Purchase today

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.

Jobs

User login

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

RSS

Brown hasn't benefited from TV interview

Poll finds that voters have more sympathy for Brown, but less respect.

By George Eaton Published 16 February 2010 16:01

In today's Independent, Steve Richards makes the argument that Gordon Brown's interview with Piers Morgan may yet change the political weather.

He writes:

A common view on the blogs and in the newspapers was that the exercise was pointless because voters have already made up their minds on Brown and will not change them now. I disagree. Voters have made up their minds about Brown more than once. Indeed, they change on a frequent basis that must be exhausting for them and for him.

The first poll on Brown's interview, carried out by PoliticsHome, has just been published, so how does the Richards prediction look?

First, as most observers expected, the majority of voters said the interview had made no difference to their opinion. Second, while voters now have more sympathy for Brown, they also have less respect.

It's worth pointing out that those surveyed were only shown clips of the interview in advance of the TV screening, so I expect we'll get a clearer impression from later polls. But there are some findings worth noting.

Thirty per cent of voters said they felt more sympathy for the Prime Minister following the interview, and 17 per cent said they had less. But 24 per cent of those surveyed said they had less respect for Brown after the interview, compared to 21 per cent who said they had more.

A rise in sympathy for Brown is unlikely to benefit Labour at the polls; voters want to be led by someone they admire and respect, not someone they pity. The electorate sympathised with John Major towards the end of his time in office, but that didn't stop the Tories going down to a landslide defeat in 1997.

Labour's best hope is still to present Brown as a figure of authority and intellect, in contrast to the "novice" Cameron. But the PM's dalliance with celebrity politics has made it that little bit harder to do so.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Gordon Brown

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

9 comments

Tue, 2010-02-16 16:27 — Labour Matters

It should be noted that those polled for PoliticsHome were shown clips of the show and not the whole show. The poll is therefore worthless as a measure of the impression left by the whole show.

Irrespective of whether PoliticsHome is an impartial client, funded as it is by a leading Conservative peer, enough people watched the show for any positive sentiment gained from it to reveal itself in *real* opinion polls about voting intentions soon.

Tue, 2010-02-16 16:43 — Quietzapple

Politics Home may have something to do with a certain beneficiary/donor to the Tory party?

Why am I unsurprised that The New Stoadsman - itself as anti Labour as the ToryGuardian, but less pro Tory - piffles as per above?

The Dully Tele take is nearer honest, and its Nasty bloggers likewise:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/wp-comments-post.php

Brown's authority at the next GE will not be undermined by being seen to be human now. Establishing a good lead among women voters is well worth doing at this stage of the Tories' catastrophic "campaign."

Tue, 2010-02-16 16:44 — Max Atkinson

Leaving aside polls, however reliable/unreliable they may be, I don't think Brown had anything to lose, just as Mrs Thatcher had little to lose by appearing on Michael Aspel's talk show in a bid to soften her image during the miners' strike in 1983.

But I have been surprised that there hasn't been more coverage of what was arguably the most revealing (and potentially most damaging) 4 minutes in the show - for video clip and more comment on which, see 'Brown's dirty dozen' at http://bit.ly/cBwtns

Tue, 2010-02-16 16:57 — Andy (not verified)

The very last thing Brown conveyed in that interview was 'authority'. Weeping on the telly is what people are used to seeing cast-off reality show contestants do; didn't anyone connected with this miscalculated, toe-curling farrago realise how undignified a spectacle it would be? Or was that the point?

Tue, 2010-02-16 16:59 — damianneum

Quietzapple: I explained why I believed PoliticsHome could remain impartial at the time of Lord Ashcroft's takeover.

You can read my piece here: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/fourth-estate/2009/09/ashcroft-politic...

Incidentally, I've seen nothing since to suggest I was wrong. The site has prominently linked to all of the recent critical articles on Ashcroft in the Guardian, the Independent and the NS.

Tue, 2010-02-16 21:33 — Anonymous (not verified)

What's been most revealing about Brown's interview is he managed to test his limits without taking a hit. The other thing is how David Cameron has become frightened to appear on campaign posters and how Tories online are looking nasty and hypocritical after their protests about Twitter. Yes, there is a demand for Brown to be more "authoritative" but the wall of glib Tory presentation is cracking.

I would be surprised if this isn't causing ulcers and panic in Tory HQ. Labour have cut the Tories and its letting blood into the water. This will not go well for Cameron's support or media attention.

Brown is clearly a man who likes to make things happen in contrast to Cameron who's just a freeloader. Brown's stood up well to an unprecedented attack from all sides. Meanwhile, Cameron is beginning to look like a man who can dish it out but can't take it.

Tue, 2010-02-16 17:57 — roger tanneau

Brown appeared as what he is ...insincere (not in his reaction to his tragic loss) but in his willingness to bare his innermost feelings.The electorate has basically decided why they loathe Brown and his alleged bullying and unfortunate facial tics linger longer than the image of his tears.

Tue, 2010-02-16 18:40 — Tom (not verified)

Not only is a poll based on clips of very little use, but it's only a small 3% difference between 'more respect' and 'less respect', easily within the margin of error. I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from this.

In any case, more important than the actual numbers are who is in each group. Are people simply seeing whatever confirms their existing biases, as Roger above has clearly done? Or are floating voters being moved one way or the other?

Wed, 2010-02-17 11:44 — Andy (not verified)

"Brown...managed to test his limits without taking a hit"

You're suggesting that a serving PM, about to be annihilated at the ballot box and who, in post-interview polls, is even "less respected" than he was before, suddenly has the Tories on the run? I should stay off those meds if I were you, Anonymous.