The ‘In’ campaign needs to start big

One of my earliest experiences campaigning was in a European parliament election. I was handed a bundle of wholly uninspiring leaflets designed to convince people that the European Union had done things to improve their lives. The headline claim was that the ‘EU had reduced your mobile phone bill’. I thought twice before going back out to campaign.

There is a habit in political campaigning of offering something local, tangible and practical. It is often extremely successful. The Liberal Democrats’ electoral success, until recently, was an illustration of the power of hyperlocal campaigning. In traditional elections fought between candidates in which increasing turnout is just as important as persuading voters, this is a winning formula. But there are times when it is just inadequate.

Last year’s referendum in Scotland started with early claims about the costs of independence for individual families. What ensued was months of bickering and increasingly shrill and over-the-top claims, often from Better Together, that left too many voters thinking that the defence of the union was negative. It was easy to forget that the debate was about the existence of the United Kingdom itself. None of this is to detract from the success that Better Together eventually had in winning the referendum by a sizeable margin. But if there is a lesson from the Scottish campaign for the forthcoming European referendum it should be that the ‘In’ campaign should make the argument big and profound, not small and local. Narrowing the campaign to a household budget too soon has the risk of a campaign that drifts into ever more reductionist claims.

The campaign should start by reminding people about the history of conflict in Europe and the tremendous success the union has had in bringing peace and prosperity to the continent. It should tap into our family bonds with grandparents and great-grandparents who fought the war and then had the courage and vision to build a peace that has lasted since – a point relevant at a time when Russia is increasingly aggressive. It should remind voters of the joint successes of cooperation in the union including creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, groundbreaking research, the space programme, the Eurostar, tourism and much more. It should capture the public attention by asking whether an island of just over 60 million will fare better or worse in the future as part of a team with 450 million others in a world of seven billion people. The choice we present to voters should be about Britain’s future in the coming century and it should remind us all of the uncertain but exciting future ahead. Anything less will do a disservice to the scale of the choice facing voters. A campaign like this could stack up favourably against a reactionary ‘Leave’ campaign led by an unholy alliance of the United Kingdom Independence party, Tory backbenchers and a rabble of anti-capitalists focused on immigration, identity and democratic legitimacy.

Starting a European campaign with this kind of positive and profound message will then give the ‘In’ campaign the credibility when it wants to make the offer more directly about people’s wallets weeks before the poll. This will require confidence from those running the campaign to stick to a plan, even in the face of tough polling at the start of the campaign. Those in charge should resist the urge to go too negative too soon.

We need a campaign fit for the scale of the choice facing the country. A re-run of our normal approach to elections will turn voters off, make winning the argument tougher and may event risk Britain’s place in Europe.

———————————

Josh MacAlister is a member of Progress

———————————

Photo: woolamoo gazette