News Release

Traditional local campaigning can boost polling day turnout

Peer-Reviewed Publication

Economic & Social Research Council

Strong local political party campaigns play an important role in influencing electoral turnout in all safe and marginal constituencies on polling day. And all three main political parties performed better in those target seats during the 2001 election where it had stronger local campaigns.

These are among the key findings of major new research from Lancaster University Department of Politics and International Relations. The study, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, is based on 1330 responses to a postal survey of election agents from the major parties.

"There has been a move, particularly in Labour and the Conservatives, towards relying on national call centres and central telephone banks," says Prof David Denver, co-author of the research. "But we found that strong local campaigns can make the difference both in terms of turnout and in the results in very marginal seats."

In 2001, there were just 37 campaign workers in the average local constituency party compared with 54 in 1992 . The number of polling day workers fell from 138 in 1992 to 73 in 1997. But while the Conservatives averaged 122 polling day workers to each seat, Labour had just 70. However, though the Conservatives had 211 polling day workers in their safe seats, they had just 149 in their target seats. By contrast, Labour had 74 polling day workers in its safe seats, but 126 workers in its targets. The Liberal Democrats had 151 polling day workers in their own targets and 93 in their safe seats.

Despite a greater use of computers and telephone canvassing, 94% of constituency parties doorstep canvassed in target seats. The Conservatives contacted 35% of voters in their target constituencies on the doorstep, Labour reached 29% and the Liberal Democrats 19%. 98% of Labour target seats used telephone canvassing during the campaign, compared to 85% for the Conservatives and 79% for the Liberal Democrats.

During the 2001 election, the three main parties introduced new features to their campaigns. Labour's 'Operation Turnout' was designed by the party's Millbank headquarters to prevent party voters staying at home. Attention was focused on 148 priority seats (all but two being those gained in 1997). Each was assigned a local organiser. A national call centre employed 200 people from January 2001. Follow-ups were made by telephone calls, MP visits and direct mail. 300,000 videos were sent to target voters in sixty priority seats a week before polling day. The campaign was centrally directed and run, with local Labour campaigns subsumed into larger national and nationally-directed campaigns.

Conservative Central Office gained more influence over local associations and constituency campaigns are a result of organisational changes between 1997 and 2001. The party targeted 180 seats, in all of which they were challenging the incumbent. But those lost only narrowly in 1997 were initially left to 'stand alone' while resources were focused on a middle band of 'winnable' seats. Agents were appointed to many of these seats. A central bank of sixty phone lines was operated from Central Office for a year before polling day. The 2001 campaign was very different from earlier ones.

The Liberal Democrats selected 60 'premier league' target seats that they hoped to retain or gain, but they also had lower level targets where they were working for future gains. While its Cowley Street headquarters organisation is small, and focuses on training campaigners and dispensing advice, the party provided some financial help to key seats in 2001 to employ agents or part-time organisers. But central input remains largely informal.

"All the parties focus their efforts on target seats, and the election results suggest that this helped Labour and the Liberal Democrats in those seats," says Prof Denver. "But there has been great concern about the low turnout overall, and this may be partly explained by the falling level of political activity in seats regarded as safe or hopeless. We found a clear relationship between campaign strength and constituency turnout. The more intense the local campaign, the higher the turnout. This seems to be the case even when other factors are taken into account – and it helps to explain why turnout was particularly poor in safe seats."

Previous research has found that more intense local campaigning had helped Labour and the Liberal Democrats in earlier elections, but there had been little impact on Conservative constituency results. "However, in the 2001 election, the evidence suggests for the first time that where there was a strong local campaign, Conservative candidates did better," Prof Denver adds.

###

For further information:
Contact Prof Denver on 01524-594267 or out-of-hours number 01524-69161 (evenings) or by email at D.Denver@lancaster.ac.uk. Or ESRC Press Office contact Iain Stewart on 01793-413032 or Lesley Lilley on 01793-413119

NOTES TO EDITORS
1. The study Constituency Campaigning in the 2001 General Election was conducted by Prof David Denver, Gordon Hands, Justin Fisher and Iain MacAllister from Lancaster University Department of Politics and International Relations.
2. The study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. The ESRC is the UK's largest funding agency for research and postgraduate training relating to social and economic issues. It provides independent, high-quality, relevant research to business, the public sector and Government. The ESRC invests more than £76 million every year in social science and at any time is supporting some 2,000 researchers in academic institutions and research policy institutes. It also funds postgraduate training within the social sciences to nurture the researchers of tomorrow. More at http://www.esrc.ac.uk.


Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.