Local elections review: It’s not (just) the result that counts

In the run up to this year’s local elections, I spent a little time campaigning in two Southern towns – Reading and Crawley. An analysis which just looked at seats gained or lost would suggest that the results in these two areas were “average” or “downright poor”, as the editor put it in his round up. However, I think that both campaigns were extremely encouraging, and that there is a strong case for looking beyond the results when assessing how we did.

The key things to look for in local election campaigns are not (just) the outcomes, but how the campaign was run. There are plenty of cases from the last few years where local parties made big gains in one set of elections, and then saw those swept away when the political tide turned, or when a couple of key people stepped down or reduced their level of involvement. Sustained success requires building up the number of volunteers, making the party a welcoming place for new activists, increasing levels of activity, working out campaign messages which resonate with voters and ironing out problems and barriers which limit campaigning effectiveness.

Judged by these standards, I was extremely impressed with our campaigns in both Crawley and Reading. The canvassing sessions which I went on in the run up were well organised and planned, activists were friendly and welcoming, and both parties had been successful in getting new people involved – as activists, candidates and in organising local ward campaigns. Some of the particular strengths included Crawley’s use of membersnet to plan and advertise campaigning sessions (which was how I found out about them), and Reading’s ability to produce high quality literature (which successfully criticised the Tory candidate as a “banker from Beenham”).

Even judged on results, there were successes. We won Church ward in Reading from the Tories by more than 200 votes, and Ifield ward in Crawley by 38 votes. Beyond the numbers, there were successes like the couple in Crawley who saw that we were out campaigning, asked directions to get to the polling station so that they could vote Labour, and who then joined the party and spent the afternoon volunteering to help. There were also examples of pure bad luck – we lost the neighbouring ward in Crawley by 5 votes, and two others by fewer than 100 votes each. Fewer than 200 more votes in the right places would have meant four gains rather than one. The campaigns also helped develop the skills of key activists, including excellent candidates who are now councillors like Paul Woodward in Reading and Chris Oxlade in Crawley, as well as campaign co-ordinators like Rachel Eden, Peter Lamb and many more.

In both areas, there is also a lot of scope to develop further. It was noticeable when campaigning that there were some areas where Labour has not campaigned for several years and as a result needs to sustain its work in order to build support. The newly elected councillors will need to work hard, and identify people who can stand for Labour next year and repeat their successes. And in wards where results weren’t as good as hoped for, the local parties will have to build on its campaign organising successes and not let a temporary setback deter them.

The more people that we talk to in the South, the more people will vote for us. I know many people think that the 2011 local election results were disappointing, but my experience was very, very positive. The local parties in Crawley and Reading have got the fundamentals for success – right message, right candidate, hard work - in place, and have proven that they can involve new people, campaign together and build their capacity. If they can keep doing this, then at the next General Election we will win those seats.

Don Paskini is a Labour activist in Oxford and blogs at www.don-paskini.blogspot.com