Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Understanding the Ed Miliband polling paradox
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Understanding the Ed Miliband polling paradox
One of the things that has been consistent in the last few years, the voters don’t rate Ed Miliband and he often trails David Cameron on most polling questions.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Will an election be different when a question with real ramifications is asked?
And first, which is easy from LA.
I think Miliband must give a better argument for opposing EV4EL. The difficulty he has is that it sounds superfically like such a simple, logical and fair thing to do. And to those who look a little deeper it looks like the opposition is for purely partisan reasons due to the difficulty of getting a Labour English majority. Maybe he can make the case that it is the only way to save the union.
I personally do not agree with devolution or devo-MAX. My 1st choice is would be to reverse devolution (though no one else seems to want this) and 2nd choice indepedence. So I have no idea who I should vote for.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/16/ed-miliband-branded-serial-murderer-scottish-independence-edinburgh-walkabout
Lots of other politicians got a hard time from yes protesters, none of them had to be hustled away from an environment preselected as being "warm, dry and controlled", fleeing - the story suggests - the media as much as the protesters. How on earth is he going to stand up to a GE campaign?
His preparedness to continue with Barnett formula type spending was apparently not to save the union, but to save power for himself.
Labour buys votes shock.
Con 34%, Lab 33%, LD 7%, UKIP 15%
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/sep2014web - FR - FINAL - WEB.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2014
1. They ruined the public finances
Gordon Brown and Ed Balls ran a deliberately insane policy of borrowing ever more in order to ramp up public sector pay and conditions - in order to buy votes from their client state. They seem not to have understood that, although public sector spending is part of GDP, borrowing to spend is not real growth. All they did is inflate a giant entitlements bubble. The worst chancellor in living memory.
2. Multiculti vote buying
They deliberately opened the borders in order to bring in Labour voting immigrants. They cared not a jot that this would make jobs and wages very tough for the WWC, that people would start to become strangers in their own town, that incompatible cultures would start to operate states within a state. Rotherham is the legacy of Labour PC mendacity. And anyone who wants to voice their legitimate concern is a 'bigot'. Labour hates England. Damn their thought police.
3. Illegal war
A Labour PM lied to Parliament in order to take us to war. The 45 minute dossier was the most egregious example of deliberate lying I can think of in British politics. It astounds that Blair and Campbell have not yet been indicted.
4. Devolution
Labour decided, for reasons of wholly self serving tribal advantage, that they could create permanent Labour rotten boroughs in Scotland and Wales. They then spent a decade demonising the nasty Tories and driving a perception that English voices have no place in parts of the UK. Devolution only has two logical or possible end points: Separation or a fully federal and equal UK (with an English Parliament). It was an act of pure constitutional vandalism. Even though Scotland voted NO the UK is now beset with a profound constitutional mess. Thanks Labour.
5. Spin
I rate this as worse than all their other crimes. Politics has always been hard fought - but there was some honour among thieves before New Labour. But Blair, Campbell, Brown, Draper, McBride, and all the rest brought to British public life a totally new and shameless political culture. Lying became THE thing. We got government by soundbite, policy by headline, an utterly shameless politicisation of everything from stuffing public bodies with lefty grandees, to political appointees to the police, etc. They ruined the gentle and typically a-political culture of a nation.
So, yes TSE you are tight. Dave needs to monster Labour more than it needs to monster Ed. IT AIN'T GOING TO BE HARD!
When I think of Labour I think of Blair and Brown and Kinnock. In short I tend to think of their leaders, their incompetence and the damage that they did to this country when they had the chance.
So there is nothing to like there. What people like is the idea of the Labour party. A party that is based upon idealistic principles of communality, equality and compassion for one's fellow citizens.
The tory party philosophy of equality of opportunity, helping others to help themselves and ultimately allowing each of us to suffer more of the consequences of our own mistakes as well as more of the fruits of our successes does, in my opinion, produce a greater measure of happiness as well as a more successful society but to the man in the street it seems harsh, uncaring and too easily slips into protection of existing privilege.
What is the point of these Monday morning musings? Well, if I am even close to being right then Ed's obvious deficiencies will not matter as much as tories would like to think. Their critique is based on their world view and it is not shared by a significant part of the population. Those attracted to the idealism of Labour will overlook the deficiencies of leadership because for them the important thing is that the heart is in the right place and that matters more.
After spending so long with them during the referendum I get this more than I did before. These are good people who mean well even if they are often misguided.
1. Raise min. wage by 2020
2. Cap child benefit for 1 year more than planned
3. Reduce minister wages by 5% and then freeze
4. Reintroduce 50% tax
*If* he is really that disliked, then those messages will be weakened by his support. The message will be weakened by the messenger.
The alternative, of Miliband going into hiding as others espouse those ideas, is fairly laughable in a GE campaign.
A paradox?
JackW (Laughs)
A paradox, A most ingenious paradox!
We’ve quips and quibbles heard in flocks,
But none to beat this paradox!
Ed Miliband Will Never be Prime Minister
All PB (Sing)
A paradox, a paradox,
A most ingenious paradox.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
This paradox
Labour's polling isn't holding up. They have a lower poll share now than they did the day Miliband was appointed and there has been a steady downward drift since the March 2013 recovery budget.
The Tories are struggling with the social argument but not the one Labour propose (if it was working, Labour would be going up), rather the one the nationalists do - UKIP/SNP.
A lack of democracy. problems imported from England/Europe etc.
As for trashing Labour's brand:
Is your money safe under Labour?
Is your child safe under Labour?
Is your job safe under Labour?
Etc etc.
Labour are toxic among large chunks of the working class these days.
Their C2DE element seems to be declining in recent polls, nibbled away at by the SNP and UKIP.
Labour's one hope is the perceived fairness of their policies. They may be incompetent but they mean well. That's why the 50p tax rate trap was so effective. The Tories walked straight into that and and their excuses weren't believed. For that reason, I can't see why Labour are bleating when they walked straight into this elephant trap. Even some of their own MPs are cautious.
Their excuses are poor. Yesterday I heard one of the Eagle sisters parroting the exact words Ed used and it sounded painfully like she was reading from a prepared script that even she had doubts about.
I hope to leave in similar fashion ....
There are enough people who have a vested interest, or think they have a vested interest, in their being a Labour government.
What do people associate Labour with ?
Spending money.
And there are more people who are net recipients of government money than net contributors.
This is why the government's talk of a strong economy, GDP being highest ever, "paying down Britain's debts" doesn't work.
If things are so good then people think its time for austerity to end and for more spending on them.
This is the fundamental difference between now and 1983, 1987 and 1992. In those elections the voters had been getting richer and wealth more wider spread - rising home and share ownership.
In 2015 the government will be proclaiming an economic miracle but the voters will have been getting poorer for five years and seeing inequality rising.
The problem for Labour is what they do when they are in government and discover there isn't the money to meet all the expectations that have been raised.
Post of the month.A pity we have to wade through some of the rest to get to it.
Couple of points on this one: the polls between Tory and Labour are bound to narrow come the actual GE campaign as they often do; Labour might defuse the Ed problem by promoting Labour as a team. In particular, they have some senior women, Cooper, Flint etc and it is women supporting Labour that is partly responsible for their poll lead.
But the number of voters who think that Ed Milliband would be up to the job of Prime Minister is 20%.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/wpbxyfjd7p/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-140919.pdf
That current 36% could perhaps be an electoral target - I think it would give an unspectular but workable Labour Majority - but to attain that, Ed Milliband needs to persuade 44% of current Labour VI to vote Labour despite not thinking he'd be any good as PM - Or to look like a better PM in the meantime.
We're often reminded that UK elections are not Presidential - Perhaps those people will vote for a good local Labour candidate, or just vote for Labour as a brand - As TSE suggests. But still, that looks challenging.
Comrade Miliband's burning hatred of the English is no impediment to his assumption of the chairmanship of the United Soviet of British States!
The point of leader versus party brands is interesting. I wonder if the effect diminishes during electoral periods when leaders get much more coverage and a party may shift in the public consciousness from being a vague collection of ideals and thoughts to more specifically centred on an individual leader.
A three way comparison of leader and a party approval along with the headline polling as the campaign goes on should yield the answer.
Ed Miliband@Ed_Miliband·18 secs
A Labour government will have to take tough decisions. That will include capping child benefit. We’ll also cut and cap minister's pay.
This will apparently save 400m over the course of a parliament.
Only slight gap I can see in this plan is that the deficit is still 100bn per year.
Also, 'Balls to freeze' is a headline writer having fun.
People are masters of self deception and very good at believing that what benefits them (tax cuts, benefit rises, pay rise for doctors!) is also right and proper for correcting past injustices.
@tnewtondunn: Labour MPs' revolt grows against Ed Miliband as he dismisses English 'home rule' - lead by policy chief Jon Cruddas http://t.co/rHumBefUdN
Cameron must be kicking himself...
The Tories need to be seen as effective, reliable, disciplined and 'grown up' to counter the warm feel Labour offers so many. It's the country can't afford Labour approach.
In part that's why I'm so frustrated with Carswell's defection, it's not him personally but the failed Tory machine which failed to keep it's outlier MPs in the fold.
Come on Rev Oswald!
As for EdM's opposition to EV4EL, it's no more obviously partisan than the tories suddenly rediscovering enthusiasm for it a few months before they are due to lose power.
It could be much worse for many in the middle.
A Labour government I lead will cut government ministers' pay by 5% - and block any pay rises until the books are balanced.
Wow...now we're talking big sums....
Whats he going to do...lose seats in Scotland?
Tesco's shares have plunged more than 10% after it revealed an accounting error overstated its first-half profit by £250m.
In early trades shares were down more than 11%, before easing slightly to 9.8%.
Britain's biggest supermarket chain said it has commissioned an independent review to uncover the cause of the profit miscalculation.
I refer you to Gordon Brown's pre-election Budget bribes of said pensioners in 2005.
http://news.sky.com/story/1339960/tesco-admits-250m-profit-overstatement
The problem is, it is so brazenly obvious that the Labour Party is opposing this in a blatant act of self-interest (the Tories are being doing the same on the opposite side of the fence, but they have the advantage as the reform looks fundamentally fair) that it's impossible for them to sound sincere and unbiased on this. I also think Ed did a very stupid thing yesterday by dropping words like 'scrutiny' in there: it very much suggested that he had made his mind up which option he favoured (ie EVEL-'lite', which appears to be a way of suggesting English MPs get a greater 'say' when considering legislation without removing the voting rights of other MPs - ie, an irrelevant fudge), and that this 'Constitutional Convention' was just a way of shifting the focus of his own unease.
They have got themselves into a pickle here.
That's the key for the Conservatives: making it a big issue amongst the public.
Balls: -25
Cooper: -12
Darling: +1
Brown: -22 (-1 in Scotland)
Miliband Sr: +28
Interesting that Labour are bigging up their "freeze" in CB as (what it is) a "real terms cut" - not sure it will help much...
- first, if the Tories really want to make hay with this, they simply need to change the rules about Party descriptions on the ballot paper, requiring them both to name the Party leader and show a mug shot. That should do it, so why hasn't Cameron done so? Oh, because he hasn't got a Commons majority. And the reason he hasn't got a majority is because of Celts and blacks, right?
- second, all countries run deficits. A sustainable deficit is one which the private sector is willing to fund. It might be £5 or it might be a trillion pounds, but as long as people are happy to buy government stock, there's no obvious reason to reduce it.
Once the GE kicks into life it will all change and personalities will come to the fore. Not only do we elect personal Members of Parliament we also, regardless of what Mike might think, elect a Prime Minister. It is a talent show, with leaders tripping the light fantastic.
If Ed shows he is up to the job, then great for Labour but I wouldn't hold your breath.
Miliband wants to wibble forever about what to do whilst retaining the anti-English unfairness. Labour had, I think, most English MPs every term Blair won the election. If Miliband can't win most English MPs maybe, and this is a shocking, revolutionary idea, he shouldn't govern England.
Edited extra bit: and if anybody tries making a Scottish comparison they should consider Scotland already has devolution so the argument of MPs doesn't apply, because it's MSPs who handle the devolved powers.
Lots of people like Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems, but only 8% plan to vote for them. Labour are by far the most liked party, but are 1% behind the Conservatives.
If the polling also focused on respect and trust, you'd probably get the answer to this.
More think Labour will win than think Miliband will be PM
Is Ed Miliband Labour's main problem? YouGov conducted a little experiment, exclusively for the Red Box, explains Stephan Shakespeare, the YouGov chief.
We took a sample of 2,126 adults and split them at random. Half were asked how likely they thought it was that Labour would win the election, the other half how likely it was that Miliband would become PM after that.
The two results should be exactly the same - but they're not, and by a significant margin: 34 per cent think a Labour will win is likely, but only 25 per cent that Miliband will become PM. Some think he will be replaced as leader in a few months. But that possibility seems so remote that another explanation is much more likely: the difficulty many people have in imagining Miliband in No 10.
Next pls.
It wasn't something to raise during the independence debate, as it would have just muddied the waters. And it was hard to raise it when in coalition with the Lib Dems who wanted a 'fairer' voting system, rather than solve the WLQ.
It's a bit disingenuous to imply that the Conservative Party is only just taking notice of the WLQ.
1) Say nothing. Has the advantage of not making things much worse, has the disadvantage that he can be accused of utterly lacking interest in fairness for England.
2) Keep to the line. Nice and consistent, on the other hand it may reinforce the correct view that he's in a rush to throw powers at Scotland but doesn't give a damn about even a sliver of fairness for England.
3) Adapt to the Conservative position. Perhaps suggest he's not against, in principle, English votes for English laws. Reduces the criticism of him and largely neutralises the issue. However, it's inconsistent with prior statements and he cannot then complain about a vote pre-election on the matter.
4) Outflank the Conservatives. Go for an English Parliament (ha) or, more likely, some regionalisation bullshit. Claim only he can do real change. Upside of being more 'revolutionary', downside of Scotland undoubtedly getting more powers and seeking to carve up England. Could get strong local support in some areas but risks seriously pissing off people who want equality (ie an English Parliament) and don't want England to be carved up.
I suspect a mix of one and two (a brief line about it during a longer piece on Scotland) is likeliest.
We have tested to destruction the notion that countries can borrow forever without consequences. In theory if the deficit is below growth OVER THE FULL CYCLE INCLUDING RECESSIONS then debt/GDP will not grow. The reality is that borrowing increases debt/GDP up to a point where borrowing must stop. Look at Venezuela, Argentina, Greece and any number of other overborrowed basket cases. Private sectors do not 'fund deficits'. This is gibberish. Private sectors provide tax cashflow. If you spend more than that cashflow you're on a slope to a nasty endpoint.
The effects are pernicious, as the pleasant conversation I was having with Mr Carnyx last night showed. Why shouldn't Scotland pay for part of HS2, when Scottish MPs voted for it? Are they to have representation without taxation?
There is blindness on both sides.
The SNP has better voter contact. The Conservatives seem better at planting memes -- look at all the fuss over ev4el on here from posters who didn't give a damn last week. (Are we allowed to say astroturfers?) Look how much better Gordon Brown is once freed from the image makers who tried to turn him into Blair and somehow convinced Ed Miliband that televised sandwich-eating is the key to Number Ten. Maybe one reason Miliband is poorly rated is that he never bloody says anything.
Lab seem perversely happy to champion the minority or underdog when in actual fact the only people who see these groups as underdogs and therefore worthy of special treatment is Lab themselves, thus confirming their own prejudices (still following me?).
The rest of us see them as people with legitimate claims that must be balanced against other peoples' legitimate claims.
Ukip 23%
Over 55s 32%
Social grade de 32%
http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/survation-polling-england-wales.html?spref=tw
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100287191/is-ed-miliband-really-fit-to-lead-our-nation/
However, it does look like the No 10 line is softening if it is true that they are now briefing that Dave's position is that he wants to sort the two out together, no reason we can't, EVEL is perfectly simple, but if Labour and/or LDs refuse to play ball, then of course he won't let it stand in the way of the Scotland pledge and the EVEL issue will just have to be sorted in the ballot boxes on 5th May.
That's the line they should have put out on Friday, instead of letting the issue run away with itself over the weekend....
I can understand why Londoners with their brilliant public transport system like it. A pensioner living in a remote village who has seen their bus service stop because of it might have a different view. They have a free bus pass but no buses.
An English parliament would in effect be the UK. There is no getting behind the fact that England is the biggest most dominant partner. We do not need an English parliament since it is so dominant at Westminster. We should stop people voting on issues which they carry no responsibility for in their own constituencies. The first principle should be no power without responsibility.
Whilst it might have been possible to overlook the anomalies before - the additional Scottish devolution makes it untenable. The devolution we have is labour's devolution so they cannot complain.
"Fit to govern"
Con 51%, Lab 41%, LD 18%, UKIP 16%
"Looks after the interests of people like me"
Con 35%, Lab 48%, LD 32%, UKIP 28%
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/tsco/11112704/Tesco-warns-profits-overstated-by-250m-as-it-uncovers-serious-issue.html
There is no doubt in my opinion that Cameron was helped by having a disabled child, as it connected him to the public. They could see him as a caring father that could understand the issues faced by people disabled or looking after the disabled. Cameron would not have the personal ratings, had he not been in such a personal situation. He would have struggled much more with NHS and welfare reforms. He has on many occasions used his experience to explain why his government were making the reforms to services.
Miliband does not have much of a story to tell about his own political journey. He tends to talk about his parents escaping the Nazis, coming to Britain to make a life. But as this is not about him, there is a lack of a story about Ed and what drives him. His is seen as the academic type, a bit boring and with a communication style that does not come across as natural.
It must be very difficult for Labours advisors to work out how to sell Ed to the public. If I were in Labours team, I would suggest that they don't bother and instead try to come across as a team of people that can deliver a different fairer version of politics to the current government. If they can look a united team, then it would not matter too much about Ed's personal ratings. Cameron will face difficulties with disunity in his party, with Europe/UKIP causing media attention and Boris stating his policies, which are not Cameron/Tories current policies they are campaigning on.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tesco-admits-250m-profit-overstatement-061337616.html
The situation we have is an obvious result of devolution, and the problems were known well before devolution occurred. It's unsustainable in the long term, and becomes more unsustainable every time Scotland gets more powers.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002037.html#more
I'm a unionist and hope we can get an English Parliament. If it's a forced choice of sacrificing the UK or England, I'd sooner lose the UK. Hopefully we won't get to that stage, but given how shockingly badly devolution has been handled so far I'm not holding my breath.
Now its a valid point but is probably as much an argument that the Barnett formula needs to be replaced than a valid argument against EV4EL
On the substantive point of Labour's economic policy, it is quite clear what they are trying to do. The Child Benefit announcement is absolutely piddling - all it amounts to is a one-year extension to the current tiny year-on-year reduction of the benefit in real terms (though still an increase in nominal terms). As 'tough decisions' go, that hardly rates 1 out of 10, and by itself it saves tuppence ha'penny per annum. But Labour hope to be able to point to it as evidence that they are going to be responsible - it's a purely symbolic announcement, nothing else.
Of course symbols matter a lot in politics, but the fundamental problem Labour have - which goes back to Gordon Brown's 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts' - is that they are trying to walk a tightrope in the symbolism. A large chunk of their support comes precisely from people who don't want to hear about economic reality, and this sort of announcement - piddling though it is - will not be well received by those supporters. On the other hand, those looking for genuine evidence that the leopard has changed its spots will not be terriblly impressed either. Regaining economic credibility, without scaring off the deficit-deniers who form so much of Labour's core support - is a jolly hard circle to square. In fact it is probably an impossible problem to resolve, which is why I believe they will try to say the absolute minimum possible, accept the fact that they are miles behind on economic credibility, and try to shift the debate on to other subjects (the NHS, gimmicky cost-of-living announcements).
In purely electoral terms, this is probably the best they can do. It might be enough to get the two Eds into Downing Street. Then the problems start, of course, as expectations hit reality.