.jpg)
Regular readers of this blog may remember us recommending Tim Ross’ excellent book, ‘How the Tories Won’ on our pre-christmas reading list. A lucid depiction of how a great campaign works, its narrative showed how a combination of a resonant message, relentless message discipline, a respected leader, and high quality organisation all contributed to an unexpected win.
Those hoping for Brexit could do well to read it, as the various Brexit campaigns are something of a shambles, in their own rights and as a collective.
A blog is too short a medium in which to fully analyse the different campaign groups, so instead I thought it might be instructive to take a look at the various campaign websites. A quick onceover is the level of engagement most campaign materials – online or in print – will get from the public. What does it tell us?
The remain campaign, Britain Stronger In, is not inspirational, not by a long shot. But it is professional, organised and disciplined. It has a clear, resonant message built around “stronger in”, which we expect will prove to be the “long term economic plan” of 2016. The most cursory look at the Britain Stronger In website reveals a simple, resonant message which is hammered home six or seven times on the landing page – Britain is stronger in, safer in. It is impossible not to take away the message. We will hear these words over and over and over again in the coming months, until the message is drilled home.
Contrast with the warring Brexit campaign groups. First, the largely Tory grouping, Vote Leave. There is no message on the landing page at all, other than ‘Vote leave take control.’ Make the effort to Click through to ‘Our Case’ and you get a overview of their argument that starts with the rather confused “Technological and economic forces are changing the world fast. EU institutions cannot cope. We have lost control of vital policies. This is damaging. We need a new relationship. What should it be?”
Scroll further and you are presented with a graph labelled “the cost of genome sequencing has fallen by a factor of over 10,000”. Bluntly, if you are talking about the Clinical Trials Directive, you are doing something wrong.
Is Leave.EU any better? There is no coherent message on the landing page. Instead something about fudge, some cartoons, and several references to David Cameron. Given that polling suggests Cameron is the single most trusted politician on Europe, it seems a strange decision.
Finally, Grassroots Out, whose website has a fetching photo of people happily enjoying a leisurely day in the park, and simply asks ‘We want to leave the European Union – do you?’ As most of the individuals in the photo have their faces blurred to maintain anonymity, one assumes they might not. The website doesn’t even attempt to set out a message or rationale for leaving, it merely presupposes that you will.
Yes the websites are relatively unimportant, when compared to the leaflets, broadcasts, and other media that will kick in once the campaign properly starts. But they are revealing. The remain camp has a clear, simple and probably resonant message, and is executing it with professionalism. The out camps, even setting aside the terrible internecine warfare of the last few weeks, have no idea what their message is, and risk appearing either odd or unprofessional. With no clarity on whether the ‘leavers’ are aiming for a Singapore style, hyper globalised futuristic vision, or a more traditional plea for sovereignty and border control, Brexit campaigns will remain confused.
Recent polling has shown a narrowing of the polls in favour of leave. But with a mountain still to climb, the leave campaigns are doing none of the things that a high quality campaign should do, if it is to win.