General Election 2015: Miliband faces the terrible prospect of having peaked too early

It is always obvious after it happens. Anybody could have realised that the story of the first part of the election campaign would be that Ed Miliband is not as bad as all that. Anybody, that is, apart from all journalists, politicians and Miliband himself. The Labour leader’s mood before the campaign was fearful and defensive, aiming to get through without serious mistakes and with enough self-possession to be mistaken for competence.

His confidence was fragile after his party conference speech last autumn, in which he made the mistake of forgetting an important section. It wasn’t, as most journalists thought, the section on the deficit that mattered, but the bit about immigration. It turns out that no one cares much about the deficit, not even the Conservatives, who started the campaign with about £20bn a year of unfunded spending promises. But people do care about immigration and they know Miliband doesn’t.

Labour’s support dropped in the polls and, although the party retained its lead over the Conservatives, top Labour people thought they were heading for defeat. Late last year they sounded out Alan Johnson as a possible leader. He said no, just as he had in 2009 and 2010.

So, Miliband it was then. He took Peter Mandelson’s advice – who knows, it was probably the advice too of Extended Mind, the “leadership consultancy” he hired – and dropped the “walk and talk”, memorising speeches thing. This year he has gone for lecterns. They look prime ministerial. Last week, he even had a lectern in the middle of a field for a speech about the NHS (the link may have been with healthy exercise outdoors).

And he had a good start to the election campaign. His team had one small success in negotiating the format of the first TV programme, presented by Jeremy Paxman and Kay Burley. Miliband got to go second, and to have his interview with Paxman after his session with the studio audience. The Prime Minister made a nervous start when Paxman asked about food banks, while Miliband warmed up with a chat with the audience and then easily disrupted Paxman’s inquisitorial style.

---

Are you undecided about who to vote for on 7 May? Are you confused about what the parties stand for and what they are offering? Take this interactive quiz to help you decide who to vote for...

Click here to launch

---

The confidence boost of that early success was palpable. It also gave journalists the story they needed. The bar of expectations was so low they thought Miliband would trip over it. When he stepped over it with ease, the prism was set. Alastair Campbell, New Labour’s communications genius, explains how journalism works: once journalists have a prism, all news is seen through it. In this case, the story – what academics call the narrative – was that Miliband was better than everyone thought. Everything fitted the story. He was resilient. He seemed more energetic and confident than his opponent. His opponent, on the other hand, the baddie in the story, had resorted to negative attacks and was fighting a dull, defensive campaign.

This was an absurd reading of a campaign in which Miliband accused the Tories of planning to privatise the NHS and cut it “to the bone”, implying that people would die unless they voted Labour. But that is how prism journalism works. Journalists and editors had become bored with making fun of Miliband and saying how useless he was: the new story (news story) was that he was a potential PM who hadn’t put a foot wrong.

Every time the media herd changes course, it overshoots. From endless unfunny references to Wallace and Gromit, by last week we got to the point where hen parties shrieking for selfies with him and teenage girls’ post-ironic online adulation of him were news.

Now Miliband faces the terrible prospect of having peaked too early. Journalists are bored; for four weeks now, the story hasn’t changed. Miliband’s Libya speech on Friday was a possible turning point. The briefing before the speech included a section from it in which Miliband said that it was Cameron’s fault that migrants were drowning in the Mediterranean. By the time he delivered the speech, that sentence had been rewritten, but in answer to journalists’ questions afterwards he seemed unable to decide whether the Prime Minister was to blame or not. He said the deaths were the fault of the people traffickers, but he also said the failure of post-conflict planning in Libya was Cameron’s responsibility. Although he had supported the air strikes to topple Gaddafi, and later said it was up to the Libyan people to determine their own future.

Foreign policy is rarely an issue in British elections, and Scotland still counts as a domestic question for these purposes. But it is possible that the new media story will be: Miliband is useless after all, we always thought so. While the baddie will be redeemed as Cameron “finds his voice” at the “eleventh hour” – I think those will be the clichés. If that becomes the new prism through which journalists report and comment, it could influence voters, but the odds are still in Miliband’s favour with 10 days to go.

Twitter.com/@JohnRentoul

---

The Independent has got together with May2015.com to produce a poll of polls that produces the most up-to-date data in as close to real time as is possible.

Click the buttons below to explore how the main parties' fortunes have changed:

All data, polls and graphics are courtesy of May2015.com. Click through for daily analysis, in-depth features and all the data you need. (All historical data used is provided by UK Polling Report)