Likeable Cameron versus competent Brown?

Anthony Wells over at the indispensable UK Polling Report has got hold of the full data set of the BPIX/ Mail on Sunday poll that ConservativeHome reported on earlier.  Anthony reveals:

"There were also a series of questions asking people to say which of a series of positive words (likeable, competent, good leader, caring trsutworthy, etc) applied to particular politicians... Cameron was seen as likeable by the highest proportion of voters of any of the 11 politicians included - 30% thought he was likeable, the next highest being Tony Blair on 21%. 14% of people thought Gordon Brown was likeable.

In contrast, Gordon Brown was seen as competent by more people than any of the other politicians listed - 34% thought he was competent, followed by Tony Blair on 22%. 19% thought Cameron was competent....

The public perceptions of the two men who will most likely fight out the next generation already seem to be settling into contrasting images: Cameron as likeable and in touch vs Brown, solid, trustworthy and competent."

I don't know if these numbers were weighted for voting intention but they reveal a similar pattern to a News of the World/ ICM survey from two months ago.  That survey (which drew some criticism for seemingly including a preponderance of Labour voters) also found the Chancellor to be more trustworthy but less presentable and less likely to buy a round of beers.

If Gordon Brown can maintain his reputation as competent (haven't voters heard of the tax credits fiasco and his creative budget accounting?) he may be an antidote to Labour's current difficulties.  Brown won't just want to present his own allegedly competent self to the electorate but other plain-dealing ministers will be promoted.  My guess is that most Blairites will leave the Cabinet when their inspiration eventually goes.  Alastair Darling, John Hutton, Des Browne, Hilary Benn and Alan Johnson will all be given much bigger roles.

Comments

[Suggestion]

Until we know whether they were weighted, they're worthless.

[Suggestion]

Plus, this is yet more good news for DC, not that we didn't already know it. As the bad news piles up for Labour (hospitals shutting, 2bn pound hole in tax credits) Brown's rep for competence will vanish. The evidence will destroy it.

DC's reputation for being a top bloke won't, however.

[Suggestion]

DC can gain in perception of competence; Brown cannot gain in perception of likeability.

[Umbongo]

Brown -v- DC is a chimera: interesting to contemplate but deeply unreal. Who cares? Just look at the polls - in the poll of polls in this week of all weeks Labour is actually ahead. In the ICM poll (25/4/06) our lead is within the statistical error. On Thursday Labour supporters will stay away in droves or turn to the LibDems. We might do fairly well (if our vote stays up) but, if so, it will be despite DC and his modernising coterie and because of a combination of local effort by the much traduced traditionalists and "a plague on all your houses" by the electorate at large.

[Chad]

DC can gain in perception of competence; Brown cannot gain in perception of likeability.

Come on Suggestion, this kind of clearly untrue statement will not help you at all. You need to be react to these results not dismiss the ones that do not fit your aims.

Of course Brown can become perceived as more likeable. Through no fault of his own, Cameron can't really display more competency as you really need to be in office or have a previous track record to do that.

Brown's recent phone-in with Angelina etc shows the effort to make him more presentable whilst avoiding the image-led approach of Blair and Cameron.

Brown, and perhaps Ming too to some degree, provide an antidote to the Blair/Cameron obsession with image.

I do wonder whether Brown will be encouraged to open up about the tragic loss of his daughter as well, as this affects many people in the UK for one reason or another, and would contrast with Cameron's also moving experience with his son.

Labour have a formidable strategy. After three terms of office they will be changing the man at the top and likely the majority of the cabinet too.

People like stability, and unless no major shock occurs, then people are more likely to give Brown a chance then gamble on the seemingly minor differences offered by Cameron.

What happens if Brown makes a speech about his premiership marking the end of "image-led" politics and that the country does not need an heir-to-blair but a stable, competent government?

[Yet Another Anon]

I'm surprised people actually like Tony Blair, the man's so annoying that anyone in the same room as each other would be liable to want to bash his brains in, people know that they won't have to go out drinking with whoever ends up as Prime Minister so they are likely to vote in the hope of getting someone who will run the country effectively - lots of people liked David Steel, Jim Callaghan, Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock, William Hague and it didn't do them much good.

[John Hustings]

"What happens if Brown makes a speech about his premiership marking the end of "image-led" politics and that the country does not need an heir-to-blair but a stable, competent government? "

I think that would be a very clever approach, because it would dump all the anti-Blair feeling onto Cameron.

I don't think Cameron's modernising coterie realise just quite how unpopular Blair is among the country (albeit, in my view, for the wrong reasons). Their strategy of fixing themselves to Blairism as much as possible is very stupid.

[Richard]

"We might do fairly well (if our vote stays up) but, if so, it will be despite DC and his modernising coterie"

I expect we will do very well if Labour only gain 26% of the vote. I agree though that this will be due to non-Cameron factors, especially the multiple scandals from the past week. That isn't to say that Cameron hasn't won over many new voters. Indeed, there is a case to be made that he has won over about 4-5% of the electorate. Unfortunately, the Tories can't get above mid-position because another 4-5% have jumped ship from the Tories to the BNP or UKIP. If this is the case, let us hope they return in time for the GE.

[Yet Another Anon]

Charles Clarke won't survive the next reshuffle - I don't suppose Tony Blair will be too pleased with Jack Straw either as he was Home Secretary when the fiasco over failure to deport Foreign Nationals at the end of their sentences began, maybe John Prescott will lose many of his responsibilities and get a lower profile role with much of his Department being transferred to that of the Department of Local Government and Communities.

Harriet Harman might well get dumped after the wrangle with her husband Jack Dromey who is Labour Treasurer, Margaret Hodge who gave the BNP some free publicity will probably go.

Maybe Dawn Primarolo will get a cabinet position and Ed Balls a Junior Ministerial position.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it is all change at the Home Office with all ministers currently there sacked and maybe even some changes to Departmental Structures

[Rob G]

I agree with Suggestion that it should be relatively easy to undermine Brown's reputation for competence when the time comes to do so. Tax credits are very much Brown's personal initiative and the problems are widely known and mainly affect low income families. We can also point to the UK's slide down the world competitiveness league and link that to any high profile job losses at the time.

And I just don't buy this assertion that DC is trying to be like Blair or that DC's approach is "image led". I am not particularly attracted to DC's image or presentation. But I like the majority of what he says because it is so fundamentally different from the Blair/Brown "nanny knows best" approach.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I think Mr. Brown is going to have a shock when he comes out from behind his barricade of the Treasury. He will find that it is one thing to long for something (in his case to be PM), even if he is convinced that he knows exactly how to manage it, and it is quite another thing to BE the person at the top with no-one to shelter behind - although Blair has made a pretty good job of always having 'fall guys' to protect himself from actually having to 'face the music'. There have been other people before him who have found out about the accuracy of this statement, that just longing for something, and THINKING that you could be better than someone else at that 'thing' doesn't ensure that you will be!

We shall see.

[JackNevinson]

No, Suggestion, weighting woouldn't make any significant difference to those numbers - it makes a percent or two only. Plus Anthony Wells wouldn't release spurious numbers. Its something we have to face up to: Cameron needs to be more than pleasant. (Though being pleasant is a good start).

[Richard]

"But I like the majority of what he says because it is so fundamentally different from the Blair/Brown "nanny knows best" approach"

Before anyone else does I would like to bring up the words "chocolate orange" and "preaching on the environment". That said I accept he comes across as far less nannying than Blair and Brown.

[briank]

It's a very complicated situation. I think Blair & Brown have a visceral hatred of each other. Blair will not want to go with his 'legacy' in tatters and absolutely will not want Brown coming in like the cavalry to save the country/party. He will have to be prised out of office [maybe when he passes Thatcher's record it may change-though i think not - or if he sees a euro presidency opening up]. The party and/or Brown may pluck up courage to do it - but it will be messy. As for Brown as PM...? Not really an attractive personality and obsessive. But he does apply 'attention to detail' to his job - something which is essential and utterly lacking in the majority of this this thoroughly incompetent lot. But remember..he gathers under him utter numskulls and nonentities - to ensure he can outshine them and bolster his insecurity. Also, he is never there when there is bad news..in parliament he puts up his underlings to answer awkward questions - he can't do that as PM. I think he is a political coward. And the biggest question of all - one that will be completely decisive. The economy. I've been predicting it all going wrong for him for 2 yrs or more..but it hasn't happened. I still think it will come - but when?

[Chris D]

Gordon Brown's political reputation has been built around his stewardship of the economy but I have yet to see the evidence that he has the leadership qualities needed to run not just the labour party but also the country.
We see him reeling off a list of figures on budget day, making labour conference speech's, one to one interviews and occasional appearing beside Tony Blair at campaign time (they would not even field questions from journalists at their last outing)
Tony Blair does do the tough PMQ's , interviews and live debates with the public when the questions are difficult and the headlines are bad.
David Cameron has just won a very high profile conservative leadership contest and his poll rating among the public reflects this.
We don't even know when or how Gordon Brown will succeed Tony Blair and that's when his poll comparisons with David Cameron will really matter, it will also show if his political acumen has been built on myth or reality. At the moment its like playing fantasy PMQ's

[Rob G]

Briank Not really an attractive personality and obsessive. But he does apply 'attention to detail' to his job.
Well I certainly agree with the first sentence. The second is not, however, entirely true. GB does pay a great detail of attention to the detail of his statistics (and the misrepresentations that he passes off as statistics) and to quite a bit of his presentation. But he doesn't seem to pay much attention to whether his policies will work in practice. For example, it didn't take much thought to realise that a Tax Credits system which was designed to overpay low income people in-year was bound to lead to grief when the over-payments were clawed back after the end of the year. Similarly, anyone paying the slightest attention would have realised that a 10% rate of Corporation Tax would encourage large numbers of self-employed people to form limited companies (in which case he would have avoided the complex and embarrassing U-turn that he executed a year later).

I am sure there are many more examples of that sort.

[Derek]

Brown's competence tag may not be so easy to shift. He has been chancellor for nine years of continuous growth, which he will be given the credit for - whether he deserves it or not. We will need to work hard to tarnish his reputation as "a safe pair of hands".Maybe by the next election the economy may go down hill in which case his reputation will go with it!

David Cameron's interview on the Politics Show went very well today. His likeability is a big plus, but he needs to have the right policies to go with it.

[Annabel Herriott]

Who has read "The Peter Principle" whereby one is promoted to ones level of incompetancy. Who thinks Gordon Brown may reach that level as he enters the door of no 10??

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>The party and/or Brown may pluck up courage to do it - but it will be messy.<<<<
There is no doubt that Tony Blair is not going to be leading Labour into the next General Election, he has already said a number of times he is standing down, if he was to go back on his word then even if he wasn't brought down then the Labour Party would certainly lose all credibility and go into meltdown in the election - who knows? in such circumstances it might even result in a Liberal Democrat overall majority government but if there was not a date for a leadership election by the 2008 Labour Party Conference then he would be brought down on the grounds that the new leader would have to have some time before the General Election to prepare, equally realistically Gordon Brown must be hoping for a General Election on the same day as the 2009 Euro Elections and the Labour rank and file no doubt will realise that a new Labour leader taking over with no room for maneouvre over the election date would be potentially disastrous.

[Editor]

briank: "And the biggest question of all - one that will be completely decisive. The economy. I've been predicting it all going wrong for him for 2 yrs or more..but it hasn't happened. I still think it will come - but when?"

Welcome to the site briank!

I agree that the economy will be one decisive factor but we shouldn't assume that a bad economy will hurt Labour IF voters believe that Gordon Brown and his Chancellor are more likely than DC and his shadow Treasury team to put it right. In 1992 the economy was far from strong but the Tories won a record number of votes - partly because we were then more trusted on the economy.

These issues were discussed last year by IDS in an article for The Guardian.

[Jon White]

Editor, that is so true. I am amazed at the length of the voters' memories.

Despite the way that Clarke grew the economy in the mid-late 90's, and the Golden Economic inheritance that Brown inherited, we are still not trusted on the economy due to the disaster that was Black Wednesday. Had that occurred before the 92 election, we would surely have lost.

It is what Clinton said: "It's the economy, stupid". Whilst Labour are more trusted on this, and the economy is PERCEIVED to be strong, it will be an uphill battle.

[gingeral]

Shame we won in 1992, then Black Wednesday would have fallen on Kinnock's watch and he'd have been booted out again in 1997 (goodness knows who the Tory PM would have been at that stage, ironically it might even have been Lamont!)

[kingbongo]

Gordon Brown's record on competence is already under strain , in the YouGov poll (I think) they scored only 6% higher than us on the economy. Also last year GB had a +43% satisfaction rating that is now down to 4% (despite the make-over).

So far this fiscal year, and we're not a month into it, public spending is £700 million over forecast. Brown might get some help on exports as the BoE keeps rates on hold whilst everyone else raises them but unemployment is creeping up. Also, although it's not in the news at the moment tax credits is a big issue. By tying so many people into his handout society there are many of us who notice the huge cock-ups in the system who wouldn't normally spot how chaotic the benefits system is.

I think it's irrelevant though, as Blair's not going anywhere and GB lacks the cojones to make him. I will be happy to lose my money on this bet but I feel it's quite safe at the moment.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Derek - 'He (Brown) has been Chancellor for nine years of continuous growth'.

That growth ground-work was laid by the previous TORY government, it wasn't 'laid' by Brown, he just had to continue. And as many people keep indicating there are 'holes in his tapestry' which he spends our money patching up for the timebeing.

[Sean Fear]

"Shame we won in 1992, then Black Wednesday would have fallen on Kinnock's watch and he'd have been booted out again in 1997"

Yes. It would have confirmed every voter's doubts about Labour's ability to run the economy.

However, there is a potential downside. It was still just about possible in 1992, to argue that Margaret Thatcher's economic reforms had failed (see William Keegan, Wynne Godley, Will Hutton et al at the time). By 1997, that position was no longer tenable, thanks to five years of rapid economic growth, and, crucially, much better economic growth than the rest of the EU.

[briank]

Regarding the 'attention to detail' comment I made. I did not mean he was a competent Chancellor, Rob G. For what it's worth I think he is an utterly disastrous Chancellor for the country. It is just that, by working hard, he finds devices to cover, forestall and delay the consequences of his policies. [The ridiculous and juvenile device of moving the 'golden rule' goalposts is a typical example]. I consider the economy to be in a dreadful mess - but this state of affairs is only just beginning to be perceived by the general public.
And, of course, it is true that Blair will have to be gone by the next election.

[Richard]

"I've been predicting it all going wrong for him for 2 yrs or more..but it hasn't happened. I still think it will come - but when?"

Sowing the Seeds of the Next Crisis:

http://mises.org/story/2111

[Richard Allen]

The idea that the economoy is about to go pear shaped and that Brown's credibility will be destroyed is an appealing one, and one that I have some sympathy with but it is also one that cannot be relied upon.

[Jon White]

Richard, -spot on. More importantly, it's not what the actual state of the economy is that matters, it's how it PERCEIVED. Brown's ecomony has been funded by his massive THEFT from pension funds. The chickens on this won't come home to roost for many years. The average voter doesn't appreciate this.

What we need is a competant and effective Shadow Chancellor who can really expose the extent of Brown's financial chicanery, so that the voters realise how they are being conned. Osbourne certainly isn't up to that task. Hague would be an excellent person for that job.

[Chris D]

Mike Smithson has an updated analysis of the YouGov poll thread on PB.com and it makes interesting reading.
What happens if Gordon Brown's personal ratings continue to fall because people are beginning to question the state of the economy and more importantly where and how all the money raised in taxation has been spent?
The biggest irony of all might be the fact that the biggest beneficiary of Gordon Brown's long tenure at the treasury was Tony Blair's premiership and Gordon Brown is left explaining where all the investment from his golden economy went!

[houndtang]

So are you hoping that the British economy crashes so the Conservative party can get into power?

[Jon White]

Houndtag - the ecomony is undoubtedly going to get MUCH worse, whether we like it/hope for it or not.

The crucial thing is that the right people are held accountable - Brown and this corrupt, self-serving, incompetant, excuse for a government. We must ensure that this happens if we are to have any hope of regaining power.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>"Shame we won in 1992, then Black Wednesday would have fallen on Kinnock's watch and he'd have been booted out again in 1997"

Yes. It would have confirmed every voter's doubts about Labour's ability to run the economy.<<<<
Surely the thing that destroyed confidence in the government to the greatest extent was the failure to accept immediately that it was not a reasonable proposition to prop up the pound and that they had to leave the ERM instead of which Interest Rates were briefly raised to ludicrous levels and Billions of Pounds of Treasury Money wasted propping the pound up and also raising the deficit which then went on to be a big problem, they also raised taxes despite pledging to cut the tax burden as a proportion of GDP in the 1992 General Election campaign and Spending was raised to higher levels than at any time since 1979 which for a Government pledged to reducing Public Spending as a proportion of GDP and levels of a fifth or a quarter were proposed and yet there was spending rising to 45% of GDP.

Surely the response should have been to respond by Withdrawing the Pound from the ERM and institute a programme of cuts in Public Spending from 1992 to rebalance the books and keep to their pledge, who knows? If they had cut Public Spending to a third or less of GDP by 1997 maybe they would even have won the General Election.

[Jon White]

Yet Another Anon - a very perceptive analysis, and one which I have great sympathy with.

However, for that to have happened, we would have needed a strong determined and competent leader. (Someone like Mrs Thatcher who we had just dumped).

Instead, we got Major the Puppet whose strings were being pulled by the arch-Europhiles Clarke and Heseltine.

[briank]

- Thank you for welcoming a new subscriber!