Hope in the marginals?

I have written the article below for today's Guardian website - the comments so far are not terribly supportive (indeed they are down right hostile). Let me know what you think - am I being totally deluded?
 
Hope in the marginals
 
A recent ICM poll makes for very interesting reading. The survey of 192 Labour-held marginals suggests that Labour is set to lose 164 of them to the Tories at the next general election. However the mathematics – as Mike Smithson over at PoliticalBetting.Com points out – is a little bit more complex than the poll suggests. Smithson argues that a lead of 20 points would be required to produce such enormous gains for the Tories. Saturday's ICM survey for the Guardian gave the Tories a margin of just 12 points – suggesting therefore that something different might be happening in marginal seats currently held by Labour.
 
What we know clearly from the 2005 election is that when the Tories invest heavily in the tactic of targeting voters in marginal seats it normally proves effective. One of the most important lessons that the Tories learned from the 2005 campaign was that in marginal seats good, long-term local campaigning can make a decisive electoral difference. Much of the campaigning I refer to was 'drip feed' in style and purpose. The Tories invested heavily in direct mail leaflets and letters, often paying either the Post Office or private contractors to get out the information on a weekly or fortnightly basis. Today's Tories understand that money can buy a lot of campaigning, that the more cash you plough into local campaigns the more likely it is that you can secure a win – particularly in the marginal constituencies.
 
For example, back in 2005 in the seat where I live (The Wrekin) in the six months before the election, the Tory candidate received £55,000 from a fund coordinated by Lord Ashcroft, now deputy chair of the Conservative party. Lord Ashcroft had provided a huge war chest which targeted over £1m at 93 marginal constituencies. In some, the objective was to protect Conservative MPs with slender majorities; in others it was to soften up relatively safe Labour seats for the next election; but in the key seats such as The Wrekin, it was to skew the result in the Tories' favour.
 
In the weeks running up to polling day, the Tory candidate's campaign team was able to afford to place whole-page adverts in the local media. The result was that Labour lost The Wrekin (and an excellent local MP) and it is surely no surprise that 24 of the Conservatives' 36 gains in 2005 had been targeted by their localised funding strategy. In these 24 seats the Conservatives had on average more than twice as much to spend as Labour and secured an average swing of 4.5% compared with a national average of 3.1%. The Tories are busy implementing a similar strategy in readiness for the next general election. Candidates are in place and the 'drip feed' campaign is in full swing.
 
The truth is that the next election will, like so many before it, be won or lost in the marginal seats. Labour grasped this back in 1997 and the Tories are building on the lessons learned from the tactics deployed in 2005.
Many of the Labour/Conservative marginals are marginal mainly because of the defection of many Labour voters to the Lib Dems in 2005 – chiefly in protest against the war in Iraq. To regain the trust of these one-time supporters, Labour's best prospects lie not in appealing to what it has done or in defending the status quo, but in campaigning against inequalities in health and education and in showing why these warrant further state action.
 
The campaigns in the marginals will be critical. Labour should seize the moment and put an end to the era of fuzzy politics by showing the nation that what divides Labour from the Tories is far greater than any of the marginal policies on which they are occasionally united.
To do this, it needs to match the Tory campaign tactics in marginal seats, clarify its own core message to its present and one-time supporters and rediscover its pride and self-confidence.

It is not yet too late to secure the foundations for a Labour victory at the next general election, but it very soon will be.




Display: Sort:

Re: Hope in the marginals? (#1)

I don't think you're being totally deluded, but relying on the ICM poll for the Guardian is a bit... daft.

Largely because that's a selection of largely Guardian readers who already have a left-leaning bias and favour the Lib Dems and Labour more. Looking at the "bigger circulation" newspapers such as The Tabloids and the other pollers and it kinks back in favour towards the Tories more.

They also commissioned an independant report recently into the marginals over the voting habits, which show a swing to the Tories [which they do, they're marginals] Wether it'll be on the same scale as the 164 previously mentioned of course remains to be seen.

Re: Hope in the marginals? (#2)

It doesn't matter who commissions the poll, the polling agency are unbiased. Suggesting that polls in a left leaning paper are going to be more favourable to Labour than a right wing one is not correct.

Re: Hope in the marginals? (#3)

I don't see the logic of your piece. It seems to be:

  1. The Tories are ahead nationally
  2. They are even further ahead in the marginals because they are more effective at campaigning and better funded, and this gives them a long-term advantage.
  3. Hence Labour needs to do better nationally and in the marginals.. (so far so good).
  4. So let's campaign against the status quo and inequalities in health and education (for all of which Labour has been responsible since 1997)
So all 3 parties will be campaigning against Labour's record. This will certainly be an election-winning strategy ... but not for Labour methinks :-)

 

Re: Hope in the marginals? (#4)

The danger of an overly marginal-targeted campaign is that you take your 'safe' seats for granted and end up losing them unexpectedly.  That happened quite a few times in the local elections just gone- local Labour groups threw everything into a few marginal seats, and some actively stopped candidates working in seats not considered a priority.  It had a really damaging effect on overall levels of activism, because lots of activists were told you either went to a marginal or you do nothing- so most did nothing.

Targeting has worked over the last 10 years because, to a certain extent, we've been able to rely without question on our core vote coming out.  But now, I think, we're in new times where there is as much work to be done in getting our core voters to turn out as persuading marginal voters to vote Labour.  That requires a slightly different strategy, and it does make things more difficult.  Difficult, but not impossible.

Re: Hope in the marginals? (#5)

What is going on at the moment is in essence Brown's 'Falklands Moment'.  A deeply unpopular government involved in something it would rather not be,  with an all or bust outcome.

If Brown pulls it all off he will win the next election handsomly.   If it goes wrong - does matter where, here or abroad - he's finished.

And if he fails then when the blame-game starts this removes a lot of his cover:-

FSA under fire after Blair speech
By Gavin Stamp
BBC News business reporter

The FSA is accused of being heavy-handed with its regulation

The troubled Financial Services Authority has come under fresh attack after apparent criticism by Tony Blair.

Unfavourable comments by the Prime Minister have sparked controversy at a time when the regulator is under increasing pressure.

FSA chairman Callum McCarthy has written to Mr Blair asking him to back up claims he made in a recent speech that the actions of the regulator - which oversees mortgage, pension and insurance sales - were seen to be harming well-run businesses.

Mr Blair told the Institute for Public Policy Research - in a speech entitled 'Risk and the State' - that the FSA was "seen as hugely inhibiting of efficient business by perfectly respectable companies that have never defrauded anyone".

Defending the remarks, Mr Blair's office stressed he was referring to perceptions of the FSA's actions and that his sole aim was to improve regulatory performance.

Downing Street was also at pains to point out that Mr Blair was not out of step with Chancellor Gordon Brown, who was instrumental in creating the FSA after Labour's 1997 election victory and recently described its performance as 'world class'.

"The Financial Services Authority didn't just pop out of the bushes" Ned Cazalet, independent insurance analyst

However, the FSA believes the comments were damaging.

In his letter, Mr McCarthy said they harmed the regulator's ability "to support the principles of better regulation".

Re: Hope in the marginals? (#7)

I put it this way in blog a few weeks back, "the only thing that can save Brown is Falklands II".

This isn't it, and it isn't helping Brown's personal numbers and it isn't helping Labour's numbers enough to mean anything.

29-31 in polls instead of 24-27 is better but not nearly good enough and this is the best bit.

Chances are, that despite everything, we are headed into recession for up to 2 years. So anything the governemnet do will ultimately be unfairly judged as part of the narative that led up to that result.

So we know the result of Falklands II, it will look like we are losing in 6 months 12 months and sadly in 18 months. History may ultimately judge that we ameliaorated the didaster but don't expect to get any credit at the next election.


Re: Hope in the marginals? (#8)

He chooses when to go to the country, remember. ;-)

Re: Hope in the marginals? (#9)

Thatcher won during recessions. The trick is to engender a siege mentality in the electorate.  The old 'spirit of the blitz'.

Re: Hope in the marginals? (#6)

No, I dont think so really, in British politics at a general election safe seats are safe since the bulk of the campaigning influene is "broadcast" rather than "narrowcast" on a doorstep/seat by seat basis.