The rest of YouGov’s post-Miliband poll is in the Sun here, and should be up on the YouGov website shortly. On the whole it’s pretty positive for Miliband – albeit, in a “reserving judgement” sort of way.

43% think Miliband will do well as leader, compared to only 23% badly, 34% don’t know yet. 33% think trade unions will have too much influence over Labour under Ed Miliband, 29% disagree, and 38% don’t know yet. On YouGov’s regular tracker of leaders’ qualities Ed Miliband scores best on being in touch with ordinary people (23%) and sticking to what he believes in (17%), but unsurprisingly 44% don’t yet know enough about him to answer. On the whole, he is still an unknown quantity for the public.

Perhaps the most interesting question on there is whether people think the election of Miliband moved the party to the left. 42% think it has – this includes 35% of Labour supporters, but they overwhelmingly see this is a good thing. YouGov also asked if the description of “Red Ed” was justified – only 19% thought it was, 31% did not (and again, 51% didn’t know).

Meanwhile the Times front page was dominated by some Conservative party polling from the start of the September. Basically, Populus showed respondents two video clips of David and Ed Miliband and asked people to rate them on various attributes, with the conclusion that David Miliband came out far better than Ed… confirming, albeit in far more detail, previous polls that showed David was more attractive to the wider public than Ed. I suspect “leaked” in the paper may translate as “deliberately released on the day after Ed Miliband became leader to undermine him now it’s too late for Labour to pick the good one”.

UPDATE: Rubbish reporting of polls times – the New Statesman dismisses the Conservative party’s Populus poll because “Without more information about when precisely the poll was conducted, who the respondents were (party affiliation and so on), and whether responses were based purely on campaign videos, it is impossible to consider this a serious blow to Ed Miliband”. Sound words indeed that I would normally agree with… except 10 seconds research on Populus’s website would tell you it was a nationally representative poll conducted between the 3rd and 5th September, in fact the dates are even in the Times article (it doesn’t tell you whether any other stimulus was used beside campaign videos, but Populus would be obliged under BPC rules to tell any journalist who asked). At least make an effort, dammit.


512 Responses to “More polling on Ed Miliband”

1 9 10 11
  1. Richard O,
    Well I suppose one could say that Cameron was not an
    election winning leader either,and he had a lot more time to practise!

    Report comment

  2. Garry K

    “learn how to operate in opposition”

    I suspect that this will be easier for UK Labour, than it has been for Scottish Labour. Here they are in a Grand Coalition of all the opposition parties – which is an interesting scenario.

    Report comment

  3. Latest figures 29th Sept 2010; CON 41%, LAB 39%, LD 12%; APPROVAL +1

    Evidence that cain and able show is wrecking reds conf. boost?

    Report comment

  4. Kinnock was a hero of mine, but lost in 1992, and ought to have won- the rally, the shadow budget, the memory of his stupid Goose Green speech.

    For me 2010 and 1992 elections were very similar. Both were good ones to lose. Neil did his duty and gave John Major sufficient rope to hang himself and the Tories for three elections ;-)

    Report comment

  5. one other interesting point that perhaps might be more important if we were in the US, but my girlfriend assures me that David is a lot better looking. This shouldn’t matter, but sometimes you never know…

    Report comment

  6. richard o

    “if we were in the US, but my girlfriend assures me that David is a lot better looking. This shouldn’t matter, but sometimes you never know…”

    I tried to find a reference to research in Australia that came to similar conclusions – but I did find this

    h ttp://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/oswald/daughtersospowd2005.pdf

    “This paper provides evidence that daughters make people more left-wing. Having sons, by contrast, makes them more right-wing. Parents, politicians and voters are probably not aware of this phenomenon — nor are social scientists. The paper discusses its economic and evolutionary roots. It also speculates on where research might lead. The paper ends with a conjecture: left-wing individuals are people who come from families into which, over recent past generations, many females have been born.”

    Haven’t read it! since the abstract suggests that the authors confuse correlation with causality, but it’s an interesting idea. With a son and a daughter, did they make me SNP?

    Report comment

  7. Oh dear! I tried to read it! it makes party manifestos models of transparency!

    Report comment

  8. @Eoin,
    yes I think you are right.Nik Robinson who now seems to have developed powers of telepathy said tonight that he believed that David M decided to go as soon as he lost the election.If that is so it is a great pity that he held on to absolutely the last moment .

    Report comment

  9. @Ann(in Wales) – “…he held on to absolutely the last moment”

    Within minutes of victory Ed’s team are briefing that David ‘has to’ accept shadow chancellor (knowing that is unacceptable to him).

    8 minute face to face negotiation the next day (dream up the permutations).

    Today: An embargo on the announcement that David retires to back bench until 5pm (dependent upon the removal of Nick Brown).
    Laura K also keeps her ear close to the ground.

    Report comment

  10. @ Old Nat

    That sounds odd. I haven’t noticed that.

    Report comment

  11. @ Richard O

    How would David come back politically? Does the Parliamentary Labour Party have a mechanism for removing its leaders? If Ed turns out to be a disaster as leader, can they remove him or would they have to go through a process again?

    Report comment

  12. @ Roland Haines

    Appointing David Miliband an ambassador would be a stroke of genius for David Cameron. There was one Republican elected official out there who wasn’t (1) incompetent, (2) extremely right wing, and (3) practically pschotic. Jon Huntsman, the moderate Governor of Utah. Despite coming from a safe Republican seat, Huntsman might have made a formidable Republican opponent against Obama. Obama appointed him ambassador to China, a very important role.

    How important is the role of UK’s ambassador to the U.S.? The role of ambassador to the UK is highly prized…..by donors. The name of the game is if you bankroll a presidential campaign, your reward will be a prized ambassadorship (usually France and Britain top the list). It’s not an insult against the UK, it’s just we’re allied and usually there aren’t major disputes between the two nations (aside from inevitable 35 minute arguments where both sides are actually in agreement due to idiosynchrasies between two dialects of English).

    Report comment

1 9 10 11