July 2015

Listening to Labours Lost Labour Voters

By Alan Barnard and John Braggins
Purpose of this report
On the morning of Thursday 7th May 2015, Labour believed they were just a few hours away
from Ed Miliband walking down Downing Street and into number 10 as Prime Minister. A
fully-staffed expert transition team had been working for months on their plans for
government. Within 24 hours it had become quite a different story and the task in hand wasnt
governing the country: it was working out what had gone so badly wrong.
After the 2010 general election (itself one of Labours worst ever performances) Labour hoped
to gain at least 70 seats in order to have a good chance of forming a majority government.
Instead, at the 2015 general election, Labour lost 491 seats (40 in Scotland, 2 in Wales and 7 in
England) whilst making only 22 gains.
It has been calculated2 that 5% of Labours total vote came as a result of Lib Dems switching to
it, but Labour also lost 6% of its 2010 vote to other parties. One third of that was to the SNP
in Scotland (where there were very particular circumstances, both recent and historic in their
making). Worryingly, another third went to the Tories, and the rest was split between UKIP
and the Greens.
So as well as failing to win Tory voters in sufficient numbers, Labour
also failed to win Labour voters in sufficient numbers. That is the real,
alarming story from this election.
This report uncovers why Labour lost Labour voters at the 2015 general election.
Overview
In order to listen to Labours lost Labour voters, we visited five of Labours target seats. We
interviewed and talked with ten different groups of voters, all of whom were specially chosen
because of their previous voting history.
The voters we spoke to were lifelong Labour voters, people who voted Labour when Gordon
Brown was Prime Minister in 2010 but who couldnt bring themselves to vote Labour this time.
1
2

Including Corby, which Labour had won in a Parliamentary by-election.

Voter Migration Flows, Martin Baxter, Electoral Calculus

They are voters Labour lost but should have easily kept. And they are, at a minimum, voters
Labour must win back.
Back in 1992, following a general election that Labour expected to win, there was much soulsearching in Walworth Road about what went wrong. At the time, the deliberations were
characterised as a choice between one more heave (ie to carry on doing more of the same,
only better) or whether Labour needed to update its offer and modernise itself to align itself
with a changed and changing electorate.
Twenty three years later, again following a defeat in an election it expected to win, Labour faces
a much bigger conundrum even than they did in 1992. One more heave is not even an option
this time, because on Labours current trajectory, more of the same will ultimately lead to
oblivion. Now it is an existential question: will Labour still be a relevant force come the next general
election? According to the voters we spoke with, the jury most certainly is out as to whether the
answer to that question will be yes.
We were shocked at some of the comments we heard during our discussions with these formerLabour voters. Labour is staring down the barrel of a gun. For Labour to be competitive in
2020 it has to completely overhaul itself so it is fit for purpose twenty years into the new
millennium. As we were told in the groups, Labour has no God-given right to exist. Unless Labour
becomes relevant to these voters lives, it might not.
As a result of our discussions in these groups, we believe there are five big questions that the
Labour Party, and the next Labour leader, must address if Labour is going to earn the right to
be considered as a governing party once again. They cover the big issues that these voters were
concerned about. The answers to the five questions will probably determine whether Labour is
given another chance by them. Those five questions are at the end of this report, on page 12.
Who we spoke with
We held ten discussion groups in five locations in England3 between 21st May and 22nd June
2015 with a male and female group in each location. We recruited mixes of C1/C2/D voters in
the age range of approximately 30-65. All were in some form of work.
All attendees were previously Labour voters. They were recruited as having voted Labour in
general and local elections before 2015, and as being regular voters; many voted Labour in
European elections as well. We specifically asked that everyone voted Labour at the 2010
general election.
Everyone had voted in the 2015 general election, but only two actually voted Labour (despite
reservations). Most of the attendees voted Conservative. A few voted UKIP and one or two
Lib Dem or Green. Some of those who chose UKIP did so because they couldnt bring
themselves to vote Tory given their and their families Labour-voting history. We heard many
comments along the lines of My Dad would be rolling in his grave if he knew I voted Tory.
Many of them nearly voted Labour. All were still considering Labour at various times over the
five years, and most finally made up their minds who to vote for only during the campaign this
Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Wales, have slightly different electoral dynamics, having nationalist parties that
are more established and which have a different impact than those that also operate in England. And, whilst
Labour does have to recover in Scotland, winning more seats in England is essential for Labour ever to form a
Westminster Government again.
3

year and some even on polling day. One regretted voting the way they did from a tactical voting
perspective. No one else regretted how they voted.
Locations
Groups were held in five of Labours 2015 target seats:
21st May: Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Tory hold by 3,082);
3rd June: Croydon Central (Tory hold by 165);
4th June: Southampton Itchen (Tory gain by 2,316);
18th June: Watford (Tory hold by 9,794);
22nd June: Pudsey (Tory hold by 4,501);
This is what these voters told us about why they didnt vote Labour
The Tories were starting to put the economy right after Labour left it in such a mess. It was
generally felt that the Tories deserved the chance to continue. Labour had lost its economic
credibility: these voters believed Labour didnt fix the roof whilst the sun was shining and that
Labour had spent all the money.
Labour was blamed for overspending. Fair and square. Even those who agreed that the banks
had played a part blamed Labour more for over-spending (and implicitly, over-borrowing). The
Tories did a very good job of establishing the letter written by Liam Byrne (about there being
no money left) as a symbol that Labour had run the economy into the ground. A large number
of the respondents knew of it and referenced it.
And whilst the Tories were considered the best choice to look after the recovering economy, it
was also felt that Labour didnt offer a credible plan to fix the economy themselves. In fact
Labour was in denial about the mess they caused. These voters wanted the Labour Party to
apologise for borrowing and spending too much.
On top of all this, there was a perception that Labour had a very weak Leader. These voters
didnt see Ed Miliband as a Prime Minister. In fact, many people in the groups laughed at the
prospect of him being the leader of the UK. Its probably unhelpful to repeat all of the
comments about Ed Miliband very few were complimentary. Suffice to say that the brand of
Labour has been damaged massively by these voters inability to perceive him as a capable and
competent Prime Minister.
Their image of Labour as a political party with a leader that was open to derision clouded all
their thinking about a renewed Labour Party, and what Labour needs from its next Leader.
These voters really struggled to imagine a Labour Party with a strong, confident leader in the
future.
As well as having a weak leader, Labour appeared to them to be anti-business and against those
who were making something of their lives. Labour wanted to tax successful people more and, it
was said, only cared about people at the bottom end. There was nothing wrong with Labour
talking about minimum wage, food banks and zero hours (although some worried that this
agenda would hit small businesses). But it was wrong that Labour talked about nothing else that
affected the lives of these (now former-) Labour voters. These voters were starting to perceive

the Tories as the party of people like them, of working people; and not Labour. They couldnt
see themselves reflected in what Labour was saying and caring about.
Both Labour and the Conservatives were seen as a soft touch on both immigration and welfare
benefits but Labour got most of the opprobrium as it was felt that Labour was the party of
welfare benefits. Much of our discussion in all the groups kept coming back to these two issues.
They were the prism through which everything else was viewed. Dealing with these two issues
would effectively solve all problems in Britain as far as all the people we spoke with were
concerned, hence the attraction of UKIP for some of these people.
Ultimately, it came down to an issue of fairness. Immigration, benefits, scroungers (UK and
foreign alike) and the need for reform of an over-generous welfare system are all inter-twined
with fairness. And at the heart of this is the need for reform of the welfare system.
Put simply, it was thought that Labour would let too many people in (and a recurring refrain
was this country is full we cant cope with more people) who want to come and take
welfare benefits and use the NHS without contributing anything. And it was thought that
Labour subscribes more towards a Benefits Street view of life and that it is prepared to keep
on handing money out rather than seeking to get people off welfare.
For some, more notably further south, the fear of the SNP having a big influence on decisions
that affect England if Labour won had an impact and helped to push voters towards the strong
Cameron and away from the weak Miliband. Labours woes and weakness in Scotland had a
knock-on effect on Labour voters in England as it helped move them towards the Tories.
The immediate landscape for Labour
These voters are a hairs breadth from becoming Conservatives. Given the proximity of the
election, they are still justifying their voting choice, and some of the women particularly came
close to voting Labour (in the end the threat of a Prime Minister Miliband and the promise of
fiscal probity with Cameron was enough to stop them) so all is not lost.
One woman who had been looking for a job for nearly a year before getting one on the
checkouts at Morrisons summed it up when she said: Were in different places now. My parents used
to vote Labour, but weve changed and Labour needs to change to join us.
Labour is now at risk of becoming irrelevant even to voters that have been lifelong supporters.
In recent years, Labour has drifted further away from where these people are. Labour had
caused problems for the country and didnt seem capable of putting them right. And let alone
ever being in government again, Labour might not even earn the right to be the Opposition
again. There was a very stark warning for Labour at the end of one of the mens groups:

We need an opposition, but it doesnt have to be Labour. Theres lots of parties

out there now.
As things stand, many of these voters are for the Tories to lose at the next election. If the
economy improves further and the belief lingers that the actions of the Tory Government are
necessary in order to fix Labours mess, then Labour needs to be at its brilliant best again. Or,
as one man in Croydon Central told us: Labour win again? They need a magic wand.

The ten themes that concern Labours Lost Labour Voters.

The reasons given for not voting Labour, and for voting the way they eventually did, can be
grouped into ten themes.
1.
Labours Leader
If hed gone last year, I wouldve voted Labour.
Paula, Halesowen & Rowley Regis
The lasting impression of Ed Miliband means these voters cant currently conceive of Labour
having a strong leader again. Memories of him will suffocate the next Leader until they can
break through with their communications. Labour is currently pretty irrelevant to these voters
and is not being listened to.
The biggest quality the next leader can bring to the table is to be a modern-day political
celebrity in communication terms. They referred to the likes of Tony Blair, Boris Johnson and
Charles Kennedy by way of example. Tony Blair was frequently mentioned as a template in that
he was a likable person and a genuine family bloke. They wanted someone who appeared to be
normal whilst being able to explain matters of government and to be able to talk about the
things that affect all of us with honesty.
These voters are seeking an authenticity in the leader that they can only judge through the
media. They are looking for someone who is relaxed, comfortable and confident in their
dealings with the national media. They can see through people who are trying to be politicians
as opposed to people who are being themselves.
There was a clamour for more yes and no, straight answers instead of ducking and waffling
from politicians. And they wanted all politicians to stop trying to please everyone all the time,
because that can only lead to dissembling and fudge.
These people said Labour needed a clean break and a fresh start. They saw it as the only way
for Labour to become relevant again. Labours recent history is too tainted with economic
incompetence and ineffectual leadership.
2
Labours economic credibility
Labour put the country in a state. It didnt make you feel confident they could fix it. I reckon another
five years like the last and well be superior.
Kerry, Halesowen & Rowley Regis
Labour lost the general election partly because it didnt have a credible and coherent future
economic plan to create the wealth our country needs in order to pay down the debt, eliminate
the deficit and to grow the economy, providing both the funds for our public services and to
improve standards of living for everyone.
These voters believed that the financial crash was largely caused by Labours over-borrowing
and over-spending. Even those who recognised it was a global event and that the banks were to
blame thought Labours overspending contributed. Labours economic credibility is non-

existent with these former-Labour voters who were very nervous about trusting their party to
run the countrys economy once again. They said they wanted proof.
The scale of this nervousness is very worrying for Labour.
In one group they agreed that they would only consider voting Labour again once Labour had
got back into government and demonstrated that they could run the economy once again. They
wouldnt give Labour a second chance; Labour had to earn their vote. This means that 2025
would be the next time they would consider Labour again. Thats if Labour can find enough
voters to win without them in 2020!
Labour has to demonstrate that it could fund its plans through economic growth, not through
yet more borrowing. And that it will pay down debt and eliminate the deficit.
3.
Being on the side of people getting on in life.
Labour should own up and admit they got it wrong. They came across as muddled and didnt know
what to do. They seemed to be on the side of people on the social not people in the middle like us.
Elaine, Croydon Central
We were told that Labour didnt really offer anything for the average family. Labours election
promise of a better future was understood by these voters as taxing the very rich (which was
seen as an attack on those who had worked hard to get on and do well) in order to look after
the very low paid and the worst off (as manifested through the emphasis on zero hours
contracts, food banks and minimum wage).
Labours offer, and thus perceived appeal, was too narrow for these voters. As far as they were
concerned, Labour was on the side of a life on the welfare state and low pay instead of being on
the side of people who are trying to make ends meet, to get on in life and aspire to more of the
nicer things in life. Labour simply wasnt talking to them.
Labour was seen as anti-business, only caring about public services and the public sector.
Labour seemed to be happy spending and borrowing money, but not so concerned with
helping to create it, nor even understanding the need to. Labour needed to be pro-business and
pro-wealth creation.
4.
Getting people into work Welfare reform
People shouldnt be allowed to sit at home and live on benefits if theres work to be done. Benefits were
alright when they were first brought in, but now, for some people, they seem to be a way of life.
Mike, Croydon Central
Labour was seen as being pro-welfare and as having invented the benefits culture. They were a
soft touch, instinctively on the side of claimants. These people wanted Labour to be the party
of work and of workers primarily.

These voters werent anti-welfare. They knew it had a vital role to play for society. But they
were angry at the culture in our country that we give too much away to those who dont
deserve it.
Everyone we spoke with knew, or had heard of, families with three generations without work,
and who were teaching successive generations that this was how to live their life, which both
concerned and annoyed them. Everyone thought that was wrong. Not everyone could imagine
the problem being solved by government intervention because some people are just like that and
some people cant be changed. There was a resigned acceptance of something they all knew to be
wrong.
These voters agreed that everyone who can work should (with a very clear and overt rider that
if people really cant work they must be helped). They completely supported the notion that the
welfare system must be reformed so it once again becomes a helping hand, there in times of
need, as opposed to a way of life.
And they wanted the ambition of the welfare system to be to get more people into work, whilst
giving proper support to all those who need it. They wanted the welfare system to be more
interventionist, using both carrots and sticks, in its endeavours to get people into work. They
wanted help with job hunting and more training to be provided, but they also wanted advisors
to chase people back into work and even hassle unemployed people to get jobs or to do
voluntary work.
They supported the concept that people should never be allowed to lose contact with the world
of work. They agreed that if people arent working and can, they should be doing one of three
things with their time: applying for jobs; training and skilling up to help get a job; or doing
community work. This would all help people get into a routine of working, getting up and
doing something with their day instead of sitting at home and watching TV. Many of the men
had experienced unemployment in the past and were embarrassed by it, but now, they
remarked, it was no longer an embarrassment to be unemployed.
The respondents wanted to make sure that work paid, that it was always more worthwhile
financially to work than be on benefits without working. Their solution was to freeze benefit
levels and let pay move away from them. They agreed with a benefits cap and thought 21,000
was sufficient for anyone to receive from the state as it was close to what they believed was the
average wage.
When introduced to conversation, they supported the idea that it would be better for pay to
increase and for tax credits to be reduced, and eventually be scrapped because they are no
longer needed (which had the extra benefit of preventing EU citizens claiming them to send to
families in their home country, which they thought was wrong and unfair).
However, there was a little nervousness as well, especially from some women, about reducing
and removing tax credits for two reasons. They were worried that small businesses wouldnt be
able to afford to pay the extra money; and they were worried that if companies couldnt afford
it, everyone would end up losing out, with people who needed the extra not getting it or being
laid off.
They supported raising the threshold for paying tax. They supported limiting the number of
children who are eligible for child benefit.

Providing more free childcare was seen as a legitimate form of welfare benefit to help people
back into work as it acknowledged that times had changed, with families now often further
apart and parents more likely both to be working. However, using it to go shopping for fun, or
to the cinema, wasnt seen as a legitimate use of that free childcare.
5.
Getting people into work Creating jobs
Its not up to the government to provide good jobs; that sounds like the nanny state. Its down to
businesses to do that and Labour came across as anti-business.
Dave, Watford
Any attempts at chasing unemployed people back to work was acknowledged to depend on
more jobs being created. One simple solution was to reduce or stop immigration (see below).
Beyond that, the respondents found it hard to envisage how a government, and especially a
Labour government, could intervene to create jobs in the private sector.
They didnt want more jobs to be created in the public sector that way leads to more
borrowing and debt as far as they are concerned. And they didnt think it was the role of
government to create private sector jobs; the private sector was believed to be the best people
to do that.
To win these voters back, Labour needs to explain how it would stimulate, in a cost-effective
way, job creation in the private sector, otherwise it will find it harder to adopt an approach of
encouraging more people into work. And the new jobs have to be good-paying jobs, with
prospects.
6.
Immigration and Contribution
The UK is softer than other countries.
Peter, Halesowen & Rowley Regis
Immigration is the topic that, left to their own devices, the respondents would have talked
about all night (once theyd sounded off about the former Labour leader and explained why
they couldnt bring themselves to vote Labour this time).
Their central arguments, across all groups and repeated frequently, were along the lines that:
our country is full; our country is broke and public services are creaking and cannot stand the
extra strain; there arent enough jobs for everyone; there arent enough houses for everyone
now, let alone if more people come to live here.
Ostensibly they welcomed immigrants who worked and paid taxes, saying they worked hard
and would do the jobs that UK citizens, especially youngsters, wouldnt do, although that
worried them because it gave even more reason for feckless UK youngsters to continue to live
a life on benefits. They were worried, too, that immigrants would do jobs at lower rates than
UK people would accept, thus pricing them out of the market.

However, many believed that immigrants came here for a life either living on our overgenerous benefits or to use our NHS. Which was quite simply unfair as far as the group
attendees were concerned. It went against their principles of contribution, of paying in before
taking out, and it wasnt deserved.
They said that immigrants were allowed to receive benefits far too soon after their arrival, and
those benefits were too high. It was all too attractive. It meant immigrants could come here
without working and live off our benefits, which were considered to be much better than they
could get back home.
They wanted people to pay in before they took out. The sentiment applied to UK citizens, but
it especially applied to immigrants. Requiring a contribution before withdrawal was seen as the
simplest deterrent to more immigration. If they couldnt get hand-outs it would stop people
coming, the respondents believed. And they included access to healthcare as much as welfare
benefits for immigrants. It was an issue of fairness for them.
There wasnt a mood of blaming the immigrants for seeking to take advantage. They just
believe that people born here should come first. Then we help others. It is the politicians who
dont get it and arent fixing it.
7.
Inequality
Theres always going to be a big gap between the wealthy and poor, but as long as they all pay their
taxes its ok.
Julie, Pudsey
Most respondents agreed that it was in everybodys interests to reduce inequality although some
didnt see it as a problem as long as those at the bottom were getting enough. They were less
worried about the size of the gap as long as everyone was being helped to get on in life. And if
people didnt take advantage of that help, it was down to them not the state.
They thought that Labours solution was to increase benefits and help the low paid, at the
expense of those who were better off. They thought that Labour would hold others back
instead of helping everyone do better.
They struggled to understand links between poverty and eventually needing, for example, gated
communities that would diminish everyones quality of life. They didnt grasp that the state
would later pay for problems caused by some of those who spurned help earlier.
They would be open to a Labour narrative about reducing inequality as long as the solutions
arent about taxing the rich, penalising those who have got on in life and giving yet more handouts to the unemployed. Ed Milibands attempt to do that floundered because it concentrated
only on the low pay end and on taxing the high pay end whilst ignoring everyone else. So
everybody else ignored him.
Nobody in the groups understood the term social mobility. They called it getting on in life.
They were in favour of it. And they recognised the importance of education in achieving it,
although a university education wasnt seen as the universal panacea.

They wanted schools and businesses to work much more closely together. They liked the idea
of businesses helping pupils understand about the world of work, providing work placements,
making sure that the skills being taught in schools are relevant to work and helping to make
education more vocational and more obviously linked in to getting a job.
They wanted schools to teach about work and to equip more people to enter the world of
work. They knew that going to university wasnt the route for everyone and wanted others to
be given better chances to get a job. Currently the education curriculum didnt really cater for
that as it was aimed at more academic teaching and university. Most knew that people didnt
have to pay back any student loans until they got a job at a certain salary so for these that
wasnt a barrier to university.
8.
Trades unions
Theyve got to sort the unions out itll be risky for them, but the country will benefit.
Nigel, Watford
Trades unions were viewed as having too much power over the Labour Party and not enough
in the workplace. It was felt that the unions controlled (negatively) Ed Miliband. There is an
important place for unions still in our society, but for these voters that place isnt telling any
Labour leader what to do nor threatening them.
The respondents in these groups could all easily have been from union backgrounds. Yet none
of them thought that unions were relevant to their life. Unions are not seen as fit for purpose
nor relevant to the 21st century economy. As Ian from Pudsey said If I want a pay rise, I go to the
gaffer I dont need a union to do it for me.
Unions should recruit more members from the private sector and small businesses. They have
to demonstrate they are a new force to create a dynamic economy acting in the interests of
everyone, raising living standards and helping to create wealth for our nation to share, instead
of acting only for public sector and low-paid workers. Unions were seen as a destructive rather
than constructive force.
The groups thought that Labour needed a showdown with the unions who were dragging
Labours image down. The new Labour leader should tell unions to get their acts together and
modernise instead of being their puppet and in hock to them.
9.
Recognising the impact of globalisation on communities
It might be the moral thing to look after those refugees, but we cant let them in while weve got two
million unemployed.
Tim, Pudsey
These voters were struggling to keep up with global change. It is going too fast for most
people. Global economic migration is bringing pressures they are not used to nor equipped to
cope with. The people we spoke with are looking for political leadership to explain how it can
be controlled and managed.

10

The globalised world is scary and threatening. Politicians and the government need to show
how it can be embraced and show how the UK and individual communities can benefit from
partnerships in this new world.
10.
Purpose
I dont mind paying tax if its spent properly.
Andy, Southampton
We touched on the role of the state in helping individuals and businesses contribute to the
wider society and where rights and responsibilities lie. And from our discussions there was
fertile ground for Labour to construct a bigger narrative about fairness and about rights and
responsibilities, of citizens, of the state and of businesses and other organisations.
We talked about the issue of whether there should be an expectation or duty that if you have
children you must raise them the best they can be. And whether parents should be held
responsible (up to a certain age) for adverse impacts on society of their children. Instinctively
the respondents wanted to say yes to both, but worried how it could be made to happen and
then enforced.
We discussed the concept that people should be charged for healthcare if they have unhealthy
lifestyles, which wasnt supported.
They were all in favour of companies paying due taxes and not gaming the system. They were
less sure about how much more companies should be expected to contribute to society and
local communities. They were open to ideas, but worried that it would harm small businesses if
expectations were too onerous.
For these former-Labour voters, at the last general election Labour was lacking the valuesbased long-term vision that could hold its policies all together and make them into something
coherent. These respondents frequently remarked that Labours offer was small and confused.
They picked up, for example, that there was a bidding war between Labour and the Tories for
the number of free childcare hours. That Labour was forced to rely on a narrow retail offering
as their election strategy was testimony to the lack of a grand vision.
Labour has lost its way for these voters. It certainly isnt connecting with them. They dont
really understand what Labour is there for. It certainly didnt seem to be for them and theyve
voted Labour pretty much all their lives. Until May 7th 2015.

The big task for Labour now is how to make itself relevant to 21st century voters at a time when
there is such fiscal constraint. We believe that answering the following five questions will help
the Labour Party to make a start, at least in the eyes of the voters we spoke with.
Labour needs to re-find its purpose. If it doesnt, these voters, Labours lost Labour voters, are
unlikely to come back.

11

Five Questions for the Labour leadership candidates to answer

Labour needs a vision for the long run and the party leader has
to show leadership.
Dean, Croydon South

1. What is Labours purpose now?

2. Why should we listen to you when we didnt listen to Ed Miliband?
3. How will you re-build Labours economic credibility; and what is your plan
to help create jobs and wealth without taking the country further into debt?
4. How will you reform the welfare state?
5. How will you help the country and our communities flourish within an
increasingly globalised world that has growing migration of people?

About the authors

Alan Barnard is a founding director of bbm campaigns and author of Campaign It!, an industry
standard book on effective campaigning.
He has been an active Labour Party member since 1983 and became a party Organiser in 1990.
He then worked at Labours Head Office through the 1997 general election, first as Key Seats
Officer and then Head of Elections. While there he was campaign manager for the Welsh
Referendum in 1997 and for some of the most crucial by-elections campaigns of that period.
Alan led the way in what is now a well-worn path across the Atlantic to help the Democrats in
the Clinton/Gore American Presidential Election in 1992. As a result of this he co-authored
with John Braggins the pamphlet Lessons from America what Labour can learn? which influenced
the changes in Labours campaigning approach ahead of the 1997 general election.
Alan left Labour to work for the Football Association as Head of Campaigns and Research in
1999 and whilst there managed the FAs first-ever qualitative and quantitative research
programme. In 2005, along with John Braggins, he set up bbm campaigns to apply the techniques,
attitudes and approaches of political campaigning to businesses, not for profits and charities.
He has maintained his links with Labour as a volunteer, helping MPs and candidates to
campaign in every election since leaving employment at Labour.

12

John Braggins is also a founding director of bbm campaigns and a long-term member of the
Labour Party, having worked as a volunteer and as an Organiser from 1966. Johns experience
as a professional Organiser saw him employed on numerous local and national campaigns
before becoming Labours first-ever national By-election Manager as well as Head of Candidate
Training and being responsible for staffing in Labours regions.
In 1996 John became Head of Labours Message Delivery unit, where, ahead of the 1997
general election and for the first time, organisation and message were woven together to
enhance the effectiveness of Labours general election campaign. In the 2001 General Election
he was given responsibility for Labours campaign in the marginal Labour seats in North and
East Kent, all of which remained Labour.
John left work at the Labour Party in 2002 to become Labours Head of Comms for the newly
formed Greater London Assembly where his skills were in full force to unite a disparate Labour
Group and Independent Mayor. John has managed research projects for some of bbm campaigns
clients including the CBI, Smart Energy, the Law Society, Coeliac UK, Accord, No2AV and
Better Together.

13