SHOCK HORROR ! FOCUS GROUPS IGNORED!

According to Tim Montgomerie's analysis of the Tory campaign:

'For a period, the 'Big Society' was put at the heart of the campaign. Amazingly, the Big Society was never tested in focus groups and it failed on the doorstep. One leading adviser to the campaign complained of a 'cavalier' approach to research. 'They latched on to research that backed their views and ignored any research that challenged it.'

Hmmm, the Big Society, also described by adliterate as an 'overcomplicated planning thought', seems to have been less than popular with the Tory faithful. They were probably asking the sort of questions people ask in groups such as 'What does it mean?' From David Cameron, the heir to Blair, it sounded like a Big Promise, to go in the Big Promise section of the manifesto, and to Sound Good, but without meaning anything that costs money. However as Kate Fox rightly pointed out in Watching the English, the national catchphrase is 'Come off it', so trying to put one over on the British is tricky at the best of times never mind at an election.

But I digress, this post is really about the use of focus groups in politics. Here is a respected right wing commentator complaining that policies were being put forward at an election without first being 'tested' in focus groups and without an impartial approach to research, which respects challenging findings. Halleluiah ! We researchers have come a long way since the dark days of Tony Blair when focus groups were seen as a left wing plot akin to witchcraft. One can argue with the word 'tested' but that's just a quibble really, the point is that politicians of whatever party now openly acknowledge that policy can be clarified and even improved by consulting 'real' people. Now, that is a step forward.

Dominic