Losing an Election is not as simple as A,B,C

 In May I stood for re-election to the City of Edinburgh Council. I didn't make the cut for the fourth seat in the multi-member Leith Walk ward. These are my thoughts on that result and how it came about.

Elections are complex events with none more so than Scottish Council elections using single transferable vote to elect 3 or 4 councillors per ward.

As a recent unsuccessful candidate, I perhaps have more to complain about. I ran in a 4 member ward as one of two SNP candidates. It was a ward where the SNP had successfully achieved the goal of electing two councillors at the previous elections in 2017. There is strong SNP support in the ward that would indicate that two SNP candidates could be elected. We also had two active and responsive incumbent councillors standing for re-election. It should have been a forgone conclusion, but it wasn’t.

I missed out at the final stage when a wave of transfers from the unsuccessful Conservative candidate swept the LibDem candidate to success, winning the fourth seat.

What were the reasons for my loss? The easy answer would be to just blame the alphabet. I’ve featured in two newspaper articles that have followed that line. The second article included quotes from me which backed up the hypothesis that the alphabet was to blame. Taking that line makes me sound a bitter loser and downgrades the quality of my running mate Amy McNeese-Mechan who thoroughly deserves her seat on the Council based on the work she has done for the Leith Walk ward since her election in 2017. I did outline to the journalist the other factors that came into play but his starting point was the alphabet and I guess the other significant factors were seen as peripheral and therefore unimportant. 

So what were the other factors that affected the outcome?

The SNP have recently taken the highest share of first preference votes in the Leith Walk ward with the Greens not too far behind making those two parties the dominant players in the ward elections. They are most likely to get their candidates successfully elected. The Greens got their candidate Susan Rae elected comfortably at the first stage and I benefitted from transfers. Amy McNeese-Mechan was also elected at the first stage and again I benefitted from transfers. These transfers put me back into play pushing me into fourth place. I remained there until the wave of Conservative transfers secured the fourth seat for the LibDem candidate.

While any comparison of the 2022 result with the 2017 result does show that the alphabet bias was more pronounced this time around the reasons are likely to be a complex mix of factors.

If it wasn’t entirely down to the alphabet, then what were the other factors? The messaging of the campaign is important – did our campaign get the ‘how to vote for an SNP team’ message out clearly to our supporters and those inclined to vote SNP? How strong was the appeal for second preferences? Did we have right mix of leaflets and letters to communicate that message effectively? Did we get the ward split wrong for this election? A different ratio or split may have worked better. Did our vote share hold up? There was a drop of 5.37% in the SNP share in Leith Walk this time which could be as a result of the quality of our campaign, weariness of voters especially with a major infrastructure project Edinburgh Trams running through the heart of the ward, even the number of candidates standing - there were 12 the second highest in the city. The drop in vote share will have deflated the votes for both of our candidates and is significant as the lower the overall vote share the less likely getting two candidates elected becomes. The drop in vote share may well have been the key factor as had the SNP vote share maintained 2017 levels it is possible that my first preference total may have been above the LibDem candidate  and my running mate would have had more transfers to share with me. Could the sequence of candidates being elected or excluded have changed to result? Maybe, certainly the Conservative transfers to LibDem proved decisive.  A higher turnout may (there was a 3.1% drop in turnout in the ward in 2022)  have given more helpful transfers from Green and SNP voters that would have pushed me across the line. In the end STV multi-member elections come down to percentages and shares of percentages. You can follow the result here (thanks to Indylive and Democracy Club).

In the end I was just not successful in my bid to be re-elected. There is risk in every election, and it is a risk every candidate must bear. I accept the outcome. I wish all of the successfully elected councillors for Leith Walk the very best for the next five years representing a varied and busy ward.

2022 full results https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/15127/ward-12-leith-walk-2022-election-results

Ballot Box Scotland published their breakdown here https://ballotbox.scot/le22/edinburgh#ward12

Can the Scottish Independence Referendum refresh the parts other political campaigns can’t reach?

The long haul of campaigning has begun in the Scottish Independence referendum. The YES campaign will be holding street stalls throughout Scotland over the coming weekend asking people to sign the YES Declaration. Alasdair Darling ups the negative anti of the No campaign (ok,ok I know it’s not ‘called’ the No campaign but the allegedly cuddly Better Together) by criticising the SNP currency union position.

The question though that interests me is, putting aside the political personalities at the head of each campaign, how will the debate and campaign reach out to the wider public? Will it reach those parts of the electorate that generally do not participate in the regular electoral process? And if it does will it refresh the parts other political campaigns can't reach?

The SNP cite evidence from the Quebec referendum to show turnout (1995 94%, 1980 85%) for that plebiscite was considerably higher than what was normal for both Quebec provincial (56.5% in 2008 Provincial elections) or Canadian Federal elections (Quebec 73% in 1997 Federal General Election). That suggests that the referendum campaigns both for and against motivated Quebeckers not normally engaged in politics. As an aside it suggests that people can engage with a constitutional question more easily than with a choice based on policy options put forward by differing political parties.

What form will that campaign to engage, communicate and motivate the usually vote shy electorate take? The SNP successfully used their Activate voter identification system to win a historic majority in 2011 and the YES Campaign uses the appropriately named NationBuilder.com platform to build a database of supporters, volunteers and funders. Lessons have been learned from US political campaigns from Howard Dean to Barack Obama.  The No campaigners are to use another US developed online campaign platform - Blue State Digital - to build their campaign.

In this digital age with print media – newspapers – declining daily in their influence and reach online campaigning is the way to go particularly to engage with the mass of voters. However there are the digitally excluded and this is where it is likely to get interesting. With the YES campaign already embarking on a series of ‘street-stalls’ across our communities from Portsoy to Chesser (there were stalls at both the Leith Gala and the Meadows Festival) this essential face-to-face engagement has started. I’m sure that at these stalls people will pitch up sign the declaration and then tell campaigners that they have not voted before ever. They will be the tip of the iceberg. Behind them will be the 50% or so who habitually don’t vote and not necessarily for any political reason.  They just don’t vote. They may sign up as a supporter of the Yes or the No campaigns but will they actually vote when 14 October 2014 comes round? The answer to this is unknown and will to some extent rely on two things 1) The media campaign and how that penetrates the world view of those generally disengaged citizens 2) The quality of the engagement and communication that the campaigns extend to individual citizens and in particular hard to motivate citizens and communities.

Now political anoraks who are signed up to the ‘scientific’ campaign model will know that political parties maintain campaign databases that tell them not only voting intentions gleaned from door to door and telephone canvassing along with survey returns but also who has voted in particular elections (note: but not how they voted). Through use of all this data targeting of campaigning is developed and used often with success. One concern that I’ve always had, while understanding the power and efficacy of targeting messages and resources, is that habitual non-voters are often excluded from campaigns and therefore part of the political process. It then becomes an electoral and participative vicious circle. Apart from a mass leaflet (and sometimes they won’t even get them!) these electors are largely excluded from campaigns. They are unlikely to ever see a political canvasser or candidate at their door as they are seen as hard work to engage and motivate. Political parties focus more attention on voters and areas where citizens are more attentive to their ‘democratic duty’. 

While to some extent it is almost understandable that political parties act in such a manner when campaigning – they generally have limited finance for local campaigns (and there are limits on election spending which is a factor in campaign strategies) along with that they have only so many activists to get out there on the doors.

The kind of campaigning that could and should develop as we see the referendum campaign roll out has the opportunity to break out of the norms of electoral campaigning logic. As stated above the appearance of YES campaign ‘street stalls’ could be an early indication of that. Their purpose of recruiting supporters and opening dialogue with citizens on the issue is reminiscent of the Anti-Poll-Tax stalls I cut my political teeth on – while those had an aim in gathering signatures of those opposing the tax they also formed a bridge between the political activist and the citizen in opening a dialogue and from that engagement.  Similar activity and engagement occurred during the 1997 YES/YES campaign for a Scottish Parliament. However the turnout in that referendum was not high, suggesting that the political parties did not really move out of their usual campaigning modes.  I do remember as part of the local cross party Scotland Forward group a Labour activist declaring that they would struggle to work Granton and Pilton and could the SNP help out there. Needless to say Labour managed Trinity and Broughton. I have no criticism of Labour over this admission but it serves of an illustration of how some areas can become excluded. 

Another issue to be tackled by the campaigners will be pockets of residents not registered for the vote. There has been a growing trend in non-registration in recent years and it is unclear whether steps like individual registration will make any change in this trend – my view is that it won’t.  

What plans beyond ‘street stalls’ do campaigners have to reach out into communities dominated by the disengaged? Will these electors become engaged in this campaign? Will they cast their vote in 2014 one way or another? Will there be a surge in registration of voters?  These are challenges to the campaigns on both sides of the argument to show that on this issue, which both sides agree is important and will change Scotland forever, they have the will and ability to reach out, engage with and motivate this section of the public. There could be a bonus for the body politic if they do.

Rob Munn has been a political activist since 1986 (do the maths!), a candidate in Council and Parlaimentary campaigns, a campaign organiser and has been a Councillor for Leith 1996-2003 & 2007-2012. 

Renewing Local Democracy?

There is a consensus that turnout in local elections is not high enough - the recent Scottish Council Elections achieved a 38% turnout - and as a result many a think-tank is putting their pointy brains in gear to come up with solutions.

The latest is Reform Scotland who have raised the thorny issue of reducing the number of Councils making them more powerful by taking on some of the roles carried out by quangoes, strengthening community councils, creating area committees and, oh yes, elected 'Mayors'. Much of this is worthy and worth debate but is any of it the antidote to public engagement or low electoral turnout? Sadly I think not. It seems to me that Reform have gathered together a number of things that may or may not need fixing but are essentially about how local democracy is managed and therefore about as sexy as a managerial textbook (apologies to all the managers out there - you do a great job really, those textbooks paid off). 

Before I go through the document 'Renewing Local Government' a quick declaration - I've been a member of a political party for 26 years and was an elected councillor for 12 years and when not standing for election myself have been either an election agent or a activist knocking doors. I've seen how political parties engage and how the voters engage both at election time and in between.

The headline issue of reducing the number of Councils is one area that I don't have much of a problem with in principle and there seems to be some merit is what is proposed in Reform Scotland's report. It's a debate that needs to be had though if Councils were to actually arrive at a radical shared services agenda this might not be needed. The option of reduction might act as both carrot and stick to get Councils speaking to one another to progress shared services which at present can be best described as stalled or becalmed. Bottom line though is that the size of a Council will not in itself encourage more public engagement or drive up turnout at elections. Reorganisation is the bureaucracy that delivers the services that the citizens need and demand.

Another area where I would applaud Reform is in raising the issue of power over local services. Since devolution there has been a tendency for the Scottish Government to direct or take over certain functions - see Police and Fire. There was always a fear that devolution would lead to the Parliament taking over local services. In reality with Scottish Ministers of whatever stripe hold local authorities to account - they provide the lions share of the money after all - it was and is really up to local government to raise its game and demonstrate sound management alongside dynamic thinking to improve delivery and outcomes of local services. Still a debate would be useful to clear the air and set down markers.  

Reform spend some time in their report calling for a beefing up of Community Councils and a devolving of powers to them to empower them and make them more attractive for a wider cross section of their local community to actually get involved. It is a general truism that Community Councillors are rarely elected as they rarely achieve the number of nominations that would trigger an election and the electorate having to choose who would represent them on the Community Council. It would be interesting to see what turnout would be in these elections as while some electors might struggle to name their local authority councillors I'd hazard a guess they would be totally flummoxed if asked to name their community councillors and consequently even less likely to vote. Don't get me wrong I think community councils are a good thing but I think there is a huge variation in their representativeness and their effectiveness. One area where they can and some do have an influence is over planning. As a former member of a Planning Committee I know first hand how the committee members can be persuaded by a well made argument for or against a planning proposal from a community council.

Linked to more powers to community councils Reform also put forward the idea of 'area committees'. These already exist in a range of rural and rural/urban authorities and in cities like Edinburgh there are now well established 'Local Neighbourhood Partnerships' which are local community planning partnerships involving Police, NHS, Community Councils and others (in the case of Leith Neighbourhood Partnership this includes the Fire service, Port of Leith Housing Association, Voluntary Organisations and Forth Ports) along with the locally elected councillors. As effectively consultative committees of the Council they agree a local community plan and inform delivery of local services. There is a case to made that these should be beefed up and given more powers particularly spending powers.

The other 'innovation' that Reform are keen on is the issue of elected 'Mayors' (their term - I know in Scotland we have Provosts not Mayors). They say these elected figureheads would have real power to lead Councils and make decisions. Great. Only one or maybe two or three problems. If they have lots of power where does that power come from? Is it to be devolved down from the Parliament - there may be a case for that and Reform do say elsewhere in the document that they want more powers devolved to Councils (transferred from quangos or boards). That then begs the question of who has the power - the Mayor or the Council? And where does that leave the area committees and the empowered Community Councils? Can the Mayor overrule all of these layers?   Getting back to Reforms initial point about driving up voter turnout. If we look at the recent London Mayoral election are there pointers there as to whether elected Mayors are the way to go? Well as an observer rather than a participant I'd say what Londoners got was a pretty poor contest between two 'personalities' where if there was a debate on policy issues it passed me by pretty comprehensively. In terms of turnout the Mayoral contest was a turn-off with only 38% of the London electorate turning out to vote. Hang on a minute 38% that's the same as the turnout in the Scottish local government elections! So having mayoral contests even between household names like Boris Johnston and Ken Livingstone does not one hot electoral contest make.

Again I come back to the view that worthy though some of Reforms ideas are none of them are likely to set the heather on fire with the electorate. None of them are likely to lead to the increase in voter turnout that they are hoping for. None of them are in my view likely to lead to more engagement and involvement from the electorate in local democracy. Sad to say its at worst rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and at best it's some ways of managing or arranging local democracy that may or may not be worthy of debate.

However I will conclude by thanking Reform for getting my thinking engaged on the subject of local democracy and electoral engagement. I've got more to say on the issue but will save that for another day.

Rob is a former convener of Leith Neighbourhood Partnership and was a member of the SNP Local Government Committee from 1996-2003.