Campaigning against UKIP - November 2014

Campaigning against UKIP - November 2014
Campaigning against UKIP – In your constituency
Campaigning against UKIP
                     November 2014

      Page 1 of 32
Campaigning against UKIP - November 2014
Campaigning against UKIP

1.      Context............................................................................................................................................................ 3
2.      Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.      The pattern of UKIP support ................................................................................................................. 5
     3.1        UKIP’s support across Britain........................................................................................................ 5
     3.2        Explaining UKIP support ................................................................................................................. 9
4.      Campaigning methods, issues and messaging ............................................................................12
     4.1        The importance of local campaigning .....................................................................................12
     4.2        Targeting key messages ..............................................................................................................14
     4.3        Immigration.........................................................................................................................................16
     4.4 Issue choice .............................................................................................................................................17
5.      Your constituency ....................................................................................................................................18
     5.1        Local election results .....................................................................................................................18
     5.2        Demographics in question............................................................................................................19
     5.3        Finding Labour-UKIP switchers in your constituency......................................................19
     5.4        Contact rates......................................................................................................................................21
6. Turning this into effective local campaigning.................................................................................22
     6.1        Addressing issues on the doorstep..........................................................................................22
     6.2        Briefing and equipping local activists .....................................................................................23
     6.3        Establishing on-going relationships ........................................................................................23
     6.4        Core messaging resources ...........................................................................................................24
     6.5        Identifying UKIP switchers ..........................................................................................................27
     6.5        Monitoring local UKIP activity ....................................................................................................29
Appendix A: Mosaic groups and Types ....................................................................................................30
Appendix B: Key features of Mosaic groups .........................................................................................31
Appendix C: Voter ID script ...........................................................................................................................32

Campaigning against UKIP - November 2014
1. Context
Although UKIP was founded more than twenty years ago, it is only in the last two years
that they have moved from being yet another minor protest party to being a significant
presence in both national polling and local elections right across England, and indeed
across Britain. UKIP’s strong performance in the 2014 European Election in areas as
diverse as Wales and the South East of England, has shown that it is capable of winning
support outside its traditional heartlands in the rural South West and parts of eastern
England where their support has previously been concentrated.

With victories in Clacton and Rochester & Strood behind them, as well as a very close
second in Heywood & Middleton, it is now clear that UKIP expect to poll strongly in many
Labour-held constituencies and key seat targets which we need to win from the

UKIP has shown it can now both put together a strong field operation and draw
substantial support with next to no local activity. It is therefore crucial that there is a
clear strategy to fight them in the constituencies where or local MPs or the party believe
there to be a threat.

The targeting and analysis team at Head Office has done a substantial amount of work
to relate patterns on a national level to the demographic and electoral make-up of every
Labour seat where UKIP may present an electoral challenge. This note sets out the
pattern of that support, effective messages to counter it, and ultimately how you can
most effectively campaign against UKIP in your own constituency.

This document should be accompanied by two constituency-specific

   1) A table of polling districts where our models indicate the highest % of
      electors whose demographic profile most looks like those of voters that have
      or are considering switching from Labour to UKIP.

   2) A constituency map that shows the same data at postcode level. document
      should be accompanied with two constituency specific documents:
   4) A table of polling districts where our models indicate the highest % of
      electors whose demographic profile most looks like those of voters that have
      or are considering switching from Labour to UKIP
   6) A constituency map that shows the same data at postcode level
   8) This document should be accompanied with two constituency specific
   10)       A table of polling districts where our models indicate the highest % of
      electors whose demographic profile most looks like those of voters that have
      or are considering switching from Labour to UKIP

Campaigning against UKIP - November 2014
12)       A constituency map that shows the same data at postcode level
14)       This document should be accompanied with two constituency specific
16)       A table of polling districts where our models indicate the highest % of
   electors whose demographic profile most looks like those of voters that have
   or are considering switching from Labour to UKIP
18)       A constituency map that shows the same data at postcode level
20)       This document should be accompanied with two constituency specific
22)       A table of polling districts where our models indicate the highest % of
   electors whose demographic profile most looks like those of voters that have
   or are considering switching from Labour to UKIP
24)       A constituency map that shows the same data at postcode level

Campaigning against UKIP - November 2014
2. Purpose
The report covers:
   o patterns in UKIP support across Britain, including
          o the pattern of UKIP support across Britain, in terms of where their support
             is located, and from which parties they have gained support;
          o the characteristics and attributes of their supporters in social, economic,
             and cultural terms;
          o our view on how UKIP’s appeal can be countered and why we believe that.
   o identifying and targeting potential switchers to UKIP, including:
          o our approach to identifying people likely to switch– either from Labour to
             UKIP or vice-versa;
          o our approach to analysing electors’ characteristics, the issues they care
             about and therefore the focus of our campaigns;
          o a spatial analysis of where those people are located within your
             constituency, including a separate A3 map, to enable campaign activities
             to be targeted accordingly;
          o our advice on the messages and methods most likely to be effective in
             your constituency in countering UKIP’s appeal; and
          o the tools and selections on Contact Creator and Campaign Creator to
             translate these recommendations into effective campaigning.

Lessons can be learnt from the European election campaign. In particular, strong
campaigning on the ground can help to win back and secure the support of disaffected
electors who may be sympathetic to UKIP’s positioning as a party of protest and
discontent. Past Labour Party campaigns against protest parties (including against the
BNP in Barking and against the Liberal Democrats in constituencies ranging from
Chesterfield to Islington South) have shown that work on the doorstep, combining clear
messaging and targeting within constituencies will help to combat this threat on the

This document collects together voter ID data collected by Labour Party activists across
the country, polling data from a range of polling houses and demographic information
about the electorate in each constituency to identify those electors who are at greatest
risk of switching their vote from the Labour Party to UKIP. It then uses this information,
and evidence from campaigning on the ground, to inform how to secure their support.

Campaigning against UKIP - November 2014
3. The pattern of UKIP support
3.1       UKIP’s support across Britain
UKIP’s early support was largely concentrated in the rural South West and parts of
Eastern England. As their popularity increased in recent years, UKIP has also won
significant vote shares in a wider range of areas, including in coalfield communities
where support for the Labour Party has traditionally been strong. Nonetheless, the party
has remained unable to make significant inroads into London:

Figure 1: UKIP vote share, 2013 & 2014:
      2013 local election results by constituency          2014 local election results by ward

    (Purple = actual results, Orange=Predicted results1)

A major part of UKIP’s electoral success appears to have come from disenchanted
supporters of all three main parties along with a number of previous non-voters:
   - former Conservative supporters who have no other outlet for their protest vote
      against the government;
   - former Liberal Democrat supporters who have been let down by their previous
      attempt to cast a protest vote but are not inclined to support the Labour Party as
      the main opposition; and
   - former Labour supporters who feel that the party has left them behind in pursuit
      of better-educated, middle-class, white-collar voters.

 Notional constituency level results from the 2013 local elections in areas where no local elections were
held are estimated by the Labour Party using the results elsewhere that year, historical election results in
that area, and the demographic make-up of the constituency.

Campaigning against UKIP - November 2014
Disenchanted Conservative supporters have played a large role in UKIP’s success story.
Research from YouGov in February 2014 suggested that nationally, the Conservative
Party had lost four times as many votes to UKIP as the Labour Party since the 2010
General Election. Figure 2 demonstrates this, with 45% of UKIP’s support at the time
estimated to have come from the Conservatives as opposed to 11% from the Labour

     Figure 2: UKIP support by 2010 General Election vote:

                                                                    Lib Dems
                                                                    Don't know
                                                                    Did not vote

                                                 YouGov Polling Data, February 2014

Nonetheless, UKIP’s increased support in the 2014 European Elections came at the
expense of all three main political parties; they won the support of electors who had
previously voted for the Conservatives, the Labour Party and the Lib Dems. However,
this is not spread evenly across all parties, nor is it evenly spread across the country.
The geographic distribution of UKIP support is not random and certain areas show
significantly larger increases in UKIP vote share than others.

Figure 3 shows that former Conservatives have consistently made up the largest part of
UKIP support. The British Election Study, the principal academic study of electoral
patterns in the UK, suggested that nearly 1 in 5 Conservative supporters from the 2010
General Election were considering voting for UKIP in the 2015 General Election even
before the start of the European Election campaign (in February/March 2014).

This increased marginally by the time of the European Elections (in May/June 2010).
However, support from former Labour and Lib Dem supporters increased much more
sharply and more noticeably over the course of the campaign, with 8% of 2010 Labour
voters and 11% of 2010 Lib Dem voters reporting an intention to vote for UKIP in the
2015 General Election by May/June 2015.

UKIP’s support also increased during this period among non-voters, but still remained
lower than the average level across all electors.

Campaigning against UKIP - November 2014
Figure 3: UKIP voting intention by 2010 General Election vote:


                                                                           Feb/Mar 2014
                                                                           May/Jun 2014


       Conservative   Labour       Lib Dem       Non Voter       All
                       Reported 2010 Vote                    Respondents
                                                    Data from British Election Study 2015

The varied nature of UKIP supporters can be seen when comparing their views of other
political parties. The British Election Study asked respondents if they would ever
consider voting for a range of political parties, including the Labour Party. This was
measured on a scale of 0 (would never vote for the party) to 10 (would seriously
consider voting for the party).

As figure 4 shows, UKIP supporters who reported voting for the Labour Party in the
2010 General Election indicate the highest average propensity to vote Labour (with a
mean value of 5 out of 10). While this may not be surprising, the difference between
this group (who ComRes estimate make up only 11% of UKIP supporters) and people
who reported voting Conservative is particularly stark: former Conservative voters who
now support UKIP report almost no chance of ever considering voting Labour. The
average propensity to vote Labour among Liberal Democrats and non-voters from 2010
is also under 1 out of 10, though there is more variation within these groups:

Campaigning against UKIP - November 2014
Figure 4: UKIP supporters’ propensity to vote Labour2 by 2010 General Election vote:

                                                        Data from British Election Study, 2015

As former Conservative supporters are estimated to make up almost half of UKIP
supporters, this makes it clear regarding UKIP supporters as a homogeneous group is a
mistake. For that reason, it is important to carefully target sub-groups within UKIP’s
base of support, as many UKIP-leaning electors report they have little (or no) chance of
ever considering voting Labour. We should therefore use the limited time before the
General Election to concentrate our efforts and resources on the electors we are most
likely to be able to persuade to vote Labour.

Polling for ComRes in October 20143 suggested that, while 16% of self-identified
Labour supporters would consider voting for UKIP in the 2015 General Election, 1 in 10
current UKIP supporters would consider voting for the Labour Party. This highlights that
there are votes that can be won (and lost) in the fight against UKIP. Our goal is to
identify and target these electors with our key persuasion messages to win their

Table 1: Parties considering voting for in 2015 General Election, by party identification:
    Other party           Total    Conservative        Labour         Lib Dem          UKIP
    considered4                     Supporters       Supporters      Supporters      Supporters
    Conservative             8%           -                     5%             19%             16%
    Labour                   9%                8%         -                    25%             10%
    Lib Dem                 10%               13%              13%         -                    3%
    Green                   13%                8%              21%             26%              6%
    UKIP                    15%               28%              16%              9%         -
    None of these           55%               51%              50%             36%             68%
                                                              ComRes Polling Data, October 2014

  Responses were measures on an 11-point scale where 0=”Very unlikely to ever vote Labour” and
10=”Very likely to ever vote Labour”.
  Respondents could select more than one party

Campaigning against UKIP - November 2014
The biggest single group of UKIP supporters, former Tories, are likely to be attracted to
UKIP due their anti-EU rhetoric and right-wing policies which overlap with the
Conservative Party’s right-wing policy agenda. As such, these electors are unlikely to be
easily won over by the Labour Party in the 2015 General Election.

In the context of the challenge from UKIP, these electors are not the Labour Party’s
main electoral concern. Instead, our priority should be UKIP supporters who would or
might otherwise support the Labour Party. This is not confined to electors who voted for
the Labour Party in 2010, but also includes earlier Labour supporters and former Liberal
Democrats seeking a new outlet for their protest.

3.2                  Explaining UKIP support
Gender, age, educational attainment, and social class are consistently strong predictors
of UKIP support. In particular, older men from lower social grades with fewer educational
qualifications tend to be more likely to vote for UKIP. This is evident not only when
comparing these individual factors but also when looking at them in combination. As
figure 3 shows, men aged 47 and over in social grades C2, D and E are almost four times
as likely to report voting for UKIP than women aged 46 and under who are in A, B or C1
social grades (19% compared to 5%):

Figure 5: UKIP support by gender, age and social grade:
                                                      0%                    5%                   10%              15%           20%
             Over 47 years

                             A, B, C1 Social Grades

                             C2, D, E Social Grades

             18 - 46 years

                             A, B, C1 Social Grades

                             C2, D, E Social Grades
             Over 47 years

                             A, B, C1 Social Grades

                             C2, D, E Social Grades

             18 - 46 years

                             A, B, C1 Social Grades

                             C2, D, E Social Grades

                                                      0         500       1000           1500    2000      2500   3000   3500   4000

                                                           Size of Group in Sample (#)          UKIP Voters (%)

                                                                                   Data from GQRR Polling for the Labour Party

Experian’s Mosaic classification5 allows us to segment the population according to social,
economic and cultural characteristics. As such, it offers greater explanatory power than

 Mosaic classification assigns all electors to one of 67 Mosaic Types, within 15 Mosaic groups, based on
data on people’s circumstances, lifestyle, social characteristics and cultural choices from more than 400

the traditional categorisation of social grade as it can take into account a wider range of
politically relevant factors.

Our current understanding suggests that UKIP’s support is strongest among the
following Mosaic groups:
    - L – “Elderly Needs” (26%)
       Elderly people who are reliant on support either through specialised
       accommodation or the basic state pension
    - E – “Active Retirement” (22%)
    - Elders who have sufficient pensions and savings to choose pleasant locations in
       which to enjoy their retirement
    - M – “Industrial Heritage” (20%)
       Families and couples owning affordable older style housing in communities
       historically dependent on manufacturing
    - D – “Small Town Diversity” (19%)
       Residents of small and medium-sized towns who have strong roots in their local

However, it is not enough to merely identify those Mosaic groups where UKIP support is
most widespread because many UKIP supporters have little or no chance of ever voting
Labour. Instead, we should target electors who share similar characteristics to UKIP
supporters, but fall into our categorisation of UKIP-Labour switchers based on our
polling data. This group is defined as:
a) voted Labour in 2010 and intend to vote UKIP now;
b) intend to vote UKIP now but state that they have a good chance of voting Labour,
    and a fair or no chance of voting Tory;
c) intend to vote UKIP now but state that they have a fair chance of voting Labour, and
    no chance of voting Tory; or
d) intend to vote Labour but report a good chance of voting UKIP.

As figure 6 shows, the biggest group of such electors is within Mosaic group J, followed
by Mosaic groups I and L. From this analysis, we can conclude that UKIP supporters who
have little chance of ever voting for the Labour Party, like Mosaic group A, or electors
who are unlikely ever to vote UKIP, like Mosaic group O, should not be the focus of our
campaigning against UKIP. It is also important to recognise that each constituency will
have its own particular demographic composition, and the proportion of groups in your
constituency may differ from the national average.

sources. A list of Mosaic groups and brief descriptions is attached in Appendices B and C. More information
can also be found at (on Membersnet).

Figure 6: UKIP support and UKIP-Labour switchers by Mosaic group:
        Percentage Supporting UKIP     30%






                                             A   B   C   D   E   F   G    H    I    J   K   L    M   N    O

    Percentage Labour-UKIP Switchers





                                             A   B   C   D   E   F   G    H    I    J   K   L    M    N   O
                                                                     Mosaic Group

                                                                      Data from GQRR Polling for the Labour Party

Just as not all electors in different Mosaic groups are not all equally likely to vote for
UKIP, not all UKIP-supporting electors are as likely as each other to vote for the Labour
Party. Therefore, it is not our aim simply to target electors in the Mosaic groups with the
strongest likelihood to support UKIP in the run up to the 2015 General Election.

Instead, we are targeting those electors who are likely to be sympathetic towards both
the Labour Party and UKIP, i.e.: those electors who are both amongst the most likely to
vote for UKIP in the General Election and who have more favourable views of the Labour
Party. Generally targeting UKIP sympathisers or targeting those UKIP supporters who
would otherwise vote Conservative is not an efficient use of our campaign efforts and
resources and could be a dispiriting experience for volunteers on the doorstep.

4. Campaigning methods, issues and messaging
4.1     The importance of local campaigning

Pattie and Johnston sum up the research on campaign effects in the UK bluntly: “Other
things being equal, the more parties campaign locally, the more votes they gain and the
fewer votes go to their rivals.”6

UKIP gathers much of its support from voters who feel the Party has left them behind,
and have therefore lost faith and trust in the Party. Re-establishing this trust is a labour-
intensive activity, requiring determined activity from local campaigns to listen to and
understand the reasons behind this disillusion.

Of the relatively few studies that have attempted to quantify the effect of local
campaigns, a change in intensity of the Labour Party’s local campaign from no
campaigning to the average ‘campaign intensity’ was associated with an increase in our
vote share of more than 5 percentage points, even when taking other local political
factors in account.7 Of particular relevance to this election, there is evidence that the
benefits gained from campaigning are even larger for opposition parties than they are
for incumbents8.

This is reinforced by our internal research from the 2010 General Election, which
measured an even greater effect of voter contact on a candidate’s vote share. Table 2
shows that voter contact rates within a constituency had a significant effect on the
vote share won by the Labour candidate, even when considering campaign spend and
the local political context:

Table 2: Substantive impact of local campaigning
           Constituency Contact Rate Effect on Candidate Vote Share
                       10 %                       +1.7%
                       20 %                       +3.4%
                       30 %                       +5.2%

In addition to this is the well-established effect that door-knocking has on increasing
voter turnout. The availability of the marked register of electors enables us to determine
accurately whether conversations on the door have a significant impact on behaviour in
the context of turning out and voting. Extensive evidence reveals a consistent
relationship between campaign activity and the propensity of an individual elector to
turn out to vote.

Respected studies have produced convincing evidence that door-to-door Get Out The
Vote drives increase turnout by 5 to 10 percentage points. Cutts, Fieldhouse and John
  Pattie, C, and Johnston, R. "Talking to the converted or reaching out to the uncommitted? Who do political
campaigns influence?." Journal of Political Marketing 11.4 (2012): 265-298.
  Fisher, J, Cutts, D. and Fieldhouse, E. "Constituency Campaigning in the 2010 British General Election."
American Political Science Association Annual Conference, September. 2010.
  Fieldhouse, E, and Cutts, D. "The effectiveness of local party campaigns in 2005: combining evidence
from campaign spending and agent survey data." British Journal of Political Science 39.02 (2009): 367-

(2009) report that door-knocking increased turnout by 6.7% in the 2005 general
election in the Wythenshawe and Sale East constituency9.

Therefore, local campaigning is one of the most powerful tools we have at our disposal
in the run up to the 2015 General Election. It will be particularly important against UKIP,
a party which has relatively little experience of fighting elections on the ground,
especially across a large geographical area. Furthermore, constituency campaigning
allows MPs to concentrate on the work they have done for and links they have already
established within their local communities, as well as on key issues important in these

Even in UKIP’s target areas, immigration, the issue most closely associated with their
rise, is not necessarily the key local issue. Figure 7 shows that a poll ahead of the by-
election in Rochester and Strood, Survation found that the respondents were more likely
to identify “The quality of local NHS hospitals and GP services in Medway” above “The
impact of immigration on your local community” or indeed any other local issue. Only
UKIP supporters were more likely to select immigration than any other issue and among
Labour supporters, this was selected by fewer respondents than the proportion who
selected employment, education or crime.

However, local campaigns need to understand that for many voters disaffection and
disillusion are less about policy and more about trust and communication. Once a
dialogue is opened and trust begins to be re-established, policy messages can be
carefully dropped into conversations with likely UKIP switchers.

  Cutts, D, Fieldhouse, E. and John, P. "Is voting habit forming? The longitudinal impact of a GOTV campaign
in the UK." Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 19.3 (2009): 251-263.

Figure 7: Most important local issue for residents of Rochester and Strood:



                                                                          All Respondents
                                                                          Party ID:
 20%                                                                      Labour



                                                      Data from Survation, October 2014

4.2    Targeting key messages
Local campaigning on the doorstep is vital to the fight against UKIP in constituencies
across the country. However, these campaigns must be supported by clear and carefully
targeted messaging to ensure that potential Labour supporters know about the policies
we can offer them and their communities. Those areas where we are generally seen to
have the best policies should therefore be front and centre of any issue-based

A key point here is to ensure that, where possible, the message to voters is local and
tangible. It needs to mean something personally to each voter. To many voters, simply
repeating the words of a leaflet might confirm what they suspect– that the Labour Party
is not interested in what’s happening in their local area.

For example, when we talk about the NHS with voters we should relate it to “the
hospital up the road” or “the drop-in centre in town” or “the GP surgery on Queensway”–
therefore relating a national message into a locally relevant and tangible message, even
if it may be more modest. Taking our recently announced policy of ensuring local,
democratically-elected officials decide on local bus routes, another example of this
would be a message of “we’ll make sure Number 25 bus goes to town every hour”.

This reminds voters that we’re both aware of and invested in local issues. It also
provides a very real and achievable local policy which will have an impact upon their

lives, no matter how modest we might believe it is. The best way to re-establish trust
with voters means moving away from what is perceived as “national, ambitious and
unrealistic” to “local, modest and achievable”. Every policy we have should be translated
into locally tangible messages for activists on the doorsteps. Of course this is not always
easy; however if trust is to be re-established, we must provide concrete evidence of
how our policies will make a difference in people’s lives.

Ipsos MORI’s Political Monitor collects data on which party electors believe has the best
policies on a range of issues. As figure 8 shows, the Labour Party held a clear lead on the
issues of healthcare (36% to the Conservatives’ 21% and UKIP’s 1%) and housing (34%
to the Conservatives’ 21% and UKIP’s 1%) in September 2014. However, UKIP scores
well on both immigration and the EU, and while at least 1 in 5 respondents thought they
were the best party on either of these issues, fewer than 1 in 20 thought they had the
best policies on any other issue.

Figure 8: Party with best policy on key issues:

 Asylum and immigration




                    EU                                                      Conservatives
                                                                            Lib Dems

 Managing the economy



                          0%   10%      20%       30%      40%      50%

                                Data from Ipsos MORI Political Monitor, September 2014

This suggests that UKIP struggles to compete with the Labour Party on issues such as
healthcare and housing, or indeed on education, unemployment or benefits though we
are competing more closely with the Conservatives in these areas. Concerns about
immigration are often framed in terms of other issues, particularly concerns for housing,
healthcare and other local services. As we consistently perform better on these issues,
this offers our campaigners the chance to address immigration in terms of these areas
where we offer policies that make a tangible difference to the lives of some of the most
disadvantaged electors across the country.

Furthermore, when supporters of the major parties are asked what policies attract them
to these parties, there is a clear difference between the Labour Party and UKIP. As table
3 shows, while UKIP supporters are mainly attracted by their policies on asylum and
immigration, Labour Party supporters report that our healthcare and education policies
helped them decide to vote Labour. Healthcare is also the most important issues for
anti-Conservative (but not anti-Labour) electors. Finally, unemployment is a more
important issue for Labour supporters than those of any of the other parties:

Table 3: Issues helping electors decide which party to vote for, by voting intention:
                 Total             2015 Voting Intention                    Against
                         Conservative   Labour   Lib Dem    UKIP     Conservative     Labour
Sample size       1010           269       293         68      118           591         567
Managing the
economy           31%            45%      28%        29%      26%            28%         36%
Asylum and
immigration       30%            35%      22%        24%      64%            29%         35%
Healthcare        29%            22%      40%        26%      22%            34%         25%
Education         23%            17%      32%        32%      16%            28%         20%
Benefits          13%            10%      15%        13%      13%            14%         12%
Foreign policy    12%            13%      14%        15%        7%           12%         12%
EU                10%            13%       8%         7%      24%            10%         13%
Unemployment      10%             6%      14%         4%        7%           12%          8%
Taxation            8%           10%       9%        10%        6%            8%          9%
Pensions            6%            6%       8%         6%        4%            6%          5%
                                     Data from Ipsos MORI Political Monitor, September 2014

Across a diverse electorate, the Labour Party cannot win on all issues with all electors,
so a carefully targeted campaign needs to prioritise those issues that are important to
the Party and potential supporters. This is particularly true in our fight against UKIP, as
potential UKIP voters are a politically and socially heterogeneous group. We must ensure
our campaign efforts on those electors are focussed on those most sympathetic to the
Labour Party and on the issues that may win their vote.

4.3     Immigration

Once we have re-established a dialogue with voters, Labour is in a position to introduce
policy into conversations. Labour recognises that immigration is important for Britain,
but it needs to be controlled and managed, so the system is fair. Both Ed Miliband and
Yvette Cooper have acknowledged the last Labour Government got some things wrong
on immigration, including not introducing transitional controls for new countries joining
the EU. Over the last four years, Labour has set out a new approach, which includes
introducing stronger border controls to count people in and out and new border checks
to tackle illegal immigration.

Labour is building on its work in government to enforce the minimum wage, and stop
unscrupulous employers using cheaper workers from overseas to undercut local wages
and jobs. Labour has also committed to banning agencies that only recruit from abroad

and making serious exploitation of workers a criminal offence. We also know people
want to see fair rules enforced, so Labour will stop child benefit and child tax credits
being paid to children living abroad, make it easier to deport foreign criminals and, to
stop our communities being divided, improve the standards of English language for
those working in public services.

Immigration is the issue people most often cite when explaining support for UKIP, either
their own or that of communities and electors more generally, and the polling data as
displayed in Figure 8 and Table 3 illustrate clearly why. It does not however follow that
that campaigning on immigration issues and emphasising our policies in our
conversations with electors is always the correct response.

As a political party, we are more effective at changing what is discussed and debated
(the salience of the issues), as opposed to changing what may be long-held and
entrenched opinions of each party or views on which party has the best policies on each
issue. For example, in autumn 2013 we saw a sharp rise in the salience of energy prices
in the wake of Ed’s policy announcement at Annual Conference and the integrated
campaigns we ran in the weeks and months that followed. More recently, we have seen
a substantial increase in the salience of the NHS.

Following from this, when we embark on policy messaging around immigration, which is
not an area where Labour has the strongest lead over other parties, we should ensure
that this messaging is always done in conjunction with other policy areas. The purpose
of this is to raise the salience of those issues in which Labour has a much clearer lead
and stands to benefit more from their prominence with the electorate. This is especially
true when messaging comes from the local candidate and local party, where the
magnitude of this effect may be greatest.

4.4 Issue choice
The Labour Party has commissioned polling by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research
(GQRR) to test the top issues among different groups of electors. Table 4 shows that
Older Traditionalists, who are more likely to vote for UKIP, are also most likely to select
immigration as one of the two most important issues for them. This concern for
immigration is often framed around other issues (such as local housing, healthcare or
other services) where the Labour Party tends to be rated more highly. This is closely
followed by the NHS, which is also considered a key issue for the majority of Older
Traditionalist electors. However, unlike other electors who have traditionally supported
the Labour Party, they are more likely to be concerned about crime than unemployment:

Table 4: Top 3 most important issues for Labour Party supporters:
         All Traditional Labour Supporters        Older Traditionalist Labour Supporters
    1             Immigration (59%)                         Immigration (59%)
    2                NHS (53%)                                   NHS (53%)
    3           Unemployment (23%)                              Crime (23%)
                                             Data from GQRR Polling for the Labour Party

This polling has also suggested that messages on freezing energy bills and a 10 pence
starting rate of tax are well received among Older Traditionalist electors, as well as with

Labour supporters in general. When asked which two policies, out of a list of eight
Labour policies, were most likely to make them voter Labour, both of these were
selected by at least a third of each group. However, Older Traditionalist electors
favoured our policy to raise the top rate of tax to 50 pence rather than our pledge to
abolish the bedroom tax, which was more popular among Labour supporters in general:

Table 5: Top 3 best received policies10 among Labour Party supporters:
          All Traditional Labour Supporters           Older Traditionalist Labour Supporters
     1    Freeze your gas and electricity bills until 2017, and stand up to energy companies

     2   Cut tax for 24 million working people by introducing a lower 10p starting rate of tax

     3         Abolish the Bedroom Tax                Get the deficit down more fairly, by raising
                                                     the top rate of tax from 45p back to 50p for
                                                            people earning over £150,000
                                                   Data from GQRR Polling for the Labour Party

It is important to note that whilst at the national level these are the most important
issues for Labour Party supporters the pattern for each constituency may be somewhat
different, depending on local dynamics and the demographic composition of the seat.
One important by-produce of local campaigning is that the Party in your constituency is
best-placed to judge which issues are most salient with voters. An effective local
campaign should work as a continuous feedback loop, whereby local issues are raised by
residents, logged by the campaign, met with policy responses and assessed for

5.       Your constituency
Included with this document are a table of polling districts where our models indicate
the highest % of electors whose demographic profile most looks like those of voters
that have or are considering switching from Labour to UKIP, and an A3 map of the same
data at a full postcode level. This, in combination with Contact Creator, should provide all
of the data that you need to successfully execute a targeted local campaign in your

5.1      Local election results
UKIP’s recent electoral success, particularly in the 2014 European elections, has led to
the increased focus on the threat they may pose in 2015. While UKIP has made notable
gains in many areas of the country, local election results cannot be assumed to be easy
and accurate position of a party’s performance in a General Election. While the lower
turnout and lower significance attached to these elections make it difficult to use local
results to directly predict the General Election, ward-level results can help identify which
electors are willing to cast their vote in favour of UKIP.

  Respondents could select two issues. The most consistently popular policies (the NHS and National
Minimum Wage) were not included in this polling.

5.2    Demographics in question
Across Britain, approximately 23% of the population falls into the four ‘Older
Traditionalist’ Mosaic groups. It is Labour supporters in these groups (D, E, L and M) that
risk being particularly susceptible to the political appeal of UKIP. In constituencies where
UKIP support is trending upwards, there tend to be a higher proportion of electors in
Mosaic groups D, and a slightly higher proportion of electors in Group E, than the
national average. These groups tend to be less persuadable for Labour. However,
electors in Mosaic groups L and M are generally more persuadable to Labour, provided
we reach out to them with the right message in the right medium. They form the
foundation of potential Labour-UKIP switchers that we advise focussing on.

The threat of switching to UKIP among these Mosaic groups must to be addressed, but
we cannot assume that one message alone will address the range of issues that provoke
Older Traditionalists and electors who would otherwise tend to support the Labour Party
to drift to UKIP. In particular, the cultural attachment to the Labour Party that exists in
many communities with large numbers of Older Traditionalist electors means there are
better suited to the “More Tory than the Tories” message against UKIP and Nigel Farage.
Conversely, such a message is less likely to work amongst younger UKIP switchers who
have little or no memory of the Thatcher and Major governments.

5.3    Finding Labour-UKIP switchers in your constituency
Our 2015 targeting strategy in relation to UKIP aims to identify, target and win over the
Labour-leaning UKIP vote. It is therefore focussed on locating Labour-leaning UKIP
support, as opposed to UKIP support in general. However, these electors are not a
homogenous group and therefore, the model employed to predict the likelihood of an
elector being a Labour-UKIP switcher uses a range of demographic characteristics.
Nonetheless, the differences within this group of Labour-UKIP switchers must be
considered when deciding which messages should be used in your constituency.

Using polling data collected on our behalf by GQRR since 2013, we employ a statistical
model to estimate the precise demographic signature of the Labour-leaning UKIP
elector. Coupled with our own voter ID records, this gives us access to a unique
combination of data which we can use to identify and target Labour-UKIP switchers in
your constituency.

To build the model to identify which demographic characteristics best predict these
electors, we draw on a poll of over 24,000 respondents which includes both voting
intention data and demographic data. The specific definition of the Labour-leaning UKIP
target elector is as follows:
    a) Voted Labour in 2010 and intends to vote UKIP now;
    b) Intends to Vote UKIP now but states that they have a good chance of voting
       Labour, and a fair or no chance of voting Tory;
    c) Intends to Vote UKIP now but states that they have a fair chance of voting
       Labour, and no chance of voting Tory; or
    d) Intend to vote Labour but report a good chance of voting UKIP.
These groups of electors should be targeted to secure their support for the Labour
Party. UKIP supporters who have little or no chance of voting Labour are not the main
focus of our election campaign.

Using the key demographic characteristics of age, gender, ethnicity, educational
attainment, Mosaic group and Type and geographical region, we have predicted which
electors fall into our target group. This offers greater predictive ability than using a
single factor such as Mosaic group. However, since Mosaic also reflects many of the
other cultural and demographic characteristics included in the model, our model tends to
predict that the most likely Labour-UKIP switchers fall into Mosaic groups L and M (‘Older
Traditionalists’) and I and J (traditionally the focus of our Get Out The Vote campaigns).

Using this model we are able to generate a probability score for each elector in the
entire country, and predict their individual likelihood of falling into one of our four target
groups (points a to d above). From this, we can determine the mixture of characteristics
possessed by the person with the highest score from our model (and thus most likely to
be a Labour-UKIP switcher) and the lowest model score (so the least likely to be a
Labour-UKIP switcher).

This data is live in the Contact Creator system and instructions on accessing it will be
provided later on in the document.

Table 6: Characteristics of most and least likely Labour-UKIP switchers:
           Highest model score                             Lowest model score
     (Most likely to be Labour-UKIP                 (Least likely to be Labour-UKIP
                switchers)                                      switchers)
                   White                                            Black
                    Male                                           Female
                Aged 47-66                                      Aged 37-46
     Further education–not university                       University educated
   Mosaic Type 42– ‘Worn Out Workers’:              Mosaic Type 37– ‘First to Move In’:
  Older workers employed in low skilled           People living in the most recently built
  work or unemployed or low prospects                       brand new housing
             Lives in Yorkshire                              Lives in Scotland

Electors identified as switchers tend to respond particularly well to our policies on the
energy bill freeze, reducing the starting rate of tax and increasing the top rate of tax.
Campaigns highlighting these policies should therefore be the main focus of our
campaigns to secure their support in these areas. Keep in mind that messaging should,
wherever possible be as locally targeted and as tangible to voters as possible. A well-
delivered campaign would take flagship policies, such as Labour’s promise to freeze
energy bills and translate them from a national message to a local one, for example:
“Labour’s energy bill freeze will reduce the average electricity bill in Buckingham by
£153 a year–just do the maths!” with locally tailored electricity bill graphic showing the
amount an elector would save calculated below. Similarly, with “More Tory than the
Tories” style messaging, this should also be framed in local terms, e.g.: “Remember what
the Tories did to this constituency”, connecting the message to the locality and the
electors themselves.

For those Labour-UKIP switchers for whom the ‘More Tory than the Tories’ message is
unlikely to work (particularly electors in Mosaic groups I and J) it is important to talk
about how a Labour government will work for them and their families. Campaigns

should focus on how national Labour policies, such as our commitment to cut tax for 24
 million working people by introducing a lower 10 pence starting rate of tax, will improve
 their daily lives. It is important to make the impact of our national policies as tangible as
 possible so people both know about our commitment to creating a fairer society across
 Britain and how this will help them personally.

 5.4        Contact rates
 As contact rates have been found to be positively correlated with higher vote shares in
 both our own internal and external academic research, it is crucial that local campaigns
 work on the doorstep to win the support of electors. As of Friday 14 November, on
 average, 8% of the electorate nationally had been contacted in 2014 by the Labour
 Party. This is compared to an average contact rate of 21% in 2014 in our key seats.

 Table 7: Contact rates across Britain:
                            Last 4 weeks   This year   Since 2010   Electorate   Annual contact rate
All constituencies              434         6,229        17,018      73,468              8%
Key Seats                      1,335        15,149       31,957      73,741               21%
                                                                      Data from the 1st of November.

 Contact rates for your own constituency can be found on the front page
 of your Contact Creator.

6. Turning this into effective local campaigning
Constituency campaigning allows you to engage with electors at the local level, and it is
only through such efforts that we can show how our national policies will make an
impact on their everyday lives.

UKIP has benefited from a disenchantment with Westminster politics and the best way
to combat this is to ensure that you and your local party are a regular presence in
people’s lives through year-round campaigning, and to make it clear how our policies on
issues such as the NHS, the cost of living crisis and a fairer tax system will have a real
and tangible impact– expressed in terms as specific and local to electors as possible.

Effective local campaigning on these issues will help to ensure that the Labour Party
and Labour MPs are always in touch with– and perceived to be in touch with– the lives
and concern of our electors.

6.1    Addressing issues on the doorstep
While it is clear that UKIP’s campaign is largely concentrated on the issue of immigration,
we cannot and should not fight the UKIP threat simply on their terms, not least because
we will not win a bidding war on the issue. Although immigration is an important issue
for many electors, and is often mentioned on the doorstep, it is often used as a means to
express other concerns. Many of these issues, including healthcare, housing, and the
delivery of other local services, are among the strongest policy areas for the Labour

Volunteers and activists must understand and acknowledge electors’ concerns about
immigration on the doorstep, which will mean hearing opinions that may not gel with
their own. In these cases, it’s important to remember that first phase of re-establishing
trust is to listen and understand. Keep in mind too that there may well be some voters
who, with the best will in the world, we are unlikely to bring back from UKIP. It’s
nonetheless essential that we leave them with a positive impression of the Labour
Party, to avoid cementing them in their views and thus their voting patterns. Our focus
must instead be moving the conversation on to issues where we have clear policy which
tackles the problems people are worried about, whether they express those concerns
through the prism of immigration or not. In summary, campaigners should acknowledge
concerns and contextualise the problem as something that Labour has a clear plan to

Our three-pronged approach covers both local and national campaigning, national and
local media appearances and the delivery of our messages in print and on the doorstep:
not all messages need be used at once in each and every channel with each and every

We must:
   1. reassure electors that we understand concerns they raise on immigration and are
      proposing policies to ensure effective integration;
   2. deliver a clear message on the threat that Farage poses. Above all, we must
      remind potential UKIP supporters of the threat UKIP poses to the NHS in their
      local area and encourage them to think more about this, and other areas of
      Labour Party policy, than immigration; and

3. champion a locally-driven alternative Labour agenda which engages with the
      underlying frustration people feel about the way Britain is run, and remind people
      seeking change in their lives that this is far more likely to come from a Labour
      government than from UKIP.

6.2    Briefing and equipping local activists
The importance of doorstep campaigning in the fight against UKIP means that all
activists taking part in local campaigning should be fully briefed on our UKIP messaging.
This will allow activists to confidently engage with potential UKIP supporters on the
doorstep, making your campaign more effective. We are developing model UKIP briefings
and resources for activists on Membersnet that should be tailored with local examples
and relevant information for your constituency.

The Labour Party has a long tradition of positive and engaged local campaigning. It is
crucial, especially in areas where regular doorstep activity is less well established, that
these values are upheld. While it is tough, sometimes impossible, to change minds on the
doorstep, listening carefully and taking the time to show that we understand where an
elector is coming from on issues is very likely to have a far more positive impact than
challenging them directly. Through this, we demonstrate our respect for their views and
concerns; something that is particularly important given that the established political
parties appear to be less popular than ever.

6.3    Establishing on-going relationships
Politics has always been about personal relationships and hard work. Campaigns need to
focus their efforts on building (or rebuilding) relationships. Not only that, but if they are
to last, like any relationship, they must be committed to over the long term– not just
during election season. Policy and messaging are crucial parts of any campaign, and we
believe that we have a strong platform for your constituency; however it is equally
important to ensure that relationships between voters and the local Party are both
strong and based on mutual respect and trust.

Contact with electors should never be such that it is perceived as a one-off event, as we
need to establish ongoing relationships with all of our electors, and above all with our
supporters. We must make it clear to them that we are interested in understanding and
addressing their individual concerns, not just securing their vote at election time. When
a UKIP switcher is identified on the doorstep, this should be followed up by:

   1. A follow up call from the candidate within two weeks.
       This should set out the case for Labour and highlight our key UKIP messages: UKIP are
       more Tory than the Tories, and they would prop up David Cameron and keep the Tories
       in power.
   2. A direct mail two weeks after the candidate call.
       This should be based on the direct mail we have designed to focus on our core message,
       available on the Campaign Resource Centre. You should tailor the text to include locally
       relevant examples and information.
   3. A commitment to continue the communication if elected.
       Pledge to make personal contact on a regular basis if elected.

6.4    Core messaging resources
Immigration is a complex issue, on which the Labour Party has a series of policies
designed to address legitimate concerns. Once explained and the context surrounding
the issue made clear, our policies tend to be accepted as common sense. However,
writing to electors proactively (i.e.: without evidence the elector is concerned about it)
about immigration risks undermining the broad coalition of support we need to return to
government, for the following reasons:
   •   as a general rule, a higher salience for the issue does not translate into electoral
       advantage for us; and
   •   we do not have much data collected in many UKIP target areas. Even with the best
       models we can develop, this means we will inevitably be hitting some people for whom it
       is unhelpful to raise the salience of immigration as an issue.

That said, there are electors for whom immigration is already a very high salience issue,
who already plan to vote UKIP. For these electors, the issue needs to be addressed:
there is no longer a risk of making it worse with that group. As always, it is preferable to
first of all establish a relationship with such voters before discussing policy in detail.
However this may not always be possible or desirable.

Our advice is therefore that we should:
   (a) listen carefully to electors’ concerns on immigration on the doorstep and engage
       with their views before moving the conversation on to how Labour would tackle
       the issues they have raised (whether they be housing, education, the NHS, etc.).
       We should acknowledge electors’ concerns and contextualise the problem as
       something that Labour has a clear plan to improve;
   (b) focus our messaging on our key policies that will have improve the lives of
       electors, their families and their communities for those people who we estimate
       to be likely Labour/UKIP switchers, but who we do not know for certain that they
       intend to vote for UKIP. For these electors we do not have Voter ID information
       identifying a UKIP intention, we should talk about our policies in terms that make
       sense locally and make it clear how a Labour government will have a tangible
       effect on their lives; and
   (c) face the issue of immigration directly with identified UKIP supporters. With
       electors who have already indicated that they intend to vote for UKIP, we should
       set out our immigration policy clearly and explain how it resolves the issues
       people raise while forming part of our wider package of changes to how Britain
       works to make Britain fairer and more prosperous for everyone.

Our campaign shop offers a range of campaign materials designed specifically to combat
the threat of UKIP among traditional Labour supporters. Using pre-prepared materials
will allow you to focus your resources and time on campaigning and engaging electors,
rather than copywriting and design. However, as there is a range of products designed
to be used in the fight against UKIP, the most appropriate materials should be selected
according to the electors you are targeting in any specific area.

          All of these leaflets can be purchased through our Campaign Shop at:

Nationally produced NHS materials highlight the risk UKIP poses to the NHS. These are
likely to be especially effective with Older Traditionalist electors:

Leaflets emphasizing the political position of UKIP– more Tory than the Tories– are
especially useful for those electors whom you know have previously voted Labour or
who would chose the Labour Party over the Conservatives:

For those electors who either do not remember the Thatcher/Major governments, these
messages are likely to be less effective. We are currently working on developing a series
of materials aimed at potential Labour-UKIP switchers who do not fall into the category
of ‘Older Traditionalist’ electors. However, the campaign shop already offers a range of
leaflets highlighting how our policies will improve the lives of those struggling under the
Coalition government. This includes our jobs guarantee:

And our commitment to getting a fairer deal for renters:

6.5   Identifying UKIP switchers
We’ve built a number of selections to help you use these materials and for you to target
direct mail messaging. These selections are based on models using data we have
collected on electors, their previous voting habits, their demographic characteristics and
the communities in which they live. This wealth of information is central to our
predictions of which traditional (or potential) Labour supporters are most likely to
considering voting for UKIP.

These selections have names beginning “UKIP-susceptible– likely Labour” to make them
as easy as possible to find within Contact Creator. They are marked as being built by a
user named “National Campaigns”. This shows the selections that have been built using
the full set of political and demographic data held centrally. These selections should be
used to identify recipients of anti-UKIP mailings to electors.

The drop-down menu on the front page of the Contact Creator website allows you to
generate a list of direct mail recipients aimed at those electors whom our model
suggests may be UKIP-Labour switchers:

From the same drop down menu you can also select “UKIP-susceptible-likely Labour
(doorstep)” which will allow you to quickly and easily generate Voter ID sheets for areas
within your constituency, showing all electors in the area with whom you should be
communicating, but with a clear identifying mark on the sheets for those who are
thought likely to be UKIP-Labour switchers based on a sophisticated national model.

You can also read
Next slide ... Cancel