
Southern Front research reveals that nearly half of Labour’s constituency parties in the south have no presence on the web.
Harriet Harman’s Guardian interview this week, in which she made clear that Labour would be fighting hard to make gains in the south in May’s local elections, and the NEC’s decision to endorse early selections in 18 southern seats both demonstrate that Labour is starting to look serious about winning in the south again.
At last week’s NEC meeting the deputy leader acknowledged that the party needed to “comprehensively re-engineer” southern constituency labour parties, especially those in the south west, to get them fit for purpose if Labour is to capitalise on growing discontent with the coalition parties.
A quarter of the 70 seat pick-ups Labour need to defeat the coalition government are in the south. Notwithstanding this parliament’s first two by-elections, May’s local elections are the first real electoral test for Labour under Ed Miliband. In what shape is Labour in the south, and how well placed is it to deliver the local campaigns necessary to make the gains Labour needs to demonstrate that it is on the path back to no 10?
It is indisputable that Labour needs to ensure it is active in communities right across the south, knocking on doorsteps, delivering leaflets, and leading community campaigns against the coalition’s cuts. As part of these efforts a website is a critical and essential part of any modern political campaign. It is a campaign resource that works 24 hours a day and reaches an audience that is difficult to put a message to by conventional means. Expectations will vary, with a bias toward social media such as Twitter and Facebook perhaps an obvious expectation of the younger generation of voters; however, voters across all age ranges are likely to expect their local political parties to maintain and keep up to date a local website.
Research carried out by Southern Front has unearthed worrying findings about the state of Labour’s web presence in the south of England.
• Nearly half of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) in the south do not have a website (93 out of 197)
• 13 of the 59 seats we won in 1997 but have since lost do not have a constituency website;
• 9 seats Labour lost in 2010 have no CLP website (Basildon South & Thurrock East, Bristol North West, Dorset South, Dover, Gloucester, Great Yarmouth, Kingswood, Portsmouth North, Somerset North East & Waveney);
• Over 10,000 members of the Labour Party are members in a CLP that doesn’t have a website
Should these findings really be a cause for concern? As one NEC member put it to me “my concern would be that many south west CLPs don’t exist in any meaningful level offline, let alone online”. The overwhelming majority of the seats without websites are in constituencies where Labour is in third place or worse, and has never won the seat before.
Without doubt, I think these findings should alarm us. They give an impression of local Labour parties struggling to recover from defeat last May, and of almost moribund parties unable to demonstrate that they are a part of their local communities, relevant to the challenges of local community life. In this modern technological age, what message does it send if the Labour party chooses not to or cannot maintain a basic website? It is the internet equivalent of a “closed for business” sign on the shop door.
Southern Front has five recommendations for the party, that we believe will help improve the party’s online presence in the south and enhance the party’s ability to win votes back to Labour;
1. The most urgent issue is to establish Labour websites in those 13 constituencies that we lost in 2010 that do not have websites at present.
2. In areas where the party has limited membership and no elected representatives, cross constituency party website should be established. A number of CLPs have already joined together to set up a joint website, often operating across local authority boundaries (Bournemouth, Swindon, Brighton & Hove).
3. The party should support efforts to establish a brokerage system whereby party members with web and internet skills can be put in touch with CLPs who don’t have the expertise within their own constituency. Party members across the country have set up some exceptionally good local websites and would undoubtedly be willing to help other CLPs establish their own sites.
4. The NEC should introduce a new position of New Media Officer within constituency labour parties, elected with other functional officers and responsible for ensuring that the CLP has an up to date and functioning web presence. Training should be made available through regional parties.
5. Finally, Labour should agree an objective of having a local website for every CLP by 2015, when the next general election is scheduled.
Integrating technology and social media into campaigning can no longer be seen as a gimmick or something to be left to tech savvy candidates. Technology is integral to modern campaigning, and every CLP and parliamentary candidate should, as an absolute minimum, have a functioning and regularly updated website. Labour in the south is some way off that mark.
Stuart King
Editor, Southern Front
I don't think this should be our first focus. I ran the website in Cambridge in the general election, and I recall getting only one bit of feedback about it - from somebody who already supported us but wanted to correct our typos.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's an area which is fairly tech-savvy and has a bit of hi-tech industry. I would tend to suggest there would be if anything even less response in Basildon or Great Yarmouth, neither of which strike me as hubs of blogging and similar.
I think the focus needs to be on voter contact via leaflets and doorknocking, followed up by a decent strategy for getting into the local press (including local bloggers, where they exist). Only once you've got that sorted does it make sense to make serious use of a website, and even then only in a way that's very closely linked to the first two activities.
Totally agree Stuart. I am currently webmaster for all three Medway CLPs currently and we do lack bandwidth presently.
ReplyDeleteIt does not win elections but it can motivate your supporters and it is a window on the party locally for prospective and current members. It shows activity. Whilst it may not be a substitute for the doorstep it does not harm either. It is also an effective way of quickly communicating a message without leafletting and door knocking which is resource intensive. Regional papers are adopting to this and are beefing up online capability presently.
Labour Groups on Councils need to step up. As well as that being able to campaign online and engage online should be a question for all new PPCs. Given the importance of social networking, it is an opportunity we use websites in non-winnable seats to engage and galvanise opposition to cuts at very little relative expense. One tech saavy PPC could work in a constituency and really scare the opposition.
The party however needs to invest as well. Sending free wordpress designs and not relying on the over-expensive Labour in a box would be a first good step.
As along time CLP activist in the SW it is of course gratifying to see such a burgeoning interest in our wellbeing - virtual or otherwise! If the Party is serious about regeneration of parties in this region there needs to be some further investment in regional party infrastructure and that means money (which is still in short supply). A CLP Media Officer is all very well but will not solve problems alone.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the emerging issues for the Party is that if you look at the make-up of the NEC virtually all CLP reps - except the redoubtable Ann Black - are London based. This give the controlling body of the Party a very London-centric view of the world and this needs to be urgently addressed if regional differences are to be understood and addressed. How much more vibrant would the NEC be with regional representation? Other views welcome...
Edward, I've got a revelation for you and it's one you're not going to like very much: the reason you got no feedback from your website was because it wasn't very good.
ReplyDeleteHow can I comment about your website specifically? Because, when we in Putney decided to target the Roehampton University student vote, I had a look round to see how Labour Party sites in seats with big university populations were communicating with students. Cambridge, not surprisingly, was one I looked at.
What was surprising was that there was absolutely nothing for students on your website. Not even a single page devoted to this rather significant voting bloc in Cambridge. Remarkable.
It is, with respect, indefensible to argue that in seats with such a huge number of voters who access the internet at least daily; and voters who we both know are virtually impossible to contact conventionally, that a web presence is somehow surplus to requirements.
Let me try and fail to soothe your feelings a little: your website wasn't remarkably bad - it was, literally, run-of-the-mill because you used (I believe) the Labour Party standard web-in-a-box site. "Adequate" is the best that can be said for those sites, as Tristan mentions: inflexible, same-looking, undynamic, not memorable, not something anyone in their right mind would return again and again to. So largely not your fault that your website didn't cut it.
Am I qualified to talk about your website? Well, here's what politics.co.uk said about Stuart's website: http://www.stuartking.net/blog/2009/10/politicscouk-review.htm
And here's what Stuart's students' section ended up looking like: www.stuartking.net/students.
We had 5,500 visits during the short campaign, an email list exceeding 1,000 that received fortnightly newsletters and everything - everything - that we delivered through doors went on the website as a pdf download. That included an online version of every direct mail survey we did, because to assume that it's good enough to simply expect people to fill in and return paper copies will miss out on, over time, hundreds and thousands of responses.
And we got comments; hundreds of comments, correspondence, queries, opinions via our online presence. We even got some national media coverage from the (content of the) website.
Labour no longer has the luxury of choosing between online or on-street campaigning: it has to do both, and not only does it have to - it should want to.
It's all very well for activists in seats like Cambridge with relatively large Labour memberships to be spouting-off about the importance of doorstep campaigning but in North Cornwall, or Cotswold, or countless other southern seats with tiny memberships, the point Stuart is making is that your comment simply isn't relevant: a web presence is possibly the only campaigning voters in those seats will see.
Oh, it absolutely was a bad website. You'll get no argument there. Search engine optimisation wasn't great either. It badly needed a redesign and a webmaster with a much better idea of what they were trying to do and how to accomplish that.
ReplyDelete(I'm referring to the Daniel Zeichner website, by the way. I only got access to the main constituency one a few weeks before the election, after several months in which nobody was updating it and several years after it was last comprehensively redone. That one was a real wasted opportunity.)
For all that, I've seen the referral numbers we got a pitiful number of hits from university accomodation. Much of that was in the last week, by which time most of the city had had a couple of dozen political leaflets and even the students within colleges would have had the mailshot plus one leaflet.
[I should not here that Cambridge's university students are slightly easier to reach than elsewhere, because of the guaranteed university accomodation. Sadly, because of their background they're a lot less favourable for us than other students, but even so they aren't as hard to get hold of as in some other cities.]
We were barely reaching anyone we wouldn't have reached anyway. Nobody seemed to be interested in looking until the time we'd already been looking for them in other ways.
We'd have done better with the website if we'd managed to integrate it with our press operation and I agree we could have done more with students - although again I think the student press would be the first point of call. But overall it was disappointing.
I won't deny that Stuart's website undoubtedly reached many more students than we did. But I do think that in any of the sessions of voter ID I did, I reached twice as many undecided voters as I did in all the hours on that blasted website. I'm all for a cheap out of the box website, especially in London where it's likely to be more use. I'm all for assigning it to somebody tech-savvy who isn't able or willing to campaign in other ways.
I just doubt it'll move the polls by more than 0.1% in any constituency where such a website wouldn't have been created anyway, and as such I'm not sure that the party should spend very much of our fairly empty coffers.
I have no comment about rural areas, because I've never campaigned in an area you can't campaign in.
The current Labour Party website template is expensive and terrible. We either need to offer something of considerably higher quality and make it free, or send people out to constituencies to train members of CLPs to set these up themselves. The model we have now of encouraging CLPs, with little online experience, pay for embarrassingly poor quality sites, and making volunteers pay the cost of travelling to regional centres for training, is ludicrous and ineffective.
ReplyDeleteCarina