The campaigning landscape -what's new?
What are the implications of the 2010 General Election for campaigning? Has the localism agenda changed the way you campaign? How have the cuts impacted on your influencing work?
This is the place for you to discuss these and any other issues that relate to the current landscape and key trends that are emerging for campaigners.
You might also like to have a look at our campaigning landscape resources page, which brings together a range of guides, thought pieces and multimedia exploring these issues.
Campaigning and Influencing Forum
Stuck on an area of your work? Got a question you're sure someone out there must know the answer to? Need advice on your campaign? Or lost in the world policy making? This forum is a place for you to ask and answer questions about campaigning and influencing.
FORUM MAIN PAGE
SUBSCRIBE TO THE RSS -FEED 
Contact me if you need help with the forum or have suggestions or feedback.
See also: Campaigning Blog
Did you see this piece of research launched by the think-tank Theos last week? It’s all about public attitudes to different campaigning tactics, but seemed to have been overlooked by most of the media. However it's full of useful insight for campaigners.
Some of the headlines;
- 36% of those asked had ‘signed a petition' in the last 12 months, while another 15% have ‘contacted a politician' or ‘started, followed or supported a campaign using social media' in the same period. Only 2% have ‘taken part in a public demonstration'.
- 72% of people would be willing to 'sign a petition', 50% would consider 'contacting a politician' and another 29% would consider 'going on a public demonstration'.
- Scepticism exists about the effectiveness of many of the most popular tactics. Only 44% thinking that 'signing a petition is likely to change rules, law or policies' while 37% thinking 'a public demonstration' is likely to be effective. 'Contacting politicians' (46%) or 'the media' (45%) are believed to be the most effective but are actions taken by much smaller numbers.
- Domestic issues like fuel prices (52%), public service cuts (47%) and tax rises (41%) are the issues that the public are most likely to take action on, with climate change (17%) and global poverty (19%) some of the least likely.
A more detailed look at the results of the survey, which was undertake by ComRes in late February is here. The research also looked at the impact on people's belief in God on their likelihood to take action, but no research was done for the impact of voting intention or political viewpoint. As with any survey, you could spend a lot of time pulling apart the methodology and the wording of the questions, but I think it provides some useful insights.
Does anyone else have any insight to share from the research? Have you come across other reasearch which tells us more about public attitudes to campaigning?
As it happens NCVO has just published the Participation almanac "Participation: Trends, Facts and Figures" (PDF). I haven't read it yet but according to the blurb on the NCVO website the publication addresses the following key questions:
Lots of the stats from the Participation guide on campaigning and activism comes from the Hansard Audit of Political Engagement 7 2010 which found that percentage of ‘politically active’ people (classified as people who participated in three of more activities) had increased in 2010 to 16% from 11% in 2006. So for those asked in the sample:
40% had signed a petition, 19% had boycotted products for ethical or environmental reason, 17% have contacted MP or local councillor.
The demographics showed the age ranges 45-54 and 55-64 to be the most likely to be politically active 23% for each.
The report also made conclusions about online activity
“This might suggest that the internet does not generally cause someone to be interested in politics and does not in itself increase their motivation to become involved, particularly through traditional means of participation. But what the internet can do – and where its value may lie in the context of political engagement – is in lowering the barriers to participation. Thus someone who is less motivated to get involved can become involved more easily than through traditional means of participation and, allowing for all other
variables in the engagement process, may perhaps be more likely to stay involved in the long-term.”
Well worth a read too if you have the time....
Hi, interesting research, thanks for sharing Tom, as far as I know there aren't many surveys of campaigning done. It's often defined/perceived of in varied ways as well, which makes it harder for quantitative research I think. NfpSynergy do some interesting regular surveys though - the Charity Awareness Monitor is one, part of which asks the public quesitons about awareness and involvement in charity campaigning. It is run as a subscription service though, so unfortunately I can't quote the findings here!
Just to add to Amelia's interesting comments, the DCLG's Citizenship Survey is another good source of information, the most recent one reporting 34% of people are engaged in "some form of civic participation." I think this is also in the Participation Alamanac, which is a very useful read!
We're just about to publish an in-depth report actually exploring the implications of the General Election for campaigning. But the rise in public campaigning - demonstrations and direct action was a key issue we explored. In fact, one of the case studies - Plane Stupid, spoke of how they are doing a lot more direct action training and community capacity building, and they, as well as other campaigners we interviewed, spoke of the need to balance reacting to rapidly changing gov't policy (e.g. the cuts), with campaigning for social change.
Following this, I think the one thing that came to mind after I read the Theos research you mention Tom, was that I suppose just due to the nature of the survey, it was based around activities independently of strategy. The stuff about social media and petitions are very interesting to know especially about the need for deeper engagement, I think whether they are effective or not depends on what campaign they are a part of - the impact indented and what was achieved. In our research this was a huge issue in the focus groups, and in the case studies - Beatbullying, for example, combined a virtual demonstration (Big March), within a wider strategy of offline/online actions, plus policy work - leading to a deputation with Nick Clegg.
Anyone have any thoughts?
I find thinktanks are hard to define, they're part academic institution and part lobbying outfit. But however you understand them, I think that they could provide useful allies for campaigns.
That's why 'The Global 'Go-To' Think Tanks List' is an interesting report which tries to rank the 'best' think tanks around the world.
It shows that the majority of think tanks are based in the US, but the UK also has it's fair share of 'top' think tanks. While the report doesn't seek to rank them simply on political influence, it shows those who can be perceived as most credible.
Have members of the forum had experiences of working with Think Tanks? Do you think that they provide a place to enhance campaigns and advocacy?
I've got a few thoughts about why they are and aren't useful allies.
Firstly, they're the home of future politicians and influencers. A quick look across at whose sitting on the benches in the House of Commons, will show that a significant number have spent time working within think tanks, they're often the breading ground for politicians who will become the leading thinkers within their parties.
Take for example Nick Boles, now the Conservative MP for Grantham, who was former director at Policy Exchange, where he was said to be one of the most important influences on David Cameron. He might not be a minister in the current government, but you can guarantee that his views have a resonance. If you're looking for future MPs who are going to be writing future manifesto, a quick look at who's who across think tanks could be a good place to start!
Linked to the point above, as well as producing future politicians, lots of those working in think tanks have spent time as special advisors or other key influences within Parliament and Whitehall. I short they're packed full of people who know people in power.
For example, in the last government, The Smith Institute was led by Wilf Stephenson, who was Gordon Brown's closest friend from University, as such it said to have considerable sway over the views of No10, while one assumes that now The Centre for Social Justice which was set up by Iain Duncan-Smith, now Secretary of Sate for Work and Pensions, has considerable influence in certain part of the government.
But this is also one of the weaknesses of think tanks. That they can be seen to be politically partisan, and thus rise and fall dependent on those in power at any given moment. While, a few on the list are seen as more politically neutral, most have a political leaning towards one party or another.
That said think tanks can be a useful vehicle for organisations looking to inject big ideas or new thinking into a debate. One of the roles that they can play is to provide a broader platform to spark a debate that an NGO might be more hesitant to initiate.
I wonder if one of the things stopping some NGOs from working more with thinktanks is the cost of it. I've been on the receiving end of quotes for events at party conference with think tanks mean that they would be little to spare for anything else in the year.
Obviously think tanks needs to raise revenue to keep going, but because they're not linked to universities they don't benefit from academic funding. While the premium for the access/legitimacy that they can bring to a campaign is their most valuable selling point and means working with them doesn't come cheap.
What do you think? Have you seen good examples of campaigns working with thinktanks? Do they prove to be useful allies for campaigns?
Hi and thanks for highlighting the report on campaigning Tom, those results seem really interesting, and good for building a case for investing in campaigning within our organisations.
I'd be really interested in hearing how people use reports such as this, or other external environment factors, to promote campaigning internally.
Have you had experience of presenting something like this to senior managers, or building it into a review/evaluation of campaigning, and how has this worked?
Any tips gratefully received!
Has everyone seen Phil's hot-off-the-press report on the new campaigning landscape? (PDF 2.37 MB).
Through a mixture of case studies, focus groups and a survey, the research explores the impact of last year's general election on the campaigning landscape and finds that campaigners are increasingly having to rethink their existing strategies to achieve social change in this new environment.
Some of the key learning points include:
And last but not least, a key theme throughout the research was a need to continue to campaign for social change.
There are a lot of really thought-provoking findings drawn out in this report so I would really recommend you have a read if you haven't already - and do share any thoughts or questions that arise!
So I'm adding a thread which started in the hellos area but is really interesting and really relevant to this conversation to
This is what people had to say.....
Submitted by Anna Collins on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 17:33.
Hi
I'm Anna from Changemakers, a charity thtat works to unlock the leadership potential of young people. Our campaign is around increasing the proportion of young people in leadership roles across public and civic life. It's still in development but watch this space for more news.
I had a question which someone might be able to help with. What's the best day to do a campaign action on? I was thinking a Friday but I'm open to suggestions.
Thanks
Anna
Hi Anna,
Check out an article by '60 Second Marketer' entitled:
What Are the Best Days of the Week to Send Email Campaigns?
Some interesting considerations for email days.
Hello everyone
I'm Emma, I run a one-woman consultancy for charities, supporting them to achieve change in policy and practice. Some of you already know me. Amelia and Nicola at NCVO certainly do as I did a fair bit of work with the campaigning effectiveness team last year, including writing the guides to 'Inspiring Supporter Action' and 'Working with Whitehall', which you can find elsewhere on this site.
In a past life I worked in Westminster, first for a backbench MP and later as a political aide to a minister. I have also worked in a variety of campaigning roles in charities, most recently at Breakthrough Breast Cancer where I was Director of Policy & Campaigns.
Here are a few of the campaigning-related questions that are occupying my thoughts at the moment:
1. Is the new Government listening to charity campaigners? Do charities need to adapt their methods to get their messages across to the new administration?
2. Is the sector missing a trick by failing to engage more positively with the Big Society agenda?
3. What opportunities does an unstable parliamentary majority (i.e. one that relies on co-operation between Cons and Lib Dems) present to campaigners for putting pressure on policy makers?
4. What place does protest have in campaigning?
Looking forward to chatting to you all on here.
Emma
Hi All
Emma - you've really started some discussion here! Great stuff. I wonder if Amelia might want to shift some of it to new topics?
I think that the problem with the BS Agenda (love that abbreviation) as it is currently coming from the Government is that it is not clearly underpinned by ethical values and principles we can all share. Howarth does have some interesting things to say as do the Co-operative Party who, lets face it, are founded on the whole set of values and principles which should be what BS is all about.
I'm not at all convinced that the Government does see BS in that way. They talk of transferring power when they really mean transferring responsibility - there's a risk of a sort of DIY menu of public services.
Submitted by Emma Taggart on Thu, 07/04/2011 - 17:57.
Hi Alastair
Really intrigued by your first answer re ‘a different set of givens’. Do you mean that the Govt is listening as long as campaigners are able to tap into those ‘givens’ and relate their messages to them? If so, I think that is intelligent communication and key to effective campaigning.
You’re right that the tuition fees vote didn’t fracture the majority. It’s early days though and the fault lines may start to appear after a while. Part of our job as campaigners is to work out what the fault lines might be and chip away at them if to do so will help us win our campaigns.
I agree with you about protest. I’m worried that it’s being romanticised by UK Uncut and elements of the student movement. I’m not against protest – I went on the TUC march – but I do think it has limited value as a tactic.
Emma
Hi Dave
I've found it helpful to think of the Big, Good Society as being about an attitude as much as a programme! Being nicer to the neighbours and engaged in the community is something where there's a fair degree of consensus. It's when the state adopts particular ways of operationalising it that you get different ideological agendas coming through. I really like a line I first heard from NUS president Aaron Porter who talked about the dangers of creating a "YOYO society" (You're On Your Own). To avoid that, I think people across the political spectrum will invent new forms of association and mutual support. But I suspect it'll be much harder in impoverished, mobile and urban communiites than in time-rich and affluent ones!
Alastair
'A DIFFERENT SET OF GIVENS'
What I meant by this phrase is my belief that to influence somebody, it's better to start from where they are rather than from where you want them to be!
The fact we've go a coalition gov't in Westminster is a complication - so I'll go back to '97 to illustrate: When working to influence the Thatcher/Major governments I knew in my bones the dominant mindset of ministers. Of course they weren't all gung-ho Thatcherites (it was simplistic to paint them as such) but whether wet or dry,they had a predisposition to find some arguments easier to hear than others - and my job was to find the most effective ones!
When new Labour came in the zeitgeist changed - with Blair, Mandelson, Milburn and Adonis it was almost scary how prepared they were to challenge preconceptions. It was easier with the Brownites and with folk (in my territory) like Estelle Morris and Charles Clarke - because they were more predictable.
The dominant narrative in the current government is Conservative. And even this long after the election I have to remind colleagues (whose working lives may only encompass a Labour government) that Conservatives take some things forgranted and have a predisposition to be hostile or welcoming to arguments presented in particular ways - just as their predecessors did!
As someone employed by a charity as an advocate I see my job less about passing judgement on the choices made by the gov't (though that is a part of it) but to educate elected representatives to make better informed and wiser choices. Calling this 'spin doctoring' is unhelpful - it's simply about persuasion - which is neither manipulative nor dishonest but a genuine debate. Marxists may see it as dialectical materialism, others as a Socratic dialogue. I dont really bother!
It's probably a different discussion thread but I judge my effectiveness less by my glorious and principled defeats but by my grubby victories!
And once again, thanks for posting such a thought-provoking set of questions!
Alastair
Spot on Alastair, couldn't agree more!
Interesting posts but with only 24 hours in day to track it all it may help for NCVO to convene us at some point and turn all of this into 'something' - I'm sure there's a plan.
1. Optimism in hard times
Briefly and optimistically, big society and localism - combined with dealing with the economic downturn - can be THE opportunity for the voluntary sector to unite more around common interests and gain the kind of changes in policy and direction which we and society at large would all gain from.
For instance can we shape the form the economic and social recovery takes? Can we avoid the economy simply returning to the same form that led to the "mess we're in" in the first place?
2. Change for good
My insanely naive vision is for a Britain which succeeds socially and economically because it is socially fair, low carbon and wildlife rich etc.
In other words, the polar opposite of how things are now, where our economic success tends to require these local to global problems to be exacerbated and entrenched.
3. Better working together
And after breakfast...
...we should be fashioning big society and localism as we want it to be - not wait for David Cameron to define it again in another speech.
A lot of this is going on but much of it seems to be happening in our silos rather than across our sectors.
So let's explore cross-sectoral interests across social, economic and environment interests and strengthen the voluntary sector for good.
Too much to ask for?
Submitted by Dave Dunlop,LancW
I think that's why I've been worrying, as Anna wrote, that we're "missing a trick by failing to engage more positivey with the Big Society agenda". My difficulty has been thinking how to engage at a sub-regional level whilst rushing about plugging more holes in the dyke locally and juggling input into national responses to the numerous Government initiatives.
I agree about the difficulties of delivering a big society approach in impoversished, mobile and time-poor communities, but urban and rural communities "do impoverished" in my experience - in economic, environmental and social terms; but pockets of social and economic impoverishment are more widely dispersed in rural areas so harder to address, and environmental impoverishment there is relatively unnoticed as it in insidious. Where have all the wildflower meadows gone? To nitrate fertiliser green. (97% loss in UK since the 1940s.) Why do floods tear down the rivers to flood the conurbations? The uplands and rivers have been efficiently engineered for sixty years and more to drain rainfall off the agricultural land as quickly as possible. I could go on and on...
This, below, may be of wider interest and includes a Defra minister's take on The Big Society:
Big Society Report – Ministerial Response
North West Environment Link (of which we are an active member) submitted recommendations from its report on Big Society and the Environment as evidence to the Public Accounts Select Committee inquiry into Big Society. It also presented a copy to Hazel Blears, the chair of Labour’s backbench committee on the Cabinet Office and Social Action, to inform their thinking. We received a response to our recommendations from Richard Benyon, the Defra Minister who leads on Big Society, which can be found on our website
Dave
My attention has just been drawn to a bit of research into Big Society by nfp Synergy "a research consultancy dedicated to the not for profit sector", which I thought I should share in case others may not have seen it. It may be found at: http://www.nfpsynergy.net/reports_presentations/nfpsynergy_our_latest_ed...
It concludes;
Unfortunately it doesn't offer an "off the peg" answer to "The question". But then, I guess The Big Society is about working that one out for one's self...
Dave
I just had a read of this article in civil society mag by the chair of RNIB Sector campaigning must take a back seat to service delivery, says RNIB chair I'm left a little speechless....