http://52nd.blogspot.com/2005/05/uk-election-tony-holds.html

So far it looks like the Tories won 36 seats and lost 3. There are only 26 seats yet to declare. This includes the 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland where counting begins later – and where the UK parties don’t run candidates.

Labour’s majority at the moment is 61 and a figure between 60-70 is at the lower end of projections.

But it’s worth noting a few things:

(a) Labour lost 12 seats to the Lib Dems, with a few very close near misses. Some of the swings were very high – ranging from 15 to 30%. Many of the constituencies in question had a very educated and presumably liberal antiwar vote, but there were also constituencies in far less advantaged inner urban areas which went Lib Dem. Nevertheless, these losses and near losses, and exit poll results show that Iraq did damage Blair badly.

(b) New Labour tried to do the crime/immigration thing to a lesser degree, and arguably at one stage were trying to get to the right of the Tories on crime. Therefore it’s difficult in the absence of detailed survey results to come to see how much of the increased Tory vote was related to these issues. It’s just as reasonable to see it as a natural correction of the electoral pendulum where many constituencies whose demographics incline them to the Tories returned home after two Labour landslides.

(c) The Lib Dems pioneered targetting of marginals in the early 90s. Just as the Tories have copied Australian and Republican techniques, so have Labour copied Democrat ones. I remain to be convinced that Crosby and Textor had that much of an impact.

(d) As a reality check for the Tories, their current figure of 195 (with perhaps a few more to come) MPs is still less than Labour’s low point of 209 MPs after the SDP split and under Michael Foot’s leadership in 1983. On the figures as at 8.24am, Labour have 158 more members in the Commons than the Tories. It’s hardly the comeback they would have wanted. Reaction within the Tory party to Crosby’s strategies will tell us a lot.

(e) Looking at the swings in the nationwide vote, the Tories only gained 1.5% for a total of 33.2% – far below their 20th century average of 44%. Labour lost 4.3% of its vote, and the Lib Dems improved their position by 4.3%. That wouldn’t be a straight transfer but the Tories certainly failed to capitalise on a long term government with a PM who’d well and truly lost his sheen.

All valid points, but poor though the Tories’ result was in terms of 20th century average, it was still a lot less bad than most had been expecting a few months ago, or even a week ago. I’m not suggesting that’s all the doing of Crosby/Textor by any means, simply that it would be unwise to discount their influence and determinedly assert that it was solely an artefact of the Iraq issue (or even natural Tory constituencies reverting to type).

I did say in a recent post that it remained to be seen how effective the Tory marginal strategy was. No doubt part of this is due to the campaigning techniques used, but I really think we have to await further evidence before we make any confident assertions about the degree to which different issues and strategies shaped the result.

Now, back to the affairs of great nations..

Yes, that’s mainly what concerns/worries me about the phenomenon. I agree we need to wait until the results are in and some careful analysis done. But, as with Australian federal elections, it looks like Crosby/Textor are both better than Labor at picking and refining the dogwhistling messages and better at conveying them to the dogs while making sure most of the cats don’t hear or get alarmed. How do you combat that without adopting the same tactics and therefore throwing the social-democratic baby (puppy?) out with the bathwater? I don’t know the answer either.

Bear in mind that, on the issues in question, the Lib Dems, who did well are more liberal than is Labour.

Given that we have the party votes, I don’t think it’s a question of political preference how to attribute the swing. Votes gained by the Tories (about 3 percentage points) can be attributed to some combination of Crosby and the general malaise of the government. Votes gained by the Lib Dems (about the same) are anti-Crosby, so the campaign yielded the Tories next to nothing, while hardening the opposition of two thirds of the population

So the takeout for me (until someone persuades me that I’m wrong which may not be that hard) is. (As I wrote these I ended up just writing away, so the first few points could be defended as ‘takeouts’. The rest are random musings.

1. Governments lose elections. Oppositions don’t win them. (See I told you this wasn’t going to be too original).
2. Dog whistling

In respect of Crosby/Textor, I think you miss the point. Competent market researchers will come up with similar recommendations for election strategy. The key to their effectiveness is selling these ideas to the political party (the same is generally true in consumer market research).

If Crosby/Textor are particularly effective, it has less to do with their methodologies and interpretation, than the ability to convince their political clients that their recommendations are effective strategies.

Oh Al get over yourself a bit. ‘Dog-whistle’ politics, ‘dog-whistle’ journalism etc has been around for years and years. It means putting out a message that, like a high-pitched dog-whistle, is only fully audible to those at whom it is directly aimed. The intention is to make your target audience (supporters,r eaders) sit up and take notice while avoiding offending those to whom the message will not appeal. Even George W Bush’s last speech writer conceded to using dogwhistling on various consituents like evangelical Christians through the careful choice of words.

So someone – an Aussie I think – nicknamed it ‘dog-whistling’ and it caught on. But the referent of ‘dog-whistling’ is to the way the message is packaged not to what it says about the recipients. No more than a colourful – and in someways accurate – Aussie idiom in the same ilk as calling your dentist a ‘fang-carpenter’.

By the by — and correct me if I’m wrong here — it seems to me you’re objecting not to the phrase “dog-whistling”, but to the implication that the Conservatives’ campaign was not entirely above-board because they resorted to thinly-disguised bastardry. If I’m wrong, perhaps you could suggest alternative phrases that still convey our disgust with the Conservative campaign… “It’s not racist to impose limits on immigration… are you thinking what we’re thinking?”. Perhaps we should refer to Conservative campaigns exclusively as “pandering to the scumbag vote”, so that it’s all out in the open and there’s no subtext to which one could take offence.

Dog-whistling, conservative style:
http://www.richardallan.org.uk/?p=366

To paraphrase Saint – The tactics employed by John Howard meant putting out a message that brought the disenfranchised back into the fold. The intention was to make the target audience feel that their concerns were being addressed without making the majority of people uncomfortable (see ‘Aims of Democracy’). Note: These tactics put the worst excesses of Ms Hanson’s policies to bed far more effectively than any sanctimonious vilification legislation or earnest thundering from the Fairfax/ABC axis of opinion.

My highly informed opinion on the British election?

A slightly disappointing result from the Tories. They really need to get back on song with a consistent message of less government, lower taxes and less EU. Howard should probably stand aside.

A high water mark for the LDs. All downhill from here.

Labor. Blair will probably go. His party is increasingly fractious, and with the assault on his integrity by the left-wing press, his position is becoming untenable. Brown just doesn’t have the charisma – expect a remorseless decline.

I think the “dog-whistling” strategy probably only got them some incremental gains, mainly returning to the Conservatives some of their old bulwarks in the South-West. Where they were quite successful was in regaining some of their old stronghold in North London, e.g. the old dens of Michael Portillio and David Mellor. In this area the Conservative vote did considerably go up, but this area should be a Conservative stomping ground for its constituents generally have quite a healthy income and it can be assumed that the Tory ethos of self-sustainability would be appealing to such voters. I think you would find a decade ago that some of these seats would have been seen as unwinninable by even the biggest Labor optimist. The fact that areas like Fulham and Wimbledon had voted for Labor in the last two elections tells you just how poorly the Conservatives had performed. Also I wouldn’t be surprised if it was tax and not immigration that was a big factor in these seats turning-over. The tax issue (the Libs Dems promising to lift the top-rate to 50%) might also explain why the Lib Dems weren’t as competitive in Tory marginals as they were in Labor marginals.

So I think in this area, the South-West, and some modest gains in the Midlands, the Tories were able to gain some of their base vote back. I think this is also a weakness in Blair’s appealing to all-people, which while a success in a broader sense, allows an Opposition with a
targeted campaign to pick off some of Blair’s massive majority, and of course for the Lib Dems to target some of Labor’s left. And also I shouldn’t forget that in some seats, local issues like the ban on hunting were quite influentual in regional areas.

So Labor’s high-water mark might be over, I think the biggest problem for Labor (and the Iraq swing was quite damaging, but probably won’t be there in 4 years time) is a feeling that the government has run out of puff, that it has stopped delivering on its promised improvements. However, I don’t know if the Tories (unless they go for someone on the left of their party) will be able to capitalise on this as they are perceived as opposed to public-sector investment in the NHS etc. which has been electoral gold for Blair. I think for the Tories to win, the more likely scenario is a slight increase in their vote but for an even larger non-attendence by Labor voters, and I think this won’t be for some time. The only other possibility would be if the British economy tanks, but at the moment Labor has all the advantages of incumbency and are perceived as better economic managers. I think this complacency is what I think Blair-Brown et al have to guard against the most.

But there is still an enormous gap for the Conservatives to breech, if you look at the seats the Tories needed to gain to win government (the 130th, 140th, 150th seats on their hit list), they have made minute gains or have gone backwards and they need a swing of something like 15% to pick up what would be seen as Middle Britain.

Having said all that, even though I thought Michael Howard was pretty ineffectual, I was surprised that he resigned. For considering the miserable straits of his party, a 40+ seat gain could be interpreted as a modest success. I don’t know how much of this is attributed to Textor-Crosby, maybe they succeeded in getting the Conservatives to run a more tighter-focused campaign. Maybe its difficult for even the wiliest of campaigners when you’ve got a dud product. For from what I heard in the election when they ask people to position the two competing parties Labor is on average placed nearly smack in the middle of any measuring stick while the Conservatives are perceived to be way out to the right.

Also even if we were to award a gong to the most successful campaigner it would have to go the Lib Dem’s strategists with well-orchestrated leaks (the A-G report), Labor defections and more shenanigans that kept the Iraq war as the main issue in the media during the last week of the election, which converted several safe Labor seats to Lib Dem territory.

I don’t profess to know any of the local factors beyond the crude sectarian divide, but Ulster Unionist Leader Dave Trimble losing his seat (along with a couple of others) to Ian Paisley’s mob would seem to be quite significant.

I’ll try not to let my innate Irish bias show, but it’s hard to see how Ian Paisley going from strength to strength at the expense of more moderate Unionists (pretty hard to be less moderate) can be a good thing.

On the other side, Sinn Fein also picked up one seat from SDLP – a bit similar to the Unionists as a move away from the middle, although not of as much significance I think.

“Even Mr Blair’s closest supporters such as Lord Falconer admitted that Iraq had been the single biggest factor in the Labour reverses, with immigration only coming second.”

Labour’s final majority is 65.

And from the Tories:

“Behind the smiles, however, was a dawning realisation that the Tories still have an enormous task ahead of them if they are to be serious contenders. Hard-headed Tories pointed out a series of factors showing formidable obstacles:

I’m trying to point out that for someone who believes that Howard/Crosby/Textor’s electoral campaigns were nothing more than a legitimate appeal to the people’s democratic will, use of the term ‘dogwhistling’ sounds like so much elitist claptrap. In one fell swoop it implies that middle-ground Coalition voters are too dumb to understand what’s being put over them, and at the same time calls the many, many people that thought Hanson had something to offer, virulent rednecks. Gee, I wonder why KB(Sr)’s ‘cream of the working class’ has been deserting the ALP in droves.

There are many good arguments in favor of immigration. That does not preclude downsides, particularly in a poorly run program. Your choice to bandy about terms like ‘dogwhistling’ tells people that your position is axiomatic and inflexible.

I thought the Tory campaign slogan on the issue was clumsy and off-target. The focus should have been more on getting the system working again.

Much of the concern held by some Britons is based on illegal immigration – a problem which has undermined faith in the legitimate program. This is exacerbated by ethnic tensions in Britain. Use of language that implies that this is all the fault of ignorant, cropped-hair, lager-sucking BNP supporters is counter-productive.

I’m just giving you a helpful hint. Promoting the positive aspects of immigration will go a lot further to winning support from working class gits like me than calling us dogwhistled dupes.