New polling for YouGov – analysed here on the excellent UK Polling Report site – suggests that David Miliband is set to win the Labour leadership election but that Ed could still conceivably win. This begs the question, who would be worse for the Tories? This is the subject of an article by former Tory MP Paul Goodman in today’s Guardian.
Goodman doesn’t come down on either side but suggests that either could cause potential problems. This is probably right but David Miliband would probably be more of a threat. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, he’s not perfect (and not as good as Cameron) but David is by far the better communicator on TV. Secondly, he comes across as being a decent person and relatively in touch with the public (wrong, but there we are). Thirdly, unlike the vast majority of people in politics (on all sides), he has worked in competent political operations under Blair and he therefore knows how to behave and work in a team. Fourthly, while there are mixed reports about his ability to manage, he does have extensive executive experience which will not only help him to get things done but which also gives him a degree of gravitas. This shouldn’t be overstated but it’s useful.
As we discussed earlier in the week, the Labour Party is in the right shape to cause some problems for the Tories. They are relatively united and, as Goodman says, they don’t have an obvious issue like Europe that will cause them problems. While many people blame them for the financial mess Britain is in (more than before it seems, presumably because they haven’t been out there defending their record), they are not hated like the Tories were and can avoid an extended apology. They also appear to have a very competent machine at their disposal.
So, a David Miliband Labour Party could well shake things up in the autumn. Whether he will or not is something else. He has a tendency to talk in weird “lefty” speak at times which leaves the public as cold as the language the old school right uses (his early campaign speeches were bad) and he may turn to advisers with more experience of speaking to people who work in NGOs than people in the real world. It might also be that he tries to do the sort of cocky, “I’m in charge”, jokey approach at PMQ’s than can really backfire (irrelevant to the public but important in defining him in the political media).
If he studies the polls, focuses ruthlessly on issues like the economy in his campaigns, and assembles a team with the same sort of balance as Labour did under Blair, then politics could get very interesting again soon.