Today’s Schedule:

08:30 Connect with the public via BBC News by deploying an intense, disturbing stare down the lens, while baring teeth and awkwardly swaying head.

12:00 Justifiably criticise David Cameron for freezing public sector wages and not understanding working people.

13:00 Illustrate how in touch with the people you are by claiming your weekly shop costs £70; shortly realise you live in the same fantasy-land that most politicians do.

14:00 Tweet a tribute to a dead football manager even though he is actually only retired.

16:00 Attempt a handshake and get rejected on national television.

While Ed Miliband's schedule of public incompetence might not be quite this busy every day, these gaffes are all selections from an impressive portfolio he has built up over his career. That said, political blunders are hardly uncommon. Godfrey Bloom wanting us to cut aid to "Bongo Bongo Land", Gordon Brown "saving the world", or Cameron’s Bullingdon revelations are first-rate humiliations. 

But Miliband is different. Despite his own critics claiming that he is affable in person, he’s about as marketable as the Sainsbury’s Basics range: you aren't opting for it unless you’re forced to. It is no wonder that 40% of the country think he’s ‘weird’ or ‘very weird’ and that he is the most unpopular party leader in 45 years. He hasn't chaired a single cabinet meeting and he’s behind Blair, Clegg (remain calm) and Brown.

It is not long until you’ll be casting your vote, and the media is awash with embarrassing photos of party leaders trying to influence who you choose. And it will probably work. Miliband's approval ratings mirror how vilified he is by the national press, despite the fact that you'd be far more disturbed by the results if you pointed a camera at any student here at Cambridge 24/7. The problem that remains is that image is obviously very misleading in many cases. Obama charged into office under the guise of immense change, and seven years on drone strikes have increased; the press claim there is less access than there was under Bush and the President is seeking authority for yet another war in the Middle East. Business as usual, then. The same goes for Blair – a cleverly cultivated image, a wave of hysteria and a landslide election – and now he is significantly loathed by the British public.

That is not to say image is unimportant. Papers attacking Miliband for looking like Wallace or failing to eat a bacon sandwich lower political debate to a pathetically immature level of insignificant but unavoidable noise. What does matter is that leaders appear competent and willing to make difficult decisions, an ability that is not measured by the goofiness of someone’s teeth. The issue for Miliband is that he’s been unable to present himself well where it matters, with polling showing David Cameron far ahead as the public’s preferred leader. This is understandable; Cameron tends to perform well at the weekly shouting match, PMQs, and is seen as a reasonably firm leader, taking credit for cutting the EU budget and scoring well for his actions regarding Libya.

Miliband must therefore exploit Cameron’s interests in protecting the rich – for cutting their taxes while real wages decline and food bank use increases – and shift the debate to substance over style, which he has attempted to do. He’s mocked his own appearance while in the Commons, admitted he’s not talented at photo ops, and conceded that "you can find people…who look less like Wallace". If he frames the election in these terms, then the only setback is ensuring Labour has substantive policy that is intelligent, cohesive and effectively communicated to the public.

Sadly, Miliband is struggling here, too. Nobody is sure if Labour is going socialist or the same as before, the so-called "Mr. Weird" acting like he’s on a first date and will be any person you want him to be, so long as you call him back. Furthermore, trouble has stirred for him recently, as back in November shadow ministers were considering a coup owing to his poor leadership, and policies such as the mansion tax imply lousy long-term thinking: “Yeah, people despise the rich, so let’s impose a tax on houses with an arbitrary value that won’t even raise £2bn of the £11bn I need for the NHS; let alone the fact that houses with an annual liability will make for an attractive housing market. Oh well, as long as it looks good.” The same applies to tuition fees. Wanting to cut them to £6,000 is purely populist. The current scheme is not only better in terms of monthly payments for indebted graduates, but its predicted loss of £90bn by 2042 pales in comparison to Labour’s policy, which it is predicted would lose £220bn in that time.

So, it can only be hoped Miliband brings some substance to his policy. Even though it won’t necessarily mean he’s more electable, Labour will almost certainly win the most seats in May – still far less seats than they should, given the circumstances. And although most Cambridge students deep down would like to think they are more principled and intelligent than to care about image, when you can’t be bothered with half your reading list – don’t bother lying to yourself that you can – then you certainly aren’t going to bother scrutinising every policy. However, that’s not something to be hugely embarrassed about – the lack of reading is, though – because research has shown that deciding a candidate is competent purely based on exposure to their photograph for as little as one-tenth of a second correlates well to the actual outcomes of elections. Consequently, as much as substance should be what matters, with an election looming it seems deep down we’d rather let a single blink of our eyelids consign ‘Red Ed’ to the scrapheap just for resembling a block of animated plasticine. Then again, faced with his unsettling stare, could you keep them open for much longer?