Is Crosby’s “Tories can’t win” line part of the plan?
January 26th, 2005
-
What’s the “master of the dark political arts” up to?
Why are the pundits and politicians taking at face value the stories that the Tories’ Australian campaign guru, Lytton Crosby (above) has allegedly told Michael Howard that the Tories cannot win?
Given that the 48-year-old who was brought to the UK by the Tory leader last autumn has been described as a “master of the dark political arts” and “the Australian Karl Rove,” surely the wise course is to treat everything that is said about him with a huge pinch of salt.
-
Could it be that Crosby, who streered the Australian Prime Minister John Howard to four successive victories, has worked out that the best strategy for the Tories is not to be seen as a potential election winner?
Crosby, it should be recalled, was the strategist behind the remarkable campaign in 1996 when the Australian Liberal party pulled off a surprise victory in the General Election there by all but conceding that the party had no chance of beating the Government of the then Labour Prime Minister, Paul Keating.
Instead the Crosby campaign urged the voters to “send Keating a message”. The voters did, Keating was defeated, and John Howard became Prime Minister.
Is it possible that Crosby has discovered that there is so much residual hostility to the Tories that he has to squash the very idea that the party could return to power? Take away that threat and voters will probe Labour and Blair more bringing the “trust issue” to the top of the agenda.
Might we be hearing from the Tories in April that the electors should “send a message to Tony Blair”. Does this sound too devious? Yes. But that by all accounts is how Crosby operates.
Latest IG Index spread prices: LAB 358-365: CON 183-190: LDs 71-75
Latest Spreadfair prices: LAB 358-359: CON 186-190: LDs 72.4-73.5.
The moves on both markets have been from Labour to the Lib Dems.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I think the fact that CRosby has issued such a categoric denial alongside Saatchi makes it very unlikely that this is a tactic!! More likely to be a piece of unsubstantiated tittle tattle by a Times that has become a gossip sheet rather than a serious newspaper.
I don’t know if it is a plan, or a well thought out one for that matter, but it does conjure up images of a recent Conservative win in a Council Ward near me. A friend was the candidate and we allowed the LibDems to “do their normal” i.e. only we can beat Labour, two horse race, Tories are out of it etc etc. However, the Conservatives focused leaflets and direct mail upon their pledge base and canvassed strategically, not looking to upset the opposition vote base. Each Tory pledge got 6 pieces of literature and, apparently, they did believe the Tories could win. However Labour supporters didn’t and enugh switched to the third placed LibDems (as a protest) to give the result of a Conservative gain, Labour second and LD third.
For interest, looked up the equivalent pre-2001 poll to the current ICM one:
NOW Labour 38%; Tory 31%; LibDem 21%; Others 9% (SNP2%, UKIP 2%, Greens 1%, Plaid Cymru 1%, others 3%);
THEN Labour 44%; Tory 34%; LibDem 16%; Others 6%.
So 5.5% swing from Lab to LibDem, 1.5% swing from Tory to others, or, if you prefer, 1.5% swing from Labour to Tory - obviously merging countless switches in different directions under that global heading. The trouble, as we’ve all been saying, is that we can’t tell how unfiorm that is, and the pollsters on the site wil be doing us all a real service if they keep doing NoW-type surveys by type of constituency, so that we can see how opinion is affected by perceived marginality as things hot up. A further point to bear in mind is that some of the ‘others’ aren’t going to be standing everywhere, so their second preferences would be interesting.
Nick
This has echoes of the Hague 2001 campaign: “Go on, burst his bubble”. The message of that campaign, I think, is that the perception is bad for the Conservatives - it seems that for some reason (perhaps, ironically, their awesome competence as an election-winning machine from 1979-92), the public only respect them for the strength, and aren’t forgiving when the party seems to be in an electoral mess.
Mike - as usual, you astutely touch on a key point in this election. At last, the Conservatives have picked up the benefits of “unseen” campaigning - using Voter Vault, direct mail, canvassing etc., and are way ahead of 2001. If the other parties believe that they can use the 2001 campaign template, they’ll lose a lot of seats, in my humble opinion.
Nick 3 - at this stage before the JUNE 2001 election it was February and ICM had LAB: 47 CON 42: LD 15. So Labour dropped 5 before election day; the Tories rose 0.7 and the LDs rose 3.8%.
So Labour are 9% down on where they were last time; the Tories 1% down and the LDs up 6%.
So if the same changes take place Labour drop to 33%: Tories to 31.7%; and the LDs to 24.8%. We can all play at statistics.
Thank you Mike for being the voice of sanity once more :-). Beyond all the hot air and noise that has been flying around the site in recent weeks, there is only one real story in terms of the polls - how well can the Lib Dems do?
Labour have lost ground (presumably largely down to the war - and its build up Vino!). The Conservatives have stayed in their box. Unless there is a dramatic shift in the pattern of the last 2 years, the only question is, is whether the Lib Dems can maximise their seat numbers or whether they damage Labour disproportionately to the Conservatives. The danger for Labour is, has been discussed here before, the latter. The danger for the Conservatives is that the perception that they are no longer the only alternative to consider.
The campaign seems to be well under way with The Conservatives playing their hand early. If it pays off for them the trend may be reversed. If it falls flat now, it could be all over for them. The strange thing from my perspective is that the Conservatives made their major play out of the national polling cycle. If they had launched their immigration policy a week before and they had received a poll bounce of a % or 2 they would have been able to see some momentum from it. By announcing it as polls were coming out showing them stuck, they were open to suggestions that they were acting from desperation. Interestingly, the Labour Party are being very low key - presumably watching the manoeuvres of the Conservatives, but Charlie Kennedy seems to be on every news outlet at the moment.
The next cycle of polls will in my opinion allow us to harden up our predictions. If the Conservatives have made progress, then it could be a very open election. If they haven’t it will be about how well the Lib Dems do.
“Send a message to Tony Blair” is the key phrase here. As Graham has pointed out, its all about how sophisticated the electorate chooses to be in how it sends this message.
A high degree of electoral sophistication (eg pro-LD TV in the inner-cities) could damage Labour without necessarily benefitting the Conservatives.
IMHO, though, the likely beneficiary will be the Conservatives, via depressed turnout and Lab/LD switching.
Mike at 6: At this stage of 2001 it was February?
I assume Mike meant that we are working on the basis of a May 5 election. As the 2001 election was early June, the appropriate comparison with today’s polls is those from late February 2001, not from those exactly 4 years ago.
Ah, I’ve got it, you’re saying because it was June, not May, last time, you think Jan this time is like Feb last time. Sorry - feel free to delete this and the last post.
Nick
Nick he means that 2001 was June, this year it is May - therefore the same time out from the election
Sorry - BV beat me to it!
Nick - is that official confirmation of May 5th?
(Don’t worry, Nick, some posters on this site still seem to think it is 1979!)
It was going to be May last time though wasn’t it, got blown off course by foot and mouth, so presumably the parties strategic plan were at the same point then as now.
Think that is ab absurdum.
It doesn’t really matter. The polls stayed much the same until May. Then the only change was the LD’s gained about 3% @ Lab’s expense. To be fair the cons had a ‘good’ Jan 2001 compared to this Jan, and a ‘bad’ Feb.
In January 2001 the Conservative ratings were still being helped by the September 2000 fuel crisis.
The problem, as I see it, with a “send Tony Blair a message” campaign is that it translates as “Vote Liberal Democrat” (and not “Vote Tory”).
The Conservatives are seen as aligned with the government over the Iraq war, and now over I.D. cards, (and to an extent over tuition fees), and if Mr Blair has a perceived fault it is that he is too like a Tory.
Of course it may be Tory strategy to rely on Liberal popularity over Labour to win them seats they could not do for themselves.
Richard - absolutely its a strategy and one I have no doubt is being pursued by CCO. If Tory poll ratings aren’t moving then they have to rely on a split progressive vote and a differential turnout to make progress.
It is one of the perversities of FPTP (that’s been raised here before) that a shift in the electorate towards a more liberal position would be reflected with exactly the opposite outcome (more Tories).
I do not believe this is a strategy. First, the stories of high-level splits are damaging and the story could be got out there without dwelling on the splits (why not just say “senior strategists at Conservative Central Office have privately admitted…”?) Secondly, any such strategy relies on people thinking “the Tories won’t win, but if they did they would do a reasonable job”. At the moment, the Tories have been all too successful at convincing people of the former - it is the latter which is the problem. The Australian Mr Howard had successfully positioned him and his team as rather competent (if rather grey) managers, which was an important element of the strategy - it is this that the British Mr Howard needs to work on.
Richard at 19: If there are lots of Tory gains on May 5 due to people switching to the LibDems, the headline will be “big swing to Tories” not “big swing to left” - people look at outcomes much more than how they happened, except for politics nuts like us. The objective difficulty for people on the left of Labour (which is an artifact of our unfair voting system) is whether they dislike Iraq etc. enough to be prepared for *that* message to Tony to be the result.
Nick
Tabman
if its this weekend you are around in Rhos my number is 0783 702 7145
only time not available is Sat Morning when I am speaking in a husting for VoC…..
Nick. I think Richard is right to a certain extent. As I have argued here before - if the Conservatives strategy is to hold onto their voters and hope the Lib Dems inflict damage on the Govt. it is a very risky approach. It is a bit like a football team playing for a draw - it’s all very well if the other side doesn’t score, but if they do it is very hard for them to then adapt to a new offensive strategy - and quite often if that does happen in a hurry, they get murdered in the process. More to the point, psychologically it sends out a very strange message - i.e. we aren’t very strong at the moment, but vote for us because one day we might be.
Nick - much more subtly put than Peter Hain, but then you have a direct interest in the matter
You’re correct (I nearly wrote “right”) about this. The history of the 1980s (more evenly-split progressive vote, Tory landslides) will make many people reflect, and I suspect that there will be far more protest votes in safe seats than in marginals such as Broxtowe.
I think Crosby is at it. But it may, as some have pointed out, just favour the Liberals.
If it is a strategy, it is a dangerous one! Coupled with the Voter Vault approach, and other comments here about the Tories’ concentrating their campaigning on their perceived core vote and ignoring the opposition, it could be a recipe for disaster. They are ostensibly talking up the opposition in order to lull them into a false sense of security, and hoping to sneak through on a reduced turnout (and a split vote where relevant). This ignores the fact that their opponents will be encouraging non-Tory voters to vote, and trusting that apathy amongst the rest can be maintained. All it takes is some sort of “Event” (a la Macmillan) during the campaign, and they could be blown completely off course. Unless, of course, it is they who have some sort of secret waepon to deploy during the last few days of the Campaign.
Augustus - such a strategy (if it is one) ought to appeal to the gamblers who (are supposed to :)) frequent this site.
As others, notably Graham, have pointed out, the polls suggest the Tories are stuck. If nothing much changes they will go down to certain defeat.
Crosby’s “strategy”, however, represents a kind of electoral double or quits. If it pays off then as Andy Cooke’s excellent analysis on another thread shows, we will be in hung parliament or even small majority territory. And ATEOTD as Nick pointed out, it doesn’t matter a jot that the electorate didn’t actually vote for that outcome if that’s what occurs. It will be perceived as a ringing endorsement of the Conservative party.
OTOH, it could all go horribly wrong - Labour returned with a similar majority, but a significant (30+) increase in seats to the LDs and movement to second place in many constituencies. I’d even forgive FPTP for the excitment factor.
I don’t know if it is a strategy (and I wouldn’t tell you if I did know).
But something similar worked when Margaret Thatcher stood as leader against Edward Heath. On the day of the vote, Airey Neave approached a number of MPs who were unhappy with Heath but didn’t like Thatcher, to let them know that he thought Heath would just hold on. That galvanised them to vote for Thatcher in order to get rid of Heath, even though they intended to vote for other candidates on the second ballot. In fact, Thatcher developed such a momentum that her subsequent win was inevitable.
Yes, but Sean, Tory MP’s are universally recognised as the most sophisticated and cunning electorate in the world! Mere mortal voters are a much less complex life-form. Far too many campaigns (particularly at a local level) in all parties are run by people who are too clever by half. These complicated plans and strategies always fall apart when the real world intervenes.
And it begs the question, does the individual experience of a voter outweigh the percieved “national experience”. e.g. Just because the whole nation believes the Tories are doomed, do you believe it when you have been pounded by leaflets and calls by them?
Marc - some members of the public don’t believe the Tories are doomed - bizarrely 4% of people in the last Populus poll not only thought that the most likely result was a Conservative victory, but expected a Conservative landslide (13% expect a Conservative majority).
My natural assumption was that it was people saying what they *wanted* to happen, rather than what they though would happen, but 4% of Labour voters, and 14% of Lib Dem voters expect a Conservative majority.
I was forced to conclude that people are just strange.
With regards to Lynton Crosby’s mythical campaigning abilities. In 1996 when Howard ‘unexpectedly’ won the Australian General Election, it was only unexpected in as much as the pundits expected Paul Keating and Labor to turn it around in the campaign. The Liberals had been ahead in the polls for about a year, with their allies the National Party. Lynton’s campaign had little impact either way, other than holding the ground that they had made up. Similarly Karl Rove did not particularly add votes during either 2000 or 2004, rather maintained the Republican vote. In fact a look at election figures and poll figures in Britain, shows that campaigns rarely have any particular effect. The only notable exception is the rating of the Lib Dems, but most accept that this is because of their increased exposure, rather than any particular fighting prowess. It is not campaigns that change the voting intentions of people, but perceptions and events.
Marc at 31: ah, but the Tories don’t pound the constituency with leaflets and phone calls with a stealth strategy in a Lab/Con marginal. Step 1 is to survey the target seat extensively and find out who is probably planning to vote Tory. Step 2 is to pound *them* and leave everyone else alone. In theory, they conclude that the national stuff about the Tories giving up is nonsense and the local Tory campaign is in fine fettle, so they rush out and vote for it, while everyone else thinks the Tories have given up, so a sufficient number just stay at home and watch TV, vote Respect, LibDem, Socialist Alliance, or whatever, spoil their ballot papers, or do whatever else occurs to them.
It certainly works in council by-elections and is, after all, what we all try to do with knock-ups. Whether it works in a national election with, despite everything, intensive coverage every day, is more dubious. But it may be their best hope.
Nick
Re 34 But Nick, if they do that, then surely they will never replenish their voter base, or widen their appeal to newer voters. It is clever, but difficult to bring off.
(Sorry, but I do realise that you, of all people, don’t have to try to justify or explain Conservative election strategies!)
Nick, Augustus - isn’t the point that Voter Volt [sic] etc is all about targetting specific people in specific seats?
The theory behind it is that there is a certain type of person who is likely to vote Conservative but hasn’t been doing so for the alst two elections (the legendary *Swingus Voterum*, known colloquially under a variety of names, Worcester Woman, Mondeo Man etc). The thinking is that if enough of these can be persuaded to pop their X next to the Commie Torch in enough target seats, MH is home and dry.
It presupposes, of course, that there is limited volatility outside of this scenario. However, if there is volatility some of it may reinforce Tory success (Lab/Lib switchers, differential turnout) and some of it will detract (Anti-Tory TV, Con/UKIP switchers).
So, in summary, if I’ve understood it correctly, I wouldn’t necessarilly agree that they’re going after their core vote, they’re going after what they *think SHOULD BE* their core vote. Which actually makes sense.
The question is whether in an age where demographics and political affiliation have become much looser, such tactics will actually work.
Nick - rereading your post you’ve summarised my waffle at 36 in one line (”find out who plans to vote Tory”) - I guess that’s a quid pro quo for my “Virtues of FPTP” post!
Fascinating. I am used to the semi-cynical view that politicians/candidates/parties etc. have to be “sold” to the public, but this approach seems to take a lot of the responsibility out of the hands of campaign managers and puts it into the care of market research analysts. The market research analysts might not even be Party members, but just “hired guns”, perhaps from Australia(!)
It will mean that the campaign managers will have to try to treat their market research and opinion polls as “barometers” of what will happen in the future, rather than as “thermometers2 of the current political temperature.
I suppose part of the problem is that I have got no idea what it must be like to be a floating voter.
In the USA, both parties use plenty of hired guns, although it is noteable that in the latest election, the Republicans did benefit from old-fashioned canvassing techniques.
WRT 35, I would have thought that the strategy would be to contact those you know nothing about (you will always have a considerable number of voters moving into and out of a constituency between elections), as well as core supporters. That way, you do replenish your voting base, and, as Nick says, it is a good tactic in local elections.
Augustus - I would bet most politicos have no idea what its like to be a floater. So it makes sense to approach the problem by using disinterested people; unlike the over-optimistic party canvasser they’re more likely to record the “true” picture.
Similarly that’s the reason why parties use focus groups, to tell them what motivates switchers.
All most informative. Thank you.
Indeed Nick that is what I meant. I have said to the Tories that I might vote for them and am recieving stuff but my next door neighbour (who is voting Labour, albeit with a held nose) hasn’t had dicky bird since the original tele canvass.
Tabman/Cymrumark at 23 - why are you campaigning for the Dutch East India Company - isn’t the election unpredictable enough already, and anyway IG don’t have aspread for them
Nick at 34 - the Tories have bee doing the Klingon cloaking campaign for years now. Sometimes it works (mostly when the opposition get overconfident) sometimes it doesn’t (as you say, events dear boy). Point is it’s now their mindset, and it’s probably too late to rewrite the “How to win election in 3 easy lessons” guide.
Re. 19, maybe the other Richard would be so kind as to mark himself Richard 2, or even ‘New Richard’.
Otherwise, people are going to be thoroughly confused…..
Tom Thumb - Cymrumark and myself have decided to engage in some time-canvassing, and as we speak we’re planning to launch his candidacy for Bandung SW. I myself have decided to concentrate on obtaining Liberal nomination for Batavia Central.
I’m campaigning to raise taxes on Rijstafel and Blue Bols to pay for a refurbishment of the Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie Headquarters.
Steve - I can’t see your vicious high tax policy going down well in the brown bars/cafes of Llandewi Brevi. Now if you were to propose putting a small tax on Government-licensed ganga, you might no longer be the only Liberal in the village
5 But Sarah the Tories have been doing unseen campaigning for years in a lot of seats. It’s telephone canvassinga nd direct mail which is no different from what Tory posters are saying you are doing now. Or are you guys spinning us
Brian Sedgemore: ‘I urge everyone to give Blair a bloody nose at the election’ Nick Barlow - Crossing the floor Chicken Yoghurt - Sedgemore: Twenty-two Years of Solicitude: So there you go - 22 years of looking after constituents. Granted,…