Fixing up politics not a vote winner for the Lib Dems, ICM poll suggests

ICM have now put the details of their June political poll up on the company website. The results provide some clues as to why the Liberal Democrats had mixed results in the English local elections and a drop in support in the European elections.

The campaign was dominated by public fury over MPs’ expenses. This brought a renewed debate over how to make politics better. The Lib Dems sought to meet this by promising to “change politics for good” and by kicking off the “take back power” campaign. But the ICM poll showed the public almost evenly divided on whether the party is “likely to clean up the political system” (47% said yes, 46% said no). The other parties, especially Labour, fared worse but these figures are hardly the bedrock of a successful Lib Dem campaign.

There are other indications that none of the parties is credible or seen as being in touch with the public. The Conservatives were seen as “likely to make the right decisions in government” – by a margin of just 3%. Labour’s score is minus 31% and the Lib Dems’ minus 6%.

The Tories were seen as not “in tune with the issues that matter to you” (a somewhat vague proposition!) by a margin of 3%. Labour was not in tune by a 33% margin and the Lib Dems by minus 2%. So we can see why nearly one in five voters in the local elections opted for “others” and why two in five voters in the Euro-elections backed minor parties. In this poll, the combined support for parties other than the main three is 15% – almost double the 8% in March.

There was some good news for the Lib Dems. First, we were seen as the most united party – a net rating of plus 33% compared to plus 21% for the Tories and minus 61% for Labour.

Second, the ICM survey appeared to confirm that public services -- schools and the NHS --is the Lib Dems’ strongest issue. There was a net 22 per cent agreement that the party is “likely to protect public services”. The Conservatives’ score was minus 3% and Labour’s plus 1%. That sounds as if the Lib Dems are being cast as small-c conservatives in the political narrative.

The flipside is that the Lib Dems are still not seen as credible managers of the public finances. Labour had a net score of minus 49% as a party “likely to reduce government borrowing”. But 52% disagreed that the Lib Dems would be likely to tackle public debt, with 39% agreeing. And the Conservatives enjoyed a 4% lead on this question. Perhaps Nick Clegg’s new policy not to renew Trident, for which he is using an "economic cost" frame, will help there.

ICM does not ask all the same questions on a regular basis, and so we cannot make accurate long-term comparisons. Still, some were asked in October 2002 and we can see how far the Tories have travelled since the days of Iain Duncan Smith. Then, solid majorities disagreed that they were likely to make the right decisions in government, were in tune on the key issues or were united. Even if they do not exactly dominate on any of these measures, the Tories have improved substantially on all three.

Conversely, the Lib Dems’ scores have sagged a bit since 2002, when pluralities agreed that the party would “do the right thing in government” and perceived us as being “in tune” on the key issues.

On the 2009 European election results

Another European election, another disappointment for the Liberal Democrats.

The party has the same number of MEPs as before. But our share of the vote was slightly down from 2004.

Let’s start with a bit of context. European elections are always shark-infested waters for the Lib Dems. Our vote in these contests is usually 5 to 7 points below where we are in the national polls. In the Euro-elections of June 2004, the Lib Dems gained just under 15 per cent of the vote. At the time, Populus had us on 22 per cent nationally. Last Thursday, we gained 13.7 per cent of the Euro-vote. The UKPR polling average puts the national Lib Dem vote at 19 per cent. As John Curtice acknowledges in today’s Independent, the party’s “relative Europhilia” does not go down well with most people who vote in European elections.

All elections are different and this one was really different. During the campaign, most talk about “Europe” got blown away by the parliamentary expenses scandal and general public fury with established politicians. Labour was, and is, in deep guano. The Tories have had big problems over parliamentary expenses too. This should have been a great opportunity for the Lib Dems.

But angry voters were more likely to stay at home or vote BNP or Green than turn to the Lib Dems – or any of the other parties, including UKIP. On Thursday, Labour’s support from all those qualified to vote (as opposed to those who voted) was down by 3.2 per cent. The Tories were down too, by 0.6 per cent. UKIP’s vote was also down, by 0.5 per cent. But so were the Lib Dems, by just under 1 per cent. The BNP vote was up (very slightly) and so was the Greens’, by 0.6 per cent. Meanwhile, the percentage of people not voting was up by 3.7 points.

There are, I believe, three main reasons why the party has been left feeling disappointed. The first concerns the “anti-politician” mood. In the wake of the parliamentary expenses scandals, the Lib Dems moved to respond to the public’s anger. On fixing politics, we are, after all, on much stronger ground than the others. With his “100 days” package, Nick Clegg set a robust, ambitious programme for reform. During the campaign, I was quite positive about Nick’s Change Politics for Good broadcast. [For my blog on this, click here]

In retrospect, the party may have been too slow to pick up on this theme. The figures above suggest that although we may (sometimes) see ourselves as political insurgents but the voters perceive us as being part of the establishment. And I fear that one of my “rules of politics” may have been borne out. When politicians try to sell voters lists of policies, and don’t tell stories, disappointment is just around the corner. The closer the list is to polling day, the worse the effect.

Second, the party’s European song – drowned out as it was – was a bit off-key. The Lib Dems were more positive on Europe than for some years – “stronger together, poorer apart” – and this brought endorsements from The Observer and The Independent. Yet the party too often sounded as if it was trying to sell to voters the concept of “working together in Europe”, as opposed to setting out what difference Lib Dems would make, the specific benefits we would provide. . The manifesto sketched out our views on European economic recovery, mentioned our “green road out of recession” (though the European context was not fully developed) and cited our record on standing up for consumers. But the campaign offered few specifics and told few stories. [Click here] Voters did not receive a clear idea of what they would “get” in “return” for “buying” more Lib Dem MEPs

The third, over-arching reason is to do with the party’s campaigning culture. 2009 was an angry election, with UKIP and the BNP spinning simpler, more emotive stories. People could afford to lash out and a lot of them did. Two in five voters were cast for parties other than Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. The recent evidence, for example in Drew Westen’s book, The Political Brain, shows that voters’ decisions are driven more by emotions and values than policies and the facts and figures behind them. Yet, as so often happens, the Lib Dems tried to appeal almost entirely to peoples’ brains, their sense of reason.

So, where to next? The answer is not for the Lib Dems to ditch the entire Euro-manifesto and hurriedly throw together a patchwork quilt of “popular” European policies. None of this would be credible. Even if we can’t write the manifesto or the strategy for the next European election now, we can be sure that the main opposition party will invite people to cast a protest vote. Likewise, the minor parties will again appeal to public anger and disillusionment. So the party should base our next Euro campaign on how, in specific terms, voters will benefit from having more Lib Dem MEPs.

And let’s get behind Nick’s “take back power” campaign. It’s only just started, after all (!). The circumstances of the Euro elections won’t repeat themselves anytime soon. Above all, we need to tell people stories about the changes we offer, the bottom lines and not the process; telling stories that speak to hearts as well as heads.

Nick Clegg makes progress on Lib Dem narrative

The Liberal Democrats may, at last, be “getting” this narrative thing.

Well, Nick Clegg is starting to tell people stories.

The Lib Dems’ first election broadcasts missed a number of opportunities in this regard. The latest broadcast, Change Politics for Good, sees Nick following Stephen Denning’s three essential steps for leaders who are persuading people to embrace change. The first is to get peoples' attention. Nick uses two of Denning’s methods. He emphases the magnitude of what is recognised as a major problem -- expensesgate (“there have been times when you have been so angry . . .” ) -- and asking viewers a question (“how we stop this from ever happening again?”).

Denning's Step number 2 is to generate desire for something different. Here, Nick identifies an external barrier (“this rotten old system” . . . “self-serving politics”) and frames a new version of the future that is different from the status quo (“we need a bigger change, not just tinkering at the edges”).

The final step is to reinforce the reasons for change. (“Unless we do things very differently, in a few years from now, we’ll just have more scandals, all over again.”) Nick explains how voters can progress from the current situation to the new tomorrow (“. . . the power to do things differently is in your hands . . .it is possible to change this rotten old system and you can decide to do it . . . so I am asking you to join a Liberal Democrat campaign to change politics from top to bottom, so something good can come of all this.”). This will also be familiar to readers of Denning’s book The Secret Language of Leadership.

In this morning’s Today interview, Nick explained how Lib Dem MPs have attempted to reform MPs’ expenses, against resistance from Labour and the Tories. Challenged about where the Lib Dems stand on Europe, he used what he called a “concrete example” – a story - to explain how we are “stronger together, poorer apart” in the EU. Lib Dem MPs voted for European arrest warrants that were used to break up a paedophile ring and for anti-terrorist measures. But Conservative and UKIP MEPs voted against.

And here’s a more interesting signpost. In Monday’s Guardian G2 interview, Nick picked up on the “real change” narrative from his spring conference speech and started to frame the choice facing voters.

“I think if a general election was held now, it would become an all-out national debate about how we rebuild British politics. The next general election will be dominated by: Who's going to rebuild the British economy? And who's going to rebuild British politics?”

We may be seeing the core of a Lib Dem narrative for the general election. Labour have wrecked our economy and ruined peoples’ faith in politics. But the Conservatives would be no better. So we need the Liberal Democrats to do the job of recovery and reconstruction.

Nick Clegg could embody the story of rebuilding “politics”. Vince Cable could do the same on rebuilding the economy.

Will we, can we, get that right?

Narrativewatch: Conversations with Nick Clegg

Here’s a frustrating paradox about the Liberal Democrats. One of the main difficulties we face in putting across a narrative of our own choosing is that other people – viz. the media – filter what we say. OK, all parties have to cope with filters and the media are more likely to ignore us altogether. That means election broadcasts are a golden opportunity for the Lib Dems to tell our story. Yet the party doesn’t always use these broadcasts –- or Nick Clegg's obvious talents as a communicator -- to best effect. We don’t use them to tell enough stories.

[Before going any further: if you don’t know why stories matter, click here, or here, or just remember the words of US Democrat political strategists James Carville and Paul Bagela:

"Facts tell, but stories sell . . . If you're not communicating in stories, you're not communicating.”]

Conservations with Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems’ two-part broadcast for the European elections has a lot of good points, especially Nick’s delivery and the production values -- though I claim no particular expertise in the latter. But the broadcast could have been so much better if it had told some stories.

Part 1 starts promisingly, as Nick introduces his town hall-style meetings and explains that, by getting out of Westminster and talking to people, he might go some way towards restoring peoples’ faith in politics. Soon after, Nick presents a more voter-friendly version of the narrative from his spring conference speech.

“Labour has completely lost its way . . . I don’t think people think that things would really be that different under the Conservatives – so I think it’s a great opportunity . . . there is a chance for change.”

Nick goes on to explain two specific policies: abolishing tuition fees; and cutting taxes for those on middle and low incomes. The stories are not fully developed, however, and, on taxes especially, the explanation has almost no human element or emotional impact.

Compare that answer to Part 2, when Nick is asked about how he would go about rehabilitating ex-offenders. He explains how Lib Dem councillors in Chard successfully used community justice panels to bring reoffending rates down. Nick combines a challenge plot with what Annette Simmons calls a “value in action” story. The latter are usually deployed to influence group or individual behaviours. No matter, his story from Chard illustrates clearly how he approaches the issues around crime and social exclusion. The Lib Dems are innovative and, where possible, prefer community-based solutions that prevent crime. The story is credible; the viewer can “see” it.

The other questioner asks how Nick he will convince people of the benefits of the EU. He replies that “we have to learn to act together” in Europe, to address a raft of problems, such as international crime, terrorism, the international economic crisis and environmental destruction. But there is no story to show how “acting together” is to Britain’s benefit. Much more to the point, this was an opportunity to invoke a challenge plot about how Lib Dem MEPs address these big issues.

By the end, the two broadcasts have not, in themselves, conveyed a story. There is a set up at the beginning of both parts. (“People have lost faith in politicians . . . they don’t trust them; this [town meetings] is just one attempt to cut through that . . .”) I may have missed it, but there does not appear to be any sort of resolution.

I hate to say this but, by way of comparison, David Cameron’s first broadcast for the 2009 elections is a story in itself. “Ordinary”, disillusioned voters are seen showing up at Cameron Direct events all over Britain (well, in key marginal seats) and saying what’s on their minds. The carefully edited footage shows the Tory leader listening and engaging with them on today’s big issues. At the end, at least some of the voters said that they were thinking of voting Conservative.

So why can’t the Lib Dems tell more stories of our own?

Narrativewatch: Green Party European Election Broadcast

The Green Party start their European election broadcast by showing what looks like the archetypal green “geek”, sitting behind a computer, in a dark and somewhat messy room. Then the (male) voice over reminds us why we may have doubts about the party. What gives?

The broadcast tries to tell an “I know what you are thinking” story. In her book, The Story Factor, Annette Simmons explains that if you name peoples’ objections first, you are that much closer to disarming them. She says:

"Telling an "I know what you are thinking" story can neutralise concerns . . . and dispel fears . . . without direct confrontation."

Simmons stresses the need for a subtle approach. I’m not sure that some of the broadcast’s statements (“if you think we're only concerned about the environment, think again . . .” ; “you might assume we don’t know much about the economy. . .”) are really what she has in mind.

Likewise, one of the party’s defences is to say “our policies cover the economy, jobs and human rights, to name but a few”. Another is that their economic policy will “create jobs”. But these are statements, not stories. So the Greens ask us to take them on trust – just like the other parties.

When trying to take on the “all talk and no action” charge, the broadcast offers a bit more detail – with, for instance, the Greens’ work in the European Parliament on GM food labeling and on toy safety. These don’t really amount to stories, despite the obvious potential they provide to use what Chip and Dan Heath call the challenge plot.

Still, the broadcast is partly saved by its visuals. The geek is replaced by a series of “ordinary guys” (yes, men), each of whom are seen working on a succession of diverse policy issues. The messy room becomes more and more tidy. And they stress the potential for the PR used in European elections (oops, wrong frame) to elect more Greens. The photos of the party’s candidates also try to convey their diversity.

The Greens’ broadcast tells another story. We keep hearing about villains – “big corporations” (whom other parties support for their own gains), “immoral bankers” and “unethical businesses”. They tell us that “[a] vote for the other parties will only result in more of the same . . .”. And guess who will “take on anyone who threatens your health, your community, or your future”.

Stop the rot at the top. A plague on all their houses. We’ve heard all that before somewhere. In this angry political climate, these story lines are too good for the Greens to miss.

“Just think what a change [voting Green] would make,” says the party leader, Caroline Lucas. But they may not have disarmed enough peoples’ objections or won enough trust. In these tough times, and with a public in a climate trance, the Greens do not tell a story with the sort of ending that grumpy, anxious voters are looking for.