UK Labour lift their digital game

At the last British general election the Conservatives spent £1.2m on Facebook advertising, while the Labour Party only spent £16k [source]. It still astounds me just how little focus Labour put into paid digital advertising, but then you look at the results.

It looks like, despite all their other problems, Labour may have learnt from their mistake.

The Guardian reports that they have built a custom tool called Promote which integrates with their voter database and Facebook Ads.

While it’s short on details, it sounds like they’re trying to make it as easy for a local campaign to target Facebook Ads as it would be for them to cut a list for a phone bank or door knock.

Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the party will actually redirect more of their central resources into digital advertising, but this investment in infrastructure is a very good sign.

 

The three seats challenge

img_0272

I noticed a few tweets about this from the UK over the weekend, and a blog post today from UK Labour Councillor, and European candidate, Sanchia Alasia.

Basically, the three seats Labour challenge idea is that a large group of activists get together and pool their collective resources, with the aim of making as many voter contacts they can over one weekend, throughout three target Labour seats (for a good summary of UK Labour’s 106 target seats, read this).

This particular group of activists managed to contact over 1,500 voters in the target seats of Redbridge, Brighton and Hove and Crawley in one weekend. If they are to keep this up at a decent rate, perhaps once a month between now and the election in late 2015, they are sure to make a massive difference to the outcome of the next election.

Certainly a model worth looking at for elections on the other side of the globe.

You can keep up with the three seats challenge by following @lab3seats or #lab3seats on Twitter.

A rather good speech

Over summer I’ve been back in New Zealand, catching up with family, friends and some of my excellent former colleagues.

As well as talking about what we have to look forward to this coming year, and I have a few blog posts about this ready to go, we’ve been doing a bit of reminiscing. I’ve got a few things that have randomly come up in conversation to post, this is the first.

It is, I believe, Gordon Brown’s finest hour. It’s a speech he gave to Citizens UK three days before the 2010 election, following on from David Cameron and Nick Clegg at the same event. I’ve never been a huge Gordon Brown fan, but in this 10 minute speech, despite a stage invasion, he manages to passionately get across what it means to be Labour. Enjoy.

 

 

Forward, not back.

Just 18 months out from their next general election, the UK based blog published this excellent piece yesterday about how Labour needs to move forward, not look back, to be competitive in 2015.

With 18 months to go to the election it is obviously time to assign campaign roles and start finalising ideas for the manifesto. It is encouraging for Labour that so many talented figures seem ready to lend a hand. What is so far less clear is what the central thrust and tone of this campaign will be. It will be important not to refight old battles, or unthinkingly recycle old techniques. May 2015 will be different. It will involve a volatile electorate, reduced loyalty to the three old parties, the unknowable UKIP factor, and a media industry in some disarray. No-one has fought a UK election in circumstances quite like these before. Cutting through to sceptical, free-floating voters will require brilliant communication skills. “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?”, as St Paul said.

Some good advice for their antipodean comrades. I highly recommend reading the full post.

The importance of getting statistics right

The Atlantic picked up on an interesting piece of research from a demographer called Conor Sen from Atlanta:

https://twitter.com/conorsen/statuses/383578153202900992

The whole article is well worth a read. Something that sticks out however, is this claim:

But you may also be struck by the shape of that trend line (Sen is quick to note, by the way, that he’s not a statistician). It roughly suggests a political tipping point somewhere around a population density of about 800-1,000 people per square mile.

Justin Esarey, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Rice University, has picked up on it and noticed something  quite interesting.

As he notes:

Huh. Well, that did not look like a very good fit to me. So, I reconstructed the data set using the Wikipedia-sourced PVI data and the Census-sourced population density data that Conor talked about. I then ran an analysis of this data replicating Conor’s log-fitted model, plus a loess nonparametric fit line and a simple linear model. Here’s what these three models look like when plotted against one another:

pvi-plot

What Justin is showing, is that by simply employing a different type of trend line you can paint a very different picture.

The interesting part (for me!) is how this would actually apply to political campaigns. For example, Dave Troy came to this conclusion using the original log fit line:

at about 800 people per square mile, people switch from voting primarily Republican to voting primarily Democratic

If you were to base a campaign on that principal, then depending on your voting system, it could be a fair assumption for a Democratic campaign to ignore districts with a population density of less than 800 people per square mile, and likewise, that very dense districts are only marginally more Democrat-leaning than moderately dense districts.

The two other trend lines tell a story. With them you get a far simpler, and in my view, far more logical story. Whereby there is no “tipping point” where a low population density district area becomes “worthless” to Democrats, and where a district continues to be stronger Democratic the higher the density.

All goes to show how important it is to get statistics right.

Please note: I am in now way claiming to be a professional statistician at all, so please excuse any errors on my part too!

Australian Labor leadership election

The ballot papers that rank-and-file members of the Australian Labor Party will receive this week are for the most important vote they will ever have as a member. For the first time, rank-and-file members will vote for the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party leader.

For a party that was often a pioneer amongst social democratic and labour parties, it seems odd that Australian Labor was the last major centre-left party in an English-speaking Westminster democracy to embrace the direct election of the leader.

A lot of that is due to the experience of the Australian Democrats, a socially liberal third party. The Democrats were a successful minor party for three decades, holding the balance of power in the Australian Senate and having representation in state parliaments. The party imploded after the membership of the party elected a federal leader that were not supported by the caucus room. The party now has no parliamentary representation and has been overtaken by the Greens. The Democrats have been cited by many opponents of the direct election of leader.

Continue reading “Australian Labor leadership election”