NYT: Applying Some American Tactics to the British Election

ROCHDALE, England, May 2 - Between plates of curry and mugs of ale, volunteers studied tattered lists of registered voters at the Labor Party's headquarters here.

In a corner, examining a computer screen displaying demographic data about the electoral makeup of this hard-fought district, was Karen Hicks, the former New Hampshire campaign manager for Howard Dean and field director for the Democratic National Committee.

Ms. Hicks's presence here in the final days of the national British election campaign underlines what has become an urgent concern of the Labor Party as it works to ensure the re-election of Prime Minister Tony Blair: turning out Labor voters who seem strikingly unenthusiastic at the prospect of a third Blair term.

The British, while no strangers to sophisticated political tactics, are drawing on lessons the American learned through two of the most closely fought presidential elections in history - the use of computerized models and consumer data to identify supporters.

" 'Get out the vote' is really an issue in this campaign," said Lorna Fitzsimons, a high-spirited and blunt-talking Laborite seeking a third term representing this city 20 miles outside Manchester, in northwest England. "Because of Iraq. Because it's a third term."

"This is the first time we've had to work up support and organization in a big way," she said, glancing at Ms. Hicks at her side. "Karen is my ace in the hole."

The election is Thursday, and polls suggest that Mr. Blair is heading for victory, yet Labor officials are far from calm about what in many ways is a convoluted election, a three-way contest being fought in about 640 constituencies, or districts. In Rochdale, Labor is facing a spirited challenge from the Liberal Democrats, who opposed the Iraq war.

Ms. Hicks's experience in New Hampshire has proved to be good training for this similarly small stage, a parliamentary contest of 71,000 people, decided by just 4,500 votes when Labor took the seat from the Liberal Democrats in 1997. Ms. Hicks was known for developing intensive methods to attract specific groups of voters, and then turning them out to vote for her candidate. (Or at least almost: Dr. Dean's campaign collapsed in Iowa the week before the New Hampshire vote.)

"It's different from the way they've done it before," Ms. Hicks said, describing some of the organizing tools put to use here and in other districts she has visited. "If we're able to pull this one out, it will be one of the things that made a difference."

Labor Party advisers have purchased sophisticated banks of data on consumer behavior - from what newspapers people read to how many cars they drive - to identify prospective supporters, precisely the tactic that President Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, used so effectively last year.

Party officials cautioned against overstating the influence and presence of Americans, reflecting a sensitivity toward any suggestion of American paternalism or political superiority.

Much of the effort to turn out Labor supporters is being led by Mr. Blair himself as he warns against the prospect that the Conservative Party will slip into power if his supporters stay home or cast a protest vote for Liberal Democrats. Door-to-door canvassing is hardly new to British politicians.

Still, the increasing sophistication of get-out-the-vote efforts has coincided with an election in which a few votes in a few districts could make a difference in the scope of Mr. Blair's victory, should he win one, and his clout over the next few years.

Robert Worcester, a British pollster, noted that the race remained very close in a number of districts. Mark Penn, an American pollster working for Mr. Blair, said: "Turn-out is extremely important. The bigger the turnout, the better for Labor."

There are several other American advisers as well. In London, Zach Exley, another veteran of the Dean and John Kerry campaigns, is working on the e-campaign, as it is called, building up an extensive e-mail list of supporters and enlisting them to work as volunteers in offices like this.

The Blair campaign turned to Mr. Penn at the urging of Bill Clinton himself, according to party officials. And Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and former adviser to Mr. Clinton, is conducting focus groups for the Labor Party.

Bob Shrum, a senior adviser to Senator Kerry's campaign, is a friend and sometime adviser to Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the Exchequer and almost certain successor to Mr. Blair eventually. Joe Trippi, onetime campaign manager for Dr. Dean, came to England earlier this year at the invitation of Labor officials to sit down with Mr. Blair.

"It was really interesting - he was asking a lot of questions about how and whether it was possible to use technology and the Internet to engage people," Mr. Trippi said.

At least some of the focus on turn-out is a deliberate effort by Labor Party officials, who are slightly less worried than they say in public, to scare their supporters to the polls. "There's a natural inclination in the race to overstate the problem because they have to overstate the problem in order to get people to pay attention to it," said one party aide.

Still, the concern by Ms. Fitzsimons in this district was palpable as she talked Monday between taking phone calls.

This district was long controlled by Liberal Democrats, and the Iraq war - which Ms. Fitzsimons voted for - has clearly emboldened them. In addition, this district is now 17 percent Muslim, a group that Labor officials said once reliably supported their party but who they assume will defect now because of the war.

The Conservatives' prospects of winning here are, in Ms. Fitzsimons's words, somewhere between "no chance and fat chance," but that has not stopped them from plastering this town with posters attacking Mr. Blair.

Labor officials said the critical lesson learned from Americans was the need to study everything from voter history to consumer buying patterns in order to identify voters inclined to support Mr. Blair. Ms. Fitzsimons said when she first ran in 1997, her supporters knocked on every door, a practice that she soon realized was as likely to remind Labor opponents as Labor supporters of the need to turn out.

Instead, Labor workers are going only to the homes of people who might actually vote for Labor, a particularly important consideration in a campaign in which time is limited and spending restrained.

Given that so many prominent Democratic Party campaign managers and advisers are helping with Blair's general election campaign, is there any chance that US Freepers on this thread will reconsider their support for Tony Blair? Or will this thread degenerate into the usual cheerleading for a Blair victory?

Blair may have supported the WOT, but Howard would be just as supportive and Blair's socialistic policies and EU federalist agenda will do a lot of long term damage to Britain. The latter will potentially negate future British efforts to act as a partner in US allied campaigns against EU friendly rogue states.

I heard somewhere that the Labour Party has jiggered the voting districts such that they can get well under 50% of the total popular vote and still have a large majority in Parliament.

Essentially that is what the Democrats in Texas did for years to keep their majority of the Texas delegation to the US House of Representatives even though the state was strongly Republican. Tom Delay got the Texas legislature to do a redistricting that balanced things more fairly.

If Michael Howard was a bit more like John Howard he might stand a better chance. The Conservative Party should have thrown caution to the wind and ran this campaign as real conservatives and an alternative to the other two parties instead of Labour-Lite. They should stake out their claim on the right and run that way. What do they have to lose?

The Conservative Party should have thrown caution to the wind and ran this campaign as real conservatives and an alternative to the other two parties instead of Labour-Lite.

Until the economy starts to suffer or EU interference starts to really irritate people then a right-wing political campaign would be unlikely to work. However, I would certainly prefer less socialistic Conservative party policies and more emphasis on renegotiating our position in the EU, (if we can't get out of the wretched thing completely).

You need a leader like Ronald Reagan (I know, there are none, but just imagine if you did) who can show the people that their economy is already suffering and the EU interference is already irritating. What that leader has to provide, though, are alternatives that resonate with the public. Michael Howard sounds like he would be a great college professor or policy wonk but he just doesn't light a fire under voters. I get the impression that Tories are coming out to vote against Blair, not for Howard.

"I heard somewhere that the Labour Party has jiggered the voting districts such that they can get well under 50% of the total popular vote and still have a large majority in Parliament."

It's always been the case that you can get a large majority with 40% of the vote, that is the nature of our electoral system. Margaret Thatcher had huge majorities without ever getting over 44% of the vote.

In any case, the government in Britain does not have the power to 'jigger' with the voting districts, any boundary re-drawing is done by an independent authority.

It is the case, most commentators, think that an equal share of the vote presently would give Labour more seats. This is probably true, although I think that the kind of tactical voting on the left that we have seen in previous elections will be less this time and so will lessen the effect.

True words remember last October at the Labour Conference the amount of Labour MPs wearing Kerry/Edwards buttons which I thought was hilarious given the fact that Blair was spouting support for Bush re WOT etc and the rest of his party were routing for Kerry, privately probably Blair was as well.

Then instead of going to Poland for the 60th Cermenmoration of liberation of Auschwitz Blair decided to go some pseudo economic conference with Bono and Clinton. He did make the service in Westminster but really he should have been in Poland as the Queen was in Westminster so that service was well supported.

It's always been the case that you can get a large majority with 40% of the vote, that is the nature of our electoral system. Margaret Thatcher had huge majorities without ever getting over 44% of the vote.

Thank you. Perhaps your system is somewhat like our electoral system, which tends in most cases to accentuate small differences in popular vote and make for a clear cut winner.

The Democrats stuffed so many Republicans into the Texas district where I vote that the Republican candidate got almost 90 percent of the vote in 2002. This kind of Gerrymandering left fewer Republican voters to oppose Democrats in other districts. A serious Democrat challenger could never get elected in my district.

What kind of independent authority draws your poll boundaries?

The authority that recomends the constituency is called the boundary comission, there are seperate ones for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

They are required to review the electoral boundaries every '8 to 12 years' and make recomendations. I'm a little hazy myself as to what the process is after that, I know there are means by which members of the public can make objections.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.