It remains to be seen whether or not the Lib Dem by-election machine – in it’s current form – has well and truly had it’s day. Either way, this is Chris Rennard’s last campaign, and fingers crossed this means that the party will start thinking about ways of willing by-elections that don’t depend on physical quantity of leaflets put through letterboxes.
According to the Gospel of Rennard, that’s how you win. You literally put more leaflets through doors than anyone else. Meanwhile the Tories are up to 12 leaflets, while the Lib Dems are slightly pipping them to the post at 13.
I, for one, will cheer the end of Brute Force campaigning and the death of our leafleting ringmasters. Truth is that the most attractive candidate to the electorate nearly always wins irrespective of resources, and being able to spend more money (or, at least, have the most volunteers) changes the results of elections by little more than 1%, according to those renegades at Freakonomics. Lib Dem candidates – once fresh faced “normal people” battling hard on local issues without letting boring old politics get in the way – now seem more like any other wannabe politician.
We continue to struggle for relevance and identity, and there’s no sign that this is about to change.
Still, another question hovering over Norwich is the fate of LPUK’s first ever election test. What is almost certain is that LPUK won’t be returning an MP this time – sorry guys. In By-Elections there are nearly always tiny fringe parties that ‘no-one’s ever heard of,’ and it seems there’s a sort of voter blindness when it comes to any party they’ve never heard of.
So the question is whether or not LPUK’s online presence translates into a slightly better than average result for a fringe party? I suspect that they’re going to be disappointed, although no doubt they’ll be thrilled to have broken their electoral virginity.
Of course people will point to their result as evidence of the lack of interest in libertarianism in general. It’s not something that’s going to convince me. Lib Dems know from bitter experience that their policies are usually unpopular until they’re adopted by one of the other parties, and that’s down to our image and to our reputation.
The point is that the vehicle, in modern democratic politics, matters more than the actual policies. It’s one of those horrible realities, a divergence of what ought to be and what is.
Research done at the last general election pointed to high approval of Tory policies – until people found out the source of the policies. What this says to me is that image is still everything in politics – and that it’s going to take a lot more than blogs to break the monopoly of Social Democracy on British Politics. That goes double for me.
Update: Okay, so, funny how what I think are the most innocuous posts seem to cause the most trouble for me. First I didn’t credit Nich Starling for the leaflet count. Second I didn’t link the to source of the 1% statistic, which is here. A couple of people in the comments dispute this figure (which is fair enough, it’s based on research into US elections after all).
I’d argue the point about what really makes the difference – is it local sympathy to the party motivating activists to do a ‘Full Rennard’ or is it the ‘Full Rennard’ generating local sympathy? In hindsight it’s probably best not to talk about this sort of subject during an actual full bloodied campaign.
As it happens I don’t have the foggiest idea what the polling is for Norwich. I don’t even know who the favourites are. I don’t live in Norwich so as far as I’m concerned this is none of my business – I was more mulling about By-Elections in general rather than this specific one. Whether or not the Lib Dems have a chance of winning I will leave to people on the ground there – again I point you towards Nich Starling.
I apologise to fellow Lib Dems for my appalling lack of tribalism. Don’t be angry, my brain’s just not wired up that way. To make up for it, I’m willing to go leafleting for day next week. I need the exercise anyway.
Martin said...
20 Jul 09 at 9:16 pm
Keeping our deposit.
That’s the goal I’m looking for.
Liberal Neil said...
20 Jul 09 at 10:03 pm
“According to the Gospel of Rennard, that’s how you win. You literally put more leaflets through doors than anyone else.”
I take it you have never actually heard Chris talk about winning by-elections nor been involved in the runnign of one. If you had you would know that there is a lot more to it than that.
“Truth is that the most attractive candidate to the electorate nearly always wins irrespective of resources”
Is nonsense.
“and being able to spend more money (or, at least, have the most volunteers) changes the results of elections by little more than 1%”
Is also nonsense. There is a strong correlation between the amounts of money spent in each seat by each party and the result.
Nich Starling - Norfolk Blogger said...
20 Jul 09 at 11:26 pm
Actualy you are wrong in so many ways (as Neil points out).
The truth is though that in general elections where Lib Dems follow the whole Chris Rennard plan out (leaflet networks, posters, target letters, handwritten letters, canvassing, money, press, etc, etc) we will win. I know it work beause we did EXACTLY what Chris told us in 2001 and we gained a seat off the Tories that year in North Norfolk and we have continued to take Chris’ advice ever since.
The idea that leaflet change the result by 1% is total rubbish.
Oh, and thanks for the hat tip for the information about leaflet numbers. Nothing like being given credit where it is due.
Geoffrey Payne said...
20 Jul 09 at 11:33 pm
I would be interested to know where you get that 1% statistic. Presumably it was from a reputable polling organisation?
I know that libertarianism is rather trendy these days. But as you pointed out yourself, if you stood for Parliament as a Lib Dem, or whatever you choose to be in the future, all your political opponents have to do is look on your blog and tell the electorate what you think, and you will end up the same way as all the other Libertarian candidates who stand for election.
There is no popular campaign to remove the ban on smoking in pubs, or to remove the compulsion to wear seatbelts in cars, or to change the law so that it is easier for criminals to get hold of guns. That is why only a very small political party could get away with supporting such policies.
Thomas Byrne said...
21 Jul 09 at 12:12 am
I will be following them and expressing support although I’m a Conservative party member.
@ Geoffrey Payne
Just because people express views doesn’t really affect them, I mean Carswell recently came out with a lot of Global warming scepticism, I don’t see him ran from his seat yet.
Charlotte Gore said...
21 Jul 09 at 12:31 am
I’ve updated this post.
Charlotte Gore said...
21 Jul 09 at 12:37 am
I’ve updated this post.
Also, by ‘attractive candidate’ I don’t mean literally physically attractive, I just mean appealing in general, to the voters.
Charlotte Gore said...
21 Jul 09 at 1:06 am
Of course, no-one’s really pulled me up for saying that the vehicle matters more than policy – in fact, the idea that you can win with Rennardism if you follow the blueprint 100% strongly suggests that policy is, in fact, completely irrelevant, doesn’t it?
*Thats* what I don’t like about Brute Force campaigning. I suppose winning is all that really matters, which is why, as a rule, I just stay away from campaigning – it’s a depressing business for people interested in politics. :S
Andrew Withers LPUK said...
21 Jul 09 at 7:24 am
Its about the battle of ideas, Chloe Smith is bound to win, but in this campaign she has been mostly silent and a very poor performer when she has spoken, viz last night’s lamentable ’special’ on BBC East.
Tom Burridge has been very eloquent on Libertarianism, and has given a lot of Norwich voters pause for thought.
Its not all about becoming powerless lobby fodder as that is what Cloe will become, it about the battle of ideas
asquith said...
21 Jul 09 at 8:18 am
“Of course, no-one’s really pulled me up for saying that the vehicle matters more than policy”
I might as well then.
Let us assume that, as you assert, “image is everything”. Let us further assume that, as you seem to be implying, the electorate likes libertarian policies but is somehow put off from endorsing them in some mysterious way. (I don’t believe this but for the sake of this argument).
Very well, then. If it’s presentation that matters, don’t you need better spokesmen than you currently have? Don’t want to be rude or owt, but the LPUK members who comment here are hardly great ambassadors to the general public, & that’s a massive understatement. The the style is seriously wanting & that’s a huge uphill struggle in itself before you even get to the substance.
Andrew Withers LPUK said...
21 Jul 09 at 8:57 am
don’t you need better spokesmen than you currently have?
We have some excellent spokesmen/women that do not trawl the blogs. However when you have a mainstream media that is wedded to the two and half party system in this country, getting airtime or anything into the press is a struggle.
One of the benefits of Sky is that I watched the BBC East special. The standard of debate was dreadful, the standard of the candidates was dreadful. You may as well have had four tape machines spewing forth the party line. Which in all four cases was a summary of how much of our money they were going to spend.
This was total top down politics
Joe Otten said...
21 Jul 09 at 9:32 am
Of course, no-one’s really pulled me up for saying that the vehicle matters more than policy …
Gasp. Only just got here. Right.
Policy doesn’t matter all that much. If people like policy X until they hear it comes from the Tories, that is because they judge, quite reasonable, that if something comes from the Tories, it is designed to screw them over.
Why? Because they have a sense of what the Tories’ values are: of whose interests they represent.
Now you’re not going to change the public’s understanding of your values with one leaflet explaining LVT or wheelie bin collections. A leaflet plays a small part in a much bigger process. At least it should – at the moment it seems they play a small part in a small process.
Caron said...
21 Jul 09 at 9:53 am
As a fully paid up Rennard fan, I know, from the evidence, that there’s much more to winning a by-election than just lots of leaflets, but they are essential. So is what they say – so you have to get the message right.
People like Chris Rennard and Paul Rainger and the ideas they’ve had are responsible for getting most of our MPs where they are today and although we have to always move on with the times, I hope that we won’t be abandoning all they’ve taught us any time soon.
Letters From A Tory said...
21 Jul 09 at 9:55 am
“they’ll be thrilled to have broken their electoral virginity”
In general, how and where one’s virginity is lost determines whether it was particularly thrilling.
asquith said...
21 Jul 09 at 10:12 am
LFAT- I’ve heard that Tory lesbians are the best place to start in that regard
Tristan said...
21 Jul 09 at 1:19 pm
In my limited experience of the electoral games what beat the Tories was a combination of:
1) getting the vote out
2) Having someone who was well recognised as a hard working campaigner who had worked the ward for years.
Policy? Not so much. Being seen to care and to do stuff for people? Yes.
Leaflets help, but now everyone does them they don’t have such an impact (I remember when I first got a LibDem leaflet – it had a big impact since it was the first time since I was 18 and got a birthday card from Iain Duncan-Smith that I had had any communication from a political party – today when I’m bombarded with them from all parties they’re not so impressive).
Anyway, its all just a big game, it doesn’t actually matter that much – the political class always wins.
The Nameless Libertarian said...
21 Jul 09 at 4:17 pm
A good result? Martin probably has it right. Keeping the deposit. Probably the best we can hope for.
I think Burridge has done well, though. And it is good that LPUK are finally fighting elections. It is a start, of course. And there will be a lot to learn from this election, and others that we fight and don’t win. But that is life. And it is better that we are finally trying to fight, rather than sitting on the sidelines watching.
Leon Greenwell said...
21 Jul 09 at 7:33 pm
When I used to go canvassing for Old Labour, before the flood, we often used to see the former Liberal Party beavering away at their ‘grassroots’ activities – despite not having held power locally for 75 years
This seems to have almost completely disappeared
I’m not particularly keen on leafleting – a young woman locally has realised I’m not interested in funding her breeding into the monopoly capitalist cycle of deprivation, and is interested in pulling me apart bone from bone!
I think the answer is to maximise the use of the Net
This is a start:-
http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/01/are-you-techno-wizard.htm
Henry North London said...
21 Jul 09 at 8:50 pm
I think Thomas will pull in a few hundred votes and that will be very satisfying If he saves his deposit that would be even better.
Oranjepan said...
22 Jul 09 at 8:09 pm
I’m largely with Tristan, Caron and Joe on this.
Policy and perception needs to be backed up with the substance of real action. It’s no good just campaigning with the hope of winning votes – you’ve also got to win on the issues and show your track record of making a difference.
Mark Littlewood said...
22 Jul 09 at 11:20 pm
Annoyingly, most people think I’m opposed to Rennardism, but I actually think the campaigning techniques perfected by the party have reaped substantial electoral dividends.
However, in my humble opinion, this approach is now coming up against its limits.
Parliamentary by-elections just don’t matter like they used to. Back in the 1980s, national journalists would decamp on mass to a by-election location. Daily – yes, DAILY – press conferences would be held by all the parties (and attended by serious media outlets). The results from the by-election would be projected – quite earnestly – into a national swing (sometimes showing the SDP was on course to win c.550 seats). This just doesn’t happen anymore. Even live TV coverage from the by-election count is no longer de rigeur. We are, to some extent, discounted as “being good” at by-elections. And no one believes they are realistic tests of the national mood in all cases.
They can sometimes help with momentum – but only if they are reflecting a wider picture (e.g. the Tory gain in Norwich will be compared with their gain in Crewe) – or quite fleetingly (e.g Kincardine). Doing well in by-elections is good. Doing badly is bad. But they aren’t THAT important – and are certainly less important than they used to be. We spent hundreds of thousands of pounds contesting – largely pointlessly – Henley and Crewe. I imagine we will end up spending to the max in Norwich. It just isn’t a a very good use of resources.
FWIW, on the LPUK, I’d be v. surprised if they got more than 1% of the vote, and would guess they’ll get less than 0.5%.
Mark Littlewood said...
22 Jul 09 at 11:26 pm
Sorry…I meant Dunfermline, not Kincardine.
Liberal Neil said...
22 Jul 09 at 11:44 pm
I don’t think research into the impact of spending money in US elections is that relevant here. The way campaigns are run in the two countries are entirely different.
Mark raises a fair point about whether the political impact of by-elections makes enough of a difference to be worth the money we put in. It’s a difficult one to answer as it is not easy to work out the opportunity cost. I am sure, though, that the wins in Brent East and Leicester South (and the near misses in Birmingham and Hartlepool) had a positive impact on our general credibility as recently as five years ago. And clearly the Tories have made the calculation that good by-election results are important, they are spending three or four times what we are on them.
Roger Thornhill said...
23 Jul 09 at 10:14 am
@ Orangepan “and show your track record of making a difference.”
So nationally, the LibDems don’t have a chance.
Your stance is for the incumbents. It is ladder-kicking. It is in favour of a cosy cartel.
It is no surprise that we have one in politics.
burkesworks said...
23 Jul 09 at 4:56 pm
Thomas Burridge will be lucky to gain over 300 votes.
Henry North London said...
23 Jul 09 at 7:14 pm
if 300 is better than the BNP then we have achieved a result
Martin said...
24 Jul 09 at 1:06 pm
As far as I can tell, Thomas didn’t even get the 300 votes. As in, he got a lot less. Try 10.8% of that goal.
Anonymous said...
24 Jul 09 at 1:28 pm
36 votes…I actually winced. 0.1% of the vote is awful, less than the OMRLP, less than several independants. Especially considering the effort put in. No offense meant, but I don’t think trying to fight against ‘career politicians’ using a candidate who clearly has had no other career was a bit short sighted.
Martin said...
24 Jul 09 at 1:33 pm
Yes, I agree with that. I wasn’t sure about the campaign at all at first, but I did get into it after a while.
Now follows a list of possible excuses:
1) People were set on ousting Labour in anyway possible, and the surest way is to vote tory
2) Other parties delivered multiple leaflets to homes, we had 1 and people knocking on doors.
3)He’s 18.
Etc.
Roger Thornhill said...
24 Jul 09 at 1:58 pm
Thomas was a star to stand up there and face the music.
Cannot say I was not disappointed at the LPUK result but I have no criticisms for those who got off their backsides and DID SOMETHING to try and sort out this country.
Chloe had no concerns, and was, basically, a cardboard box with a blue rosette on it.
Steve Tierney said...
24 Jul 09 at 2:06 pm
From my own campaigning in Norwich (on behalf of the Conservatives) I heard very much the same thing over and over again: “Stop delivering these bloody leaflets.”
I think the whole campaigning idea of “more is better” is faulty. I agree with you that people decide based on more basic issues (attractiveness being one important one, unfortunately). I don’t think the number of leaflets delivered had any bearing on the final result. Only the first and last leaflet are likely to matter, actually.
I’m sure your Lib Dems are disappointed by the result. It says a lot when, in current circumstances, in a liberal-leaning area, you can only come third.
LPUK would have done better to field a candidate people could take seriously. In my humble opinion, Before trying to become an MP, some life experience as an adult is a bonus. But even so, is it true they were beaten by the Monster Raving Loonies (as per a comment on Obnoxio’s blog)? That’s embarrassing.
Mark Littlewood said...
24 Jul 09 at 2:27 pm
An independent Libertarain electoral machine just isn’t a viable project. At least not at present – nor indeed for many years to come. The number of people who will choose to vote LPUK as opposed to any of Tory, LibDem or UKIP is just microscopically small.
I’m not prone to ridiculing those who are brave enough to participate in the electoral process. But there are some results that are so bad, you have to ask if you’re wasting your time. This result fits into that category.
Andrew Withers LPUK said...
24 Jul 09 at 2:48 pm
Was this a poor result for us- yes it was, but everybody lost bar Chloe Smith.
Did all of the parties have equal access to the media, no they did not, sorry as I am to say this the Monsters have a far higher ‘profile’ than the LPUK.
Was Norwich the best place for us to campaign, absolutely not, we had two members in Norfolk at the beginning of the campaign, we now have twenty four and at least thirty six people who understand the difference between Liberalism and Social Democracy.
This campaign was not about politics, it was about the need to tell Labour that their time is up. The result showed that.
Do we give up and wring our hands, no we do not, however bad this result was, Tom was a good performer when he was allowed near a microphone despite his years, it gave our activists a chance to engage with the public, some travelling as far afield as Cornwall.
I am grateful for Charlotte to have opened this debate, but in the end of the day a High tax, High Spending, Centralising, Authoritarian Party won the day.
Andrew Withers LPUK Chairman
asquith said...
24 Jul 09 at 2:53 pm
Looks like the “critical mass of opinion desperately needing an outlet” stayed silent once again.
Reality has a way of asserting itself, unfortunately for bloggertarians.
DavidNcl said...
24 Jul 09 at 6:08 pm
Dramatically more than 36 votes. Fail. Fail. Fail.
Charlotte Gore said...
24 Jul 09 at 6:30 pm
I’ll be writing a follow up post on this subject over the weekend. I think it’s worth looking at again.
Henry North London said...
24 Jul 09 at 6:51 pm
We got 24 more members of the party though!
Charlotte Gore said...
24 Jul 09 at 7:08 pm
Yes, your new members to voters ratio is astonishing
Martin said...
24 Jul 09 at 8:14 pm
There is one good thing about such a crushing defeat.
I can now sympathize with Labour voters.
The Nameless Libertarian said...
24 Jul 09 at 10:34 pm
We didn’t do that well. Actually, scratch that. The result was terrible.
I guess LPUK needs to move from the blogsphere and into real life. From the comments sections in blogs and into areas that actually influence voters. Christ knows how, though.
Roger Thornhill said...
25 Jul 09 at 3:32 pm
@asquith
“unfortunately for bloggertarians.”
When they form a party and stand, let me know.