Learning Lessons: Hard Won

This is the fourth part of our ‘Learning Lessons’ series, which provides a space for candidates across England, Scotland and Wales to share what they heard on the doorstep and where they believe Labour should go next.

This isn’t an easy piece to write in the aftermath of wretched election results up and down the country. In Oxford, we are down only one seat on our pre-election tally, and mightily relieved. I am acutely conscious that everywhere is different and not everything we tried could be replicated; even if it was, it would by no means be a sufficient condition for sound results. Still, in this piece I share a few reflections on what worked well for us. 

The backdrop in Oxford was challenging. In addition to the obvious national factors, Gaza had had a particular impact, having prompted 10 councillors to resign from the council and shift it from majority Labour to minority control. It remains a significant concern on the doorstep. The other really significant local curveball concerned the Lib Dem county council’s transport policy, particularly “low traffic neighbourhoods” and a recently-introduced congestion charge. These posed a particular challenge to Labour’s coalition of support, with previous supporters in different areas and of different backgrounds having diametrically opposed views. Our nuanced position of seeking compromise, while possibly right in policy terms, risked satisfying nobody on such a polarised issue. 

Ironically, part of our strength came from the fact such challenges were not new in Oxford. The Oxford East parliamentary seat became hyper-marginal, largely over Iraq, in 2005, and from that point on the party stepped up its campaigning activity and organisation, employing a local organiser funded largely out of Labour group allowance deductions, and with reasonably regular (and sometimes heroic) leafleting and doorstep activity.  

There was then the classic “holy trinity” for performing well in local elections: having strong local candidates, with the resonant messages, who work hard. The three things reinforce each other: hardworking candidates become perceived as strong; messages which reflect concerns garnered on the doorstep (through hard work) are the right ones. In this election, this combination was crucial. Two further factors were essential. First, the election had to be framed as being about particular, local questions – often, “Who do you think should be your councillor?” – rather than other ones (such as “What do you think of the government?”, or “Do you like the county council’s transport policies?”). Incumbency effects were also crucial, with sitting councillors building a strong reputation, including through effective casework both by themselves and the Labour MP, Anneliese Dodds’, office. Even in the two wards where Labour won with new candidates, the local brand – associated with hardworking local councillors – gave the an party incumbency bonus beyond individuals. 

The local targeting strategy had to be fairly ruthless. This was not achieved by the (to my mind inappropriate) method of denying access to data, and each ward that wanted one had a leaflet, but the bulk of activity was firmly focused on winnable areas. Judgements there proved sound: 10 of 11 wards identified for particular focus were won by Labour (of the 24 contested), while a ward which we decided to target after the incumbent Independents failed to field a candidate was lost by just 26 votes.  

Another feature of the campaign was that it was largely positive, and, by and large, very locally focused. National issues played no role. Where possible, very local ward-related or even sub-ward issues were given prominence in leaflets and social media over city-wide concerns (with the exception of a new city-wide policy of free bulky waste collections, funded out of newly-arrived money thanks to a better-than-expected funding settlement from government). This contrasted with relentless negativity from Reform and Independent candidates and their reliance on national and county council issues. We were “the nice guys,” and voters acknowledged this. Oddly, this was less effective against Green opposition: their campaign was often aggressive and negative, but voters seem to give the party, perhaps still “fluffy” in the minds of some, a free pass. 

Three lessons flow from this for Labour nationally. First, our ability to draw on very local issues and build incumbency advantage relied on having very small, two-member wards (with around 4,500 electors in each). There is a real risk of this being lost if local government reorganisation leads to the creation of much bigger wards, which will then see a weaker relationship between councillors and their electors, and be necessarily more vulnerable to national swings. Second, having a close relationship between candidates and electorates is crucial, and any attempts to undermine that with factional decisions on candidate selection should be resisted. Third, the party needs to give thought to how to hold the Greens to account for negative campaigning. The situation is not hopeless – and it is possible, sometimes at least, to swim against the tide. 

If you enjoyed this piece and aren’t already a member of the Fabian Society, you can join here.