Dagenham and Rainham, the seat which replaced the old Dagenham seat and the Hornchurch seat, posed a unique challenge in British politics. Jon Cruddas MP was up against a consolidated BNP vote in three wards, a strong Tory challenger backed by Lord Ashcroft cash, and boundary changes meaning almost all the electorate were new.

A decision was taken early on to plan for a general election and local election on the same day. This enabled the whole campaign to maintain steady momentum and meant all candidates knew what was expected of them in the months leading up to polling day. Dagenham and Rainham Labour adopted a ‘Team Labour’ approach that included all candidates on most materials. The people of Dagenham and Rainham have a diverse set of interests. The mix of electorate, from welfare dependency to self-made wealth, meant that any contact had to be frequent and relevant.

The first challenge was to raise the overall contact rate in Dagenham and Rainham. While there was a reasonable amount of older data from a number of council by-elections, there was not enough new data being collected.

By using large scale consultation style mailings, Jon Cruddas MP was able to harvest complete and accurate data sets for households well over a year before the election. These direct mails formed a significant part of the campaign, providing an ongoing dialogue with both the old and new electorate. Over the 18 months before polling day, over 200,000 targeted and personalised letters were distributed. This was on top of four canvassing sessions per week across the constituency and distribution of leaflets with an easy to use return mechanism.

This steady rate of contact meant that by polling day, the average Labour supporter had been contacted roughly 20 times in the previous 18 months. During the short campaign, candidate recognition was high. There were very few reports of voters complaining that we were only knocking on doors because there was an election looming.

The operation in Dagenham and Rainham relied on a ‘tight-loose’ style of campaigning. All the messaging, branding and target pools of voters were controlled from the campaign HQ (tight), whilst the canvassing was largely completed by the councillors/candidates and their own teams (loose). Trade unions provided a lot of the activists on the ground, adopting a ward and getting to grips with the local issues. A lot of the success in identifying Labour promises, distributing materials and knocking up on the day was down to the support of the unions.

To ensure that canvassing was completed, regular email updates were sent, making public contact rates and labour promises that month. Canvass returns could be verified against the returns from direct mails and leaflets to ensure accuracy. In contrast, phone canvassing undertaken by the national call centre without any local knowledge led to a spike in people identifying as “Against”, “Don’t Know”, or “Not voting”.

The campaign plan for the final six weeks of campaigning was to emphasise regular contact with simple letters personally addressed to pledges and leaflets to the whole constituency. If you were a Labour pledge you were targeted directly, while all households received regular leaflets.

Polling day saw the fruition of months of hard work. The positive campaign run, teamed with frequent and relevant contact, meant people across Dagenham and Rainham had a strong reason to vote for the Labour party candidates.

by John Greenshields, Dagenham and Rainham CLP