Right from the off, even Ed Miliband's own supporters were referring to him as the "nasal policy wonk". Once in power, he was seen as the guy who coldly defeated his brother David by gaining the influential endorsement of the unions; many hardened Blairites would have preferred his sibling. His tenure as Labour leader has been plagued thus far by indifferent performance and in-house uncertainty. But many have overlooked and forgotten the reasons why Ed was such a promising candidate. There was a reason why the academic left-wing faction within the Labour party thoroughly supported the younger Miliband over his more experienced brother. He appeared to speak for ordinary citizens and offered a sincere alternative to the status quo.
During the recent Labour party conference, having just mentioned former leader Tony Blair's name, Miliband paused in his speech. The pause seemingly pre-arranged; an opportunity for the raucous crowd to boo and jeer, and send a message to the electorate that Labour was changing. It was finally an opportunity for Miliband to distance his party from the negative achievements - and connotations - of New Labour. Many commentators questioned his motives, asking whether this was appropriate. James Slack, writing in the Daily Mail, asserted: "The unions have some front jeering Tony Blair". But why? Yes, Mr Blair won three consecutive elections, and yes, Mr Blair is statistically Labour's most successful leader, but he also dragged this country into an illegal war, allowed the banks to conduct 'casino banking' and stated some ridiculous reasons as to why Labour lost 2010's general election.
According to Blair, Labour was defeated because they increased taxes on the richest 1% of the UK and because they dared to blame the banks for the miserable economic state of the nation. Yet, according to a YouGov poll, 62% of Britons want higher taxation on the rich and 76% believe Labour was too soft on the banks. Methinks Mr Blair has lost touch somewhat, offering Miliband clear justification for distancing his reign from that of Blair's. Labour had become out of touch and too right-wing. Johann Hari, of the Independent, calls Ed Miliband's agenda "mild European social democracy" and states that "to appeal to Britain's true middle and the lost low-income workers by arguing that they should have a greater share of the wealth they generate, while not killing a million people abroad, polls well".
All of this provided Miliband with a platform for which to build from. He stated during the Labour conference, "It's all got to change". He continually referred to taking on "vested interests" and slammed the Tories ideological belief that "you make ordinary families work harder by making them poorer and you make the rich work harder by making them richer". What middle or low income family would object to those sentiments? Yet, despite the powerful rhetoric, Miliband is continuing to poll badly. Having begun his reign with public confidence in both him and Labour low, Miliband and his squad of shadow ministers are only just beginning to increase their profile and start running as an effective opposition. Many argue that this has taken far too long. The party are still too light on policy and many former ministers too unwilling to hold their hands up and accept misjudgements within Blair and Brown's governments.
In recent weeks, Miliband has been able to successfully attack the government on the economy and the subsequent reduction in living standards. He has brought attention to the fact that, whilst the government has bragged of raising the income-tax threshold by £1000 (saving families around £170 annually), the decision to raise VAT will cost each household around £517 a year. In his PMQ appearances, he has managed to make Cameron appear weak and inept. He has repeatedly questioned the Conservative's commitment to Plan A on the economy; a plan that has seen growth flatline and unemployment rise. Miliband's confidence has increased dramatically, enabling him to appear more statesman-like. At times, his performance has overshadowed the usually media-savvy Cameron.
However, as history has shown us, party performance in the polls is irrelevant when put alongside leadership confidence. Throughout the '90s, Labour leader Neil Kinnock, despite enjoying a lead in the party polls, was never rated above John Major as a potential prime minister; and this is a problem Miliband shares. Whilst the latest polling by Populus highlights that Labour currently enjoys an 8-point lead over the Tories, the best long-term indicator is the personal approval ratings. At present, Cameron's net satisfaction stands at -13 (in June 2010 it was +31) whilst Ed Miliband's stands at a worrying -16. On the economy, in spite of recent disappointments, the Cameron/Osborne team possess a 10-point lead over Miliband/Balls combination. History tells us that these figures prove more telling than voting intentions.
Loyal followers of Ed Miliband will point to his tough stance on the economy and the need for growth as a sign that he understands and represents the people of Great Britain. They will assert that he has dragged Labour back towards the left - where they truly belong - and is paving the way for a more equal and fair society. They will look back and point to his opposition to the war in Iraq as proof that he wants to create a new foreign policy; one of diplomacy and transparency. But what really matters is that the electorate understand and connect with him. Thus far, they have not. Whilst his intentions are undoubtedly admirable, he is not spreading the message laudably.
It is a well known fact that Britons vote for central politics. We are naturally a cautious being and do not take kindly to radical thinking. YouGov conducted a poll, asking voters to rank themselves and the parties on a left-right political spectrum (-100 very left-wing/+100 very right-wing). Tellingly, Blair's Labour gained an average score of +7, placing them as just right-of-centre. Gordon Brown's average ranking was -25, placing him and his cabinet firmly left-of-centre. Currently, Cameron's Conservatives are scored at +46 meaning that they are deemed to be fairly right-wing. Since Miliband became leader of the opposition, Labour's rating has gone from -28 to -41, a significant shift leftwards. So, the question is which party is willing to limit its ideological ambitions and gravitate towards the safe centre ground?
'Red Ed' is widely seen as a left-wing socialist whereas Cameron is perceived as more adaptable (scoring +43 on the scale; making him less radical than his party); something that undeniably gains the votes of floaters. Overall, these polling results shine a light on two vital issues. Firstly, can Ed Miliband win over the support of the 'ordinary' citizens of Great Britain and secondly, is he willing to adopt more centralist policies in order to attract floating voters (something the Conservative's regularly do during election campaigns)? Unless he can, the common consensus will be that Cameron shall produce a John Major majority in 2015 and Miliband will go down in history as just another Kinnock.