Six weeks older, none the wiser: A voters’-eye-view of the election campaign

Find out more here.

The 2024 election campaign was a deeply frustrating experience for many undecided voters.

Analysing the 1200+ voice notes, text messages, photos, videos, and snap-survey responses that make up the Election Diaries dataset, one of the most prominent themes to emerge is diarists’ growing exasperation at a campaign that never seemed to address their priority issues and concerns.

Despite six weeks of intense coverage and campaigning, on 4 July many diarists felt no clearer about what the parties were offering than they had when a rain-soaked Rishi Sunak called the election. These views weren’t unique to our diarists. In our nationally representative post-election survey, fully 52 per cent agreed that they "learnt nothing new about the parties and leaders over the campaign" (27 per cent disagreed). Forty one per cent agreed that "in the end I had to rely on my gut instinct when deciding who to vote for" (18 per cent disagreed).

Across the data, a few broad themes emerge that offer clues as to why:

Very few policies cut through to our diarists

"I’m soo confused and to be truly honest felt like both party’s [sic] were attacking rather than really pushing their next move forward to put in place country’s NHS, tax and immigration policies." — Michelle, Swindon South

Looking back at what diarists sent through to us, policies — and in particular specific promises from the parties — are conspicuous by their absence. The notable exception is the Conservatives’ National Service announcement made in the first few days, which was mentioned by around 14 diarists. Beyond this, GB Energy, the Rwanda scheme, recruiting 6,500 new teachers, a further cut to National Insurance, and the ‘Pensions triple lock plus’ each received fewer than six direct mentions. These were the only clear policies to be flagged more than once or twice each.

It's a touchstone for many in politics and the media that, while voters may claim to want to hear about policy and detail, it’s the emotional stuff — the ‘big messages’, the tone and feel, the symbols, personalities and the stories — that really determines how people vote. This may well be true. But it’s also true that by leaning-in to this kind of campaign, by serving up only ‘what people really want’, campaigns and coverage conspire to affirm that this is what politics is about, and what politicians care about.

For our election diarists, the impression was that politicians of all stripes were doing all they could to avoid giving a clear account of what they would actually do, and what it would mean for them and their families.

Keir Starmer and Labour left little trace (and it worked)

“Who is he? What's he represent? Yes, he’s labour and he’s gonna bring change. But I think him as a person, I still think there's, you know, that kind of question of what he is, what he stands for, his true core values." — James, Nuneaton

In our post-election survey, we asked respondents to tell us up to three moments that they recall from the campaign. 50 per cent couldn’t recall a single moment or story. Across 2,832 memories from the half who could, ‘Starmer’ was mentioned only 123 times. By comparison, ‘Sunak’ was mentioned 482 times, and ‘Farage’ 307.  ‘Rain’ was mentioned 148 times. For voters, this campaign was not really about Starmer (or Labour, for that matter), but he is now our Prime Minister.

For some who watched the debates and interviews, Starmer’s careful approach and low-key style often fuelled concerns that he was evading questions and failing to ‘put meat on the bones’. But for the majority who engaged less closely, in the context of a campaign focussed on gaffes, missteps and questions of character and judgement, Starmer’s lack of prominence or ‘remarkableness’ seems to have served him well. While majorities in our post-election survey say that the campaign made no difference to their perceptions of each, Starmer is the leader of whom the public are most likely to say their opinion improved: 21 per cent say their view of Starmer got better over the campaign, compared to just six per cent for Sunak, and 18 per cent and 17 per cent for Farage and Davey respectively.

“Starmer seems to have come out of it without actually saying anything, he’s not saying what he’s going to do, just criticising the government. I would say it was a nil-nil score draw but Starmer winning on penalties if I’m honest.” — Richard, Swindon South

The caution clearly worked. The Ming vase was safely transported across whatever it is that vase-carriers have to traverse. But for our diarists, and for the wider voting public, the price is a ‘thin’ vote – for change, but not much else. They don’t really feel they know or understand our new Prime Minister, his changed party, or their plans for the country.

The night before the election, we asked diarists to send in voice notes telling us how they’d decided to vote, and why. Compared to the reasons given for voting Lib Dem (mostly tactical, in Wokingham), Reform (a plague on all your houses, small boats), the Greens or the SNP (voting ‘with my heart’), the reasons given by the 22 diarists who had opted to vote Labour were notably content-free: ‘just time for change’, ‘we can’t go on as we are’. It feels instructive that those few diarists who returned to the Conservatives, did so because they felt deeply uncertain about the changes that were coming.

"I dunno, maybe I'm just a bit scared. They're basing their whole campaign on change. I dunno. Maybe I don't want change..." — Karen, Nuneaton

The media narrative was hugely influential, but it sometimes left voters behind

"We seem to have been become obsessed with the Tory gambling scandal … The noise seems to have drowned most [other] stuff out." — Martin, Bolton West

Sky TV; D-Day; Starmer’s support for Corbyn; gamble-gate; the “are you two the best we can do?” ‘zinger’. Across the campaign, the questions and talking points given attention and emphasis by interviewers, editors and commentators (and also, obviously, by politicians) were essential in shaping the way that diarists thought about and discussed the race. Often though, participants were being dragged along in the slipstream of a media and political class whose obsessions and concerns didn’t necessarily reflect the knowledge and engagement levels of their audience (or their real priorities).

A clear example of this was the Labour manifesto launch. Coverage and comment rapidly focussed on the question of whether the document contained ‘new news’ — a slant which assumes a level of attention to previous Labour announcements that bears no relation to undecided voters’ interest-in, or bandwidth-for, politics (particularly outside of the short campaign).

“Obviously the Labour manifesto didn't really surprise me. It was a pretty safe kind of manifesto, I felt like. So it hasn't really moved me in any direction.” — Fred, Wokingham

The “obviously” in Fred’s quote, above, is telling. Many of our diarists accepted the ‘no surprises’ narrative wholesale, dismissing Labour’s manifesto as ‘nothing new’. They never mentioned it again. This, even though few among them would have been able to name more than one Labour policy at that point in the campaign.

In our survey, people who say they pay less attention to politics were also much less likely to agree that “the media did a good job of making the debates and issues accessible for people like me” — only 28 per cent of less politically engaged people agreed, compared with 57 per cent of more engaged respondents. It’s not clear which way the causal arrows point here (especially as the balance among the less engaged tend to simply say ‘neither/don’t know’). Nonetheless, it’s easy to see how undecided voters might, when they do try to engage during a campaign, be turned off by the feeling they’re trying to board a moving train.

It was all alright in the end though, wasn’t it?

“I feel positive about the result. We need change, so hopefully it will be a good change” — Lauren, Nuneaton

“Hopeful, certainly can’t be worse than the Tories” — Vicky, Airdrie & Shotts

“Rather happy, the Tories had their chance and it’s time for another government to try and fix the country” — Sam, Nuneaton

Despite the frustrations that our diarists felt as they tried to navigate the campaign and make their choice, most feel broadly comfortable with the end result. Looking ahead, expectations are muted, but the appetite for change is clear. In our post-election survey, net optimism for the UK (the proportion saying they feel optimistic for the next year or so, minus those who feel pessimistic) has risen from -29 in March 2024, to -7 the weekend following the election.

The campaign wasn’t particularly worse than diarists had expected — they usually find politics confusing, insincere and annoying, and this campaign was no different. But neither did it meet their hopes — offering little to help undecided voters engage with the choices facing the country, or the leaders and parties that will be taking those decisions. A missed chance, perhaps? Or maybe just an opportunity for voters to focus on what really matters to them:

“There has been nothing interesting. Nothing new… Media consumption in my house has been focussed on the Euros” — Neil, Swindon South

Ben Shimshon is Co-founder and CEO of Thinks Insight & Strategy.

Related

New Cabinet Office Minister Says There Is "Massive Waste" In How Local Councils Are Funded

By Zoe Crowther

14 Jul

PoliticsHome Newsletters

Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.