As part of Ros Scott’s campaign team, I’ve visited a lot of our Local Parties in the past year. Whereas, in the past, I had an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of structures and personalities in London (almost anorakish), and an awareness that the rest of the country existed, I am suddenly obliged to process a lot of information and knowledge about the way the rest of the country views the centre. It isn’t necessarily pretty…
I’m an urban Liberal Democrat. Leaflet delivery is a matter of visiting closely packed houses and delivering about 150 leaflets an hour on foot. The approved model of wallpapering a ward with paper and then, once you’ve finished, doing it all over again, does work, as long as you’ve actually got something to say. Admittedly, I tend to prefer delivering things which contain positive reasons for voting for ‘my’ candidate, but accept that, on occasions, you have to attack the opposition. I’m happier attacking their ideas or their actions, than casting aspersions on their motives but then I never did claim to enjoy retail politics.
And yet, there is a whole world of liberal democracy where such assumptions are anything but viable. You could, I suppose, wallpaper Orkney and Shetland with paper, but you’d need a car, a light aircraft and, in some instances, a rowing boat, to do so. Indeed, the locals would be fairly horrified if you did. In Cornwall, the influence of key individuals within village and small town communities is not to be underestimated, as I discovered this weekend. So a ‘one size fits all’ approach to our campaigning is potentially dangerous and, perhaps, contradictory to our belief in localism.
There is, it appears, a sense that the centre (a.k.a. Cowley Street) wishes to enforce a model of campaigning on our Local Parties that is somewhat unpopular. Not necessarily because it doesn’t work, because it clearly has in the past, but because it doesn’t recognise that there are places that are genuinely different.
I’ve always believed quite firmly that the ‘centre’, be it Cowley Street or the Regional Party, needs to act as an enabler, rolling out ideas that reflect best practice, highlighting things that have worked in one place and might in others, ensuring that legal requirements are met, redistributing resources if need be, and providing a theatre for networking and debate. It isn’t always tidy, and it may not always work, but it will reflect the diversity of the Party’s nations and regions.
I can understand the temptation to ‘persuade’ Local Parties to behave and operate in certain ways, especially in target seats where money is flowing from the centre. That sense of wanting to get ‘value for money’, not always easy to measure, leads to the imposition of performance indicators that may or may not be appropriate to the particular situation but are comfortable and familiar to those responsible for raising funds and reporting back on their effectiveness.
However, don’t we attack this Labour government for doing the same thing? Indeed, didn’t we attack their Conservative predecessors for exactly the same reason? Strengthening our Local and Regional Parties might be an answer to the problem, and an opportunity too. There will be failures along the way, and some of them will be rather embarrassing, especially if seats are lost as a result, but we might emerge as a stronger party as a result.
If anyone is reading this in Cowley Street, don’t take this as an attack. I’ve spent enough time in HQ to know how much good work is being done, and how dedicated the staff are. But perhaps if we trust the wider party to make good choices, not only will they pleasantly surprise us, but they might free the centre up to do more, do it more effectively, and enhance levels of trust between our various tiers of organisation.
Mark Valladares is Secretary of Borough of Brent Liberal Democrats and blogs at www.liberalbureaucracy.blogspot.com
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems beat Labour in a Liverpool by-election for first time since 1997
Little Wonders #dundeewestend
Will Labour kill off the landmark climate and nature bill?
Lib Dems will continue to back 50 per cent cap on faith-based admissions to schools
William Wallace
Slamdac
John Marriott
Steve Trevethan
Nick Hopkinson
24 Comments
I’m sure there’s some truth in the need to vary techniques a little, but the problem is that some local parties will find any excuse to say “That won’t work here.” That it’s s an urban strategy and in a rural area is one such example.
Rural seats like Westmorland and Lonsdale were won with “by the book” campaigning while places like the Isle of Wight were lost because they didn’t take the experts’ advice.
*Jo drops her cross stitched rose and giggles loudly*
We lost Taunton because of ignoring national advice.
God the urban/rural thing is hilarious.
Graeme and Jo are spot on. I’ve lived in both urban and rural areas. The basics are still the basics wherever you live. If you don’t deliver enough leaflets you lose. I moved into a rural ward with 2 LD councillors and have seen both lose because they never stayed in contact with local residents through leaflets or any other means. They may well have been well known/liked with village worthies but that counts for nothing when most people vote.
I fully accept that there are instances where Local Parties ignored the advice given to them and promptly lost. And yes, if you don’t tell your voters what you’ve done, they are likely to ‘shop elsewhere’.
However, what volume of paper works best, and the messages you put out, need to be sufficiently attuned to the locality to actually have an effect. I also know that reaching 500 voters via a leaflet in East Dulwich takes far less time and resource than doing so in Needham Market or Witnesham. And how many leaflets is enough? A fixed number? One more than the opposition?
And Jo, if you think that the differing needs of urban and rural communities are hilarious, try explaining choice in education to a villager in Orkney? I’ve had the conversations with members in North Cornwall, Orkney & Shetland, and a string of Local Parties across the country. I’ve worked with a string of them as Returning Officer. That doesn’t make me an oracle of truth, it merely gives me a volume of information which leads me to wonder whether the orthodoxy is always right.
I’ve not said that the guidance that comes from Cowley Street and the Campaigns Department is wholly wrong, far from it. I merely offer the suggestion that we need to be more cogniscent of local circumstances when advising a perhaps distant Local Party how they should run their campaigns. After all, it’s results that ultimately matter, not method.
Why not, as the Bones Commission apparently suggests, encourage Local and Regional Parties to draw up development plans, and attract funding on the basis of those plans? Subsequent funding can then follow based on results, and we can see how different strategies work in different places.
After all, we do believe in diversity. don’t we?
My impression is that the distinction between urban and rural constituencies is not the important one when considering local campaigning – instead it is the type of election being fought that is critical. At local elections voters are more likely to be swayed by a party or candidate that displays evidence of concern for local issues (e.g. by extensive leafleting). In contrast parliamentary elections are won by the performance of a party’s national politicians. Hence I live in a Tory safe seat where the activity of the local Lib Dems ensures a Liberal presence in local government, but carpet bombing the town with leaflets would have much less impact on a parliamentary election than reports from national media that the Lib Dems favour tax cuts. So local parties should expect the level of direction from the centre to rise and fall based on the type of election not whether the the locality is rural or urban.
@Mark – I simply meant the views people have of urban ideals in rural areas are hilarious, not vice versa.
Sorry – no edit button on LDV – I meant and vice versa.
Also, I think the example of Taunton is a good one. As I understand it someone didn’t put the ‘two horse race’ chart on the leaflets that went out which I think is crucial, particularly in Taunton.
I don’t think there’s any room for any individuality when campaigning. These little rules (such as the chart) are there for very good reasons. When you start to think your ideas are better than Head office then perhaps you shouldn’t be a member of a political party and should try and make it on your own…
To let everyone have their say would simply take too much time and money. I can’t imagine how you would co-ordinate a different campaign for each local party. Mayhem!!
Agree with Jo, Graeme & Rob.
We have plenty of diversity among local parties. I hesitate to say “too much”, as we like diversity, but our problem tends to be much more about people not listening to good advice rather than people suffering from having central edicts imposed upon them.
We need to be much better at spreading best practice and yes, sometimes we need to be tougher with the long-established local party establishment who “have always done it this way”.
There is a local party I know (not my own!) that has local elections by thirds.
The LP covers 100% of Council A and a little bit of next door Council B.
In Council A the LP won a seat in the 1970s, and got a second seat in 1999.
Lost both seats in 2000 all-ups. Has now had no Councillors since 2000.
Why? Because they do zero campaigning all-year-round and the election campaigning is awful. I know I’ve seen it.
This area doesn’t care for Cowley St best practice because there is no one to drive it. Without drivers or local leaders nothing happens. Your rural/urban split argument has some validity but not much.
In essence drivers look at best practice and pick and choose what to apply for their own areas whether rural or urban. Your example of Orkneys is perfect. Target your best, easy to deliver areas first.
So to go back to Council A, can we win seats here. Yes! I am sure of it. But that is not going to happen without external help. And a lot of it and that requires hard cash. Cash we don’t have.
Hmmm… so much to respond to…
Fair enough Jo, although my recollection is that anti-hunting campaigners enthusiastically targetted Jackie Ballard in a seat that has been won and lost by small margins in the last three elections.
In truth, Local Parties do have overall control over what happens in their patches. No matter what Cowley Street might recommend, without local buy-in, there isn’t a campaign. In many cases, as far as winning Parliamentary seats is concerned, that doesn’t matter as they are unwinnable, and ruthlessly discarded accordingly.
I agree with the latter part of Tiger Tiger’s comments, in that we need to spread best practice more effectively and be tougher with failing dinosaurs. I merely suggest that if it works, and shows signs of continuing to work, we don’t necessarily need to interfere. Persuasion is far more influential than the use of the stick.
Finally, Dear Leader, the Local Party of which you speak has failed. Simple, really. They aren’t going to get much support until things get better. The Regional Party should be holding Local Party officers accountable if, by their failings, they jeopardise our prospects of success. As to the remedy, why not develop a strategy for dealing with such problems?
What we suffer from is the fact that geographical targetting (ie Campaign’s Office recommended tactics) has been shown to work in fptp elections. It doesn’t always work – sometimes even when the conventional wisdom suggests it should. However, it makes this Party of ours a very difficult one in which to try out new techniques.
My local party executive and activists are split 3 ways between those who have no real idea of how to campaign at all, those who have got very rigid, ‘traditional’ ideas and lastly, those who are willing to experiment a bit. However, even the latter group are not willing to risk not winning council seats in 2010 – and so are trapped into traditional geographical targetting. We’ve no room to innovate.
Where we do have the opportunity to experiment, I feel, are regional and European elections, utilising electoral systems that are more proportionate. However, even here, at a national level the Party can’t/won’t see that any experiments we did try couldn’t be any worse in terms of results than the those of the past decade in such elections
@ Mark, no that didn’t help at all…
As a former Cornish organiser can I just make it clear that we win through doing the work of delivering leaflets and campaigning on the issues – not some secret mythical village honcho delivering the vote.
You target your energy at the built up parts that dominate every rural seat. You post the rest. Yes you may deliver less than a city but the text book is exactly the same.
The big secret about the difference in urban and rural campaigning is that there isnt much difference. In cities you dont get the mile drives up the farm track though 🙂
I understand the article and its a debate worth having. My worry though is it can become an excuse for poor practice. The number of times i have come up against ” We don’t do it like that round here” ” You don’t understand X village” ” people don’t like to many leaflets” ” he has a huge personal vote – he always wins.”
In each case the implication is that liberal diversity and independence is being defended. In actual fact its just poor campaigning and laziness.
@ Anor Anon
There are certainly two issues – bad campaiging from poor local parties; and the rigid viewpoint of those who can’t see that there might different ways to campaign and win in more proportional elections.
I entirely accept that in PR elections, at least while we have ghastly list systems we need inovation. I’d like to see each Euro list candidate (apart from sitting MEP’s/new lead candidates) asigned to a demographic group or mosiac catergory or interest group. I’d completely decouple the campaign from Dog Poo focuses and see if we mad any progress talking about values to highly specific groups.
It may be a complete disaster but after the GLA list results perhaps worth trying.
@16 Another anonymous
Couldn’t agree more. Most people who say ‘but it’s different here’ don’t win elections.
The same type of campaign works in very different areas. This shouldn’t be mistaken for the same leaflet works well in very different areas. I have seen a couple of places where people have basically changed the ward/candidate name and a couple of photos!
An observation from the centre of the universe (well, it was for a couple of weeks in May !!) on the balance between frequency and content of Focus / Focuses / Focii …..
In our local government re-election campaigns content isn’t critical, as the yellow leaflet through the door can survive weak content by a past record of achievement.
At a certain parliamentary by-election we thrust vast quantities of paper through letterboxes but the content really didn’t strike the right (any ?) chords.
The rest is/ was history!
I think that the simple fact is that there aren’t enough of us to build a consistent party campaigning organisation, even if such a thing was desirable. In these circumstances whoever is prepared to do anything locally is in control, and decides what to do. In the absence of anyone else willing to get stuck in and do anything else that is the local party style. If this gets them elected so much the better.
The real question should be “How do we make the best us of the resources we have, to build and develop a liberal democratic society in our area?” In my opinion, the key factor is a growing, vibrant local party.
Grammar Police makes an interesting, but sad point where he/she says “My local party executive and activists are split 3 ways between those who have no real idea of how to campaign at all, those who have got very rigid, ‘traditional’ ideas and lastly, those who are willing to experiment a bit. However, even the latter group are not willing to risk not winning council seats in 2010 – and so are trapped into traditional geographical targetting. We’ve no room to innovate.”
I always worry about this sort of comment because it implies (though I may be misconstruing his/her words here) that even two years ahead, people (good people) get ideas that are virtually set in stone, which are totally focussed on getting some individuals re-elected. While this is important, it should only be one element of a successful local party. Obviously I don’t know how marginal their key seats are, but to use an example local to me, there is three member Lib Dem ward where the vote splits us 2,000+, Lab 500, Con 500. This position has been built over the last 20 years, and has settled down to 4 Focus a year, plus extra at election time, but that is all. No members meetings (other than the one to organise the campaign); no recruiting; no canvassing. As a result, the membership is ageing and slowly dwindling. This I would contend is a failing ward. By contrast, a small ward with say five members may be much more successful, by knocking on peoples doors; talking to residents; enthusing local people; recruiting; discussing what is a sound Lib Dem position on say provision of play equipment against grants to youth groups etc. etc. However, it wouldn’t tick many of Cowley Street’s boxes.
I know which is best for the long term good of the party. The question is how do we get those at the centre to understand this?
“I don’t think there’s any room for any individuality when campaigning.”
If this is the case we are dead in the water. We will both die and sink. And Liberalism will be dead.
Good campaigning combines proven strategy and tactics with individual creativity.
Tony Greaves
How do explain areas where campaigning has been done “by the book” where again and again no seats have been won? It’s time that we started to accept that wallpapering a ward or constituency doesn’t always work and that there maybe room for a little experimentation. Acknowledging that “traditional” methods may not always be fit for purpose is not laziness it’s pragmatism.
Tony Greaves’ rule of “if you’ve something to say, stick it on a piece of paper and shove it through a letterbox” is still the best way to campaign – I doubt that we’d have won Dunfermline & West Fife without the amount and quality of literature we produced. But you’ve got to be able to reflect the area in which you’re working and target approprately, or it simply doesn’t have an effect. Betty – those areas you mention might simply not be “keeping it local” enough, targetting the wrong areas or spreading themselves too thin.
Dunfermline’s a good example – you’ve got urban(ish) areas in Dunfermline, Rosyth and Inverkeithing, but out to the west towards Kincardine is much more rural. Most of the population is in the Dunfermline/Rosyth/Inverkeithing triangle, so you have to concentrate your efforts there.
You do need the manpower to do it, though!