Obsessive focus on poll results is quietly shelved when Labour is ahead
A snap Survation poll for the Mirror newspaper has found that 35 per cent of respondents said Ed Miliband ‘won’ last night’s BBC debate, giving him a clear victory over his rival party leaders.
Who do you think “won” the debate? Survation for @DailyMirror pic.twitter.com/enDDIhTVwu
— Survation. (@Survation) April 16, 2015
But you wouldn’t know it from the coverage this morning in some newspapers, despite their having changed their front pages overnight.
You’ll remember that both the previous ‘debates’ – the Paxman interviews with Miliband and Cameron on March 26 and the seven-way leaders’ debate on April 2 – were reported with heavy emphasis on the polling results about who ‘won’ and who made the best impression on voters.
After the leaders’ debate in April, the Sun newspaper ran a front page story claiming Ed Miliband had blown his election chances by failing to top the polls in the seven-way chatter-fest. The Telegraph ran ‘Miliband flops as outsiders shine’ on its front page, emphasising the poll results, as did the Times, the Guardian and the Independent.
So today’s lack of interest in the polls makes for a rather dramatic contrast.
It’s also worth noting that the poll not only shows Miliband ahead of his fellow debtors, but a general swing in his favour against prime minister David Cameron, (who did not take part in the debate). In a straight contest between Miliband and Cameron, 45 per cent said they would vote for Miliband as prime minister, against 40 percent for Cameron.
Aside for the sins of omission, there are those of commission. An Ipsos Mori poll yesterday taken before the debate which had Labour ahead with 35 per cent was written up in the Evening Standard as ‘Miliband poll blow’.
Focus on these imperfect measurements can be trivial, misleading and a way to avoid discussion of ideas. When it comes to debates, polls are plagued with hazy stupidities (how can one ‘win’ a debate with no formal motion or vote?) and often amount to little more than a measurement of impressions, reducing political argument into a contest between performing seals.
That said, if the media insists on judging debates by poll results, they ought to be consistent. And the only poll on last night’s debate, conducted by a respected polling company, says Miliband smashed it.
Adam Barnett is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow MediaWatch on Twitter
19 Responses to “Post-debate polls lead the news agenda – unless Ed Miliband wins”
Leon Wolfeson
Untrue. See the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which overrules the common law you’re talking about.
Guest
PS, must be nice living in your multi-million pound flat, but having city spivs and bankers who consider themselves the only real workers for neighbours? Pass.
Paul Douglas
Highly disingenuous. The Fixed Term Parliament act does not provide for an incumbent government to ignore an election result and remain in power indefinitely, and if it did it would immediately cause a constitutional crisis if anyone attempted to use it as a basis for doing so. Even under the provisions of FTPA, the incumbent government is only kept in place until an alternative government can prove it will command the confidence of the house. The comment I was replying to is incorrectly subtracting the SNP losses from Labour’s seat count twice in order to portray that as impossible, which is clearly incorrect. They also incorrectly state that 326 seats are needed to form a “Parliament” (we can deduce they probably meant “government”). This is also untrue, 326 is the threshold for an absolute majority. A working majority is 323. Minority government is perfectly acceptable if it is demonstrated that the government will command the confidence of the house. The outcome being projected by most analysts right now would make it relatively simple for Labour to show they could command the confidence of the House. Cameron would therefore be obligated by constitutional convention to resign and recommend the Queen invite Ed Miliband to form a government. If he refused, it would prompt a challenge in the courts, and he would lose.
Leon Wolfeson
You might be, but that’s exactly what it does. It’s short sighted and poorly written.
“is only kept in place until an alternative government can prove it will command the confidence of the house”
Incorrect. There’s only two grounds under the FTPA for *new elections* – a 50%+1 resolution of no confidence left to stand for two weeks, and a two-thirds resolution to dissolve parliament.
There is absolutely nothing in there about alternative governments, and no way to dissolve a government without new general elections.
You’re then talking about a different scenario entirely, the normal process after the election.