Britons struggle to agree at the best of times and the Guardian/Britain Thinks panel of undecided voters from five key constituencies are no exception. Some of them freely admit that they are not that interested in politics – mentioning Zayn Malik leaving One Direction, Jeremy Clarkson leaving Top Gear, and, of course the tragic plane crash, ahead of any political news story this week.
But one thing they can agree on is how important the party leaders’ reputations are in deciding how they will vote.
Conservative strategists understand this and have tried to put the leadership question centre-stage: David Cameron even mentioned it in his resignation speech on the steps of Downing Street.
Some of our panelists, sending us their spontaneous reflections on the campaign so far, noticed this, but while most found the speech impressive there were mixed views about whether talking about Miliband was smart politics or a bit Punch and Judy.
Cameron gave a strong message although did he need to say ‘the economic chaos of Ed Miliband’?!! Isn’t that a little ridiculous?!?
A convincing talk from Cameron. He doesn’t seem to think that Ed Miliband has the right skills to succeed. Neither do I!
Some challenges are common to all the leaders. In our focus groups we showed photographs of each and asked people for the two or three words that sprang to mind. Some, like “liar” and “posh”, were generic descriptions for the political elite. Nevertheless, our research found some revealing differences.
It is easy to see why the Conservatives have chosen this battleground. Although Cameron is easily the most posh of all the party leaders – “privileged”, even a little “stuck up” – his perceived competence shines through in words such as “smooth”, “clever” and “smart”.
More positively still, Cameron’s strongest defining characteristic is as a “family man”. When panelists watched the Sky/C4 Q&A, a telling moment was Cameron describing his late son’s reliance on the NHS. One (Labour-leaning) voter said:
Sometimes Cameron showed his human side and I’m always touched when he mentions Ivan.
However, the focus groups identify Cameron’s shortcomings, too. He is too often seen as arrogant, uncaring and out of touch. His task in the debates must be to address this, demonstrating that he understands the issues that other people’s families face as well as his own.
The challenge for Miliband is, at first sight, more tricky. Although seen as decent, honest and well-intentioned, he is also “intellectual” (not necessarily a compliment). A cluster of somewhat unattractive personal traits – weak, wishy-washy and weird – lead our undecided voters to conclude that, more damagingly, he is “ineffectual”.
Expectations have so far been set by a media narrative that celebrates Miliband’s gaffes and stumbles, but panelists’ response to his performance on the Q&A session (particularly the latter half of the Paxman interview) showed that he has the ability to surprise and confound (admittedly low) expectations.
This is now borne out in an improvement in Miliband’s personal ratings. Clearly, he must use Thursday’s debate to build on this.
After watching the debate I have much more respect for Ed Miliband, he was noticeably better prepared and equipped to deal with Paxman last night.
Until then, Miliband may find himself longing for the anonymity that the leader of the Greens, Natalie Bennett, currently enjoys. Her photograph was mainly met by blank faces – even among Green-leaning voters.
The very small proportion who recognised her were aware of only one thing: her unfortunate media performances so far, hence the descriptions “naive” and “amateurish”. Equal billing with the other leaders could be a unique opportunity to address this but she will also need to reassure about her professionalism.
Nick Clegg, too, has “I don’t know who he is” as his strongest word association, but for different reasons: while voters recognise him and his party, they are unable to say what he stands for any more. Words such as “pushover”, “sheep” and “empty promises” reflect our focus group findings – the Lib Dems, having seemed so different and fresh in 2010, are now seen by many as a letdown.
Worse still, for some Clegg has broken his promises. Unlike most of the other candidates, he brings a policy to mind: tuition fees. Clegg will be hoping he can remind people of who he is and of why he did well in debates in 2010 (as several recalled).
Many in the Westminster village talk enviously about Nigel Farage’s reputation for authenticity. However, some of the words chosen to describe him suggest that, other than being a beer drinker and, in some eyes, a racist, he is not so different: still “smug”, “posh” and “opportunistic”.
He polarises opinion, as you might expect, but more worryingly for him, in Thanet South – the constituency where he is standing – we found that there is a disconnect between his image and that of his party, which he will need to address on Thursday evening.
There’s a dislocation between the people who support Ukip and Nigel who is of a different class – I think we think that it’s more of a working class support, but with more of an upper class leader.
By a long way, the most positive leader image was that of Nicola Sturgeon – among Scottish voters and even those English voters who knew who she was: strong, intelligent and honest.
The more wary among our swing voters chose words such as “cunning” and “skillful”, but overall there was considerable appreciation of the plucky upstart. Building on this position of strength is Sturgeon’s task for Thursday – perhaps the hardest task of all.
