The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

NATIONAL SURVEY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT CANDIDATES, 2003

5. REASON FOR STANDING AND PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

5.1. MOTIVATIONS FOR STANDING

Section four outlined the types of people who stand for election but what motivates so many people to come forward in the first place? The survey asked candidates to state their main reason for standing and responses are categorised in table 33 below.

Table 33: Main reasons for standing by political affiliation (%)

Note: Figures do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

The main reasons for standing tended to revolve round a desire to represent the community and improve the local area, out of a sense of loyalty to the party (whether to promote the party's policies or simply answering an appeal for candidates) and to give voters a choice. Among other reasons cited for standing were a wish to make changes to how the council was run, specific local issues and the desire for an independent Scotland. There were few differences in the motivations of male and female candidates - around 30% of both sexes stood to represent the local community and to improve local services (although women were slightly more likely to have stood out of loyalty to their party or to provide voters with a choice). The main reasons for seeking election were also consistent across different age groups.

There were a number of interesting variations across the political parties and independents, however Around a third of Labour, SNP and independent candidates main reason for seeking election was to improve the local community and local services, compared to less than a quarter of candidates from the other parties. A large proportion of Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and SSP candidates cited a desire to promote party policies, while the most common reason given by Liberal Democrat and SSP candidates was to give the electorate the opportunity to vote for their party. A significant minority (15%) of independent candidates mentioned a desire to change the way the council was run as their main motivation. Finally, a relatively high proportion of Liberal Democrat (13%) and Labour (10%) candidates stood because their party asked them to and/or were party candidates.

The councillors' survey asked new councillors (i.e. those elected for the first time in 2003) what their main motivation was for becoming a councillor: 45% cited an interest in the community, while 10% noted a sense of duty or out of public service and a further 10% the desire to improve local services. There was little difference in the motivations of male and female councillors - although 12% of new female councillors gave the main reason for standing as being for career or personal development.

5.2. CONFIDENCE IN WINNING

The reasons for standing are clear - to improve the local area, out of loyalty to the party, to give voters a choice - but how confident were candidates of actually winning? Did they stand because they thought they had a realistic chance of being successful or was it more in hope than anticipation? Although hindsight undoubtedly plays a part, table 34 suggests that the vast majority (over three-quarters) were not very, or not at all, confident of winning the seat. Indeed, just 52 candidates were very confident. Although the main reasons for standing are outlined above, the fact that so few candidates felt they had any chance of being successful raises interesting questions about why so many people still come forward. One can only assume that candidates really do want to offer the electorate a choice, even if they don't believe they'll ultimately be successful. Loyalty to the party must also be an important factor here.

Table 34: How confident of winning (%)?

As table 35 shows, only independent candidates had much confidence in their chances of winning (56.8% were either very or quite confident). This perhaps reflects the generally non-party political nature of politics in the Highlands and Islands and other rural areas where the majority of independents stand. Around a third of SNP candidates had at least some confidence in winning, while Liberal Democrat and SSP candidates were the least confident of all.

Table 35: How confident of winning by political affiliation (%)?

So why were so many candidates not confident of winning? Table 36 outlines the main reasons given by candidates who stated they were either not very or not at all confident.

Table 36: Reasons for lack of confidence (%)

Note: Figures do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

By far the most common reason cited was that the ward was safe (in electoral terms) for one of their opponents. This is hardly surprising given the relatively small number of seats that change hands from one election to the next (although 292 of the 1222 wards were won by a new candidate in 2003 a high proportion of these are accounted for by the retirement of the incumbent councillor rather than the defeat of a sitting member). Other reasons given included a lack of campaigning, standing for the first time and being a 'paper' candidate (i.e. simply putting your name forward but not fighting the election in any real sense).

Analysing the above figures by political affiliation reveals some variation across parties. Conservative, Labour and SNP candidates were the most likely to lack confidence because the incumbent party was simply too far ahead, while 14% of Liberal Democrat candidates thought they had little chance of winning as they hadn't done enough/any campaigning (although this itself is likely to be related to the marginality of the ward). A relatively high number of SSP candidates believed they were unlikely to win as they were standing for the first time and for a relatively new party.

Female candidates were generally less confident of winning than their male counterparts - a quarter of male candidates were very or quite confident compared to less than 20% of females. As noted above, it is difficult to assess whether this is due to female candidates standing in less winnable seats, although it is interesting that the reasons given for a lack of confidence are almost identical across sexes.

5.3 PREVIOUS ELECTION EXPERIENCE

Almost half of candidates standing in the 2003 local elections had stood for election previously. Liberal Democrats and SNP candidates were the most likely to have previous local election campaign experience (56.5% and 55.0% respectively), while SSP candidates were relatively inexperienced (hardly surprising given that this was the first election in which the party put forward a significant number of candidates).

Table 37: Stood previously by political affiliation (%)

Proportionally men were slightly more likely than women to have stood previously (52% to 46%) but the differences aren't great. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of candidates with previous electoral experience come from the older age groups, with no less than 63% of those aged 65 or over having stood before (compared to a quarter of those aged under 35). Of the 15.5% of candidates who have a disability, long-term illness or health over half (53%) had stood before. Although there is no way of telling whether candidates were suffering from a disability or illness at the time, these figures are encouraging and would seem to suggest that having a long-term illness or disability does not necessarily deter people from coming forward for election.

So how successful were these previous candidatures? Table 38 provides details of the percentages of candidates who had previously served as a councillor, expressed both as a percentage of those who had stood for election in the past (i.e. a measure of success) and of all candidates standing in 2003.

Table 38: Previously served as a councillor by political affiliation (%)

Over a fifth of candidates who had stood previously had served as a councillor (this equates to 10.6% of all candidates in our survey). There is considerable variation by political affiliation, however. For example, almost a quarter of independent candidates and 15.5% of Labour candidates had been a councillor, while the equivalent figure for the Conservatives and SNP is 8%.

So do candidates with previous council experience have any defining characteristics? Around 80% are male (this is consistent with the gender split of current councillors), while perhaps unsurprisingly over two thirds are 55 or over (only 1% are under 35). Interestingly, the data shows that many candidates have considerable past council experience. While the average length of service is 6.5 years, 46 candidates have over ten years experience of sitting on a District, Regional or Unitary authority (one candidate had been a councillor for 57 years).

5.4. LIKELIHOOD OF STANDING AGAIN

So will the failure to get elected in 2003 deter candidates from standing again? The evidence presented in table 39 would suggest not.

Table 39: Likelihood of standing for election again by political affiliation (%)

Almost 30% of candidates thought they would definitely stand again, a further 46% believed they would probably do so. Indeed, just 4.1% of unsuccessful candidates completely ruled out putting their name forward again. There is some variation by political affiliation. Over a third of SNP and SSP candidates said they would definitely stand again, while for the Liberal Democrats this figures was under one in four. Conservative and Labour candidates were proportionally the most likely to completely rule out running again (5.8% and 6.2% respectively).

Despite being defeated (and in many cases heavily defeated) it is interesting that the vast majority of candidates from all political parties state that they are likely to stand again. Of the quarter of candidates who are unlikely to stand again some interesting patterns emerge. For example, women are over twice as likely as men to completely rule out standing again. There is also a clear age effect: older candidates are much less likely to stand again than younger age groups. Although candidates with a limiting long-term illness or disability are less likely to stand again than other candidates the differences are small and not statistically significant.

« Previous | Contents | Next »