Yellow fever or yellow bellies? Will the Liberal Democrat surge survive the election’s final rounds?

With the election now reaching its latter stages, Liberal Democrat HQ is preparing for a final push. In many senses this election has seemed new and yet, strangely, the same as ever. The leadership debates promised to change the face of British politics forever, and certainly, no future general election is likely to feature without them. But the last week now focuses very much on the old campaigning standards. Plenty of canvassing and the distribution of many, many leaflets! The Lib Dems have always been strong in this area, punching well above their weight despite limited resources. However, perhaps the question we need to ask is, how have the old campaigning methods meshed with new formats such as the debates?


On balance, the Liberal Democrats have been the winners of the leaders’ debates. Although it has been widely recognised that David Cameron and the Conservatives shaded the last debate, the seeming stability of the Lib Dem position is just as significant. As Lib Dem staff are constantly reminding one another, the bubble could still burst, but the real feeling is that the debates have fixed the party in a genuine three party, three horse race. Yes, left leaning support may slip back to Labour amid rumours of a Lib Dem-Conservative coalition and yes, floating voters may swing back to a resurgent Cameron, but given expectations at the start of the campaign, most Lib Dem supporters are more than satisfied with the campaign.

However, the leaders’ debates have presented new challenges as well as opportunities for the Lib Dems. Perhaps most notably, the prospect of ‘election fatigue’ seems a very real possibility among the electorate. For those campaigning for weeks, months even, in advance of and during an election campaign, this fatigue is nothing new. However, it is not necessarily something the electorate is so familiar with. The debates, while generally well received, have, for many people, been overly long. In fact, two debates would probably have struck a better balance – last night was, perhaps for many, a debate too far. Combined with the usual saturation of election stories in the print press, the electorate has been bombarded from all sides from new and old media – there’s been nowhere for the public to hide. Given the unusual aggression of the press and its often predictable partisanship, there is a concern that parties can overplay their hand at this point and incur diminishing returns.

In this environment, usual Liberal Democrat tactics may not thrive. The mailing of party literature has always been seen as a good way for the Lib Dems to by-pass the traditional media and get their message across to the electorate directly. When targeted very specifically at marginal seats, it has been remarkably effective. However, with the leaders’ debates embedding the Liberal Democrats in the minds of the electorate as a genuine, credible, viable party; is this still necessary? More importantly, do people want to receive literature three or four times telling them the same things? Equally, given the message that the Liberal Democrats are trying to get across – that they are very different from the two other parties and want to do things differently – is there a danger that using tried and trusted methods also used by the other parties tarnishes them with the brush of ‘old politics’. Perhaps, sometimes, finding new strengths is more important than relying on old ones. It’s a fine balancing act and it remains to be seen whether the Lib Dems’ remarkable story translates into success at the ballet box.

Diversity and politics…let’s ‘get real’…

The recent surge in support for the Liberal Democrats is the story of the election campaign. However, as we approach the final furlong of this three horse race, can they seriously represent the cosmopolitan UK population? Among the 63 Lib Dem MPs in the last Parliament there aren’t any Black or Asian faces to represent the estimated 10% of people who live and work in the UK and come from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities.

It can be patronising to see campaign materials where ethnic minorities are dubbed ‘the changing face of Britain’. Ethnic minority groups already make up around 30% of London’s population – but these are voters that political parties are only just waking up to. Political parties are in serious danger of alienating the ethnic minority electorate by not being representative of the diversity in our nation.

The Labour Party launched its BAME manifesto a few days ago. This outlines their policies for the BME vote in over 100 constituencies across the country and could be pivotal in determining the outcome. There has been little noise about this and other party attempts to reach BME audiences. There are constituencies such as Brent Central, where the ethnic population makes up over 50% of the total, in which parties are fielding candidates whose ethnicity reflects their community. In others, there is a drastic imbalance that needs to be addressed.

At present, there are just 15 MPs in the House of Commons, split among Labour and the Conservatives, and around 30 peers in the Lords from BME backgrounds. If politics were representative of our diverse society then this figure should be closer to 60 MP’s in the Commons, and 70 Peers in the Lords. Ethnic minorities are a key part of the decision making process, and equality and diversity just aren’t reflected in UK party politics.

Trevor Phillips believes BME people are disadvantaged because “the parties and the unions and the think-tanks are all very happy to sign up to the general idea of advocating the cause of minorities but in practice they would like somebody else to do the business. It’s institutional racism.” The Daily Telegraph, 2008

I wouldn’t go as far as this. But I would say that despite the rise of Barack Obama across the pond, the likelihood of a British Prime Minister, or even a party leader, from a BME background is small.

In a sense Gordon Brown was right. Nick Clegg should ‘get real’ - but on the issue of representing our BME communities in Parliament, all the main parties need to do more ahead of the next election if they want to win over the growing and influential 10% ethnic population of the UK. Otherwise ethnic minorities may start to believe they just don’t matter.

Priya Shah, Consultant, Linstock Communications
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

From the thick of it

A week can be a long time in politics.  If you're a Liberal Democrat, it can be a lot longer.  And if you're Gordon Brown, it can be an eternity.

Yesterday's gaffe has dominated today's press.  Commentators are poring over the polls to determine the public's response and it makes grim reading for Labour supporters. Some say Mr Brown’s candid moment will go down in the history books as the death of the New Labour movement. Whether this argument holds up remains to be seen, and the peculiarities of our voting system should prevent a doomsday scenario. But what does this mean for the other parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats?

The week began with the cautious optimism that seems to pervade Cowley Street these days. An unexpectedly benign Sunday press was a welcome surprise but almost certainly the calm before the storm.  The Conservative change of strategy - targeting Labour marginal seats rather than Lib Dem ones - was met with the baffled raising of eyebrows.

Lib Dems had expected Conservative supporters in the print press to unleash a raft of negative stories targeting the party on the morning of the last debate.  Instead, it is Labour that has taken much of the heat. Coupled with the Conservatives switching to target Labour seats, it seems like a pretty positive week for the Lib Dems.

For the Conservatives, the last minute change of strategy could be seen as a desperate roll of the dice.  A failure to gain ground in Lib Dem marginals had, it appeared, forced their hand.  With many marginal Labour seats requiring a swing to the Conservatives of up to 10%, things looked decidedly dicey for David Cameron. Today, that switch looks remarkably well timed.

Of course there is a further consideration. For many, immigration is a key issue in this election. Although it has been a costly diversion for successive Conservative opposition campaigns in the past, it finally looks to have broken into the national consciousness as a substantial concern. The feeling that political parties have conspired to avoid the issue has, rightly or wrongly, taken root.  Gordon Brown's comments yesterday will have served to confirm this in the eyes of many. For the Conservatives, seen as strong on the issue, yesterday's story has been a double boon.

So for Liberal Democrats, the Conservative threat has not been completely avoided. A swing towards the Conservatives could once again open up key marginal seats. The Lib Dem surge could yet be halted.

It's been a high octane week in British politics and it’s still not over. Tonight's debate promises to be hugely important, and as it stands, all bets are still off.  But as we saw yesterday – it only takes a thoughtless word to change the direction of this whole campaign.  It’s all to play for.

John Hood Linstock Consultant

www.linstockcommunications.com

Seconds out, round two!

With the 12 hour build up on Sky throughout the day it certainly had the feel of a heavyweight battle. We knew we were in for something special when Adam Boulton’s hyperbole reached new heights as he excitedly introduced “the first ever leaders’ debate live in HD”.

The communications world took a hammer blow in the opening minutes as Gordon Brown declared “if this election is about style and PR then count me out.” While a nice soundbite, it does rather ignore the huge communications teams that accompany all the party leaders and their expansive party headquarters back in London. The spin room was also filled with heavyweights from all parties desperately trying to influence media coverage of the debate. And, according to the Telegraph, Brown had pages of pre-prepared notes, rebuttals and gags including the clearly staged reference to “Nick” and “David” squabbling like his sons.

David Cameron had certainly been taking communications advice following last week’s disappointing display. Looking straight down the barrel of the camera he addressed the British public head on and tried to connect in a way he hadn’t been able to achieve before. Unfortunately the close-ups also revealed a somewhat tired looking face, showing signs of a grueling campaign schedule.

I was also joined last night by a behavioural expert from Australia (currently stranded waiting for a flight home!) who had almost no knowledge of the candidates before the show. She instantly had Brown as an ‘eight’, which I was told means he has a direct personality. He is straight talking, loves conflict and is prone to bursts of anger. His dominant stance at the lectern as he gripped it firmly with arms outstretched showed the confidence he felt on the stage.

Nick Clegg was deemed a ‘three’ – occasionally a bit flash, good at communicating, but unlikely to go into much detail. Three’s are also prone to using emotive language, as Clegg did last night with words like “paedophile” and “nutters” that will grab the audience’s attention. This is traditionally the image given to Cameron. But it appears that Cameron is no longer the heir to Blair, it’s Clegg!
In terms of Cameron, my antipodean friend was less able to pin him down. Although sharing some attributes with Clegg he was seen as crossing a number of personality traits including charisma and optimism but also as being slightly superficial. Perhaps the inability to put him in a box means the electorate can’t fully embrace or identify with him.

From the telephone canvassing I’ve done during the campaign there is a renewed interest among the electorate. I have spoken to a lot of people who have said they are undecided but are waiting on the final two weeks of the campaign and the final debate before they decide where to plant their flag. There is a real desire for ‘change’ but uncertainty over which party is best placed to deliver it.

Commentators appear undecided on the longer term effect of last night’s debate. But round three, the Leaders’ debate on the economy, should make for a good fight and compelling viewing. Whether someone can deliver a knockout blow remains to be seen.


Tony Cox - Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Change is the Frame in the Election Campaign

In my last blog I suggested that many floating voters will use ‘gut’ or ‘intuitive’ thinking when deciding between the candidates. I also outlined the importance of framing in election campaigns.

So far, all three parties seem to be encouraging the electorate to use a ‘change’ frame and then trying to build up credibility by emphasising their change credentials.

This frame leads floating voters to evaluate campaign information simply in terms of the amount and direction of change it implies. Thus parties are being evaluated in terms of the amount of change they are thought to bring about, rather than a detailed evaluation of the implications of their policies.

With the introduction of the three-way debates the party leaders have become more prominent, so floating voters are likely to be assessing each primarily in terms of their ‘potential for inducing change’ rather than other characteristics. This is where Nick Clegg, either intentionally or by luck, has scored so heavily. He has been able to bracket Labour and Conservative parties together as the ‘old system’ and the Liberal Democrats as the ‘new way’.

This gives the Liberal Democrats a much higher rating in terms of degree of change, making them much more attractive to floating voters. This suggests that other aspects of their policy are being neglected. If you doubt this, listen to interviews with the new converts. Not only do they know very little about Liberal Democrats’ policies, but many actually disagree on issues such as joining the euro and looking for a successor to Trident. However, by focusing on this rather nebulous concept of change these crucial differences are ignored.

This state of affairs presents a real problem for the Conservatives who have made the ‘change frame’ a principal part of their campaign. It will be interesting to see whether they rise to the challenge by further emphasising David Cameron’s change credentials or by trying to switch the campaign frame.

As for the Labour Party, they too seem to be going along with the change frame, perhaps inappropriate for a party that has been in power for so long. It will be interesting to see whether we see a switch in their campaign as we get closer to polling day.

Professor John Maule - Linstock Associate
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Political Parties Must Appeal to Gut and Head to Win the Election

And they’re off!!!  The political parties have started what is going to be an intense election race full of hazards. But how will voters decide which horse to back?

Decision making research suggests that many people choose on the basis of habit and that this is so ingrained that political campaigns have little influence on them.  But what about those that have not developed consistent political ‘habits’ such as floating and new voters – how will they decide? Contemporary research suggests that they approach the choice in very different ways.

A relatively small group of people will conduct a detailed analysis of the party manifestos – often referred to as rational or ‘head’ thinking. They will analyse the positions taken by each party in detail, weigh the information up and come to a reasoned choice.

However, the vast majority will use another approach, often referred to as ‘gut’ or ‘intuitive’ thinking. This approach is used because our capacity for thinking is limited.  We rely on simple short cuts or rules of thumb that reduce the demand on our thinking by focusing on a very small amount of the available information, often processing this information in a simple or superficial way. 

But which forms of intuitive thinking will be used during the election and what lessons can communicators learn from recent campaigns?

This depends in part on how people ‘frame’ their decision – that is how they make sense of the situation. Framing a decision in a particular way makes particular forms of intuitive thinking more or less likely to occur.

For example, there is evidence suggesting that the Labour Party campaign in 1997 tried to get the electorate to frame the choice in terms of the individual qualities of the party leaders, building a campaign that highlighted the ‘presidential’ credentials of Tony Blair. This increased the relevance of a form of thinking called ‘representativeness’ where people match information about people and events to knowledge they already have.

So, if people are persuaded to choose a ‘president’ rather than a party, then they choose the person who best matches their existing understanding of the key characteristics of a president.  A successful political campaign encourages people to frame the political choice on the basis of which leader is more presidential.  Similarly, campaigners should present information that demonstrates typical presidential characteristics.

While the current election campaign has only just started, we can already see differences between the major political parties in terms of how they are trying to frame the electorate’s choice.

The Conservative Party has focused squarely on Cameron as an individual as if they wish the choice to be conceptualised as Brown vs. Cameron. On the other hand, the Labour Party kicked off the campaign by including the whole Cabinet as if they wish the choice to be conceptualised as one team versus the other.  The Liberal Democrats, however, seemed to opt for a middle ground, launching the campaign with leader Nick Clegg and its highest profile spokesperson Vince Cable.

It will be interesting to see whether this is a deliberate strategy and which, if any, becomes the predominant way that the electorate frames their voting decision. Regardless, the political campaigns need to appeal to both gut and head to ensure they’re first past the post.

Professor John Maule - Linstock Associate
For more information about Professor Maule click here 

www.linstockcommunications.com