Francis Maude MP: What are the lessons from Bromley?

"Yes, we won Bromley and Chislehurst, and winning is better than losing.  But I'm not going to prance around Hazel Blears-style saying: "of course the real story is Labour meltdown etc etc".  We'll take it on the chin and accept that however bad it was for Labour last night, it was a disappointing result for us.  There was a strong movement to the LibDems just in the last few days, and we didn't pick it up properly.  We need to learn the lessons now, and I'm asking for Conservativehomebodies to help.  Loads of you will have been to Bromley to help and I'd really like the feedback.  I've read the thread on Tory Diary and there's a lot of good thoughts there.  We're most interested in the practical lessons, rather than speculation about e.g. whether the Conservative traditionalist vote stayed at home (no, as far as we can tell, but we'll revisit to find out).

So save the armchair diatribes for another day...there'll be plenty of opportunity!  Thoughts please on:

-  Candidate selection - not Bob's merits or otherwise.  He's a really dedicated Conservative who did everything asked of him and maintained his dignity in the face of a really nasty personal campaign, and he'll be a great MP.  But what more can we do at selection stage to ensure that the tiresome and completely bogus stories about a row between Association and CCHQ could have been avoided?

-  Literature.  Style, message, volume?

-  Reacting to the LibDem assault.  Did anyone foresee that Bob being on the health board could be portrayed as a negative?  If you're serving as a school governor for example it's normally seen as a positive, isn't it? 

-  Should we keep strictly to only positive campaigning, in the face of this kind of LibDem campaign? (I'll need a lot of persuading that we shouldn't!)

-  Organisation?  Media?  Anything else? 

Thanks for this.  I look forward to getting the feedback.

Francis."

Comments

[Sean Fear]

My views, if we're defending a seat, where the Lib Dems will plainly be fighting us hard, and are likely to persuade the anti-Conservative voters to vote tactically for them.

1. Always select a local candidate (whether or not an A List candidate). Local should mean living in the constituency, wherever possible.

2. Work out what there is in the candidate's background that the Lib Dems will attack over - and how to counter that attack. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have best if Bob Neill had resigned immediately from the Health Authority, and announced that he would step down from the GLA if elected. These were two trivial issues, but ones which the Lib Dems were able to exploit.

3. Ensure that as many supporters as possible vote by post.

4. Go for as short a campaign as possible.

5. Make people on the Approved List spend hours in the seat campaigning - or get chucked off the Approved List.

6. Ensure that Agents from CCHQ are working with the local association from day one.

7. Go negative on the Lib Dem candidate from day one. Trawl through the candidate's record. Don't worry about being unfair. Labour were wildly unfair in Hartlepool and it still served them well.

[Max]

A very good idea for a thread.

I've just got a few of things to say.

Firstly we need to be much better at rebutting attacks in Lib Dem leaflets - quickly. Why for instance was the hypocrisy of the LIbs in calling Bob Neill 3 jobs not pointed out? Two Lib Dem MSP's were also sitting MP's so it's hardly something there not guilty of themselves.

Secondly - were the allegation that Ben Abbots was misleading people about working in an orphanage not at least investigated to see if they were true. If so they would have been excellent ammunition.

I know these are both very specific but they seem symtematic of a wider problem.

On a more general level surely it can't be that difficult to bring together MP's, councillors etc, who have a history of fighting and beating the Lib Dems, together to find out what they're doing right and use this across the board.

[Donal Blaney]

Francis: on the question of the LibDem assault about Bob being possibly ineligible to stand for election, I attended an excellent training course at the Leadership Institute (www.leadershipinstitute.org). It is one of the courses I am replicating in the UK with the Young Britons' Foundation (www.ybf.org.uk). The course covered the topic of "OPPOSITION RESEARCH".

It was stressed that before we dig around into an opponent's voting record, public profile and (let's face it, it's a nasty world) personal life, the first person who should be thoroughly researched is the candidate himself. Any possible weakness should be looked into so that it could be responded to if it came up during the campaign or it should be pre-empted.

The possible disqualification of Bob being able to stand for election is based on one of less than a dozen disqualifying factors (which include being a bankrupt or a member of the House of Lords). If a candidate's campaign is too stretched in terms of time or financially such that formal opposition research consultancy cannot be provided (a false economy in my opinion) then at the very least the questionnaire from CCHQ which asks whether there is anything embarrassing in the candidate's past that should be brought to CCHQ's attention also ought to list the other bars on standing for election. At or before the selection meeting, and in the weeks, months or years running up to polling day, the continual communications from CCHQ should also remind candidates of their obligations under the law. Ignorance is no excuse.

Someone - be it Bob or the Candidates' Department - got this badly wrong and they should hold their hands up. This was not a parish council election, this was an absolutely critical by-election. As I say in my piece for the Platform tomorrow, preparation is everything :)

[Max]

Sean - agree with you on every single point. Particularly 1 & 2.

[Louise]

Donal, you are quite right. The fiasco over Bob Neill's membership of the Strategic Health Authority is an excellent example. (and not at all trivial Sean).

We know the opposition, particularly the Lib Dems, are going to go negative and make any attack they can on our candidates. Why are we always so surprised when they do? Taking the moral high ground doesn't work - knowing where they will hit and either dealing with it before it happens (eg resign from SHA) or have a quick rebuttal ready. You are quite right when you say that all candidates (and agents) should be made aware of the implications of the legal documents that they sign - and the penalties for making mistakes.

[Gareth]

I entirely agree with Sean's analysis.

We lost Romsey by failing to choose a local candidate and this is another example of the importance of going local in by-elections. Actually, I think either Syed or Julia would probably have fared worse on the local score - at least Bob was the GLA member.

I would emphasise two lessons:

1. As a party we just don't take by-elections as seriously as the Libs. Lib Dem activists travel from all over the country to help in by-elections. We were unable to mobilise even the whole of south London to help. There's got to be a more concerted effort to get activists drafted in in large numbers.

2. Our literature was not nearly as good. Were B&C given a final veto on the literature? Surely our by-election team can come up with better literature than the pedestrian stuff that was put out?

[Elizabeth]

I feel strongly that "making people campaign" is the wrong approach for a voluntary organisation or indeed any organisation.

It's much better that people should *want* to come and therefore will be motivated, positive and enthusiastic on the doorstep. After all being part of a successful campaigning team should be an uplifting experience and convincing people to support us is what we are about.

I think the ways to do this are:

1) Having a well structured/well organised campaign where people don't feel their time is being wasted when they turn up. All the basics like clear maps and instructions need to be covered.

2) Sending people out in teams so that they have the opportunity to meet other people and it's a sociable occasion.

3) Having people who are greeting those arriving for the first time that are clued up, enthusiastic and grateful. I thought we did this very well in Leicester South.

[James]

The Liberals produce the same literature at EVERY by election. They have been putting "post it" notes on leaflets and producing glossy magazine style leaflets in the last week of a campaign for years now.

The answer is to copy them and concentrate on turning our candidate into a local human being who the voters can identify with. Then it be more difficult for the Libs to win by going negative. If that means putting our candidates wedding photos etc in leaflets so be it - it works for them!

Secondly, we need to produce the same volume of leaflets to create momentum. Again, they have been doing this for years.

Thirdly, the organisation can be left to agents but we need a political brain to mastermind these campaigns. We lost momentum in Bromley and in Moray because we were unable to respond to opposition attacks.
New Labour sent Mandelson to by elections before 97 we need someone of the same ability
to mastermind ours. Its not fair to leave it to the area agent these are national campaigns now.

Good luck its easier said than done but I am pleased you and DC are determined to sort this out.

[malcolm]

Francis,big difference between a School Governor and working on the Health Board and the GLA.The first is voluntary the others are (well)paid.At this time of 'anti politician'politics this was an easy line of attack from the Lib Dems and others.It had been widely forseen on CH and elsewhere.Our rebuttals were half hearted and rather pathetic in my opinion.
On the literature why did we not ake the Lib Dems on in terms of their national policies?

[Ted]

1 Candidate selection. Agree publicly that by-election selection is outside normal rules and perhaps have a joint local/CCHQ Selection Board but make it clear from now on what the process is so we don't get media expoiting the lack of clarity. I tend to agree with Sean over local candidate issue (though LibDems & SNP seem to have managed with outsiders) but still go for diversity in the choice.

2 Literature should be localised but on-message (the national and local campaigns need to synch. Exploit what candidate has done locally if possible. Look for photo-ops but real ones that bear examination. Flood the streets on last few days.

3 Was there something to exploit that Bob had achieved for the consituency in his Health role? Recognise that while voluntary participation in local charities, instituions or a history of active participation in good works is a pro that if there is pay involved its a con.

4 Positive campaigning doesn't mean you can't point out the difficencies in other party's policies - local income tax means two bills for hardworking families etc. But I think you also need to respond to slurs and be ready to go negative in response but carefully.

5 Organisation - look at who in the party has run really effective campaigns and get them together to organise a Campaign Team. Ask them to look closely at LD & Labour winning campaigns and plan a response to Winning Here, Bar Charts etc. Get a named someone ready to respond immediately, with authority, to personal attacks and misleading articles etc. Ruthlessly plan visits by the big hitters (the DC visit came across as a bit chaotic).

[Donal Blaney]

Elizabeth makes a very important point. Other than candidates or those on the candidates' list/A-List (who have to campaign otherwise they are in trouble with CCHQ), the rest of us are volunteers. We give of our time. And in the modern world, time is scarce. If the ground operation is a shambles, the campaign team rude and the volunteers not made to feel welcome then suddenly an evening in watching television or doing the ironing seems that much more appealing.

[Matt Parkinson]

Positive Campaigning:

The electorate is hypocritical - asking for a clean campaign but rarely rewarding it. What is wrong with flat out assertions along the lines of "The Lib Dems are lying, they know they are lying, and we can prove it".

The public have a right to know what sort of MP they are getting and if the oppo canddiate is a liar and a photo-opportunist then it is our duty to highlight that.

I know why people aren't happy with a 600 odd majority. But a win is a win is a win. Bob gets to vote in the Commons and the other canddiates don't. Tories won, Lib dems lost, Labour 4th, eat that!

[Annabel Herriott]

I am getting the feeling that CCHQ are putting too many hurdles to jump for local candidates. In Colne Valley, we have , potentially, a superb very local candidate.
I was at a memorial dinner for Sir Donald Thompson the other week, with said potential local candidate, and said to Jean Searle, "You must make her stand, we are trying to persuade her" Jean Searle informed me that she would have to apply for 100 seats first. What utter nonsense is that????? The poor lass is getting really stressed, and we could nicely lose her. She could decide to continue with her high powered job instead! What I am asking Francis, is , is this really neccessary, or is it the bean counters at work again. It is essential to have a good local candidate up here. One who has been an active campaigner for years. I am not mentioning her name, as I am rooting for her behind her back. Answers please.

[Chad]

I'd say the lesson for all parties should be that elections are about the national concerns of local people not the local application of your national gameplan.

Don't take people for granted as they are increasingly likely to sit on their hands than go out and vote for a rosette.

With Eric Forth gaining 51% of the vote, there is no way that not being 'modern' enough was an issue in B&C.

[Stephen McConnell]

1) Reacting to the LibDem assault.

Unfortunately it can frequently work the other way. The issue appears to be the sheer volume of jobs that Bob held. There is still a very real perception that many politicians (more so for Conservatives than any other party) are only in it for what they can get (the legacy of excessive non-exec directorships from the last Conservative Government lingers long in many memories). Where a candidate has so many public roles the natural assumption of the general public is not to celebrate their public spirit, but to assume that they have their noses in the trough. This needs to be tackled by addressing where these memberships have resulted in improvements for the community (which is an area that the Liberal Democrats do very well – even if it is false (witness the B&C orphanage address)

2) Should we keep strictly to only positive campaigning, in the face of this kind of LibDem campaign?

In contrast to what is being said by many commentators I personally would always advocate positive campaigning. The electorate consistently retorts that negative campaigning turns them off politics, and reinforces the already negative perception that people have of politicians. My suggestion is that we need to counter negativity with the facts and where possible highlight positive things that have been done. Such an approach when undertaken correctly can turn negative spin on its head, particularly if it can be turned into questions about what the Liberal Democrats will actually do. This is where Sean’s suggestion that we fully understand the opposition candidates backgrounds (would I be naïve in assuming that CCHQ has a database of all previous campaign literature used by opposition candidates that could be referenced to quickly counter allegations?) comes into play. I believe that this is the area in which we need to focus our attacks. Focus on the inconsistencies in the Liberal Democrats policy agenda, and force them to clarify what they stand for. Much is made about the efficiency of the Liberal Democrats campaign machine, but we need to remember that ideologically they tend to struggle to agree on anything. By addressing the question of what the candidate stands for we can accentuate those ideological splits that exist within the campaign teams. Ensure we remain focused on the issues and not personality, again this is what the electorate continually tell us they want from politicians. Negative campaigning is easier and often a good way to score easy points, but honesty and integrity play well on the doorstep and for candidates to articulately present what they stand for as opposed to what they dislike about the opposition candidates further reinforces that the party is changing.

Finally, let’s not lose sight of the fact that we have plenty of time to put these things right before the next election.

[Gary Barford]

CCHQ really does need to establish a by-election speciality team that, when a by-election is triggered, drops their normal 'day jobs' at CCHQ and starts working straight away on getting logistics sorted for the by-election i.e. campaign office, research etc. Yes, it could be bad taste if the previous MP died and the funeral was yet to take place, but the Lib Dems do this all the time, and to make sure they do not pose a threat, we must play by their rules.

In my view, the problems with this by-election were mainly the fault of the local association. Any weakness in candidates should be detected and neutralized, and in campaign literature, the strengths of the party i.e. David Cameron should be used. This did not occur.

Do not be afraid to viciously attack the Lib Dem candidate for their hypocrocies and inaccurate statements.

[Cllr Nicholas Bennett]

This is the first time in my 40 years in politics that I've lived in a constituency with a Parliamentary By-election. A fascinating experience! Never have so many trees died in the cause of the democracy. My neighbours have been a way on holiday for 12 days, how they will get their door open when they return I dread to think.

1. Selection of candidate.

Bob was and is a good choice; however a number of assumptions were made.

• Because he was the local GLA member he would be well known. Bob has been a first rate member, assiduously taking up local issues, attending Resident Association AGMs and campaigns in every local election, however as most MPs cannot be named by the majority of their constituents, the same is true of other local politicians.

• Whilst I have no argument with his decision to stay on the GLA until 2008, he should have made it clear that he wouldn’t take a salary.

• He should have resigned the Health Authority and other posts immediately.

• As a non-lawyer I am aware of all the posts which disqualify one from election including offices of profit under the crown. A silly mistake not to deal with this; however I understand Bob resigned from the Health Authority last week I don’t think any judge would overturn the result of the technicality of the form, it is disqualification at election which counts.

2 Dealing with the negatives

• The LD campaign followed the usual path - identify any weakness in your opponent and ruthlessly exploit it. Do CCHQ not learn from previous by-elections? In the days when I was on the list we were always asked if there were any skeletons in our cupboard (Alan Clark at K&C in 1996 – “A whole graveyard full”). Similarly we have to look at things like where the candidate lives, has he/she lost before (‘Failed MP, Failed wannabe MP’) etc. None of this bars a candidate – most have to fight hopeless seats but we need to be ready with the rebuttal.

• As the old saying has it "truth is getting its boots on when lie has gone half way around the world'.

• The LD campaign from the outset went for Bob and they spent the whole campaign issuing variations on the same theme. Our rebuttal leaflet was on the eve of poll!

3. Literature and Campaigning

• I showed some of the LD literature to an experienced agent and he said: "That's the sort of thing they always issue!' And? Why weren’t we ready with our own ‘Hallo’ style 8 page colour glossy?

• Given that the LD candidate fought Sevenoaks last year, moved to Beckenham in 2004 and had only been on the council six weeks why did we not point these things out?

Abbots and the LDs were vulnerable on a key Bromley issue, Prescott’s dictat that Bromley will increase housing densities. That should have been one of our causes and the LDs support (including Abbot’s silence and abstention in the council on the issue) should have been hammered. It illustrates the best sort of issue – positive for you and negative for your opponent.

• Both UKIP and LDs campaigned on the same simple issues from start to finish. UKIP – ‘cut taxes; get out of Europe, control immigration’. LDs – Local MP, 3 jobs Bob, I’ve got a wife and kids and live in the borough’.

• There was no such theme in our campaign. One week it was crime (Here again no use made of pictures of Bob campaigning in 2003 for more police in Bromley!), last week MPs wife supports Bob (there’s a surprise) and this week Human Rights Act (not yet the talk of Bromley’s pubs!).

Law and Order is a Tory theme and the local increases are horrific – four fold increase in robberies, 60% increase in violence, burglary up.

• As a result our literature had no theme. Some simple rules for leaflets

 You have no more than 8 seconds to get your message across from the letterbox to the waste bin.

 A picture is worth 1000 words

 A headline is worth 1000 words

 More people read the Sun than all the quality papers combined

• Our leaflets were wordy – a letter from the local councillor was two pages of small, cramped handwriting. One paragraph with printed stylised writing would have been read.

• Bob’s picture was dreadful - the one they used made him look smug and complacent when those of us who know him, know that he is a decent hardworking chap. Thus the picture reinforced the LD smears.

• Fewer leaflets. I had 8 or 9 from the Conservatives and LDs and at least 7 from UKIP. Many were wasted as there was no attempt not to deliver to postal voters who had cast their vote already.

We need to go back to the basics of running and election. B&C has 7 wards and 39 polling stations. The polls are open from 7am to 10pm. 585 telling slots before people start doing more than an hour. It was only 6 weeks since the borough elections which had been run by the individual wards. What should have happened is that the wards prepare as far as possible from their own resources the telling, with CCHQ agent helping to fill in any gaps from additional volunteers. Instead, experienced ward chairman, like my wife got their committee room boxes late on Wednesday evening and had to drop rosettes, tellers’ pads round at 6am on polling day. An hour’s planning saves a lot of wasted time.

Despite using computerised knocking up slips I found myself knocking up members at 6pm who had voted early in the day and found that they had also had 2 phone calls.

Better use of manpower would help. Fit and active campaigners tied up on polling stations telling at 7pm when they could be knocking up.

Centralised use of volunteers from outside the constituency so they could be sent to areas with large numbers of pledges but few knocker uppers.

Let’s treat volunteers with some consideration. I dolled out tea to a number of friends who had come considerable distances to canvass. They all commented that, after driving miles to get to Bromley the sector offices hadn’t offered a cup of tea or even a loo. Don’t let’s forget how we turned the press against us at one party conference by putting them in a windowless car park basement!

We need a dedicated CCHQ campaign team but one which can take advice from the best of the voluntary party.

[Edward]

I'd echo Donal's points about pre-emptive research on our own candidate. I know it's doubly difficult in a by-election but we really ought to have thought through every single potential attack they could come up with and worked out our detailed rebuttal.

This would have greatly assisted with my second criticism; context sensitive leaflets. The leaflets we put out, particularly in by-elections, need to respond much more to how the campaign is going. I don't mean a rebuttal to each Lib Dem leaflet, necessarily, but I do mean leaflets which helps us to be the ones who establish what issue will define the battle in the context of what the other parties are arguing. It's all well and good producing nice, glossy, professional leaflets (and this is more of a general point than specific to this election) but this isn't enough...and may even be wrong in certain circumstances.

Finally, you need energy around the campaign. All too often I and other younger friends have gone to help campaign in "alien" constituencies and not been given the autonomy to work as a group enjoying blitzing specific areas, been split up so we are individuals helping with other worthy but less dynamic members and haven't found it as enjoyable. By contrast in the South Staffs election for Patrick Cormack last year a few of us were allowed to work as a group, brought some energy to the campaign and enjoyed it so much we committed more time to it - and it all worked out bloody well.

What we should not be doing is *anything* because "that's the way it's always done". CCHQ is just as guilty of this as fossilised associations. All too often both camps fall into this trap.

[Edward]

And, quite simply, responsibility breeds competence. Which individual was directly responsible for running the by-election?

[Philip]

Yes perhaps many Bromley Labour voters switched to the Lib Dems, some because of dissatisfaction with Mr Blair (the Lib Dems are, apparently, I think, to the Left of Mr Blair, but one can never be sure - depends on which Lib Dem you're listening to, and where they are campaigning?), and some tactically as the Lib Dem would be best placed to deny the Tory victory.

Also we mustn't underestimate the impact of UKIP, who increased their vote by 872. When I looked at the results of the 2005 General Election, I reckoned we could have won another 30 or so seats in southern England if it were not for UKIP, and thus it could have been a hung parliament.

Could a lesson therefore be along the lines of the "Ands" theory of Conservatism? That is modernise by sharing and addressing voters' concerns about the environment and public services, while being right-wing on social issues such as crime and law & order, and firmly Eurosceptic.

I understood that Mr Neill as well as looking more like an old-style Tory, is also more of a Europhile. Maybe, in this particular contest, a modern but right-wing Eurosceptic 'A' lister could have done better?

But congrats to Mr Neill - he DID win!

[Maude Must Go]

Nick Bennett's contribution is excellent and demonstrates his campaigning experience as a former MP. It was disgraceful that he removed from the Candidates List.

At least Bob Neill was a better candidate than A-list "Wimmin" nonentities that CCHQ proposed.

[Rather Not Say]

End the agenda and gesture politics and start talking about issues that actually matter to people.

Trying excessively to convince people that we are 'right on', 'trendy', 'modern' types by jumping on the nearest passing vested interest makes us look ludicrious.

The gay lobby, female lobby, green lobby, pc lobby, all of whom we seem to be caught in their headlights, are not repeat not representative of any sort of majority in the county.

Yet the brand tactic that you as Party Chairman (sorry shouldn't use the work Chairman as it may offend your right on views) is to repent past sins that never were, when people are crying out for someone to stand up and respond to their concerns. That doesn't mean we have to make a rightward turn but we do have to talk about the issues that people are taking about - crime in particular - otherwise we really are in danger of become a sideshow.

The Labour Party is falling apart, if we can't encourage people to come out in droves and vote conservative now, what will happen when the election is called in almost certainly more propitious circumstances for the Government that now?

You personally have pushed the change for changes sake agenda. It has been swallowed by a whole lot of people who should know better. The result is a falling between too stools as we saw last night.

[Voice from the South West]

Sean Fear - I would agree with you on all those points, however on point 7 did we not go negative on the Lib Dem candidate from day 1 in the Cheadle by-election?

If we do go negative it will have to be with substance. In Cheadle the literature would say Mark Hunter was an unpopular outsider with a map of Cheadle pointing out that Hunter was not local. However this was undermined somewhat by showing Hunter lived only a few miles outside and also lived in the same borough - not really an "unpopular outsider".

Nevertheless if there is substance to the negative attacks then they should have some sort of effect. I have been thinking about what should have been done in Bromley - we should have adopted the Lib Dems own tactics and used them against them. Not the "three-jobs Bob" personal attacks, however we should have wheeled out the bar-charts and said that the Lib Dems were third and "can't win here" - constantly hammering the message and undermining the Lib Dems campaign. We could also have tried another Lib Dem trick of putting out leaflets saying "Tony Blair wants you to vote Lib Dem tomorrow as he knows they can't win here (maybe the same for UKIP voters as well) - though they would have to be carefully targetted as they could encourage tactical voting. Nevertheless all of this might have stopped the Lib Dems from gathering momentum.

Also, as other posters have mentioned, we should have re-butted the Lib Dems instantly whenever they tried to smeer our candidate, plus we should have attacked immediately whenever anything about Abbotts was exposed such as his apparent orphanage work.

[party activist]

The plain and painful truth is that people still want to vote tactically against us when the opportunity arises. It didn't in the local council elections, where the Tories did very well in that part of the world, but Labour voters fed up with Blair do not want to switch to the Tories. This is an unwelcome change from the attitude of fed up Labour voters when the Tories were in opposition in the late 70s and late 60s.

Our party has not yet discovered how to get former Labour supporters interested in voting for us in the way that Thatcher and yes even Heath did when in opposition.

I am not sure there is agreement in the party how to go about this. But my belief is that while we were completely right to abandon the nasty moralising for which we acquired a bit of a reputation, we currently lack definition. People look at us and just don't know what we would do about the big issues in politics. They want to know that we have a better, different plan from Blair.

[Sean Fear]

But compare the Cheadle and Bromley results. We pushed up our vote share by 2% in Cheadle. It fell by 11% in Bromley. I'm not saying Cheadle was the most effective of campaigns, but it was more effective than the one in Bromley.

Or, as I mentioned earlier, look at Hartlepool. Jody Dunn, as a barrister, takes her clients as she finds them. Yet Labour hammered her relentlessly for acting for teenage hooligans. That was unfair, but it was also effective.

Nicholas Bennett has highlighted the negative points we could have made about the Lib Dem candidate.

[Matthew]

Not directly related, but Francis why was there no official reaction to the by-election results in Bromley? I have heard and seen at least five or six different versions of "This is a fantastic result for Lib-dems blah-blah-blah" which only serves to reinforce the mistaken perception within the electorate that Lib-Dems are "the real alternative", but no official response from the Conservative party stating clearly what a dirty, underhand and hypocritical campaign the "Liberals" have been running for years. Why has there been no attempt to properly unmask them? The Conservative Party used to be a very well oiled machine at fighting elections, the natural party of government. A distant memory now and we need hard work to redress that. Look at it this way Places like Hornsey and Wood Green, and Falmouth and Cambrourne which had been traditionally Conservative, and had a Conservative MP as recently as 1992-1997 are now Lib-Dem via Labour with Conservatives a distant third, exactly the opposite to 1992. Food for thought?
End of rant.

[Voice from the South West]

Yes agreed Sean, and I have said we should have hammered Abbotts for his flaws during the campaign - which we didn't!

Point taken about the share of the vote increase in Cheadle and I agree about Hartlepool - probably the one by-election where Rennard had rings run around him for once. I think though that Jody Dunn made things worse for herself during that campaign which was probably why it didn't back-fire on Labour.

[Gareth]

As has already been pointed out, the electorate are hypocritical about negative campaigning, claiming to loathe it whilst succumbing to its charms time and time again. It's all very well playing to Queensbury so long as you don't complain when a street fighter kicks you in the goolies.

[Neil C]

I am rather disconcerted at Francis Maudes afterthought that 'it will take some convincing to campaign negatively'!!
My personal thoughts are that we Tories must fight fire with fire when it comes to the malign campaigning from the libs. This does not mean our whole campaign gravitating around pointing out the oppositions flaws, but to get across our positive message while refuting negative campaigning if and when it arises!!
On May 4th I observed the leader of a Tory group on a London Council lose his seat to the libs, because of not refuting negative campaigning, and assuming that keeping within the parameters of 'honest politics' would see him through to winning the day!!
I believe the key is getting our response out quickly and efficently when we are subject to negativity, and not hanging around complaining of the ethics of it all!!

[Gavin Ayling]

The Conservatives are respected among traditional Tory voters for not campaigning negatively, we mustn't be tempted to lower ourselves to the LibDem's level.

What we must remember at this point is that the policies are not yet solidified and that we are fighting with very little to say on the doorsteps.

When we are able to say, look, we're out of the EPP, we're not for that costly EU, and yes, we do care about individual freedom, because here's our draft text of a new Bill of Rights -- then we'll be in a position to actually fight.

Before the solid policies we're not able to fight, and I don't think we should be worried about that, especially as we won regardless!

[Cllr Graham Smith]

As I said to Andrew Lansley, when he visited Nottingham this week for a Built to Last roadshow, our local polling here in Sleaford, Lincs (in preparation for next May's local government elections) indicates that former Labour supporters are either: (a) not intending to vote; or (b) are intending to vote for anyone who will keep the Conservatives out (and, in practice, this means LibDems). The CCHQ view that Labour supporters will switch to Conservatives cannot be evidenced here. I agree with Douglas Hogg's view, as best I recall it: "Whilst it is clear that Mr Blair and his colleagues have lost the support of the British electorate, it is not yet the case that the electorate have fallen sufficiently in love with Mr Cameron to ensure a Conservative victory."

My own preferred tactics are therefore to: (a) keep entirely positive in our general campaigning leaflets; (b) keep to the 3 basic principles that together set Conservatives apart from all other major other parties (freedom/trusting the individual, no unnecesary bureaucracy/small government, & compassion/giving a helping hand to those in need not a handout for life) and I'm glad that the leadership has finally woken up to the need for opposition to stress principles not policies (I'm sure Tim has heard me say that too many times already); (c) deliver a truthful, factual last-minute leaflet about the LibDems only to those households certain to be core LibDem voters in order to discourage them from voting; and (d) also deliver a "letter of recommendation" for our candidate to all possible Conservative supporters on eve of poll.

Apologies for the lengthy post. I was expecting to be baby-sitting an SMTP server this afternoon, but now find myself at a loose end ;-)

[S Penketh]

Dear Francis

Just a few Musing on what I think should have been done by ourselves.

Firstly thorough research should be done by us onto the opposition candidate by a profesional researcher.

Advertise ourselves from the start the first set of leafletting should be done within the week of a resignation or the next day after a burial, if the M.P has died.

Don't stop being positive with our campaign but there should always be at least one prominant article in each leafelt 'trashing' the main opposition on their points of weakness. An Easy example in Bromley would have been to address Ben Abbotts on election leaflets as 'Out of towner spin merchant Ben Abbotts'
Also don't be affraid to rebut accuasation they make.
If we do that we will see Liberals arguments being unnnoiticed because people will see them for the lying charlttons they are.

[Chris]

There was a leaflet that was distributed by us on polling day that left me with a bitter taste. I know we have to campaign harder, better, and more innovatively than the Lib Dems, but using such literature results in us degenerating to their level. The leaflet concerned was a photocopy of a letter from a voter called ‘Joan’.

If we really want to see results we need a ‘by-election’ team be funded by CCO. Unfortunately the Associations would see this as ‘stepping on their turf’. It seems to me that this is the real problem to a professional campaigning organisation.

[HF]

Francis, you had a very narrow squeak on this one.
If an A list candidate had been chosen and lost (less local), then the Cameron project would have been derailed. All because we have an inadequate Campaigning System and a failure to groom candidates. The responsibility for this rests at your door.

We lost Romsey six years ago because of poor candidate selection and an inadequate campaign. We nearly lost B&C for the same reasons. Why has this not been fixed?

So you need to stop all your other activities and just focus on fixing the Candidate grooming process and installing a first class Campaigning System. We cannot risk another near disaster like B&C.

The next similar by election may only be weeks away, which is why you need to act now.

Lastly is there one individual owning responsibility (outside of yourself) for this failure? If not then you need to appoint an experienced Campaigns Director who can roll their sleeves up asap.

[Sean Fear]

I can't see anything objectionable in that letter, Chris.

The problem with it, IMO, was that it was so scruffy that I'd have just chucked it in the bin if I'd received it.

[Chad]

When the Tories fought such a positive local election campaign and reaped the benefit, surely it would be a huge mistake to scrap in the gutter with the LibDems?

[sjm]

Lessons learnt in my Greater London constituency during last year's Gen Election and this year's Council elections:

The GE LibDem vote increased despite the candidate being a real outsider and doing no work because it was a hopeless seat (Tory gain after 8 years, with great truly local candidate) - bearing out views stated above that dissatisfied Labour voters will go to LibDems.

One forceful anti-Labour Govt sentence in letter to Tory pledges got lots of tut-tuts, 'oh dear, not nice, much too strong', yet a nasty (and acknowledged) whispering campaign by LibDems against a Tory council candidate this year simply on the basis that he's gay stopped us gaining a seat, and no-one protested!

[RoadToSmurfdom]

CANDIDATE SELECTION – There wasn’t really a problem here. Others made a big thing of it, but if we’d run an exciting and well run campaign it would have died a death immediately.

LITERATURE – This is certainly where we lost the fight. Nice and glossy, but even I couldn’t be bothered to read them. Bland, bland, bland. We were putting out ‘Ex MP’s wife supports Bob’ or ‘Bob walks down street’ leaflets. The Lib Dems come out with ‘Tories soft on crime’ and the more personalised attacking leaflets. The photographs and headlines were dull, the candidate’s (full) name wasn’t well publicised and you could barely tell which party it was from. Stories should excite and so should the headlines.

REACTING TO THE LIB DEM ASSAULT – It really wasn’t such a big assault. It’s only a problem when you let it be. We were always playing ‘catch-up’ in this campaign, that was the real problem. If we run an exciting campaign with a mixture of positive stories showing the Conservatives actively working for local people (rather than just tell people what we will do if we get in) and stories attacking the Lib Dems, we can keep the initiative. Where was the planned campaign where we develop our campaign over a number of weeks? Keep the Lib Dems on their toes.

POSITIVE CAMPAIGNING – This is the way forward and the way to win, but not on its own. Despite having DC, voters are still more open to believe what the Lib Dems say. Conservatives need to work hard and publish good quality positive stories before they put out any hard hitting attacking copy. A mixture of positive and attacking stories is the key to beating the Lib Dems.

ORGANISATION – The Lib Dems have more activists and better motivated activists. It’s no wonder really, as the Lib Dems reward hard work and dedication. The Conservatives have never done this in the years gone by, and if anything things are getting worse under DC. It’s OK asking those on the candidate list to come and work for the By-Election, but they should already have a long history of campaigning before getting on the list. The A list is a big two-fingers-up to hard working campaigners who will never be given a chance to get on the list.

We will keep on struggling and nothing will happen to change the way local Conservative campaigns are run. I’m not anti-DC, he has made some good changes since he was elected, but he seems happier spending time changing logos and filling the A list with luvvies rather than getting his hands dirty sorting out the business end of the party.

[Blue2Win]

I do not believe that candidates need to be local but they do need to be acceptable locally. These are very different things.

The local party were asserting their independence very early on. They chose a candidate that was acceptable to the insiders. A professional politician in an age of anti-politics.The local party bosses assumed that the seat was in their gift.

So lesson one: no complacency. Full frontal reality.

Lesson two: make sure your candidate meets the local perception of a Tory MP who they can support.

Lesson three: choose a candidate that at least looks and sounds as if he is part of the revitalizing poll boosting change David Cameron is bringing.

[Neil C]

The job of an M.P. requires a wide acumen of skills and this demands alot of time and expertise to deal with all the varying needs of their constituents. Would it be preferable in future general elections and even more importantly under the sharp focus of by elections, to make sure that the candidate is shown to be focused only on the job of serving their constituents in the House of Commons, and not on other political bodies??

[Chris Palmer]

Francis,

Rogue associations must be brought to heel. Yourself and David Cameron are in charge, and the "faster and deeper" change you say is needed by the party must be spoken with one voice, rather than having many different areas saying contrasting and completely different things.

Personally I would suggest this, that all Conservative candidates; be they potential councillors or MPs, say that they are taking the line or side of common sense. The use of the words common sense must become far more frequent in our election material.

Chris.

[Edward]

One further comment on negative aspects of campaigning: when the LibDems do this well they make it sound as if they're doing it out of genuine benign concern for the local area. We tend to sound as if we hate those darned Lib Dems and will slag them off 'til the cows come home (as in Cheadle).

[michael mcgough]

Given that the candidate is a Barrister
the error on the qualification form is serious, even if it would not ultimately disbar him from taking his oath.There are surely grounds for the Bar Council to invoke a disciplinary process.Let us not forget that other incompetent form filler Mandelson.Perhaps wee Bob could end up as an EU Commissioner too.If he doesn't read the forms he signs what else won't he read------the next EU Treaty perhaps ,a la Clarke.

[Local Tory]

If any job or position creates even the slightest arguable doubt about a candidate's eligibility, that candidate must surely resign from the job/position immediately after selection.

I don’t know what the legalities are but I would have thought it unwise (easy after the event I know) to select a candidate who holds and wants to retain any other elected position of significance

I think the fact that UKIP put up their biggest name is a mitigating factor in terms of the result

I don’t think any national conclusions can be drawn from this ONE result. I am always amazed that people are willing to draw national conclusions from by election results.

[Kevin Davis]

There is quite a bit to be learnt from all this. I visited twice during the election. The first time I went out alone doing some canvassing in an area that it then emerged we had a lot of telephone info and Geneva had already canvassed them.

The second time I took a team over for delivering and we waited 30 minutes for leaflets to turn up. I may be unfair but it was difficult to see who was in charge - CCHQ or the Association!

Why were we using fileplan?

Our literature was parochial. The penultimate leaflet telling us Mrs. Forth was backing Bob was ludicrous!

I have beenthe subject of and seen a lot of the Lib Dem campaigning technique. What is intersting is it is predictable. CCHQ needs to see it is predictable and have tools to combat it. We now they will go negative and get dirty. I also think we have to remember their tactic when they do this is not to get people to vote for them but to sow doubts in our supporters minds that stops them coming out to vote. We therefore need to have the rebuttal leaflet ready to go because it is not easy to identify what they will go negative on.

In my own Borough they have even started delivering different leaflets to different doors based on their voting intention.

I know that this is being put together already but a 'national campaign team' is I think now vital. At the Association level we have also come to recognise that this is vital and are putting something similar together. An experienced team of campaigners that can be moved where they need to go is the only way we can ensure consistency in our campaigning. Just because a ward or an association has lots of members does not mean they know how to campaign.

[Disillusioned]

For the LibDems to accuse the Tories of being soft on crime is a joke. That the LibDems perform well despite having policies unpopular with the electorate – signing away more powers to Brussels and a soft approach on crime and drugs implies that the electorate don't know the true views of the LibDems. What can we learn from B&C? Firstly we need an election campaign coordinated by CCHQ – local constituencies should not be running a by-election that can have a severe impact on the overall standing of the party. In B&C we should have been emphasising Labour failures and the soft and wishy-washy LibDem ‘solutions’ to such problems – and then underlining our credentials on efficiency in the public sector, a tough approach on crime and a guarantee not to sign away more powers to the EU. On crime, Europe, immigration – and to a lesser extent on education too the electorate likes traditional Conservative policies. We need to exploit that, especially in ‘safe’ seats like B&C. Going from the result we failed to do that as well as we should.

[Andrew Kennedy]

Francis Maude should be commended on this post. It is another good example of him interacting in this way. Thank you.

Having been very critical of the B&C campaign I thought I should also put forward some constructive comments. 2 hours later I have just finished typing!

I wont take up space on ConservativeHome with my essay. If anyone is keen to read my thoughts please follow the link.

http://www.andrew-kennedy.blogspot.com/

[Alan]

The lesson from Moray, which I was involved with, and Bromley, is that we must be far more responsive and aggressive in dealing with local issues and opposition attacks. In Moray we got disastrous local press coverage which poisoned our campaign. A blandly positive campaign simply will not work in a by-election.

[Cllr Graham Smith]

Kevin Davis asks "Why were we using fileplan?"

Kevin - please tell me which Parliamentary by-election has been won by Conservatives using BlueChip software?

[Rob D]

I think it is always worth going negative and digging for dirt.

It's unedifying, but, frankly, it works. Simple nastiness is not good enough, but if you have something (like the Lib Dem's orphanage stuff) use it.

Exposing a faked photo did for Ed Matts in Dorset. In Greenwich a Tory was wrongly smeared as a racist-he got a retraction and apology but the damage was done-his running mates won and he didn't. Howard Flight was recorded and finished.

I'm not a fan of lies but there's nothing wrong with digging up embarassing details. We can't walk naked onto the hustings.