“Put number
17 down as ‘Conservative’” said an enthusiastic canvasser during a recent
by-election. I looked at him sceptically, and said, “But nobody came to the
door!” “Yes, but they had a Jaguar on the drive, so they must be Conservative.”
Having reminded the canvasser that John Prescott had two Jags on the drive, I
left the VI box blank, and moved on to the next house.
How we engage
with voters on the doorstep, the questions we ask and how that data is used
during an election must change to reflect the society within which we now
campaign.
For most of
us canvassing has been a simple process of asking a voter, “May we count on
your support?”, and recording their intention by a simple code on a canvass
card – and then reminding “our people” to vote on Polling Day. For a system
developed in an era when politics was a binary choice this worked well. For the
eight or so elections after the war the two main parties shared around 90% of
the votes between them; if you weren’t for us, you were agin us. But times have
changed.
The modern
campaigner must address two fundamental changes in the political landscape.
1.
There
is now more choice – with more parties competing across the UK, often with
regional variations, and the emergence of single-issue and independent
candidates.
2. Increasingly voters are willing to
trade their support, often identifying for one party nationally, whilst happily
voting differently at European, mayoral and devolved elections.
Even in my
small corner of Kent there is clear evidence of vote-splitting due to local
circumstances. For example, in the 2015 GE, in just one constituency the
Conservative local government vote-share was higher than the Parliamentary vote
share, while in the other four constituencies it was the other way around. And,
in one borough, our local share was a full 20% behind the parliamentary
percentage. Until we know why 1 in 5 Conservatives failed to support their borough
council candidate we will never make the progress we need to make in this
Borough – but before we can rectify, we need the tools and the skills to
identify.
Canvassing
over the years has evolved, but too slowly, as has the training we give to our
canvassers. Too many people we send to the doorstep still believe they are
embarking on an evangelistic mission, to find or make new converts. Whilst, in
reality, we are simply gathering raw data. And just as voters’ political
allegiances have become more complex, so our methods of gathering data must
evolve too.
I first
encountered the new CCHQ canvass script at the Clacton by-election. And hated
it. It seemed over-complicated and under-explained. A simple 30-second
conversation on a doorstep had morphed into a five-minute double-page script
with show-cards, and we were expected to interview each member of the household
separately. In the heat of a by-election, particularly that one, no-one had the
time to explain to the canvassers why we were doing this, or how it worked, or
why it was important. Not being told the reasons led to a lack of confidence
and even a degree of resentment and hostility, which clearly came across on the
doorsteps. This negativity became self-fulfilling, with even the most
enthusiastic volunteers translating their antagonism to the respondent. This in
turn provided the canvasser with all the evidence they needed that the system
was unworkable.
For those who
have not used the new script, the simple “May we count on your support?”
question, was replaced with, “On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely are you to vote
for each of these parties at the forthcoming by-election?”. The score for each
party was then recorded on a survey form, along with the answers to a number of
other questions on the local and national issues likely to affect their vote.
I made it my
business to find out the thinking behind this new script, and exactly how the
data could be used to our advantage. Having done so I immediately understood
both the need to change, but also the need to explain that change to our
volunteers if we were going to make it a success.
So how does
it work, and why?
Firstly we
are not asking voters a binary question, when most want to give a
multiple-choice answer. According to some polls only around 35% of voters are
now totally committed to a political party (i.e. will always vote for that
party at every election). This explains the significant increase in “Don’t
knows” or “Won’t says”, something we seldom heard on the doorstep in the old
days.
Secondly,
asking people to rate their likelihood of voting for a specific party on a
scale of 1 to 10 is far less intrusive than asking them for which party they
are going to vote, particularly if the voter is not fully committed, or is
unprepared to self-identify.
Having
developed a script which produces a more accurate reflection of voters’
intentions we also need to understand how to use this nuanced data as a
campaign tool. For me the ability to identify the second preferences of other
parties’ supporters is increasingly important in closely-fought elections.
Below are two examples of how I have used the data in West Kent.
In 2015 we
fought a local government by-election where it was a four-way contest between
Conservative, Labour, Lib-Dem and Green, with UKIP and an independent candidate
muddying the waters too. By knowing which UKIP and independent voters would
choose Conservative as a second preference we were able to target our GOTV
material to specific voters whilst ignoring other UKIP voters who would have
preferred a Labour councillor. And by recording the issues which motivate those
voters we were able to produce voter-specific pledge letters, often resulting
in two or three different letters being sent to voters within the same
household.
The second
way this new system helped was to identify Conservative pledges who were
seriously considering voting for another party. These voters also received
targeted mail, dealing with the issues important to them, just as it provided
our candidate the opportunity to spend his time talking to the swing-voters who
would decide the outcome of the election. Our vote share was only 27%, but we
won with a majority of 53 votes. Without the data provided by this new
canvassing method, and the ability to target specific voters, we would not have
won.
As too often
happens, changes are “handed down” without the training and support needed, nor
any explanation as to why these changes have been made. Like most Conservatives
I am resistant to change for change’s sake, but once I am convinced of the
reasons why, I become the most enthusiastic convert.
You can, it
turns out, teach an old dog new tricks – but he needs a reward. For the dog it
is a tasty tidbit, for us it is victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment