07.02.2002

Establishing our presence

Should the Socialist Alliance only stand in target seats in local elections? Dave Parks of Exeter SA argues for a wider contest

I advocate standing in as many seats as possible in May, but prioritising selected areas. As I see it, it costs nothing to stand a candidate in local elections and it takes time for voters to simply get used to seeing the organisation on the ballot paper. At its simplest level, standing a candidate with no work and even no leaflets will get the organisation known to people in that ward. In my experience a lot of Socialist Alliance members in Exeter have objected to this on the grounds that it is wrong in principle to stand a paper candidate. Underlying this perspective is a belief that the major parties work all the wards they stand. Well, from my experience in the Labour Party I know this is not true. I also know that the Green Party takes the same view: ie, the best thing is to have a candidate backed up by loads of work, the next best thing is to have a candidate with little or no work, the worse thing is to have no candidate. There are actually very good reasons for standing 'paper' candidates. To not stand a candidate is to let down your own support. Some may be inclined to say that having a paper candidate is a bit of an insult and shows that you are not serious. I think this is very wrong. Not to stand is a message to vote for the opposition. For example, we have 13 seats in Exeter up for election. We have provisionally decided to stand in as many as we can get candidates for, but to prioritise work in target seats. Now it may be that we are unable to get a local candidate in the Exwick area, which includes a large council estate. Let us say we have potentially 50 supporters there: at the moment a tiny vote, but nonetheless our potential base. What effect does it have on these people if there is no SA candidate? Well, they must either abstain or vote for someone else. Will they remain our supporters in a year's time if they don't get the opportunity to vote for us? Now let us assume we have another 100 or more voters who might consider voting for us in this ward. Clearly the best way to get to these people is to have a great campaign in that area and to actually canvass them - but we do not have the resources to do this and we are focusing on the other estates where we have more of a base. Again, will these people be more or less likely to support us in the future if they have a chance just to vote for us? There are other issues. A feature of campaigning for many Socialist Alliances has been the use of stalls in the centre of town - again, if you are trying to win over support you should be able to say to the person who lives in Exwick that they can vote SA. If they happen to ask why there is little campaigning in that area, you give a straight and honest answer and say that the SA does not have the resources to cover everywhere. We are concentrating elsewhere but we wanted to give you an option to vote for us. In electoral terms it has to be remembered that voting 'habits' are formed over time. If someone has voted for you once, they are more likely to do so again. Breaking from your party of choice for an alternative is something that will take time for many voters. A socialist-inclined Labour supporter may vote Labour again or rather abstain than change allegiance on the first opportunity. On that occasion, if given the choice, they might consider voting SA but eventually decide against it. At the next election, these same voters may well be more likely to make the break on the second opportunity. If we deprive them of the opportunity of supporting us by not standing a paper candidate then we set this process back. Of course it is ideal to have a vigorous campaign for all candidates, but this is simply not practical. Indeed, none of the major, let alone minor, parties actually do this in most constituencies. They will usually put out an electoral address in each ward, while prioritising the marginal seats. In the complete unwinnables they always stand candidates and do little work. In exceptional circumstances they will not stand, but this usually results in huge protest within that party - you encourage your small support in an unwinnable to vote for someone else by not standing and you will potentially lose their support when you need it later. Where should work be done? Obviously seats have to be prioritised and I would suggest working and canvassing one or two priority wards is better than just leafleting loads. I would go further and say that campaigning should be more issue-based. Thus it would make sense to leaflet an area that is not specific to one ward if it was the catchment area of a school facing closure. We are unlikely to win seats, so sticking rigidly to electoral boundaries is not really that important. However, with such a hypothetical campaign I would advocate canvassing the same area. It is important that local groups decide what is best for their areas. National guidance and suggestions are useful - but I would hope that we are encouraged to use a bit of local knowledge and common sense. Finally, word of mouth is worth more than hundreds of leaflets - if we want to achieve good votes then we need to target and canvass people - rather than spread ourselves thin and do no canvassing. This may sound like I am contradicting myself, but I am not - we stand as many candidates as possible, but they must be targeted in areas where we actually work. There is a view that only the real heavyweights should be candidates. Again, this is not the way the other parties do it and it would be wrong in principle to be so elitist. If you are good enough to be an SA member then you should be good enough to be a candidate - no prior experience or expertise is required. Don't be daunted - go for it and put yourself forward!