We need an unemotional debate about
the true purpose of the voluntary party. Is it there to facilitate meetings to
discuss internal bureaucracy, or should it be dedicated to delivering victory
at every election? Our response to these questions will not only define the
voluntary party of the future, but more importantly it will determine how
seriously we are taken as a campaigning force.
Associations
have two basic functions. The first is the management of our affairs (meetings,
minutes, fund-raising, membership and branches). The other is campaigning. Admittedly
the first needs to be done effectively to facilitate the second, but for too
many Associations the internal administration has become an end in itself,
rather than a means to an end.
Many Associations
do the internal stuff well – and there are others which do the campaigning
well. There are some that do both well. And there are many that do neither.
Recently
I was invited by Lord Feldman to attend a meeting of his National Review Panel
to talk about what we had achieved in West Kent. For my presentation I used my
home county as an example. In 2014 the 17 Associations in Kent had an income of
£567,000 of which just £73,000 (13%) was spent on campaigning. More money was
spent on rent, rates and property maintenance (21%), internal administration (19%)
and employing staff (41%) than on winning elections. Some would argue that a
percentage of the staff and establishment costs were also campaign-related,
though I suspect these figures would be the same regardless of the election
cycle.
We
also need to look dispassionately at how we spend money on human resource. I am
the last full-time paid Agent in Kent (with one part-time Agent in the east of
the County) – the remainder of the salary costs are spent predominantly on
part-time secretarial support and office management. Whilst many of my Kent
colleagues do an outstanding job, often with little support and no formal
training or development, I know from the many calls and emails I receive that the
majority of the work they do is administrative rather than campaign related.
So
what about the future?
The
easy and obvious solution would be to recommend West Kent-style groupings
nationwide, but this would be a staging post rather than a long term solution. Campaign
technology is constantly changing and we need the capacity and money to buy-in
the support we need to remain competitive in an increasingly
technologically-driven environment. Future elections will still require boots
on the ground, but the weapons of war will move from doorsteps and telephones
to social media, metadata and micro-targeting - specific skills that we cannot
expect volunteers or broad-practitioners to possess. Nor will 130 Campaign Centres,
each covering five constituencies, have the financial capacity to maximise our
use of such technologies.
My
proposal to Lord Feldman’s Review Group therefore was that we should move
toward County-based organisations with 15-20 constituencies working together.
In some areas this may mean two counties sharing. Again using Kent as my
example, for exactly the same salary bill as we are currently paying, a
Kent-wide organisation could employ a county campaign director, two assistant
campaign managers, two paid campaign interns, a full-time admin manager, a
part-time assistant to look after data management, a part-time designer to
ensure everything we produce is of the highest quality plus professional help
with accounting, social media and websites. The organisation could be housed in a modern
fit-for-purpose central Campaign HQ, with full-colour print facilities and a
mail-fulfilment capability along with training and meeting rooms, for probably
50% of what we are now spending on 13 local offices. However we look at the
figures, financing a county-wide organisation would produce enormous savings of
scale and leave our Associations around £300,000 per annum to spend on
campaigning or recruiting new helpers and supporters.
Another
advantage would be the ability of Associations to turn their buildings from
cash drains into tangible assets. Freeholds could be sold or sub-let, producing
additional income to be used on campaigning. Whenever I am invited to speak to
Associations or Area Management teams to talk about ‘grouping’ one of the major
concerns is the loss of their assets and a fear that CCHQ will grab their cash.
I made these points to Lord Feldman’s Review Group and was pleased to receive
an absolute guarantee that this would not be the case; any capitalized assets
would be retained locally (as indeed they were when Tunbridge Wells sold their
freehold to join West Kent).
Even
our strongest Associations (and I am fortunate to help run some of these in
West Kent) are too reliant on too-few people. We are constantly “running up the
down-escalator” to maintain membership. Too often new activists are not
welcomed, subscriptions are not collected, fund-raising isn’t maximised, and
our electoral advantage is not pressed home due to lack of time, skills and resource.
There are
understandable concerns which must be addressed, usually around the effect on
voters and members when the local offices are combined. In West Kent we have
proved that having one office covering five Associations is not a handicap to
electoral success as three of our five constituencies achieved their best ever
election results in May and all five have shown an increase in membership. The
advantages however are great and many. Every campaigner (from parish and
district councillors to MPs) would welcome access to local, cost-efficient
design, print and mailing facilities, the latest campaign technologies, legal
and compliance support and the enormous organisational advantages of having activists
from 17 constituencies liberated from the administrative chores and free to
focus their drive and energy on our prime purpose; winning elections.
For
two years I have been the party’s unofficial ambassador for grouping and have
spent that time touring the country speaking to Associations, County AMEs and
regional conferences. This experience has taught me that despite the genuine
enthusiasm, thoughtful questions and warm applause we almost always settle for
the line of least resistance. It is a sad but unavoidable fact that not a
single new Group has been formed, despite the almost unanimous goodwill
wherever I speak.
We
must ensure that any changes are bedded-in before our next major electoral
challenge. Perhaps the basis for the future should be county-wide Associations
or federations, stripping away layers of bureaucracy and introspection.
Whatever we do we should not allow a small number of recalcitrant Associations
to use self-interest to block essential reforms which in our hearts we all know
must come.
The
Party is in a unique position of strength. We have won an election that most
people didn’t expect us to win. Our opponents are in disarray. We are ahead in
the polls and our finances are strong. The temptation is to do nothing, or
simply to “tinker”. To do so would be a dreadful missed opportunity. It could
be decades before the moons are in such favourable alignment again. Having
helped win the war, I really hope Lord Feldman and his group have the courage
win the peace and bequeath a voluntary party fit for the future.
Andrew Kennedy is the Group Agent &
Campaign Director in West Kent. He blogs at www.votingandboating.blogspot.com
.The views expressed above are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views
five Associations in the West Kent Group.