Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Maggie Thatcher 1979 experience: Why leader and “best P
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Maggie Thatcher 1979 experience: Why leader and “best PM” ratings are not necessarily the best guide to how people will vote
The Times is leading on polling about Ed Miliband’s PM ratings which are not good for Labour. There is no doubt that on almost every measure when put up against Cameron he does worse – sometimes by quite a margin.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This is very different to people choosing Cameron over him.
If you look at the favourability stats, the important thing is that I don't think there is a linear relationship.
Bit crap vs horrifically crap: bit crap wins hands-down
Both meh: not a very important factor
The question is then is EdM someone that you think would be actively bad as PM, both in absolute terms and in relation to Cameron. If the answer to both is 'yes' then it can have a significant impact on voting
This is a genuine inquiry, because if Mike Smithson is right (and his piece is very convincing), we have to totally rethink the events of 2010/11, when the SNP reeled in and overtook an enormous Labour poll lead.
I suspect that the answer lies in the word competence. When Labour were exposed to the media spotlight of the final 4-week campaign it became increasingly obvious that not only Gray, but his entire frontbench team and most of the rest of the party did not have the faintest clue about what they wanted to do if they got back into government. They only had one policy: hating the SNP. For most voters that simply does not cut the mustard for a party aspiring to govern.
Johann Lamont has been a smidgin ahead of Alex Salmond in a few polls over the last year. But only if you look at the headline figures. Delve a little into the statistics and you find that nearly everybody in Scotland has heard of and has an opinion on Salmond, Sturgeon and Cameron, whereas remarkably large numbers of respondents have never even heard of Lamont, Davidson or Rennie.
For Davidson and Rennie that is not a problem. Their parties are speciality, niche products designed for tiny target markets. For Lamont's party however, her invisibility is a problem, because they need to appeal to the mass market. She can hide (or rather be hidden) for 2 or 3 years, but not forever.
We can cherry pick bits of info.
41% think Miliband is weird, no wonder they don't think he would be a good PM.
But the polling in today's Times states that only 19% of the public think Ed Miliband looks like a Prime Minister in waiting, while 63% disagree. Even among Labour voters only 49% agree. Only 26% of the public think that Labour is ready for government. This are serious weaknesses.
Will the public hold their noses and vote en masse for someone that they just don't rate? Labour has to hope either that they will or that sufficient numbers will change their mind about Ed Miliband so that it doesn't matter. Personally, I regard the chances of the latter as more likely than the former.
Brandenburg is very big. And flat. With lots of trees.
Can't wait to get back to France
MORI's net ratings on leader doing well/badly have a far better track-record as predictors than the PM question (I'm with Mike...and tim...that the measure is pretty meaningless), but as we get closer to the election itself, it is surely the pure VI polls that should guide us.
Remember that the electorate has had a bad experience of vacuous pretty leaders. Blair looked the part, as did Clegg, but proved to be all looks and no substance. Cameron was elected specifically to be Blair for the Tories, failed to win the unlosable election, and managed to lie so badly that a critical chunk of his own electorate defected to another party.
Looks aren't everything.
This might explain why the gap grew so markedly when certain parts of the population woke up to the impending reality and then actuality of a woman Prime Minister. It probably took the Falklands to show what a women Prime Minister would do o banish this as a factor.
hate to say it Chales but I like Brandenburg and I'd ditch France ! I love the old Prussiian core, the historic market towns and that kind of sparse Lutheran bleakness. You should read up on your German writers.
And Kinnock at least had the power of rhetoric to call upon. Ed Miliband - not so much...
"Elect me - by the Power of Rubiks. Cubed!"
Miliband has neither advantage over Cameron at present. He is personally less popular and has no coherent policy agenda. Labour can state what it is against, but not what it is for. Cameron's government has plenty of ideas and for all its difficulties does not have the broken look of 79 Labour or 97 Tories.
There is also the issue of sexism. Mrs T was not taken seriously by many in 79 as there was still a lot of disbelief that a woman could be a capable leader. This took a while to fade. I had an uncle who said he would emigrate in 79 if Maggie got elected, he was so against being led by a woman. He changed his mind later and became quite a fan.
Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.
All the rest is political flotsam, jetsam, piffle and pants.
The next six months I was looking forward to splitting between Bordeaux and Paris. And yet I end up back in f****** Germany.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/25/labour-slow-politics-editorial
"The moment, which was always going to come, where the lines for earnings and prices cross cannot be far away.
The thing that really should frighten Labour is how unprepared for this moment it sounds. After all, the only surprise is that pay has not already picked up. But just as Ed Balls floundered in replying to the autumn statement, as he struggled to update his "flatlining" script, Mr Miliband's much-criticised budget response relied too much on the same living standards record he has been playing for years. It is not that this is the wrong subject. Long years of getting poorer will not be undone the moment that pay rises bump back ahead of prices. The Ronald Reagan question – are you better off than you were four years ago? – will retain its punch right up to polling day. But as the ground stops falling from under family finances, voters will become more discerning.
In the previous mood of panic it was enough for an opposition party to proclaim that it felt the people's pain. Amid a recovery, the electorate needs convincing that anyone asking to be handed the economic controls has a practical plan for accelerating and sustaining the progress in prospect. When he daubs with a very broad brush, Mr Miliband can sometimes paint the outline of just such a plan. Two favoured themes of his leadership have been inequality and "predatory capitalism", both things which it can be reasonably argued are holding the living standards of most of the people below where they need to be. Skewed growth, disproportionately grabbed by the top, was causing middling pay rates to stagnate even before the overall average collapsed in the slump. And there is clearly every chance that Britain's unreformed capitalism will, as it recovers, again deliver growth for the few.
The weakness, as policy reviews bubble away half-forgotten in the background, is a failure to translate these themes into anything that might be called a programme. The shadow cabinet has never been energised to fill in the blanks as it should have been. The reaction to last week's budget demonstrated that the huge constituency of savers, necessarily sacrificed to near-zero interest rates over the recessionary years, is now almost pathetically grateful for any attention. A sharper Labour operation would have identified their neglect, and produced its own proposals some time ago; instead, the party was caught unprepared by a pension reform that was actually in the Tory manifesto. Six months down the line, as wages rise and election day looms, things are not going to be easier, but will get tougher than now for the opposition. To stay in the game, what Labour needs is less new principles than a new spirit of fight over the practicalities."
For example, there might be a gap of 65-35 in the 'best PM' ratings, but if most of the 65 view A as only a little better than B, it won't make much difference to the overall voting intention. On the other hand, if far more believe that there's a substantial difference in abilities, it could prove decisive.
Likewise, there'd be a big impact on the VI figures between a situation where most voters viewed both potential PMs as up to the job, against one where a large number viewed one as not up to it, even if the headline preferences were the same.
Miliband is a mini-Brown. He is an excellent back-room operator and has a fine awareness of how power works. He may even be briefly popular, as Brown was on occasion (summer 2007, for example). However, his manner makes him difficult to like. It's possible he may win one election, either by default or by capturing a moment. If he does, he doesn't have a hope in hell of winning a second.
1. Brothers, we aren't THE TORIES (theatrical sneer of loathing with implied superiority).
2. Er....
3. That's it.
Which class-war rabble rousing might be better received if it were the battle cry of Woolfie from Tooting, instead of the weird One Nation millionaire son of a north London Marxist intellectual.
Who, er, knifed his brother. Brothers.
I quite like Ed Miliband, but think DH is right about any popularity of his would wear thin very quickly.
Disagree with David Herdson about EdM being re-elected simply because if the Tories do lose office in 2015 the resultant civil war will be brutal.
David Herdson alludes to Labour's real problem in his last sentence. Labour is seen as the party of "equality" or at least fairness & the provision of a safety net. But that is not necessarily wanted in a multi-racial society - and that's what's underneath all political change this century - the replacement of class by race as the bedrock political driver. Labour is seen as the party non-whites vote for, and the Tories have the priceless advantage that they can let UKIP do their dirty work for them in respect of the white non-graduate electorate on this issue.
It is also clear that Murdoch is backing the Tories harder now than he did last time. Perhaps this is James taking over from Rupert...
It would be really helpful if the polling companies reset the question to be something like "On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is outstanding, 0 is appalling and 5 is adequate, how would you rate X's suitability to be prime minister?".
I'd then be looking at three metrics:
1. The gap in average net score.
2. The gap in the splits between 0-4 (unsuitable) and 5-10 (suitable).
3. The numbers in the 0-2 range (will not support / may actively vote against the party on the basis of its leadership) and 8-10 (likely to vote for the party on the basis of its leadership).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26737934
However if you're feeling bad about Hannover my btother's been working about 100km from you for the last year on a 2 week on one week off basis. The travelling's just starting to get to him.
We've been here before. No matter how many times you tell people feeling the pinch they are better off, it doesn't actually make it so
So I got personalised messages from the Captain, who - having sent the aircrew home - acted as cabin staff and wandered down the aisle to present me with my snack.
But that isn't the reason it was a memorable flight. No. This would never happen now, but they left the door open to the cockpit. This was important because VERY close to the starboard wing there appeared to be another plane, pacing us.
Which was obviously troubling the pilot and co-pilot, who I could see through the open door were looking at this plane with some concern. They told me they had radioed the ground radar and been told the plane was actually the required distance away, but there were some weird atmospherics acting as a lens to magnify this other plane. No, the pilot didn't sound convinced either...
Also, as we came in to land, they played Johnny Horton's song "We're Gonna Sink the Bismarck". Top weird flight.
Fast forward to 2014 and there is no question that politics has got more presidential, a trend only confirmed by the leaders' debates. I therefore think peoples' perceptions of Ed will be more significant. Even if I am wrong in that the team argument really does not apply.
Who, in the Shadow Cabinet, stands out as a competent performer? Douglas Alexander sounds reasonably coherent generally and Chuka Umunna has some good days as well as some bad. Sadiq Khan looked like he had some potential but his focus seems to be elsewhere. Andy Burnham did well against Lansley but has been rather owned by Hunt as has Tristam Hunt by Gove.
The reality is that the majority of the public will only have heard of Balls and possibly Burnham. And that is going to do Ed no good at all.
In 1979 the tories had a clear and consistent message. Blair also had such a message although it was a lot more superficial and generated less change. Ed still seems to be trying to find his voice.
My final thought on this is that one of the problems that Cameron had in 2010 was that any concept of novelty had already worn off and some of the strains of holding together such a disparite internal coalition were starting to show. Ed has the same problem. Parties would be well advised not to rush changing their leaders early in the Parliament. Even Clegg looked plausible for a while.
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/03/jubilee-line-tube-driver-arrested-for-being-drunk-at-the-controls/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26719641
But what about all the other numbers (in no particular order)?
Best PM
Best Chancellor
Best party on the economy (top issue)
Labour's reliance on former Lib Dems
Labour's reliance on people who didn't vote in 2010
Labour's reliance on young voters
Tories more likely to vote (and vice versa)
Economy growing but fragile
Labour's ball and chain of blame
Half the Tory defectors saying they would switch back to stop Miliband
And before the election campaign even starts...
There is a small chance that people (or certain people) will warm to Miliband in time, but I think there is a greater chance that he will continue to be a drag on Labour's vote. Even if it's only among Labour members and MPs would probably want someone who hasn't got his head in the sky.
Question also is whether the media is getting more presidential or less.
"Both faced parties with less popular leaders but coherent manifestos and clear agendas. The latter outweighed the former when it came to a vote."
Exactly. In 1979, I voted Labour with a heavy heart knowing the Tories led by Pol Pot would still have won. We could make many excuses for the "winter of discontent", but that election was never about leaders.
It's also a warning to all those who think that people vote rationally.
SNP will continue to thrash Labour for the forseeable.
Back in 1979, Callaghan was a "preferred PM" because he was much more "likeable" - important, but only one factor. Thatcher, whilst she failed in any PR attempts to paint herself as a likeable, was not doubted for her efficacy or drive. Indeed, if anything, she was probably too much so for some people. However given the circumstances of near crisis which pervaded the political atmosphere, Thatcher's vision won out.
Today, Cameron probably still retains an edge in terms of likeability (notwithstanding the oafish attempts from certain parts of the media to stir up the issue of his background); but more importantly it is the competency question in which he and his administration undoubtedly have the edge in opinion. People would marginally prefer to meet Cameron in the pub than Miliband, for sure. But what they really fear is Miliband's percieved lack of coherence on major issues - this is the Conservative hope. It may well not be enough to win the election, but it will play a part.
Thus whilst the "Best Leader / Best PM" question is useful, it has its limits. Any real analysis would have to dig deeper than the headline question into sub-segments.
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Anatole.
I partly agree. I do think it's worth acknowledging that the world today is wildly different from 1979. The debates make things more presidential, and the internet allows for rapid mockery of seeming or actual gaffes.
Well...IMHO he's on the borderline between not really crap enough to affect the Labour vote and actually crap enough that people will, in the poll booth on the day, recoil in large enough numbers to affect the outcome. Which is sort of the worst level of crappiness really as he's not so galactically crap that the decision makes itself or so humungously not crap that the other decision makes itself.
And, I'm sure it's not PC to say so - but people's faces count. They say politics is showbiz for ugly people. Well...Ed's face. It IS a problem.
I'm not sure automated passenger planes without pilots will occur in our lifetime. The tech is nearly there (automated take-offs, autopilots and automated landings); I'm not sure the public are ready for it.
Worse, I'm not sure software can easily cover every eventuality that can happen in the air.
It's the old Boeing versus Airbus control philosophies: Boeing prefers the pilot to be firmly in the loop, Airbus prefers the software to have ultimate control.
Next Scottish general election - Most seats
SNP 4/6
Lab 11/10
Any other 150/1
(Unfortunately VC suddenly closed my account after the May 2011 landslide. I was not alone. Lots of people who made a killing backing SNP candidates had their VC accounts promptly closed. They clearly dislike losing.)
John Curtice scathing about the Dambusters:
Nicola Sturgeon @NicolaSturgeon 2 hrs
John Curtice in the Times - 'the no campaign...at risk of becoming an irritating background noise to which nobody listens anymore'
Of the current lot, both Clegg and Miliband appear to be prevaricators in the extreme. Cameron also lacks a degree of urgency and decisiveness, until he meets a problem and then acts quickly. He needs to be more alert and up his game to win.
What we have is a choice between a PM who has shown himself to be somewhat petulant and thin skinned, with more than a hint of the Marie Antoinette, and the somewhat wonkish Miliband, straight from the Creature Comforts ads. It's not a greatly edifying choice, but ultimately people will vote for the prospectus rather than the person and it will be the prospectus which they perceive will look after their own interests better. If you're under 50 and an employee outside London, I'm not convinced the Tories are offering enough at the moment.
One of the smoothest landings I have ever experienced (*) was an automated landing in fog at Singapore. But a failure of Autoland has already cause done fatal crash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951
But trains are intrinsically easier to automate than either cars or planes, and should become more commonplace with the advent of modern signalling systems.
(*) I don't fly a great deal. The scariest was a landing at Iasi in Romania, which apparently has a short runway.
Does Ed look like a PM in waiting - Does 19, Doesn't 63, DK 17
These are seriously bad numbers for Miliband, and a front page “Ed is crap” headline on a prestigious newspaper is really not helpful - no matter what spin is put on it.
This is an argument OGH has used before and it's not without relevance though I would contend each election is different and therefore the factors are different. In 1979, most people realised the Butskellite consensus has failed and a radical change was needed. Margaret Thatcher, albeit on a platform less radical than that of Heath in 1970 who tried the same thing but failed in office, was seen as having the only viable solution.
Blair won in 1997 by convincing millions of Conservative voters that the Labour Party was a non-socialist party of the centre and that people could vote Labour safe in the knowledge that the core tenets of Thatcherism would be respected.
Cameron advanced in 2010 because those who had wealth now feared they would lose it and the Conservative message of cutting spending without raising taxes resonated whereas in the Blair years those with wealth were secure in that wealth and were happy to see largesse to those who were worse off.
For 2015, the onus is going to be whether the meme of austerity resonates - there are those who want an end to austerity if not for themselves then for those who appear to have been hardest hit by the cuts (such as they have been). On the other hand, others will assert that austerity is the path to recovery and needs to be maintained.
I don't think Labour are doing a lot wrong at the moment - the pensions "revolution" may yet be more smoke and mirrors than substance and the argument for living within means is one which resonates but if the balance of paying for that economy is perceived to be shifted toward the wealthiest (fewer of them but can shout louder) it will work well with the Labour base. Ed Miliband may have to heed Jo Grimond's words about marching toward the sound of gunfire.
They will no doubt run this story every week till the election, though. Remind me to write them a letter calling on the Beeb to be sold to News International for £1. Do you think they'd publish it?
It's very, very hard for an Opposition to find clear air to lay out its policies outside of Conference season, so it may have to wait until then.
As an aside, was interested to see Laura Tennison, founder of Jo Jo Madam Bebe, backing Ed. She voted Tory in 2010 but is now backing Labour, so a pretty high profile and impressive switcher that will appeal to women voters.
My thanks to Shadsy for the seat bets.
The longer they carry on the fewer will listen.
A hard-working wonk who despite having a privileged background is prepared to dedicate himself to improving people's lot. Make a joke about the phrasing he uses and his resemblance to a plasticine puppet. Just convince voters that he's efficient and his heart is in the right place.
But he still comes over as a manufactured product with soaring ambition. A typical politician, in fact.
On the question "Which of these would make the best Prime Minister?" Cameron leads Miliband by 34% to 22%. Clegg is on 6% and there are 37% don't knows.
The proportion of people who say Cameron would make the best Prime Minister tends to be a smidgen above their headline poll rating. Miliband's is clearly well below. I don't interpret this to mean that there are many people who say they will vote Labour who prefer Cameron as PM to Miliband, but that there are many voters who remain to be convinced about Miliband.
The question is still open, but I would say that not enough people believe the current Prime Minister would be the best to give that Prime Minister a majority following the next election.
On your question about how this relates to the 2011 Holyrood elections what I would say is that while I do not know Alex Salmond and I cannot claim to be a friend of Alex Salmond, I do know that Cameron is no Alex Salmond.
This is partly because, to be fair, none of the party leaders are under any illusion about the difficult position, and they're maneuvering in a small space of feasible policies. Inspiration on tuppence ha'penny is difficult to achieve. A wild-eyed populist who promised the moon could clean up, but even Farage isn't really quite cynical enough for that.
Reeves, Berger, Reynolds, Creasy, Kendall. A formidable quintet of attractive MPs who will appeal to women voters.
"It has long been apparent that the currency intervention had not produced any boost for the No side. It is now beginning to look as though the last six weeks may, if anything, have seen the Yes side catch up a little further."
LOL.
YES 41.5% .. NO 58.5%
Tick tock ....
Chris Grayling is giving it a go.
ALL are seen as self serving troughers with no interest in the wider country. I think Dave/George has a bit of a boost because they actually came out and said 'We're in the sh1t and we need to act. This will be unpleasant' The electorate are not stupid and knew thisbut Dave and George were the only ones to spell it out. Unfortunately they wasted the goodwill by not being brave enough.
There's only a couple of MP's that seem to have a bit of fire in their blood. Gove is one. Love him or hate him, you can't deny that he has conviction.
Good luck.
I think that the concept of momentum is an odd one with polling. This is not a vehicle with mass and velocity. If someone else changes their mind about an issue, then why should I?
On an entirely unrelated note, if anyone knows how to make apostrophes curly rather than straight in OpenOffice Writer I'd be delighted to hear it. [Not serious as I can just copy and paste and do that throughout a given document, but that is a bit of a faff to remember at the formatting stage].
Tick, and indeed tock.
Part of Labour's problem is their recognized media performers have too much form and the others have no profile.
The difference in the 92/97 years was that Smith, Blair, Brown, Cook and Co had gravitas and a very slick media operation.
Strikes me that its good marketing,
At least Moyes has RVP and Rooney - Labour lost their only asset to Washington NGO FC.
That ComRes phone Poll would concern me if I was Tory minded. Tories flat out on their backs and going nowhere.
Anyway back to topic - I'm wondering how much Callaghan's lead was flattered by innate sexism?
But let's not forget that however much she grew into the role and proved misogynists everywhere wrong, Thatcher and her governments remains the principle authors of most of the country's present woes.
Beauty is not merely skin deep. Human beings perceive beauty or ugliness in others for very very deeply ingrained biological reasons. Fair skin is a proxy indicator for ‘disease free’. Height for a life of reasonable diet and strength. There is absolutely a strongly sexual selective element here. Humans judge others according to their looks. BFD!
And as to others who are not potential sexual mates – well we judge them too. We look to body language as an indicator for lying. We trust those with clear eyes. Etc, etc. Images count.
You can say ‘we shouldn’t’ trust the judgment that comes from 6 billion years of evolution – but if Ed Miliband looks like a nerdy, bucktoothed, geeky, spitfreckled loathsome spotted reptile –well, we are going to apply our ‘gut feelings’.
My gut feeling on Ed says ‘eeeeeew!’. One very very valid reason Blair did well was because he was handsome. Ain’t life a bitch!
tickled.. : )
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100264992/the-conservatives-should-become-the-party-of-beer-bingo-and-lamborghinis/
" try and distill exactly what's so off putting about the finger-wagging puritans of the Left. Never lose an opportunity to emphasise their dourness, their sanctimoniousness, their political correctness .
This is currently territory staked out by Nigel Farage, but the Tories need to reclaim it. (Steve Webb's comment that pensioners should be free to spend their savings on Lamborghinis if they wanted to was a perfect example of this.)
When Miliband unveils his various "vote-winning" policies in the run-up to the next election, the Conservatives need to tease out the puritanical fanaticism that will be lurking just beneath the surface "