Ed Miliband: a 360 degree view

Prepared for the EPOP Conference, University of Lancaster, September 2013. Written by Dr. Roger Mortimore, Simon Atkinson and Tom Mludzinski.

During the run-up to the 2001 election, we wrote a paper for the 1999 gathering of British psephologists and pollsters (aka the EPOP Conference) which brought together the polling evidence on the (then) Conservative leader William Hague.

At that time, very real questions were being asked about whether the opposition leader and his party were making enough progress, and the urgency of this questioning was increasing as the general election got closer.

To provide some structure to our review, we set William Hague seven "tests”, and then set the polling numbers against each one.

Our conclusions surprised few people at the time. We found that the Hague leadership was struggling in many areas, and awarded 2 points out of a possible 7.

Fourteen years later, the political landscape under the coalition government is rather different. Ed Miliband only needs a 5% swing to achieve an overall majority, and our most recent Ipsos poll places him on track, despite being a relatively weak survey for Labour. Back in 1999, William Hague needed a 12% swing to win, and the polls of Autumn that year were showing movement towards Labour rather than the Conservatives. Tim Montgomerie is not the only person to say "Ed Miliband does not need to be brilliant to become PM”.

At the same time, there is one big similarity with the Hague era. Big questions are being asked about Ed Miliband’s performance , just as they were being raised about William Hague at the end of the 1990s. So, how bad are Mr Miliband’s numbers? And what might this mean for the general election which is now little more than eighteen months away?

With this in mind, we decided to dust off those "Seven Questions" we asked of Hague in 1999, and ask them again, this time of Ed Miliband in 2013. Here are our findings:

1. Restore morale and functionality of the party apparatus. This is not really a task we can judge from the survey evidence. But the aims must include internal decision-making at both local and national level being efficient and (at least outwardly) amicable, and securing the funding base to fight the next election. Issues such as the dispute over the future of the union link and the Falkirk selection controversy, and internal divisions at senior levels frequently leaking into the media, suggest he has not succeeded (yet). FAIL

2. Reunite the party behind him as leader. Even those members of the public intending to vote Labour are on balance dissatisfied with his performance, and the figures are worsening. Few Labour MPs name him as an impressive parliamentarian. FAIL

3. Achieve personal public recognition. The vast majority of the public now have an opinion on whether he is doing a good or bad job, and only 7% can’t pick out at least one description they feel applies to him in our leader image questions. Whether or not they support him, at least the voters seem to know who he is. PASS

4. Develop image with the public as leader and potential PM. Half the public don’t feel they know what he stands for. His job performance satisfaction ratings are poor and falling. Only three in ten say they like him (many fewer than like his party), and just a quarter think he is ready to be Prime Minister. FAIL.

5. Re-establish credibility of party as an alternative government. Despite Labour having held a voting intention lead for most of Miliband’s time as leader, the underlying indicators are weak. Only three in ten think Labour is ready to govern, well behind previous governments-to-be. There seems to be a lack of enthusiasm from the electorate, and Labour leads only by default. FAIL.

6. Achieve success at elections. Labour’s vote share in 2013 local elections was very disappointing. However, gains in seats were satisfactory and will have boosted morale. (However, 2014 promises to be tricky.) QUALIFIED PASS.

7. Establish basis for further improvement by 2015, by (a) finding and exploiting government weaknesses and (b) identifying issues for general election campaign. There are a number of issues on which Labour looks reasonably placed to fight an election; but if they choose to or are forced to fight it on economic policy and austerity the outlook is uncertain. Labour is still widely blamed for creating the crisis, and only one in four think Miliband/Balls would do a better job than Cameron/Osborne. The Tories now lead as having best policies to manage the economy, and public optimism about the economic situation is growing. However, Miliband has succeeded in discomfiting the government and exploiting Con-LD tensions on several issues, and satisfaction with government performance is low. Moreover, the situation favours Labour – the bias in the electoral system means that a very modest swing will be enough to win. The foundation for an election victory appears to be in place if it is not mishandled between now and 2015. PASS.

OVERALL VERDICT: These numbers liken Miliband to a weak jockey on a poorly-trained horse, but (unlike Hague) the condition of the course in his favour and he has already jumped the first few fences in the lead.

Roger Mortimore is Director of Political Analysis, Simon Atkinson is Assistant Chief Executive and Tomasz Mludzinski is Deputy Head of Political Research at Ipsos.