Our 2022 local election campaign
- This topic has 48 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
We have now have some figures on the QR experiment. Up to 6 May, 31 in Lambeth had used it to access a page on our website. As some 4700 leaflets were distributed that it a rate about 1 per 150 leaflets.
As 150 leaflets can be pushed through letter boxes in one hour, we have to decide whether or not this is “cost effective” in terms of Party members’ time, bearing in mind that it could take about 30 hours member-time to distribute 4700 leaflets.
(Incidentally, it is pure coincidence that the number up to 6 May is the same as the number of votes obtained. This is because perhaps as much as 1500 of the leaflets were distributed outside the ward.)
The figure for Tunbridge Wells for the same period is 4 for 2000 leaflets. At the same rate as in Lambeth it would have been 13. But Lambeth is overwhelmingly Labour while Tunbridge Wells has just been captured by the Liberals from the Tories. We have noticed before that we tend to have less response in non-Labour areas than in Labour ones. In the Tunbridge Wells ward the Labour vote was 10 percent compared with 66 percent in Clapham East.
The next step will be to distribute 4000 to 5000 leaflets with a QR outside of an election time.
Why would it be “more cost effective” to pay for a leaflet drop when there isn’t an election than when there is an election?
Because people wouldn’t be saturated with materials from political parties then, so the pamphlet (might) have more impact.
Obviously, my comments about standing in elections are just that, my tuppence worth. I was forgetting the difference in cost in local and national elections. But still wonder if continually standing in elections, and only getting a handful of votes, has a negative publicity effect.
Lambeth Council have now published the turnout figures for all the wards. This allows us to compare how the 5 TUSC (SPEW front) candidates did. Here’s what this shows.
Stockwell West & Lakhall: 87 out of 3173 ballor papers returned = 2.7%
Clapham East: 38/1743 = 2.2%
Brixton Acre Lane: 78/3772 = 2.1%
Streatham Wells: 45/2587 = 1.7%
Herne Hill & Loughborough Junction: 71/4795 = 1.5%Our candidate in Clspham East was 31/1743 = 1.8%.
Incidentally, Clapham East had the lowest turn-out at 23.32% — less than a quarter of the electorate — in the whole borough of Lambeth.
Clearly, they are in the same league as us. They did no better with a full-blown reform programme than we did on a straight socialism and nothing else ticket.
People here have quesioned the wisdom of us contesting in view of the small number of votes. But what must SPEW think as they are doing it to get elected and get reforms?
We now have some more up-to-date figures of the number of times that the QR code was used to directly access a particular “landing page” on our website. Up to yesterday it was 72.
As some 4700 leaflets were distributed in and around the ward, that is 1 in about every 67 leaflets distributed (or about 1 per street). This will be some sort of measure of the number who read the leaflet rather than dump it with all the pizza and other ads that fall through their letter-box.
One peculiarity is that more (41) used the QR after the Election Day than before (31). This suggests perhaps that interest was not directly linked to the election.
The next step will be to distribute a similar number of a similar leaflet over the same period (one month) in a similar area (inner London) when there is no election on.
The area (inner London, Labour Party majority) may have had something to do with the absolute figure, as the Tunbridge leaflet in a different area with a different title and content brought only 4 QR responses from the 2000 leaflets distributed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.