Stephan Shakespeare: How should the Conservative Party connect with voters?

Elsewhere on ConservativeHome today a variety of authors are considering the question, what should David Cameron do next? Here I would like to examine not the ‘what’ but the ‘how’.

I suggested last week that the relationship between political parties and the electorate was crucial but neglected. If I am to take an action which involves effort on my part, but which has no mathematical chance of having an actual effect – I mean the act of voting – then I must have some other good reason for doing it. Unfortunately, politicians cannot rely just on the electorate’s sense of duty as the relationship between them and the process becomes ever more artificial and alienating.

Politicians now try harder than ever to create direct relationships with the electorate, and use all the sophistications of modern media management to woo the people. But as with any other seduction, these techniques only work so long as they do not reveal themselves as mere techniques. Post-Blair, it has become harder to convince the public that emoting is backed with genuine feeling. The crucial quality of sincerity has become much harder to manufacture.

I have previously criticised the over-focus on branding at the expense of substance. But of course these two things need not – should not – be opposed. The best branding, the only sustainably successful branding, harmonises with the underlying substance. In other words, all branding depends on sincerity. When we don’t believe the pitch, the pitch actually turns us against the proposition.

I was only being half-ironic when I spoke of ‘manufacturing’ sincerity. It is not entirely oxymoronic. We do not simply have primal feelings: we can actively create the conditions in which feeling develops, just as we develop ideas and policies by deliberately engaging with the world around us with openness and intelligence. This is why I suggest that David Cameron and his team think again about the relationship between political leaders and the electorate, and how they can get to know them directly (rather than only through the sometimes distorting lenses of polling and focus groups). Instead of treating the electorate as a curious object, to be manipulated, can they actually create a genuine relationship?

They have powerful new tools available now – for example, the Internet’s infectious social networking. But while ‘Web Cameron’ and ‘Stand Up and Speak Up’ have been laudable attempts, they have all misunderstood the dynamic of true communication. They come across as techniques, not as authentic interactions.

I believe the tools of communication in the new world will require new thinking about the relationship between politicians and the people. Everything else is changing profoundly in our social relations, and yet politics is still a supremely top-down activity. It’s an old business in a new economy. I’m not suggesting some great leap forward into e-democracy, but I think the old structures will have to change to allow greater multi-directional interaction.

And I believe any new thinking will have to include not two but three sets of relations: between political leaders, political parties, and the electorate. Party membership will have to be reconsidered. Party members are crucial because not everyone is wildly interested in politics – political communications needs an army of advocates. And members are not only there for sending the message – they are more embedded in the population than politicians, and have so much to contribute upwards.

It has been widely observed that many in the DC team actively dislike the party membership. ConservativeHome has often pointed out that the party members actually represent greater diversity and normality than the Conservative Party high command. I wonder if this gives us some clue as to the current turbulance in the party’s popularity? Might it be that the rupture between the party strategists and their party is a key ingredient of the disruption in the relationship between the party leadership and the people?

It is often said that all successful political leaders have in some sense had to fight against their own party in order to win. But while overcoming internal resistance may attest to leadership qualities, visible, directly communicated contempt is a step too far. If political leadership depends heavily on the quasi-personal relationship between the leader and the electorate, it cannot help if the family relations – that is, between the leadership and the party - appear dysfunctional.

So I would urge the thinkers of the Conservative Party – a hugely talented bunch including Michael Gove, Nicolas Boles, Danny Finkelstein, Steve Hilton, Danny Kruger, Andy Coulson and of course my fellow columnists here on ConservativeHome - to turn their serious attention to the political process itself. It may seem rather distant from immediate concerns, and not much of a vote-winner, but I believe it is the context in which policy and branding will succeed or fail. How does the party strengthen its internal relationships, make them more open and dynamic, and use them to create new relationships throughout the electorate? Not only what new techniques might be used, but what is it we really value in a political party? How do we use all our talents and experiences to grow the party and make it connect with voters? Because the whole point of the new media, which is so rapidly transforming our world, is that top-down is no longer enough.

Comments

[Yet Another Anon]

People would appreciate a bit of straight talk and are sick of politicians trying to claim to be all things to all men.

This is an important point, people appreciate people who are seriously trying to do something about problems and are prepared to try unpopular policies and attempt to persuade people of the merits of them, rather than simply trying to appeal to mainstream opinion for the sake of winning power and then usually try and hide compromises in implementation towards what the politician actually wants to achieve.

[Bill]

"turbulance"?

[Tapestry]

Redwood was spot on, and a joy to behold back in the frame. you could not doubt his sincerity. he made george osborne seem less of a lightweight too, which helps Cameron. People are more important then techniques. IDS went well on social breakdown too. Who else can cameron access? What about some more from John Hayes - another whose sincerity could not be doubted?

As far as techniques go, non-MSM communication such as blogs, leaflets and face to face canvas are shown to be effective at winning elections. Michael Ashcroft has demontrated this by winning marginals one after the other.

If Conservatives were to vote tactically in Scotland, by backing SNP, and by backing LDs in LD/Labour marginals, the current level of support could be sufficient to win an election.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>>If Conservatives were to vote tactically in Scotland, by backing SNP, and by backing LDs in LD/Labour marginals, the current level of support could be sufficient to win an election.<<<<<
That would make it more difficult for Labour to win a majority, but also reduce chances of the Conservative Party winning a majority, because in the odd Labour\Liberal Democrat or Labour\SNP marginal they would be reducing the chances of them leaping from 3rd or 4th to 1st.

[Ash Faulkner]

The simple answer is to create trust: that is the most important relationship between the electors and the elected.

Trust comes from honesty which comes from conviction. Cameron's brand is therefore in trouble when it comes to trust. We need politicians that are prepared to speak openly and passionately, and are ready to weather the occasional media attacks that will come from that.

Just look at John Howard, or Thatcher, or even George W Bush who is also quite frank. People respect that, because it means that, policy aside, if they can believe you when you speak, they can makea proper, informed decision: thus, they become part of the political process, because they know what they voted for. That'll probably go on to tackle apathy, too.

In the age of the 24 hour media, it is tough to be a fiercely honest politician, but if you want success, it is also necessary. I don't really think we have many left today; Ann Widdecombe, perhaps. To be fair, people like Liam Fox and David Davies are generally pretty straight, but they still don't stand out as uncompromisingly honest.

[Ken Stevens]

From politicians I want honesty, and a coherent set of beliefs simply, consistently and firmly expressed.
Absence of hypocrisy would be a nice bonus, too, such as not improving parliamentary pay & pension provisions, whilst railing against those elsewhere in the public sector. And it is true that the smoking ban does not apply to Parliament?

[Victor, NW Kent]

Our party is sadly lacking in conviction politicians. It is not necessary to be liked by the public but it is essential to be respected. Gordon Brown is unlikeable but he commands respect.

Yesterday I saw John Redwood in a three-way interview with Andy Burnham as his opponent. John came over as grave, intelligent, polite and patient. Andy came over as a brash pushy high school debater, a nay-sayer.

William Hague is likeable but in any interview he is holding back, attempting to be a measured statesman. He and many others should dive in with some fire. Osborne, Letwin and Willetts should be kept away from television. Osborne comes over as a wimp and the other two as slightly deranged with Letwin striving for the Victorian touch of a Disraeli.

It is not exactly hard to find reasons to attack the government - The EU Treaty, the steep rise in violent crime, NHS closures, illiteracy hidden behind a smokesecreen on manipulated statistics, the lack of a policy on Iraq and Afghanistan. Attack is what wins. Simpering around with bleats about social responsibilty and green taxes will achieve nothing except to show that our leaders are manouvering for some connection with voters - in those cases only the liberal-left centre - not the traditional Conservative voter nor the working man.

Summation - Get real! Get moving!

[Rupert Butler]

Stephan Shakespeare’s metaphor of the seduction is very telling.

In real life there are many jaded souls for whom to be seduced is all they expect or want. For such jades, the act and techniques of seduction are almost more important than the culmination itself. This is the political life of the journalists and hangers-on around Whitehall, Islington and Notting Hill.

The ordinary electorate wants the “long term relationship”. The statistically insignificant vote gives little enough satisfaction, but there is more of a result if it is for the long term than as a one-night stand. For the ordinary electors then, the wooing needs to be by solid demonstrations of worth.

Sadly, this metaphor works in respect of the voluntary party. The image it raises is one of the middle-aged mistress occasionally used and otherwise generally despised by the busy seducer.

[Ali Unwin]

One government in Europe in particular is already moving ahead in this direction with great success: Estonia. This took very significant legal, institutional and technological innovations, but the salient point was that it was government-led. It seems probable that a political party will not have the weight (not to mention the resources)to secure a similar change in Britain.

For Estonia's story see Andrew Lomas' excellent 'Rewiring Democracy' report for the ASI:

http://www.adamsmith.org/index.php/publications/details/rewiring_democracy/

[TomTom]

Politicians cannot connect with voters. The dissonance between what people see around them and what politicians say is simply too great - it is like the Soviet nomenklatura talking about the triumph of Soviet Socialism when the public know the shops are bare.

You cannot bury the issue of immigration - it is simply too obvious both cumulatively and as a monthly flow - people notice congested streets, and know what is going on - they simply wonder why the political-media class is lying to them and what their real agenda is

[TomTom]

Patrick Mercer, who was fired as shadow homeland security minister by David Cameron hours after the interview was published, been hired to help run a scheme which will see top ethnic minority military officers working with youths to stop them becoming part of inner-city gangs.

The initiative is being run by Sir Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality and Human Rights (CEHR), who last March went on the record to welcome Mr Mercer's sacking after his comments about black soldiers.

Brown certainly gets his Labour guys to make Cameron look a bit stupid

[Peter Coe]

If Stephan is right and the only way to build parties trusted by the electorate is through broadening and strengthening membership then all political parties are doomed - simply because I contend that the age of mass membership parties is gone and cannot be reversed.

Sure, when a government is unpopular and opposition is popular (or at least people desperately want change) then a given party may experience a growth in membership - but even in 1997 Labour's stated membership of 700,000-ish was nowhere near what would constitute a mass membership.

The best, I suspect, any party could manage nowadays - and this would only be through investing far more resource than would produce a meaningful return - would be around 500,000; and does anyone seriously believe that this would translate into Labour having a meaningful presence in southern rural constituencies or the Conservatives being dynamic in inner-city deprived seats?

People do not want to belong to political parties nowadays - more to the point, they don't need to belong to them if they have a political agenda they want to pursue: there are pressure groups, direct action campaigns, blogs and the internet to achieve this - all of which enable them to interact with people of a similar personality and political outlook far more easily than "big tent" political parties can.

So my contention is that Stephan is wrong - but only in so far as he's concentrating on members as the salvation; in fact, by viewing parties only as members vs central office he's going as awry as he's accusing CCHQ of, which is overlooking a more consequential(and overwhelmingly larger) group: party supporters.

I favour a far more radical move to US style parties: introducing a register of partisan affiliation for all voters so that there will be registered Conservatives just as there are registered Republicans; everyone of these entitled to choose Conservative candidates in their own patch via (genuine) primaries (not the gimmicky excuses for them the Tories have attempted, which I at least given them credit for).

Parties should be much less about policy and far more about campaigning - let incumbents worry about the policy and if you don't like what the incumbents are doing, back a candidate you do agree with; indeed, this would inevitably bring about far looser party structures, far greater accountability and far less "seat for life" mentality.

And that would be a good thing in my book.

[Peter Coe]

If Stephan is right and the only way to build parties trusted by the electorate is through broadening and strengthening membership then all political parties are doomed - simply because I contend that the age of mass membership parties is gone and cannot be reversed.

Sure, when a government is unpopular and opposition is popular (or at least people desperately want change) then a given party may experience a growth in membership - but even in 1997 Labour's stated membership of 700,000-ish was nowhere near what would constitute a mass membership.

The best, I suspect, any party could manage nowadays - and this would only be through investing far more resource than would produce a meaningful return - would be around 500,000; and does anyone seriously believe that this would translate into Labour having a meaningful presence in southern rural constituencies or the Conservatives being dynamic in inner-city deprived seats?

People do not want to belong to political parties nowadays - more to the point, they don't need to belong to them if they have a political agenda they want to pursue: there are pressure groups, direct action campaigns, blogs and the internet to achieve this - all of which enable them to interact with people of a similar personality and political outlook far more easily than "big tent" political parties can.

So my contention is that Stephan is wrong - but only in so far as he's concentrating on members as the salvation; in fact, by viewing parties only as members vs central office he's going as awry as he's accusing CCHQ of, which is overlooking a more consequential(and overwhelmingly larger) group: party supporters.

I favour a far more radical move to US style parties: introducing a register of partisan affiliation for all voters so that there will be registered Conservatives just as there are registered Republicans; everyone of these entitled to choose Conservative candidates in their own patch via (genuine) primaries (not the gimmicky excuses for them the Tories have attempted, which I at least given them credit for).

Parties should be much less about policy and far more about campaigning - let incumbents worry about the policy and if you don't like what the incumbents are doing, back a candidate you do agree with; indeed, this would inevitably bring about far looser party structures, far greater accountability and far less "seat for life" mentality.

And that would be a good thing in my book.

[Mountjoy]

Good article, Stephan, and it's amazing who's on facebook -- I wonder are you -- oh, I've just added you as a friend -- and you can join my Wilted Rose group at

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4328857219

[tapestry]

Elections are won and lost usually with one phrase explaining why.

1997. kick out sleazy Tories.
2001. Nulab enjoying boom. Tories divided.
2005 Few wanted Blair, but Tories didn't want to win, it seemed, still divided and unclear what their pitch was all about. (growth of postal voting)
2009 Kick out corrupt NuLab. Economy wrecked. cameron set out proper eurosceptic united front.

TO achieve the ideal situation as described, there will need to be a few more high profile defections, probably to be carried out sensitive moments, like Quisling Davies' efforts.

[Dr Snoddy]

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two
owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many
German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our
attitude toward fanaticism.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was
one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the
majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew
it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world
had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" the "silent majority" is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a War mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs,
Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, can contribute to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.

So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on!! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this - think about it - and send it on.

[ToMTom]

I favour a far more radical move to US style parties: introducing a register of partisan affiliation for all voters so that there will be registered Conservatives just as there are registered Republicans; everyone of these entitled to choose Conservative candidates in their own patch via (genuine) primaries (not the gimmicky excuses for them the Tories have attempted, which I at least given them credit for).

Not every state has a Primary; not all Primaries are closed; there are 50 States - but I don't see how you would operate in the UK with a Caucus in one area, open primaries in another; and the kind of loosely-affiliated party system the USA has......they are not controlled from DC as they are from London

[Dave Bartlett]

"How does the party strengthen its internal relationships, make them more open and dynamic, and use them to create new relationships throughout the electorate? "

Surely the 'open primaries' the Consevatives have started using to select candidates are an attempt to engage more with the electorate?

Also the 'stand up, speak up', as I understand it, is intended to encourage debates across the country centred on the local Conservative party.

I think Cameron and co are trying, I'm not sure how much success they're having.