ConservativeHome's Platform

Stephan Shakespeare: Democracy in the Post-Bureaucratic Age

Stephan Shakespeare is Co-Founder and Chief Innovations Officer of YouGov.  He is also the owner of ConservativeHome and PoliticsHome.  In this piece he writes about the enormous potential of David Cameron's idea of a 'post-bureaucratic age'.

Most of us live in an online world of constant updates, constant search, constant sharing. We post, we link, we surf. We feel as if we’re plugged in with everything all the time. In such a world, political power cannot be a Brownian control system. It will be post-bureaucratic – that is to say, open and shared, inherently encouraging participation. Parliament should be reformed to make interaction with the public as easy as being on facebook.

In a brilliant article calling for the obliteration of the professional political class, whose creation he largely blames on Labour, Charles Moore warns: “But no one should forget that, however genuine Mr Cameron's desire for reform, his fundamental interest, once he becomes prime minister, will be that government should retain power over Parliament. He will want his Bills through quickly, his word, almost literally, to be law.” Here I disagree with Mr Moore: I think David Cameron may be genuinely, surprisingly, different. I don’t think he really wants that kind of executive power. Yes, as a campaigner for office, with an enemy to fight, he demands total control. But as a governor, my guess is he will actually be true to his naturally netty side, and allow genuine diversity. He certainly won’t want to micro-manage the passage of bills.

I once heard him in an interview speak of his strong interest in opinion polls, something rarely admitted by politicians. Obviously as a pollster I warmed to this, but it was his explanation that struck me as interesting: he said that, after all, it was the politician’s job to do what people wanted.

Politicians rarely say such things. They like to think of themselves as people of unusually profound understanding who will personally lead society to a better place. They imagine themselves intervening in the life of the nation with their special intellectual and moral authority. They fancy themselves as experts on policy. They shudder to think they might merely reflect the desires of the population. But David Cameron seems completely comfortable with the notion that he is just a part – obviously the prime part – of a process by which society comes to its own decisions. He doesn’t share the politician’s fear the mob.

The key concept for Cameron’s government will be ‘the post bueaucratic age’. The story goes like this: once upon a time, before modern communications, central government couldn’t control things, and so decision-making was fractured, local, small, organic. Then came the telegraph, and mass organisation was possible. We moved into the bureacratic age. It made us efficient, and we took giant steps forward. But with centralised administration and concentration of power, we lurched into new dangers, horribly exemplied by Gordon Brown’s statist fixations, which are hugely expensive and invariably fail even on their own terms.

The Internet forces us into the post-bureaucratic age: communications reach a new level, with all of us instantly and without cost connected to each other, and suddenly power is again fractured. The old monopolies disintegrate. Everyone is Prospero.

Stephan Shakespeare: Frothy opinion polls

Stephen Shakespeare co-founded YouGov and is the owner of ConservativeHome.com.

I would like to be able to begin:

“As I predicted, Hillary wins in New Hampshire...”

Unfortunately I only said that Obama’s lead would be much, much smaller than the polls were indicating, and I made that prediction to friends (such as the editor of this site), and not in print. I enquired about the more attractive odds on Hillary to win the nomination, but I didn’t actually place the bet. So my claim is empty of glory.

However, I did on ConservativeHome advance my theory of frothy poll leads, with regard to the Brown/Cameron volatility, and that was substantiated in the New Hampshire primary.

My proposition is as follows:

A significant proportion of people tell pollsters that they will vote in an election then do not, in fact, end up voting. It’s not that they are deliberately lying about their voting intention, it’s just that they want to think of themselves as engaged in what they recognise as important matters, even though they’re not. It is very hard for pollsters to be confident about who is, and who is not, actually going to vote.

Those who claim to be voters but subsequently don’t vote are likely to know less and think less about political issues. When asked questions, their answers are more likely to reflect media buzz. If they don’t really have their own thoughts about an issue, but want to avoid saying ‘don’t know’ because they consider that to reflect badly on them, then they are likely to repeat whatever they happened to pick up around them.

My view therefore is that the media – indeed, the wider public buzz - has a stronger influence on polls than it has on actual behaviour. You will tend to see a ‘mean reversion’ (that is, a return to norms) as the froth settles down, and potentially a strong anti-reaction when reality hits, itself creating new froth.

Predictions are not easy, because as well as froth there is also genuine momentum: sometimes the buzz will convert into reality, norms do move. Increased volatility I take to be a sign that genuine engagement is declining; while sustained trends mean that engagement is increasing. By ‘engagement’, I don’t necessarily mean taking part in the political process, but connection (consciously or unconsciously) with the issues.

Related link: Stephan Shakespeare's archived ConservativeHome columns.

Stephan Shakespeare: The public's attitude to the Iraq war is so understandable

Stephen Shakespeare is founder and Chief Innovations Officer of the YouGov polling company.

On Wednesday night we had a depressing discussion at Doughty (that is, on 18DoughtyStreet.com, live internet tv). We talked about a Communicate Research opinion poll which showed there was majority support for two propositions:

a) that we should withdraw from Iraq immediately, and
b) that this would lead to civil war.

Further, a majority said that because of Iraq, they were less likely to support military interventions in the future. This was profoundly disheartening for those of us who supported going to war in 2003 on the basis that it was morally and pragmatically right to depose Saddam, a leader who was slaughtering his own citizens, who had aggressive expansionary ambitions, and who refused to accept the rule of international law. The poll suggested a lack of integrity in the British people who had, on the eve of war, been narrowly but definitely in favour. How could people be so ready to abandon the region to murderous chaos?

But I believe in the integrity of the British people, and I think that polling often reflects that integrity, even when at first it seems illogical to politicians. Polling usually confines respondents to a small number of questions with a clearly-defined - and therefore narrow - set of options. They cannot express themselves in full. But if one considers all the polls over the last few years, a picture of public opinion emerges that seems wholly reasonable.

People originally thought that Saddam should be removed, by force if necessary, because he was a threat to his own people and to the world. But they did not want Britain and America to act on their own – they wanted the legitimacy of broad international agreement. When asked about another UN resolution, they wanted it as a condition for action. When they understood that a minority on the security council could veto the majority opinion, they were content with majority international consensus. At the time of the commons debate on going to war, they tipped in support of war even without the resolution.

Stephan Shakespeare: Whose side are we on?

Stephan Shakespeare is founder and CEO of YouGov.

George Bush has said, “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists”. More recently, he added “This nation is at war with Islamic fascists”. How does the British public respond? After the Spectator/YouGov poll out today, we have a clearer idea.

We’ve known for some time that people in Britain support tougher anti-terrorism measures, and this poll confirms that. In terms of being with the US in attempts to protect ourselves against terrorist acts, there’s no problem. But were President Bush to put his two lines together, and say, “In our War on Islamic Fascism, you’re either with America or you’re against us”, the British public’s view would be less clear.

The first striking finding of the poll is that people do indeed believe we are engaged in a ‘global war’. Asked “Do you think that the West is in a global war against Islamic terrorists who threaten our way of life, or do you think that Islamic terrorism is a regional problem that poses no real threat to the West?”, the overwhelming majority (73%) said “We are in a world war against Islamic terrorists who threaten the West’s way of life”. They think there’s a lot worse to come, and that this will last for at least ten years. And they say that right now, we’re losing that war.

Stephan Shakespeare: David Cameron now has to address the floating non-voters

Stephan Shakespeare is founder and CEO of YouGov.

Cameron’s strategy is right. It’s successful. At least, it is right and successful for the territory it covers. Conventional wisdom is that most people don’t care too much about policies, they don’t need ideological lighthouses, they just vote for people they can respect and like.

I agree with that as a general proposition. But the result in Bromley and Chislehurst should make us aware that the keys to Number 10 may not be securely in the hands of the traditional floating voter. Instead, we should also be looking at the floating non-voter – the ones who may or may not bother to turn out.

To those who love politics, Cameron is a star. He’s almost as good as Blair used to be. While some observers sneer that Cameron, Maude, Hilton, and Letwin are a sort of ‘tribute band’ to the broken-up Beatles-of-politics (Blair, Brown, Campbell, and Mandelson), there is no doubt that the public do quite like the sound, even if they are not yet humming the tunes.

And for those who don’t much follow politics, but who do think it’s their duty to vote, Cameron’s strategy also works a treat. Make yourself modern, attractive and above all unobjectionable. Get to the point where you are not booed off the stage, and then maybe you can really start to play. Especially if the other guys are sounding awful.

The problem is, there’s an increasingly large section of the electorate who don’t just float between the parties, they float between voting and not voting. And these people may be differently motivated. By aspiring to be a perfect establishment politician, by saying nothing very much new or different, Cameron risks losing those who don’t give a hoot for status quo politics.

Stephan Shakespeare: What could go wrong with Project Cameron?

Stephan Shakespeare is founder and CEO of YouGov.

Project Cameron is going extremely well. Being a pollster I am naturally cautious about predicting long-term changes on the basis of recent poll fluctuations, but certainly the Conservative revival seems to be establishing itself and now threatens to break above its 40% ceiling. So, as I was asked by a leading ‘project member’ yesterday, “What could go wrong? What should we be watching out for?”

I don’t think there are many worries on the policy front. For myself, I would prefer a more robust message on tax and public service reform, but I don’t pretend for a moment that Cameron’s popularity depends on these or any other policy areas. Most voters are trying to choose the leader who they can trust to make the right decisions; in these days of careful consensus on most matters, voters are not wasting too much effort assessing manifestos.

David Cameron has significant appeal as open-minded and tolerant, friendly and caring, focused and decisive, modern and successful. So long as the public see him this way, and see his party in reasonable harmony with him, then short of an economic crisis, which makes all predictions trickier, it’s difficult to see what can stop his ascent.

But there is a danger, and it was exemplified in the cycling-with-chauffeur episode. If the public get any sense that David Cameron might not be what he seems, then the engines could stall. That is what is behind the ‘Chameleon’ campaign by Labour – an attempt to undermine Cameron by saying, ‘yes, he seems nice enough, but none of it is real’.

We know from YouGov’s ‘Big Brother’ research five years ago that what matters most to that audience is authenticity. BBs choose people they think are ‘real’, not necessarily people they agree with (remember when a Bible-hugging 30-year-old virgin from the Orkney Islands won? The audience didn’t identify themselves with those characteristics, but with his obvious comfort being genuinely himself, without ‘side’). And the BB audience is important, because it is most like the socially-engaged but unpolitical segment of the electorate that Cameron must reach. They turned off Blair not because of his policies, not even because Iraq went wrong, but because they felt he hadn’t been straight with them.

So David Cameron’s biggest challenge is to be true to what he appears. In politics, that’s hard. With a few clever media-savvy consultants, manipulating one’s image can be relatively easy. But making it real, with all the jolts and crises and horrible choices that politics will present him with over the next few years, is another matter. Politics provides constant demands to make bad compromises, to go for the temporary fix, to play tricks. For my own part, I was concerned when I heard Cameron talking about business and sounding more like a spokesman for a CSR consultancy than someone who truly understood. It seemed too much about ‘positioning’, too little about helping the real economy. ‘Positioning’ and ‘message’ are obviously vital in modern politics – but they can also be one’s downfall if they are not welded to and underlying truth.

But that’s just my own beef, and as a businessman I obviously have my own agenda. That’s the trouble – all of us have our own agendas, and you can’t possibly amalgamate them all into one lovely manifesto that makes everyone happy. The solution is to be someone people can trust. Someone who respects them. Someone we can trust to be on the side of the people, not on the side of the party hacks. And on that front, so far so good.

***
Stephan Shakespeare on David Cameron's first 100 days

Stephan Shakespeare on David Cameron's first 100 days: The opinion polls

Every day this week ConservativeHome is dedicating YourPlatform to a different take on the first 100 days of David Cameron's leadership.  Today Stephan Shakespeare looks at David Cameron's opinion poll strategy.  Stephan is co-founder and CEO of YouGov.

It is only fair to judge the Cameron Project on its own terms, and that is its success or failure at attracting public support. So the one shining clarity about DC’s campaign is that it will be defined entirely by opinion poll ratings and how the party does at local and other elections. The Cameron team is wasting little energy on intellectual or moral leadership. There are only passing attempts to struggle with the difficult policy challenges that Britain is facing – nothing serious on how we should deal with the new economic dynamics of China, the Middle East and India. Nothing to fundamentally challenge the model of ever higher spending on ever less efficient public services.

This may not be a flaw, but David Cameron's distinctive genius. The Tory leader sees it as his job to win elections. Hundreds of MPs and candidates agree with that. If you don’t win elections, you can’t achieve anything else, they argue. So do whatever it takes to win. If that means re-inventing the Conservative Party to make it fit more comfortably within the frame of centre-left identity, then that is what must be done. It may be the best possible strategy.

The test of that re-invention, the measure of success, is therefore the shifting probability of winning the next general election. Pollsters like me of course enjoy this situation. Our polls matter more and more. We bring the verdict of the electorate, and upweight its influence. I say this with no irony: it is perfectly arguable that the will and the collective wisdom of the broad electorate is a better guide for future action than the disparate thoughts (and political gaming) of a few self-defined experts in Westminster. Maybe that's real consumer democracy. So, thinking about the first 100 days of project Cameron, what is the verdict of the people?

The public have certainly warmed to Cameron more than to any other recent Conservative leader. His approval ratings are similar to those enjoyed by Tony Blair when he first became Labour leader and while a large proportion of people haven't mind their minds up yet, polls so far suggest that Cameron is seen as a likeable, charismatic, caring and reasonable family man - everything a party leader should be. The only question mark is whether or not he can be trusted - 63% think Cameron “talks a good line but it is hard to know whether there is any substance behind the words”.

On the Tory party’s image he has also made progress. Certainly people think he is moving the party in the right direction - 60% of people think the party has a new vitality. Populus's recent polls show that 38% think the Tory party “cares about ordinary people”, which is up 4 points since Cameron became leader. However, there’s still a big gap to make up: Labour scores 48% on that.

YouGov's polling shows that Cameron himself is seen as more centrist than Michael Howard was. On a left-right scale from minus100 to plus100, voters at the last election put Michael Howard on +53. They now put David Cameron on +34. But he hasn’t yet managed to drag the image of the party with him: back in 2004 voters put Conservative MPs in general at +52, now they put them at +53. The polls suggest that Cameron himself is popular, but he has only just begun to mend the image of the Tory party.

What about on voting intention? Cameron has managed to increase the level of Conservative support in voting intention polls to the high thirties. Then again, there were times when his two predecessors also managed to put the Conservative party ahead. So should we be expecting more? Some say that the Conservatives should be further ahead if they are to have any chance of beating Gordon Brown in three years, because public opinion usually re-trenches to the governing party during a campaign, especially if nothing is going horribly wrong.

But that doesn’t seem fair. We shouldn’t have any confidence in such poorly-understood ‘patterns’. And when the job involves a year or two of re-invention, it is absurd to judge it on its immediate results. Changing an established brand takes a long period of sustained creativity before it pays off properly.

Even so, some will object that the heavy task of building a credible and responsible alternative government requires a lot more than clever brand-management.  One is beginning to hear some such objectors among Conservative Party members, those saying that first you must have principles, understanding, vision, before giving sway to the packaging merchants. And in this context the Cameron project must also be watching very carefully the monthly ConservativeHome polls of party members. Between January and February, we saw a slight lessening of enthusiasm for DC, and more importantly a decrease in the numbers who thought it likely that he would become PM. If those numbers drift down too far, that could be a problem. Not that there is any chance of David Cameron being subverted, but nevertheless members and other supporters do matter. Without their enthusiasm, energy and belief, you can’t win elections. So it’s not only the polls of the public that should be watched: the views measured by ConservativeHome’s members panel may also play a vital role.

DAVID CAMERON WILL BE WRITING EXCLUSIVELY FOR CONSERVATIVEHOME TOMORROW.  ON FRIDAY THE PLATFORM WILL BE GIVEN TO THE TAXPAYERS' ALLIANCE.  Previous entries in this series were Peter Franklin on the environment, Iain Murray on raiding Labour's heartland vote and John Hayes MP on social justice.