Some thoughts of mine after doing some campaigning for the Conservatives ahead of the UK’s general election in the constituencies of South Thanet, Harrow East, Telford and Ludlow, where the candidate I supported was announced as the Member of Parliament in the early hours of Friday morning following the Counting of votes cast.

What people say in polls doesn’t predict their vote.

Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. Previous analysis about possibilities for different Coalitions seems like it never happened – it’s a Conservative majority now. It doesn’t seem like polls predicted the result of the election well, and it reminded me of an event I went to at Parliament where some academics presented research about polls data. Apparently voting intent expressed by those polled is a worse predictor of their vote than their actual past voting behaviour. Because of that, even if all polls say the same thing at once they can be misleading.

The rapid emergence of UKIP and lack of a track record in elections perceived as important meant that it was hard to assess their levels of support. And there were even more fundamental problems in assessing the effect of UKIP on a Conservative-Labour contest because of how hard it was to tell where UKIP support came from. While the panel were content to assume that Green support often came from Liberal Democrat or Labour, they were unwilling to affirm a suspicion that UKIP were draining Conservative support in marginal seats. Those presenting confidently predicted an SNP landslide in Scotland however because they could combine consistently strong and increasing levels of SNP support as mentioned in polls, with the knowledge that 45% of Scotland voted for independence in the referendum.

Lynton Crosby is the Wizard of Oz who gave 1992-style shy Tories the courage of their convictions in supporting their party.

I’m a largely pro-EU and often Guardian-reading Tory who doesn’t want to be negatively associated with stereotypes, but people of all opinions can be self-righteous and I think reluctance to discuss politics is more fundamental. I found people often didn’t seem to want to reveal their thoughts at random times to unannounced strangers on their doorstep or anywhere else. I don’t think many people are persuaded by direct argument at times like these. Instead I think people form opinions gradually and may feel undecided until they actually cast their vote. but parties can attempt to transmit messages, through both the press as well as by canvassing…

When I and others attempted to ‘canvass’ levels of support, the aim was to survey and improve the number of people considering voting Conservative in different areas. These surveys could be compared with publicly available data by area on the number of registered voters, turnout, and vote totals by candidate in various elections. Then, on election day, we tried to remind likely supporters to vote with the aim of recording a competitive tally at the ballot box.

South Thanet Conservative office at work

Parties want volunteer numbers and enthusiasm for this but what would help at an aggregated level is message discipline. Clear, repeated messages are much more easy to deliver effectively. And I also think that when attempting to canvass large numbers of households, a clear message makes it much easier to assess whether people have received your message or support your candidate. And in removing ‘barnacles on the boat’, UKIP could be robbed of sellable lines, and support could be bolstered among volunteers.

Even former Labour figures respect Crosby and his ability to develop a message capable of unifying members and being spread by volunteers on the doorstep. He brought far more than negative campaigning. Optimism from most Tories I met referred to the potential to win enough seats to form a minority goverment, and I don’t know anyone under 30 who suggested a majority could be achieved. Many more may head off to see this election strategist after the new addition to his list of election wins. 

Labour couldn’t portray the Coalition as extreme with left-of-centre Ed Miliband as leader.

If anyone really believed the Coalition programme was destroying the UK with austerity, naming Ed Miliband leader was history repeating itself, first as tragedy then as farce. The Milistone was a lot shorter than 1983’s longest suicide note in history, but once again the Labour Party portrayed the Conservatives in goverment as an extreme and destructive force while failing to propose a programme capable of appealing to enough voters to be able to undo its work. It seems Labour heavyweights are now acknowledging that their party paid dearly for their choice of leader and subsequent loss of centre-ground support available to Blair and Brown.

Negative headlines about Ed Miliband’s victory in Labour’s leadership contest appear justified, and four years into his leadership the party was punished for a 35% core vote strategy led by someone so easily portrayed as weird, Communist, his brother’s back-stabber etc. They did attract enough support to decimate Liberal Democrat party, but rather than winning seats this helped the Conservatives to a decisive victory. I believe deficit spending was and is the wrong programme for the UK government, but if this was part of the solution I would expect its supporters could agree to outline more of their plan with the public interest at heart. Otherwise why should voters believe such a plan exists in theory and can work in practice? If the left actually had an answer they should agree on what it is, not fall into disunity.

Now the Tories are putting European integration back onto their agenda, it’s just as well UKIP have been largely contained so far.

Wishing Nigel Farage a happy retirement from work with UKIP

David Cameron dislikes reshuffles and their potential to cause more trouble in excess of any benefit, so I expect a focus on implementation rather than new legislation in areas of reform under the Coalition like welfare, education and healthcare. I heard the art of running a government with no majority lies in narrowing the focus of legislation to specific areas more easy to bargain over. But the Conservatives have their first majority since 1992 and a commitment to negotiation with the European Union ahead of a referendum on membership. Then, their small majority in Government only served to underline internal divisions over Europe.

Now, the the Tories must face their differences over European policy, but at least they do so without already having been split by UKIP. After news of Nigel Farage’s impending defeat and resignation I heard the suggestion that their only sitting MP, Douglas Carswell was too professorial to maintain morale as their leader. If UKIP reject such libertarian supporters and appeal to the unpopular ‘bring-backery’ of some older Tories, the Conservative party will hope they can also be guided left towards opposition to Labour where the Conservatives are unpopular. And hamstrung by negative headlines and stereotypes of ex-BNP racists where the Tories are strong.

Does a decisive election invite a satisfying devolution settlement or the divorce of a broken union?

I spoke to a Tory supporter dismayed that without a Grand Coalition of Labour & Conservative, a hung Parliament would prompt demonisation of the SNP among the rUK and doom the Union. That hasn’t happened, and I also am not sure it’s fair to Scotland to describe the SNP as a party wanting to undermine the union, rather than the elected representatives of many people in Scotland.

An SNP controlled Scotland has a mandate for a ‘devo max‘ proposal, which they might prefer to a second referendum on independence (it didn’t work out so well for Quebec). Meanwhile a Conservative majority could force through ‘English Votes for English Laws‘ in the House of Commons. I don’t know much about the New Labour 1990s devolution agreement and any role it played in prompting interest in separating the United Kingdom. But I hope the SNP are willing commit to a deal over a federal settlement rather than work to provoke an acrimonious divorce.

The Liberal Democrat Party might be incapable of transitioning from Opposition to Government with any supporters left

Because I like Nick Clegg, I think it made for a good resignation speech to talk of noble work in the national interest. But I think the starting point for any soul-searching might be whether the party was ever capable of transitioning from opposition to government with any supporters left. A party comprised of people believing they vote for ‘None of the Above’ has no place in doing so.

If Lib Dems wanted a party to support Labour in government, they should support them from within rather than drain that support. If Lib Dems wanted to decline rare opportunities to enter a Coalition as they weren’t willing to coalign with the Conservatives, how could they be a moderating force of wisdom for either senior coalition partner. If its supporters want to be part of a radical progressive party of opposition concerned about the environment, why not merge with the Green Party?

The party only exists because of a previous merger between the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, born of left disunity itself. If Nick Clegg really was a Tory in disguise, it seems the Party has already disbanded. In their manifesto the Lib Dems wanted to be a stabiliser to two-party dominance; they now look a spare wheel in a multi-party machine.