigade. The idea that either of them were more significant to the UK than William the Conquerer, Henry VIII, ELizabeth I or any number of other massive figures is ridiculous. The list is obviously meant to be controversial and designed to stir up argument (just like this) in order to keep the Tories in the news over the dead news period.
In July 06, Labour’s NEC reported membership was down to 188,026.
Why does Blears quote the 198,000 figure from the 2005 Accounts other than just to try and spin the journalists? Mind you some sloppy journos around today as none managed to find the NEC figure.
Re 8 I agree with Richard that Labour’s activist base is hollowing out. Cruddas is right that it needs renewal but the comic ali chipmunk cannot find those thoughts in her script.
Being provocative here, I can see a situation where each constituency campign could run on a massivly reduced number of activists. You can now pay to have telephone canvassing done, pay to have leaflets delievered, pay for direct mail and pay to have posters put up. Maybe it’ll be more about money in future than people? And with systems like Voter Vault, you can more effecitvly target your on-the-ground canvassing. Suggestsions made here about the elimination of telling, increased us of e-mail knock-up and voter registration could yet happen.
The Labour Party has allowed the leadership to discount its membership for a couple of decades now - being able, last General Election, to use money and ‘outside help’ to win or nearly win a number of constituencies, including marginals in which there were few members and zero or near-zero councillors or activists. The resources which Labour has thrown into these particular constituencies from outside have indeed been a massive tele-sales campaign in which respect for electoral laws has sometimes been even more marginal than the seats themselves. How long can this go on? Well all you need is MPs from all sides prepared to pay themselves more and give special extra funds which boost incumbents and the resultant ever-narrowing of the political ‘battle-ground’ allows massive resources to be focused on these ‘key seats’ by the (usually) two parties concerned in each one.
I can remember the days when, even in seats where they were running a poor third, Labour (which had more ‘active’ members in these constituencies than the other two main players put together) regularly marshalled more forces ‘on the ground’ in the election run-up itself (posters and delivering/canvassing teams), making it very hard (though not impossible!) for the Liberals/Lib Dems to maintain the ‘two horse race’ message in the place concerned.
The de-politicisation of our nation is a whirlwind we are yet to reap. What was that that was written about nations ‘getting the government they deserved’? If we look not just at Blair, but at Cameron (who I wouldn’t allow into a Shire District Council cabinet) and others, then Britain should hang its collective head in shame. We have gone from being the home of the mother of parliaments to the demential ward - trip-trepping in the a steps of the USA who, in these terms, are already the ‘undead’.
16 et al following the last debate may I direct towards Page 31 of today’s Indie and Steve Richards on the future Lib Dem prospects. Be interested to hear thoughts and start debate on said article by him.
Morning all :). I think Antony has a point here and I’ve seen it at work on the ground in both the 2005 GE and the 2006 locals. The Conservative and Labour parties use their financial resources to staff telephone call centres and effectively telephone the voters.
The poor old LD foot soldier is struggling to cover the ground the phone canvasser can cover far more quickly and comfortably. Of course some people like talking to a real person but especially in urban areas the telephone approach is the best.
Though I wasn’t living there at the time, I’m convinced the strength of the Tory performance in Carshalton & Wallington in 2005 was down to below-radar tactics such as targetted mailshots and telephone canvassing.
On the wider issue of the activist base, it may well be that the Labour base becomes as denuded as the Tory one was by 1997 both in terms of quality and quantity. I remember speaking to a Tory acquaintance after 1997 and he simply couldn’t believe the strength of the anti-Tory vote which had not been reflected in his experience on the doorsteps. I now realise that canvassing, unless done by experts, is an appallingly inefficient tool.
If and when the Conservatives return to Government, Labour will be able to re-build since they and the LDs will become the focus of anti-Government sentiment. I believe a lot of the support shown for Cameron is antagonism towards Blair and Labour rather than positive endorsement of the Conservatives but that doesn’t matter this side of an election.
Inevitably, once in office, there will be those who become opposed to the Tories - how many and how long this will take to become a serious threat I don’t know but it is the guarantee of Labour’s revival in Opposition though I suspect that the LDs may well be the initial beneficiaries of the anti-Government vote as they have been in the past when the Conservatives have been in office.
I expect Cruddas will have to use the database in a sensational way)ands blooming quick too!) According to NU Lab sources, there won’t be any left by 2013 given the current level of haemorraghing of support
I do think it’s quite worrying that so few young people in particular are members of political parties.
Other than myself I can’t think of any of my friends (other than those I met through the Tory party) who are members of a political party or would be interested in joining one.
It wouldn’t surprise me if in 20-30 years there will be some councils unable to fill all their seats through lack of interest.
20. “It wouldn’t surprise me if in 20-30 years there will be some councils unable to fill all their seats through lack of interest.”
I am sure that Blair/Blears & co are working hard to ensure this point appears long before then.
It has been obvious for some time, that the present party system is redundant and bankrupt. The three main political parties, will one day have to admit, they can no longer continue with the conceit of running in hopeless seats. Labour will have to withdraw from much of the South and South West to concentrate on the few winnable seats there, leaving it to the Libdems and Tories to fight it out. The Tories will have to withdraw from much of Scotland/Wales leaving it to the SNP/Plaid/Labour to fight it out and so on. The Libdems then can concentrate on picking off the most winnable seats for them.
14. “In July 06, Labour’s NEC reported membership was down to 188,026.”
From Ann Black’s July NEC report:
“Membership remained almost level at 198,026, down from 201,374, but income per member rose from £18.10 to £24, with no sign that the subscription increase had put people off”
where did you get the 188,026 figure?
17.
‘Punter’, Is Richards ‘push-polling’ the Lib Dems down? This sort of “Are the Lib Dems goint to crumble?” article is put out by some lazy scribbler at this time of year on a quite regular basis.
Outside of Parliament and the Newsnight studio, Campbell was a virtually non-existant deputy leader when Kennedy was a charismatic but inconsistent leader. His ‘team’ say that organisation has improved. They would say that wouldn’t they? Isn’t the obvious reason for what Richards describes the Lib Dems’ repeated failure to fully-capitalise on the Iraq issue that one or two senior Lib Dems (and their backers) originally never shared the firm view which Kennedy eventually took?
Re 17 Punter, I read the Richards article and it just presented both sides of the argument ending with the expectation of a hung parliament with the Lib Dems having fewer seats but a foot in the door to power.
He did not blame Ming for the drop in LD support but offered few thoughts as to the real reasons other than the media was now focused on a Brown Vs Cameron battle.
Richards article lacked any analysis of the lack of progress LDs have achieved at a local level where their Councillor numbers are slightly down from their peak of 10+ years ago. The number of councils they control has actually significantly fallen in that period.
22. The Tories will no more have to withdraw from Wales than the Lib Dems do. Indeed less. Potentially up to eight Tories could plausibly be returned next time a minimum of five. I struggle to think of more than two seats the Lib Dems could realistically hope to add to their present contingent next time.
BTW any interest in the Richards article at all.
24. Quite. I think the organisational aspect is the “hidden” strength to Ming we can’t always see, though others do. Hence I could easily see a1997 scenario in that the Lib Dem vote share declines on 2005, while the number of MPs increases due to shrewder and more long term targetting.
25: That’s because numerous districts with populations of 80,000 have been exchanged for fewer big urban councils with populations of >300,000. In terms of people represented, the LibDems are now at a peak.
More news on funding:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1978849,00.html
Looks like a Labour counterstrike…
29.
The effect of which will just add to the public feeling of “They’re ALL at it - the bunch of crooks” ?
Several months ago I posted on here about the “hollowed out” political parties’ campaigns in Wales in 2003. This is all anecdotal, but a friend of mine (who was a County Councillor in North Wales about 10 years ago) reckoned that both Labour and the Lib Dems ran highly centralised campaigns from Cardiff which virtually bypassed their membership and activists. The literature was all done centrally, the mailshots were handled by HQ and the canvassing was mainly done over the phones. The local activists were expected to do whatever they liked locally, on the basis that 1) it would be impossible for HQ to get them to do anything different or more productive, and 2) whatever they did was unlikely to be harmful to the national campaigns.
Does that ring any bells with anyone in the Principality?
You’re right Mike - it was the perfect time for Cruddas to make an intervention. Definately a smart cookie. Where on Earth are the other candidates during at this slow news period?
Blears was perhaps daft to respond to the story, but her addiction to being on the news is second to none. Looks like she’s had a bit of a makeover too - could she have an announcement planned?!
Hilary Benn will really have to do better than this dreary content-free interview in the Times if he’s to keep up with Cruddas and Blears:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2519495,00.html
Not sure wearing a badge reminding people of his Dad’s failed attempt to ruin the Labour party is his best selling point.
Augustus - that is how parties are going to have to fight marginals in the future. Campaign Centres (regional or London) run the telephone, direct mail, survey, online and leafleting operation whilst the candidate/activists focus solely on doorstepping as much as possible. Most of this will be done outside of election expenses time to avoid cost implications. This allows the centre to control the message and also target the resources - no embarrassing quotes from any candidates leafets during the campaign! The only thing that might remain at grassroots level (for now) is the knockup and telling operation. But in some seats they’ve even abandoned this already.
The future is bright … the future is regional campaign centres.
3
To vote in a General Election you need to be either a British or Irish citizen, residency in the UK does not make you eligible.
Indie article here:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2105960.ece
“Have the LibDems missed their historic opportunity?”
32.”Blears was perhaps daft to respond to the story, but her addiction to being on the news is second to none. Looks like she’s had a bit of a makeover too - could she have an announcement planned?!”
do you think she’ll wait until she has finished her selection process before declaring (if she wants to run)?
“Not sure wearing a badge reminding people of his Dad’s failed attempt to ruin the Labour party is his best selling point. ”
but now Tony Benn is a cuddly old man…people can think “oh, how nice. Hilary really loves his old dad. What a wonderful son he’s!”
IMHO, most direct mail gets chucked in the bin, and most people are irritated by telephone canvassers (that is, if they’re in, and the answerphone isn’t switched on).
If a local party has the resources to do it, a personal canvass is much more effective. Also, it’s being done by people who have an interest in a successful outcome, rather than someone who could just as easily be selling life insurance.
33.”no embarrassing quotes from any candidates leafets during the campaign! ”
maybe not in leaflets, but I think it’ll still be difficult to keep all PPCs mouth closed for the whole campaign!
However Dorset South tories maybe can regain the seat if they aren’t allowed to place photos on their leaflets
36. Good point. She’ll have to be formally selected, otherwise it could look like arrogance to local members. She’s running out of time though, each passing week she’s on the airwaves as Party Chair and not declaring an interest in the Deputy Leadership will upset other camps (especially Team Harriet) and perhaps damage her authority if she does not stand/win.
Won’t repeat my views on the ‘cuddly old man’ theory of Tony Benn. The last time I did this I fell out with Snowflake and it is the season of goodwill.
39. Do you know when the selection vote is scheduled?
The tittle-tattle about her selection aren’t probably so helpful (even if untrue, they can leave a not so great picture).
On the ‘cuddly old man’ theory…it’s like when an MP stands down. His/her opponents usually start to praise him/her as he/she was the most independent mind, hardworking and respected MP on earth (especially conpared to the not so nice successor..even if not selected yet, he’ll surely be worse!).
39. I was banking on you knowing when it was Andrea!
On the second point, I really do think it’s in Hilary Benn’s own interests to chart an independent course. To be fair to him he’s never seemed to trade on his father’s ‘contribution’ to the labour movement, but the media are understandibly obsessed by it. If he actually had crunchy ideas about what he’d do as deputy, it could help.
Bloody hell Cruddas is everywhere this Christmas! Just come across this interview with him in Stonewall’s Pink News. I remember reading somewhere that he’s got the strongest voting record in favour of gay rights of any of the deputy leadership candidates.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-3368.html
41. HenryG, sorry, I didn’t know when it was scheduled.
As you said, it’s probably better for her to have it sooner than later.
If she was confident in her position, she should have preferred to have it first (so officially selected before the end of the year). It would have been better for Stewart too (losing against the Party Chairman would have not probably weakened as much as losing against Barbara Keeley*)
* nothing against her, but she’s not as high profile as Blears.
On Hilary Benn….I think his CLP is pretty on the Left (they’re affiliated to Labour Representation Committee)
Considering you’re a fan of Cruddas, maybe you haven’t seen this interview and you’re interested in it:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-3368.html
42. “Stonewall’s Pink News”
I don’t think they’re related
“I remember reading somewhere that he’s got the strongest voting record in favour of gay rights of any of the deputy leadership candidates”
Considering he’s a backbencher, he’s not surprising (as ministers probably have a worse attendance record).
It’s like McDonnell having a better gay rights record than any other leadership hopefuls
43. Spooky Andrea!
45. HenryG, you beated me by some seconds!
43/44. Anyway, after having checked, no-one can top him as he has actually voted in all equal gay rights divisions between 2001 and 2005.
The Dorset South situation is a classic. Labour hold as a marginal. Next door is Poole and Mid-dorset held by the Libdems. Surely it would be better for Labour to withdraw from Poole and Mid-Dorset,(no-hoper) and concentrate resources on Dorset South. ‘Never reinforce failure’
Am I missing something here in terms of telephone banks and canvassing? It seems to me, the great strength of professional canvassing, particularly by telephone, is that you obtain more accurate identification of your solid vote, your waiverers and your lost vote. This really useful information to a party but on its own intelligence adds not a single vote. There has to be a follow through, whether it be leaflet, activist contact or best of all, contact from the candidate.
The possession of a local base of activists adds enormously to the potency of the campaign. They understand the lingua local,they know the streets and they have the links. Most of all they add a local seal of approval to the party - credibility if you like. Of course examples of local activists getting it completely wrong can be pointed to, but the absence of any local endorsement is really new territory in parliamentary elections.
Critically for Labour, the standards expected are not the same for both parties. There was always a feeling in the electorate that opportunistic sleaze was to be expected and to an extent tolerated from the Tory Party - it was not wholly incompatible with the basic tenets of their core beliefs. Whereas every Labour finger caught in the till has served to expose Labour’s higher aspirations of co-operation and mutuality as insincerely held. Similarly the ‘party of the masses’ needs its local party workers far more than the Conservatives need theirs. I simply cannot see how a Labour Party (state funded or otherwise) without activists and without the trade union tradition could present itself to the electorate.
37 - Sean Fear - spot on. There is nothing like the local touch to motivate voters. It’s why the Lib Dems have such a good parliamentary by-election machine - they bus in dozens of doorstep troops.
I’m not say there isn’t a place for Anthony’s regional campaign centres, but they should be in addition to (not in place of) good solid doorstep campaigns. In my experience, telephone knocking up is not as successful as doing it in person.
If we let our activist base erode because we think the telephone teams will replace them, then we’ll have lots a vital link between party & member and member & elector. Losing either damages the political discourse that I think is essential to a functioning democracy.
50. Personally I’m a big fan of the “hit the f*^&ers with as much as you’ve got” strategy, which means shedloads of leaflets, telephone canvassing (dont forget giving list of telephone no’s to local activists) knocking on doors, street stalls the whole shabang…..and then more leaflets. yes its a question of resources, but if you start early, you can effectively target your voters and swing voters by the end and realistically should have a decent campaigning machine in place by the end. Other than that - keep the message local.
Re: 35 - I think the Richards article is interesting, if flawed. I have long maintained that the only “historic opportunity” for the LDs in recent times was in the autumn of 2003 when the Conservatives, under IDS, were on the edge of the abyss.
Had IDS stayed as leader I think the Conservatives would possibly have done as badly as 2001 or possibly even worse. A party with only 140 or 150 MPs would have been seriously demoralised and we could have seen some sort of schism which the LDs could have exploited.
It was fortunate for the Tories that Michael Howard was “available” to lead them back from the precipice. I’m now convinced Howard never expected to win but wished to do well enough to preserve a legacy for his chosen successor, David Cameron.
Even if the LDs had played a better campaign, I can’t see it making a difference of more than a few seats. Howard was able to stabilise the core Conservative vote and that was enough.
I think Richards is right in that the LDs are seriously starved of the oxygen of publicity (Lembit is the exception of course !!). I also agree that after the chaos of the Kennedy years, Menzies has restored some order to the party organisation but we do face a big challenge next time and will have to fight hard for every vote in every seat.
Unfortunate on the Welsh National for PtP. Think he just ran out of gas at the business end.
52 — the trouble with all these IDS-was-a-disaster analyses is that the Conservatives under IDS were not doing as badly as people, especially Conservatives, think. That is probably why there was no great leap forward under Howard.
The great problem with IDS is that he was terrible in parliament. This is very important for the morale of the troops but matters less to the voters.
48. Labour did largely concentrate its resources on Sth Dorset last time around. Their candidate for West Dorset was a paper candidate who did zero campaigning and spent his whole time working for Jim Knight instead. On election day he was seen holding up ‘vote Labour’ placards on the main road into Weymouth. Unsurprisingly Labour’s vote in West Dorset dropped sharply. Amusingly however, the Lib Dem vote share was unchanged.
52 I think it’s more likely that the Tories would have emerged with 175-185 seats under IDS, rather than losing seats overall. That might still have triggered off a schism though. It’s quite plausible that some prominent modernisers would have thrown in their lot with the Lib Dems in such a situation.
As it happens, I never thought the scenario of the Lib Dems replacing the Conservatives was plausible. They’re at the opposite end of the political spectrum, and offer little to right wing voters.
53 Yokel
That’s a sympathetic verdict from a true racing man. Like a number of the principles, he failed to get home which makes me think they may have gone off too fast. The first three home all came from behind.
A disappointing day - but that’s racing. I will just have to console myself by looking at my Ante Post voucher for John Cruddas!
Re: 54 & 56: I’m always interested in the Conservative perspective on this but do you not deny that in the autumn of 2003, following Brent East and the disastrous Conference speech, that confidence in and support for IDS was crumbling ?
John is right in saying the Tories were polling at 33% in October and November 2003 (according to ICM) and actually slipped to 30% in late 2004. The fact remians that there was, as I recall, at least in the parliamentary party, a sense of panic.
I think the key lesson is that the LDs are highly unlikely to supplant either Labour or the Conservatives on their own. It requires one of the two other parties to fracture as in 1981. The Tories have never really looked like fracturing even in the darkest days of the mid-90s. It is that instinctive loyality and discipline that has made them one of the most successful political parties in the world but that’s not to say it could never happen.
“Re: 54 & 56: I’m always interested in the Conservative perspective on this but do you not deny that in the autumn of 2003, following Brent East and the disastrous Conference speech, that confidence in and support for IDS was crumbling ?”
No, I wouldn’t deny that. Oddly enough, Brent East was no worse than average for the Conservatives, and better than some. The planning of the by-election campaign was amateurish in the worst sense, and I think to retain the Conservative vote share was remarkable in the circumstances.
58 - Stodge, my feeling on that question is that we would have lost rather more seats to the Lib Dems but I think there were a number of seats we would have picked up from Labour regardless of who was in charge. Seats like Welyn Hatfield, Monmouth and H&F spring to mind.
So I would concur with Sean that around 175-180 seats would have been won.
160.” Seats like Welyn Hatfield, Monmouth and H&F spring to mind.”
Peterborough?
Andrea, I can’t envisage any circumstances in which Labour could have retained Peterborough!
62. Sean Fear, how you dare! Now she’ll come here to put the record straight!
(btw, I didn’t look back at that thread to see if she (if it was the real one) replied back!)
Of the Labour Deputy candidates in William Hills market, they make Benn 7/2, Cruddas 9/2, Hain 6/1, Johnson 6/1, Harman 7/1.
I haven’t bet anything on this contest yet and don’t know for sure who is the best value, if anyone. I think Johnson at 6/1 is def appealing but I’m picking up some momentum behind Cruddas. But on the otherhand 9/2 does seem short for someone who is the least well known of all candidates. Hain’s finished and Harman hasn’t really got going. Benn’s odds look about right. Hmm.
65.
Blears must be best value right now because she’s undeclared. Blairite, bonkers, totally useless, but still ‘best value’. Cruddas’ price is following where the inside money’s going. Who cares how well-known he is outside the Labour Party members? They are the only ones with votes.
Interesting debate. I have to disagree with you though Sean. Direct Mail is far more likely to be read than leaflets shoved through the door. An unaddressed leaflet may well be a pizza flyer because it has 2.43seconds to register before it hits the bin. I think direct mail means that by the time effort has been made to open the envelope the voter may as well read the letter. I agree that candidates and activists should be best used on the doorstep. That is why Campaign Centres will never replace canvassing but the less time a candidate spends on organisational trivia, delivering lealets etc the more time (s)he can spend talking to voters. Camapign Centres increase the total contact time between voters and the candidate.
Imagine a situation where all literature and letters are done before the formal campaign. A campaign organiser presses the print button and your Royal Mail drop, direct mail and internet campaign are all done for you. The phone canvassing is done by outside callers. Your fighting fund letter is posted out and your leaflets are done by paid deliverers. Suddenly the candidate and campaign team (no matter how small) have all the time in the world to canvass, canvass, canvass. Increasing the pledge base and looking to win. It’s how our best reuslts in local government are achieved.
Another quick thought - it also means that your best canvassers are on doorsteps whilst those people who are more “suited” to the administration still have a key behind-the-scenes roll.
Better for the central party, better for the constituency campaings and better for voters. All you need is the money…
68. Anthony, in your vision, who will produce the campaign literature? The local party, the national party or both?
The text is written by locals (they get local photos too) … most of this can be done well in advance of an election. It is then checked, laid out and printed by the Campaign Centre. The CC would offer advice on writing stories etc and give honest, constructive feedback. We could have professionals laying out leaflets rather than our constituency activists who should be on doorstep.
Ah, what it is to have unlimited funding from wealthy backers! And no regard for the official limits on campaign spending…
But don´t you sometimes have the feeling, Antony, that you are being used by wealthy and powerful forces? You know, exploited? And that you are just a pawn in their game?
Yes I can just see it now,’ Thank God I’ve seen your leaflet, I was going to vote for the other lot, but the scales have fallen from my eyes, how could I have been so blind(sobs and falls to his/her knees)it’s been a life changing moment’ I’m sure!
Tressage - absolutely not. All legal limits are stuck to rigidly, it is the pre-campaigning splurge that you want to worry about. And yes I am worried about the influence of a few wealthy backers and yes I am worried about state funding. Hence I have always encouraged a lot of small donors to give money in order to raise the funds. And no, if I am the pawn then I dread to think what the game is.
73. Coldestone, don’t tell me you won’t change your vote when faced by this leaflet?!
http://by-elections.co.uk/2005/labour15a.jpg
Coldstone - do you understand campaigning at all? I would suspect not if you believe that literature is meant to do that. Leaflets have, as far as I can see, 3 core puroposes. Firstly, for the Tories and Labour mainly, their leaflets are designed to reassure the core vote and work on the very, very small number of swing voters. Secondly - LibDems often use leaflets to create the bandwagon effect (the Big Mo as West Wing would put it). Thirdly - Leaflets can only help swing votes if there is an issue so big it crosses party politics and you have a USP over your opponents.
Do you think the Tory Party has a USP, Antony?
73 I have a reply for your 22 at 26. Any thoughts.
77. Interesting. In one sense the party’s USP has been (and continues to be) “Not Lefty or Wooly Liberal” or even just “Not Idealogues”. In other words, the vast soaking ground of general centre-right sentiment. Ironically this makes the “natural party of government” a “none of the above” option. This, I believe, is behind their “broad church” ethos.
Excuse the over-use of inverted commas.
“General centre-right sentiment”? I think not. Blair also uses that as one of his selling points.
80. We have a party-based parliament, not a presidency. Voting Labour also means voting Benn / BMA / Meacher / McDonnell…
59. I think you are a true “Tim Montgomerie” Conservative if you really think the Tories would have “gained” seats under IDS. Perhaps they would inside your head. Can’t you see the media had it in for the man just as they did for Foot. Next you’ll be telling us the only reason he didn’t hit 50% was cos he wasn’t soci*list sorry I mean right wing enough. 58 is absolutely spot on I think.
All of them marginalised by Blair, Julian.
In the same way that Cameron is doing his best to marginalise most traditional Tories. Or would you say that voting for a Cameron-style Tory Party means getting a Cornerstone agenda?
Perhaps you are right…..
The Party does have a general USP based upon Conservatism and pragmatism but I trust that DC will give us policy USPs nearer the next poll. I recently wrote on my blog (with apologies to Benedict for plugging a blog other than his) about the parties converging on “ends” and thus the political debate being about “means”. Either way, I want to be able to stand on he doorstep and say “you only get X with the Conservatives” - I want to be positive about Tory proposals not negative about our opponents.
I hope DC gives us our USP because, yes, I agree that at the moment people find it difficult to tell the difference - even though I am sure that posters on here could give us lists of where Lab/Con/LDs are different, voters still fail to see the big differences. Where are the big themes? Where is the country going? Will DC say that the Conservative “end” is different from the Labour one? We’ll have to wait and see.
The Tory party’s USP is to conserve what is good in society and change what is bad in society. The Tory party does not believe in change for merely change’s sake.
To go deeper than that Conservatism now is based primarily on the concepts of the individual and the family. Basically conservatives believe that individuals must take responsibility for their own actions and are therefore responsible for picking up the pieces if things go wrong for them.
This is why conservatism is seen as a tough creed because it does not seek to put the blame on anyone else such as society, government or the rich for an individual’s failings. The reason I am a conservative, is that past experience has shown me that when things go wrong for myself, my family or my friends it is virtually a result of the decisions we have taken and our individual failings, something that only we can correct.
But conservatives also recognise that the family has a role to play as the main social influence on an individual in focusing him on doing the right thing by himself and his loved one’s. In the ‘Bowling Alone Society’ families are pretty much the only reliable support structure for individuals in providing them with help when they err and in installing the right values in them to start with.
81: Like that makes any difference! Blair and his clique of mates run the show.
At local level you need a USP taht is universally cared about in your constituency. Barry and his Bedford Hospital Party is a good example, as was Bell in Tatton. A staunch Tory voter could well vote for Dr Barry because of his stand and then return to the Tories later. You see it all the time at local elections (LibDems are pass masters). The “lent vote” stratgey etc.
In Norwich S in 05 I was the only candidate to run a campaign based around the closure of a health facility … hence my leaflets on this issue were targetted and very effective, it won a substantial number of cross-party supporters. If you are lucky enough to have such a popular issue then leaflets really work. Leaflets that er just party spin really only enthuse the core vote IMHO.
83. No, I think that Blair and now Dave have done decent jobs of marginalising the troublesome factions but essentially the party’s roots remain there and more importantly, the perception of the party in many people’s minds does not change - ever. Thus the “I’ll never vote Tory / Labour” sentiments that many people have.
Anyway, Tony will be gone soon. Assuming Gordo takes a similarly centrist line and keeps employing authoritarian cabinet colleagues, then the Tories’ USP will slightly alter to “the New Not-Lefty or Wooly Liberal Party with a couple of fresh ideas“.
I should point out that I do not predict a Tory win at the next GE. I think Labour will win with a tiny majority (between 1 and 15).
86. So do most votes depend on the party leader’s name or the name of the party?
I’d be surprised if most voters switched as the leaders change. It’s my understanding that a small number of swing voters do this (and, admittedly, they often determine results) but overall people tend to have a favoured party which does not change much over time.
82 etc. We can play the ‘what if’ game all day if we want to (and in the absence of anything else, we may well to), but it won’t change anything and it won’t prove anything. For what it’s worth, I think Max has it pretty much right at 60: we’d have lost a few seats to the Lib Dems but picked up a smaller number from Labour. It has to be remembered that while the Conservative scores in 2003 weren’t too bad objectively, that was against the backdrop of a Labour government ignoring the biggest protests ever on the streets against a government policy. A more interesting (though ultimately equally pointless) ‘what if’ might be: ‘what if Ken Clarke had won the 2001 leadership election run-off?’
76. That’s spot on. The main purpose of leaflets is not to convince one way or the other or to change people’s minds, though it’s a secondary consideration and not to be ignored. The main purpose is to establish contact. It’s the easiest way for a party or candidate to be seen after posters, which are increasingly difficult to site; they reassure the waverers and help get out the vote. Admittedly, leaflets are nowhere near as good as canvassing in person or even by phone, but take far less time to do and more activists will do it. More than once I’ve heard someone say “I’m not voting for X because I’ve not had anything from them this time”.
57. Unlucky with the horses, Peter. I won’t hold it against you!
My sister voted LibDem because they shoved a leaflet through the door on the morning of the election wishing us a “good morning”.
In which case you must have been a canvassed LibDem pledge. Parties don’t do blanket drops on polling day - they target their voters for get-out-the-vote. Hence the leaflets was meant for somebody in your house.
90 — If Ken Clarke had won … who knows? I’m not convinced his appeal ever stretched very far beyond lobby journalists. His career in government seemed dedicated to alienating Conservatives’ natural supporters (perhaps where New Labour got the idea!) as he moved from one ministry to the next.
Regarding the Conservatives “USP” - I believe they’ve had the same one for ages. That is curbing what people see as a “rights but no responsibilities” culture, allowing people to keep more of their pay, and maintaining a scepticism to the EU. What Cameron is (rightly) trying to do is to make Labour’s USP - we stick up for the poor, protect public services etc - less unique. Plenty of polls in the past have shown that the public supports Tory policies until they find out they are Tory. This suggests that its not finding positives the Conservative party has problems with, but breaking away from its negative image - the years of Labour attacks which have painted a portrait of Conservatives as not caring about community or poor people, will tear apart the NHS and public education etc. Thus DC has focused on insisting this isn’t true, while maintaining their traditional principles in other areas (although not “banging on” about them).
If someone came to my door and canvassed me on the issue of Hospital/Post office closures etc. I would immediately invite them in, sit down at the old PC and type out a contract. The contract would state that if the party that person represents, takes power national or local. I would have a guarantee that if a single hospital or post office is closed by the party that person represents, that person be he/she councillor or MP would immediately resign from office, then ask them to sign it: bet they won’t!
93. The thing I was wondering about was that Ken Clarke was opposed to the Iraq War. If he’d followed this line as leader, it’s anyone’s guess what might have happened. There might have been a coup against him - he certainly would have lost some shadow cabinet members; Charles Kennedy wouldn’t have got the publicity he did - what would have happened to him? (might he have maintained his leadership through to today as Lib Dem aspirations wouldn’t have skyrocketed as they did?); Blair might have lost the vote in the Commons - what consequences would that have had?
All that’s speculation, but the thing that really did for IDS - and it’s linked to that virtual history - is that the Kennedy claim of the Lib Dems being ‘the real opposition’ rang true at the time. He did sound like the real opposition and that was something the Tory MP’s couldn’t allow - and it was Michael Howard’s achievement to prevent it still being true by the time of the 2005 election.
TJM (94) reminds us that “Plenty of polls in the past have shown that the public supports Tory policies until they find out they are Tory.”
Why should that be? I suspect the answer is that the Tories are untrustworthy. They say one thing and then do another. Under Cameron, they are more untrustworthy than ever. What do they stand for? Nobody knows. They have no policies and will have none for at least another year. Just soothing noises.
So the USP of the Tories (until they get some policies) is that they are a very woolly version of the Liberal Democrats. And, although well to the “left” of Blair, not as “left” as some Labour MPs.
And that is how they are gong to SELL themselves on the doorstep? I think that this formula will not work - did we not see it all but fail at Bromley?
Tressage, your party has been doing well in by-elections, and poorly in general ones, for two decades now.
Antony: Lib Dems often do blanket “Good Morning” leaflets in target seats.
Coldstone: That’s preposterous. It assumes that simply being against something means that you can stop it. What if the cllr/MP etc gives 110% and fights a magnificent battle but Blair still closes the hospital - they still have to resign? Preposterous.
Tressage, how do you explain the LD’s lowest polls for 5 1/2 years?
Antony @84
……….and what happens when the USP doesn’t arrive, or the SP is neither U(nique) nor something you are comfortable. Please can you let us all know when your tablets of stone have been handed down? Oh, BTW can I provide a word to substitute for the “X”….I can think of quite a few, but probably not printable on PB.com.
Andrew @85
……….who decided “what is good”, and “what is bad”? Perhaps you also are awaiting to be told from “on high”. Or perhaps, it is “society”……….if society is allowed to exist by today’s Conservatives…….but perhaps some of your men in grey suits still hanker for the times of the Iron Lady?…….and Dave is being humoured because he has the polls showing better than his predecessors. Then doesn’t that bring us to the real point…..being “in control”. The Conservatives “know” that they are “the natural Party of government” and as such understand things so much better than any other Party. They/you “know” what to do, not based upon principle, just divinity. You have your tablets of stone passed down from on high, and we should just realise this, and know our place.
Simply Labour needs to go into opposition to enhance it’s long term position, the longer it stays in govt, the less activists / members it will have - the same will happen to the tories.
Governments usually always loose party members as they do voters. I think even with a change of leader labour are doomed due to a credit gap between, what the average labour member wants and the cold grewl they are served up instead of a morsal they will find tasty. Parodioxically the thing they really want will mean there removal from power.
The tories would probably have the same problem after a while, the system is undemocratic disprortional in terms of elected representatives and lacking in terms of plerality of opinion.
The whole political system needs changing - A directly elected PM and deputy and Fs, Hs and Chancellour. They would be head of government not the state as the queen or heirs would still be soveriegn.
A smaller commons chamber elected by PR every 2 years. A house of lords (Senate, where there are 200 members with 12 year terms 50 elected every 3 years). These should be single constitiencies like MEP’s had but bigger. How you would start it off is interesting - probably whittle the buggers in the lords down proportionatly as the elected element kicks in.
The Law lords and judiciary should not be involved in the legislature nor should the church.
I believe that this seperation of powers and direct election would be far more democratic, yes it may be similar to the american system but would allow greater examination of the executive rather than the silly and frankly inept way arse lickers cosy upto the leadership in all political parties at this time. People get away with the unacceptable from both sides at the minute - Thatcher in the 80’s and Blair in this new millinuim. The directly elected PM and key cabinet reduce the argument well the lib dems would hold the balance, how would they? I am a tory voter & member when i am not out of work as now - when my membership is up for renewel - can think of better stuff to spend it on than a bunch of crusty farts and their political machine.
103. Sounds like a recipe for minority government and gridlock half the time to me. Despite the intellectual merits of a separation of powers system, can you name one country with such a system that is better at addressing problems because of it? The US system suffers because there is never a shadow cabinet to compare to the administration - this is the reason why the Democrats have been incoherent since Clinton. Whatever the drawbacks of a party parliamentary system, the alternative is simply personality politics.
97. The very nature of government means that you often have to chooser the lesser of two evils. Any third party always has the advantage that it never has to make hard choices because its never in government, and thus can just criticise from the sidelines.
82 Not in the least. I believe that Michael Howard was a more credible leader than IDS, and the Parliamentary Party was a good deal happier with him in charge. We won more seats under Michael Howard than we would have done under IDS.
But it seems to me that are seats which were going to switch, regardless. Places like Welwyn Hatfield, Fulham, Monmouth, Peterborough, Braintree etc. were never going to be anything other than Conservative gains, given the amount of momentum the Conservatives had built up in those seats.
97 The problem for the Tories is that they are distrusted by both left wingers (obviously) but now quite a few right wingers also. Really, we’ve been running down our political capital for about 70 years.
Interesting piece in today’s Evening News suggesting that Communities Minister Ruth Kelly is about to chicken-run… more here: http://blog.iainlindley.com/?p=354
Commentator (98): “… your party has been doing well in by-elections, and poorly in general ones, for two decades now.”
Correction: the Liberal Democats have been doing brilliantly in byelections for almost four decades, and increasingly well in general elections for almost fifty.
You Tories cannot say as much for yourselves, can you, Commentator?
Commentator (101). Reculer pour mieux sauter, I think…. Wait for the next poll…..
David Herdson
I am sorry to have led you over the cliff with me in the Welsh National - but that’s racing and I have had a good run with big race tips here over the last six months. I promise to try harder in 2007.
As regards the Kenneth Clarke scenarios, I am intrigued. I always rated him but I can see why fully paid up Tories would not be so attracted to somebody who appealed to non-Tories like me. Nevertheless I can’t help but draw parallels with Denis Healey and the Labour Party back in the eighties. What if he’d beaten Foot? Would the Party have split and gone into terminal decline? I doubt it. I rather suspect the modernising process might have started earlier. Wouldn’t you say the same of Clarke and the Conservative Party?
Oh Iain (108) - I thought the Lib Dems were going to retake Bolton West. You know, Lib Dems often do go from a good third place to take the seat…. Don´t count your chickens, Iain.
108. IIRC sitting MPs were asked to return the reselection form by mid September indicating the constituency (or constituencies) they were applying for. So if Ruth wants to go for BSE, she should have already indicate it 2 months ago.
Seriously O/T
Sean T is away so I thought I would take the opportunity to ask if anybody else here has read his book ‘Millions of Women’?
I read it over Christmas and enjoyed it thoroughly but would rather not let him know in case it makes him even more obnoxious than he is already.
109. In the last 50 years - your timeframe - the Conservatives have won six general elections - five of them by governable majorities, which is more than Labour can say (yes, they formed a government after seven in the same timeframe, but only four had workable majorities). It’s certainly a lot more than the Libs / Lib Dems.
In fact, the Lib Dems haven’t improved their vote in the last quarter of a century, and it topped out in 1983 (counting both ‘Alliance’ parties) at about 27%. What you have got better at is targeting constituencies - you wouldn’t be making a case for FPTP now would you?
114. Yes I’ve read it, it’s very funny. I never knew Sean T was Sean Thomas - it’s a weird coincidence because I’ve just seen him on BBC2 on the Beefcake documentary.
re 34. Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK also have the vote at UK general elections.
re 53. That’s the first time I’ve ever bet as a result of anything on this site! Good job I only invested a tenner.
112 - the LibDems are falling to pieces in Bolton, and in any case, the 2005 LibDem candidate for Bolton West had so much faith in the Liberal Democrats that he… defected to the Conservative Party this summer.
118 Sorry, Chris A. You really did pick the wrong time to follow me.
In fact, it ran fairly well; just not well enough.
116 Houndtag
What was the Beefcake documentary?
re 120. PTP don’t worry at least it encouraged me to open an account as it was the only way of managing it at work - so progress made. I don’t think my sister will forgive me though!
121 It’s on now, turn over!
111. No worries re the Welsh National. As you said yourself, that’s racing. Good luck for 2007.
Had KC won in 2001, it would have been a roller-coaster ride and frankly it’s anyone’s guess what might have happened. He probably would have taken a more fearless approach to modernising, which would have either paid off - possibly with Labour collapsing catasrophically over Iraq if Blair lost the HoC vote and had to resign - or ended in the acrimony and feuding that plagued the 90s. Hague and IDS both blazed the trail Cameron’s now following but abandoned it when the numbers didn’t shift. In some ways, I think the party needed that third defeat to accept the Cameron image now, just as Blair was only possible after 1992 and Thatcherism could only be implemented after 1978/9 (and Heath blazed that trail as well).
The Healey/Foot debates another great ‘what if’. By 1980, the Bennite left was nigh-on ungovernable, so any Labour Party of the time was going to be riven by division - but I agree that Healey might at least have prevented the SDP split. How that would have affected the 1983 election is hard to say - the NEC would still probably have had a left-wing majority and Labour would still have faced Margaret Thatcher a year after the Falklands. Labour might not have produced their suicide note, but the manifesto wouldn’t have been that much different even with a right(ish) wing leader - Healey wasn’t that centrist, having imposed a top income tax rate of 83%, with a 15% bonus for some. The biggest difference would have been for the Liberals - as they’d still be - who’d probably still have no more than 20 MPs today.
Oh, and I’ve read Sean’s book and did enjoy it.
Re. 10, indeed, I’m reminded of the (leaked) e-mail an aide to a Labour MP wrote some ten years ago, in which he opined that ‘As you know, Labour Party members consist of social misfits, rejects of society, and the mentally ill’.
For the fans of by-election…there can soon be a byelection which the BNP will hope to win.
A Labour councillor in Calderdale died this month. He represented Illingworth & Mixenden Ward. In 2004 the ward elected 1 Lab and 2 BNP. This May the result was: BNP 1075, Lab 840, Con 682, LD 296, Ind 124
The byelection hasn’t scheduled yet, but it’ll probably take place earlier next year. I suppose BNP can be considered the favourite to take the seat.
Surely it’ll just be a double-header in May, Andrea?
127. Iain, actually I don’t know the rules. The local paper wrote “A by-election to fill the seat held by Coun McElroy in Illingworth and Mixenden ward is expected to be held early in the New Year”, but I don’t know if they know the rules!
128. IIRC, a by-election can be called by pretty much whenever someone wants it (I think it requires two electors in the ward to petition the Chief executive, but I could be wrong on that - it’s a while since I needed to know the rule).
Tactically, I can’t see what Labour or any other mainstream party has to lose by calling it early. The BNP are defending the ward in May, which is the only ward in Calderdale they hold. Surely it would be better to contest it at a time when resources aren’t spread all over the district?
I suppose it depends how confident Labour are of their chances. If they think they are going to lose, they might be better hoping for a vote split in a two-place election to retain their one Councillor. Better than losing both elections…
129. Thanks David.
And one of the BNP councillors for that ward is currently receiving bad press, so if the byelection will be held soon, they can damage them.
http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=700&ArticleID=1932751
The Labour seat which has fallen vacant in Illingworth and Mixenden ward (Calderdale)was due to be contested in 2008.
What is required for a by election to be called is for two local government electors in the ward to notify the Returning Officer of the vacancy and request that an electiin be held.
Were the seat that to be contested in May then the six month rule would operate.
An expensive by product of the six month rule ocurred in late 1972 when a GLC member representing the whole of the London Borough of Barnet died days before the six month rule would have been operative for the 1973 elections. A teacher of British Constitution at a local school explained this to a class resulting in a pupil going home and getting the signatures of his parents on the request which he delivered to the Returning Officer the next morning, causing a by election. The parties conspired to organise an unnoposed return, until an Independent stepped forward, resulting in a by election across a whole London Borough.
124,I beg to differ om many poinys of your hypothetical question of a Healey leadership.
(a)Inflation,adjusted,the final tanche of income taxes at 83p the pound would be worth,circa,£100K today-with thresholds of 75,70,65-you know (even for someone obviously intellectaully retarded-as are so many right-wingers:he sighs..
(b)Denis Healey’s war-time woul;d have served him e