Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Politics
  2. The Staggers
28 July 2014updated 21 Sep 2021 5:05am

Image is crucial to how we decide between policies

Ed Miliband thinks image should be secondary to issues and ideas, but snap judgements matter when voters have little time.

By Harry Lambert

Forgetting all his affectations (“I happen to believe that…”, “What I’m saying is…”), Ed Miliband was very good on The Andrew Marr Show yesterday.

He was disarming, relaxed and confident.

When Marr brought up his poor personal ratings by presenting placards of him dressed as Wallace, Miliband batted him away:

“You’re going to show it to me? Excellent. Thank you Andrew, I didn’t realise you’d be bringing me a present. That’s incredibly kind – I’ll show it to my kids.”

When Marr attacked him for dismissing the problems with his image, he smiled calmly, and offered to “keep trying”. When Marr pressed – “But there is an ‘Ed Miliband problem’, isn’t there?” – he laughed. “Well I wouldn’t phrase it that way….”

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A weekly dig into the New Statesman’s archive of over 100 years of stellar and influential journalism, sent each Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.
I consent to New Statesman Media Group collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with the Privacy Policy

In other words, he provided exactly the right image of himself. He was calm when criticised, charming in response, and thoughtful throughout.

His appearance showed the limits of what he said on Friday, in a speech that was met with relieved praise from the left and muted applause from the centre (if ridicule from the right).

His central argument – that the “presentational, superficial, [and] trivial” are wrongly “elevated above big ideas, principles, [and] decency” when we judge political leaders – is hard to contest. As one commentator put it, “I agree with Ed – indeed, who couldn’t?”

Content from our partners
Helping children be safer, smarter, happier internet explorers
Power to the people
How to power the electric vehicle revolution

Of course what matters to someone on a zero-hours contract is whether a leader has “ideas to deal with that”, as Miliband argued, pointing to his policies “on the minimum wage, on housing, on action to deal with those contracts”.

And if politics was more focused on discussing big ideas people probably would be interested in it.

But Miliband’s argument supposes we have the time or enthusiasm to engage. It acts as if we have are interested in breaking down the exact length of waiting times in the NHS, or the comparative performance of free schools, or how the bedroom tax works.

Voters undoubtedly care about these issues. And the media try and make these issues relevant. But there is little indication we actually have the time to engage with and study them directly.

As YouGov’s story tracker shows, fewer than 1 in 12 voters “noticed” the government’s recent reshuffle, let alone the latest developments on welfare, education or the economy.

The point is that voters make decisions on policy by making snap decisions about leaders. Image matters because it gives us an insight into what someone is like – from the values they are likely to hold to the decisions they are likely to make.

Miliband hasn’t dismissed the importance of presentation. But he does think it is secondary to ideas and issues. His error is acting as if they are unrelated. Given voters don’t have time to engage with specifics, we must make judgements from the way leaders come across.

The speech still may have made sense. It appears to have given him a new, if somewhat resigned, confidence. By criticising the importance of image he appears to have helped his own.