Labour faces a big task at the next general election. Labour needs to gain 65 seats to win a parliamentary majority of just one, and that is before possible boundary changes which will make the task much harder. This is going to be a big task and simply won’t be possible without active campaigns in marginal seats across the country.
It is clear from the last general election that campaigns that were entrenched in their community fared much better. Birmingham Edgbaston was a particularly good example of this, and their community-oriented campaign managed to hold the swing against Labour to just 0.5 per cent, 4.5 per cent better than the national average. In light of this it seems clear that Labour should adopt an approach in their campaigns that is much more community focused.
The Labour party has made it clear to candidates in recent years that they need to have high voter ID contact rates and be campaigning all year round. However, while both are extremely important, it is now becoming clear that Labour needs to also build relationships with voters. This will be both electorally advantageous and, more importantly, is fundamentally the right thing to do. Labour should be at the heart of every community, understanding what the issues facing constituents are and taking action to make a difference to the community.
With Labour looking to start selecting candidates in the coming months now is the perfect opportunity to make progress towards making Labour a community organising force. Labour should introduce a programme specifically for parliamentary candidates that is designed to train them how to be community organisers.
If this is done successfully it will make a huge difference in many constituencies across the country. Candidates will be able to use the skills they have gained to build relationships with voters that are based around the issues facing the community they live in and not just relationships that are solely based on who the person may be voting for at the next election.
The more community-oriented candidates are also likely to be far better at turning Labour-supporting people into people who are prepared to volunteer and help Labour in the community. This is especially important for a party like Labour that doesn’t have the same financial resources as the Conservatives. In many seats where the CLP simply cannot afford a full-time organiser an active volunteer base is essential, and having candidates that can recruit volunteers and retain them by making them feel valued and welcome will be essential for success in 2015 or sooner.
This more community-focused approach must be part of a wider effort to continue to raise standards expected of parliamentary candidates. Parliamentary candidates should be subject to a ‘candidate’s contract’ which specifies an expected voter ID contact rate, expected fundraising targets, an expected number of media appearances and mandates candidates to become involved in community groups. The contract would make it clear exactly is expected of parliamentary candidates and would give the party the ability to question and scrutinise candidates who are not doing enough to ensure a Labour MP is elected in that seat at the next election.
Having parliamentary candidates who really buy into the community approach and are prepared to become community leaders will be of huge benefit to Labour. This combined with a ‘candidate’s contract’ to ensure high standards among Labour’s parliamentary candidates would be a potent combination. It presents a huge opportunity for Labour and one that the party should not let slip by.