Tuesday, July 1, 2014

YouGov's mask slips as an angry Laurence Janta-Lipinski justifies his company's obsessive secrecy with the most risible excuse ever

Words (almost) fail me.  Laurence Janta-Lipinski is a London-based employee of YouGov, and I first became aware of him a couple of weeks ago when he wrote a rather arrogant piece that strongly implied that no other pollsters than YouGov mattered in the context of the referendum. Because YouGov were showing a wider No lead, that was by definition the true position, and that was what "Alex Salmond" had to recover from.  Well, my post earlier tonight must have caught Mr Janta-Lipinski's attention, because he indignantly took issue with my (frankly indisputable) point that YouGov are less transparent than other BPC pollsters...

Laurence Janta-Lipinski : in what way are we less transparent than other BPC members?

Me : You don't give voting intentions for the two SNP groups you bizarrely separate out, and no raw numbers at all in datasets.

Laurence Janta-Lipinski : of all the many criticisms of us, lack of transparency is a new one

Me : Then WHY do you never provide the breakdown for the two SNP groups? The obsessive secrecy must be for a reason?

Laurence Janta-Lipinski : i didn't know we were being obsessively secretive. What reason do you think we have?

Me : Will you answer the question? Can we look forward to seeing a full breakdown of the two SNP groups in tomorrow's datasets?

Laurence Janta-Lipinski : sorry, 1 year old has a cold and woke up - he's more important to me than the indyref

Me : Oh, come off it. You could have answered my question in the time it took to write that tweet. Utterly pathetic.

Laurence Janta-Lipinski : we'll have blog up later in the week, happy to answer any and all Qs after u've read it, assuming they're reasonable

Me : Will you answer the question I've just asked, or will you continue to be extraordinarily evasive?

Laurence Janta-Kipinski : p.s., you've not *really* answered the Q on why you think we're so secretive

Me : Yes, I have. A fuller answer is here. Can we have a response now?

Laurence Janta-Lipinski : you've clearly never spent time with a screaming 1 year old!

Me : It was a simple question! Will that info yet again be kept secret in the datasets, and if so, WHY?

Laurence Janta-Lipinski : I have, we are publishing a blog, i will answer all Qs after, on here, email, phone, hell, even face to face

Laurence Janta-Lipinski : no, you will not get breakdown. Why? Why should you? We don't put up 1000s of potential xtabs at behest of bloggers

Me : That is the most absurd and offensive answer. How have you got the brass neck to complain about me pointing out your secrecy?

Me : You ARE obsessively secretive, and you've just boasted about the fact.

Laurence Janta-Lipinski : we're blogging on our methodology this week, any Qs after that, happy to answer them

Me : Will you promise to answer the questions you've evaded tonight?

I don't think anything could sum up YouGov's institutional attitude problem better than the above exchange.  We get the snide implications that anyone who criticises the company is rather tiresome and paranoid, but when Mr Janta-Lipinski's questions are answered in straightforward fashion and a concrete example of YouGov's obsessive secrecy is specified for him, what do we see?  Bluster, evasion, passive-aggression, and then ultimately angry defiance justified by the most risible excuse imaginable.  Make no mistake about this - the stuff about "1000s of potential Xtabs" is not merely an insult to my intelligence, it's an insult to the intelligence of every single person in Scotland who takes an interest in referendum polls.  The voting intention breakdown of the two SNP groups is not some kind of trivial detail out of thousands of others - it is ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL to how YouGov produce the headline numbers they do.  They are the ONLY COMPANY who eccentrically split SNP voters from 2011 into two groups and then weight them separately.  Every other firm provides a comprehensive breakdown of their sample by past vote recall (with the exception of Ipsos-Mori who don't weight by past vote) - and so do YouGov, apart from that ONE area of relentless secrecy.  Why?  If I had any lingering doubts about whether YouGov have got something to hide, they've been removed by Mr Janta-Lipinski's evasion and excuses tonight.

We'll see whether YouGov's upcoming wonder-blog on this subject actually addresses the issue of why they use such an eccentric methodology, but the bluster tonight about it just being one minor detail out of "thousands" doesn't fill me with confidence that the mist will be clearing very much.  And I think we can already safely assume that we won't be getting any satisfactory explanation for why the voting intentions of the two SNP groups are being kept secret.  But rest assured that I'll be on hand to ask the awkward questions again and again (unless they block me!), and I suggest that you are too.

And if I sound angry, it's because I am.  YouGov are playing games with the future of this country, and the least they can do is explain themselves adequately.  I've thought for some time that they're a rather reprehensible company, but I only realised tonight just how boorish their public face can be.  It also appears that they don't get out much, if they honestly don't think anyone has ever accused them of a lack of transparency before!

UPDATE : Mr Janta-Lipinski later responded further, but only with intimations of yet more evasiveness to come...

Laurence Janta-Lipinski : given your reaction to earlier tweets, I'm minded not to promise anything. It's pretty clear your mind is made up.

Laurence Janta-Lipinski : that being said, happy to answer any questions you have later in the week

Me : The man who sneered at complaints about YouGov secrecy, now warns that he may evade reasonable questions. It's laughable.

Me : How can you change minds when you openly boast about your determination to withhold information?

Me : Your claim that splitting SNP voters in two is one trivial detail among "1000s" is an insult to people's intelligence.

Me : You know that as well as I do, and I hope you have the decency to be privately embarrassed by it.

113 comments:

  1. My admiration of your efforts simply increases. You have worked diligently and professionally and deserve plaudits for doing so.

    Congratulations on these additions to your honour roll.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're an absolute hero for this, well done!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Methodoligies and weightings may flummox me, but I know a chancer when I hear one. Keep up the pressure on You Gov in our interests. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Extremely pertinent and sensible questions simply brushed away by those who clearly think it's outrageous that they could ever possibly be asked about their methodology. I've got news for YouGov, they are just another polling company, no more, no less. They get paid by the Murdoch papers and others to please their clients and the fact of the matter is pollsters get it wrong with amusing regularity.

    Some of us do actually remember the 2011 scottish elections and just how wrong almost all the pollsters were as indeed was poor old John Curtice. They were very wrong indeed three months out and were still wrong right up until the final days and weeks of the campaign.


    Then you have those political sites utterly compromised because they are spoonfed embargoed polls to shriek about by the pollsters they have to suck up to. Yes, you guessed it, PoliticalBetting is of course one of those type of sites. Where merely questioning a pollsters methodology gets your posts deleted and posters banned. Yet they somehow have to keep up the farcical pretence that all pollsters are valid even when there is quite obviously massive disparity between them.

    All the more hilarious considering I seem to recall one politicalbetting site made a complete laughing stock of itself with a lunatic "golden rule" before the 2010 election which actually proclaimed that the only polls that mattered were those which gave the tories the highest rating. This ended up with the idiocy of Angus Reid being proclaimed the pollster to best judge the 2010 result.

    Oops!

    LOL

    I know a few people in Edinburgh who might just like to hear even more details about that superb bit of inept comedy.

    ;)

    The out of touch PB tory twits still haven't realised that there's going to be something called a campaign on the ground. Nor do they seem to have a clue about the results of the mass canvass or the increasing number town hall meetings up and down scotland.

    But then when have the tory twits ever got scottish politics right? The scottish tory surge the PB twits predicted for 2010 turned out to be complete and utter bullshit for a start. There are of course still more pandas than scottish tory MPs, so that was quite some "surge".

    ReplyDelete
  5. These pollsters will never show their true figures, so don't expect to see a Yes lead any time soon.They are all crapping themselves. This charade just makes the YES campaign work even harder and we will get our voters out on the day.
    I predict 63% YES

    ReplyDelete
  6. Look people, if this makes you feel worried or frustrated or whatever, then take hold of that energy and get up and DO MORE.
    Please.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon said,
    'Look people, if this makes you feel worried or frustrated or whatever,' then that's the whole purpose of publishing the poll.

    Polling should be illegal during the official campaigning period for elections and or any referendums. Polls during this period are now simply being used as pushpoll campaign tools for those that can afford them.

    What's the benefit of them? We will only find out the truth after the vote is counted. (Although I do love talking about them and reading this blogg, so maybe there is some useful function to them after all 8-)

    braco

    ReplyDelete
  8. My neighbour voted Lib in 2010 and SNP in 2011.

    Where's his wee special grouping?

    ReplyDelete
  9. 2010 lib vote = 19%
    2011 lib vote = 7% (on average)

    That's about the same potential swing as Lab to SNP.

    Where is the Yougov Lib 2010 + SNP 2011 group. I demand answers!

    ;-)

    Basically what Yougov have done is give people a VI that Yougov believe they should have. The 2010 Lab + 2011 SNP group is essentially saying 'We've decided you support Labour still even though you didn't vote for them in 2011'.

    It's weird. We have both ICM and Yougov essentially trying to get the answer they think should be the case rather than trying to work out what the reality is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't understand the way these things are done. Can someone explain why there are weightings at all? And how it is decided how the groups should be formed and how they should be weighted?

    It seems to me that they must be based on assumptions of some kind. For example I can imagine that pollsters might take the view that men and women on average take different stances on whatever the issue is: so if they conduct a poll they will want a gender balance that reflects the composition of the electorate on that dimension. So why not just make sure the sample does that? Why accept a poll which turns out to have 60% women and 40% men in it and then apply a "weighting"? Surely that weighting rests on the assumption that those who are not sampled will be the same on average as those who are? Why should that be? There is something wrong with the sampling in the first place if you have to weight: who is to say what is wrong is only in the numbers and not in the responses that those polled give as well?

    Not sure if that question is clear but I would like an explanation if anyone can follow what I am asking

    ReplyDelete
  11. The YouGov poll was superficially disappointing for Yes, but as you rightly said the change was within the margin for error so it doesn't actually mean anything in terms of a trend. The only people who deserve criticism for that are newspapers who run it as Yes losing ground, when it's likely just random measurement fluctuation.

    Fundamentally, though, I have a really hard time believing YouGov are intentionally skewing the polls on this subject and I don't see anything in this conversation to suggest that - I see one employee at YouGov getting annoyed at a thinly veiled accusation of bias on Twitter. I'd probably get annoyed if someone accused me of that too. I'd be doubly annoyed if they then blogged about it in this way.

    Polling companies live and die by how accurate they are. The idea that they're trying to subtly influence the referendum campaign by marginally decreasing the share of the Yes vote months outside of the actual referendum is just a bit left-field, even for me. They wouldn't need to be biased to do that, they'd have to be completely idiotic as it's against their own interests in the long run.

    I think what we're seeing instead is honest methodological differences between polling companies producing different results. We can argue that what they do leads to misleading figures, but nobody has any information on the motivation behind their methodology so I don't see any reason to believe they're intentionally lowering the Yes vote on purpose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given the suject matter of the polls Id say the founding members and current CEO might just be motivated enough to show favourable results for the No campaign.

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouGov

      Delete
  12. You're a twat. The exchange highlights it beautifully.

    ReplyDelete
  13. While US Pollsters live and die by how accurate they are - when any new poll is published there are lots of different academic expert analyses of how accurate the pollster was last time round. I don't see that here.

    UK pollsters live and die by getting the answer the buyer wants no matter how jiggering they have to do to hide the real truth - since we seem to have a dearth of experts, and the BBC's tame one is firmly in the NO camp, as far as I am concerned, we don't have any real assessment in the public arena other than right here..

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gary : I didn't make an accusation of bias on Twitter, thinly-biased or otherwise. In case I didn't get this point across in the post, it was Mr Janta-Lipinski who started this exchange, because he'd read my blogpost of last night and was annoyed at my suggestion that YouGov are less transparent than other BPC pollsters. (Which is a plain fact - they only provide percentages in their datasets, whereas other pollsters provide raw numbers.) After I answered that question, he then started goading me to suggest a reason for their lack of transparency -he obviously wanted me to accuse them of bias. Instead of doing that on Twitter, I linked him to a blogpost, which does indeed make a suggestion of bias, but in a more considered way than is possible in 140 characters. He didn't like that either. I'm sorry, but it's the old maxim - if he didn't want the answer, he shouldn't have asked the question.

    As for whether this post would antagonise him further, frankly I don't give a monkey's. He was bang out of order last night and it was entirely appropriate to point that out.

    I'll hopefully get a chance to deal with your other points in detail later - I'm on my mobile at the moment and it's too difficult.

    Anon : I won't delete your abusive comment - as ever, it says a great deal about you and absolutely nothing about me. Good afternoon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If the TheUnionDivvie is about could he finally correct MalcolmG and tell the truth about why I'm not posting on politicalbetting? It's because I was banned for no reason by the cowardly tory moderator TSE. Just like James was also banned by the bigots and racists on the stormfront lite site politicalbetting. It was most certainly NOT because I got "fed up". Get it right Malcolm and stop helping the PB tory twits spread falsehoods on that place.


    Polling companies get paid to please their clients. They only get taken to task about accuracy periodically at elections so they only have to be reasonably close then and not between them and you had better believe they get out the MOE excuse when they get it wrong. Pollsters being wrong and less accurate than other pollsters is utterly commonplace so it is certainly no barrier to keeping their business going since it's blatantly obvious the pollsters can't all be right when the disparity is so obvious and so massive.

    You don't need to believe there is bias at YouGov (even though there is plenty of evidence of Kellner being overtly political on the matter of scottish independence) and you don't need to believe there is collusion between YouGov and it's own clients or anyone else. You simply have to accept the fact that there are serious questions about their controversial methodology that the likes of John Curtice (who's job was supposedly to ask these type of questions remember) are repeatedly ignoring. From this exchange with James it's blatantly obvious YouGov don't want those questions raised either and want to quash them.

    I'm not surprised in the slightest James is concerned with the frankly jawdropping attitude displayed by one of YouGov's representatives when perfectly reasonable questions about methodology are asked and then so pointedly ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Haha.. I think there's only one person in this exchange that comes across as angry...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sunshine on CrieffJuly 1, 2014 at 10:34 PM

    Anonymous - "Haha.. I think there's only one person in this exchange that comes across as angry..."

    You?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Haha.. I think there's only one person in this exchange that comes across as angry..."

    I agree. And thanks for not calling me a "t*at", by the way - the quality of unionist trolling on this thread has marginally improved as the day has worn on.

    ReplyDelete
  19. what is your take on this James?
    http://y-g.co/VDiLMg

    ReplyDelete
  20. James,

    Everything, execept polls seems to suggest we are winning.

    Or maybe we are just noisy and more noticeable.

    The fascinating thing about this referendum, for me at least, is the return to town hall meetings, and the desire of 'Yes' to debate, and the lack of a similar committment from the campaign that cannot even determine it's own name.

    I expect that Stockholm Syndrome will make this a closer result than I am comfortable with. For the absence of doubt,I will be voting 'Yes'.

    However, I have now made a resolution. Before, I was depressed if an opinion poll suggested that the forces of darkness had increased their lead or ridiculously euphoric if we closed the gap.

    I am going to try to pretend that everyone in Scotland reads your analysis and is not fooled.

    If I can reasonably take it that the polls are not adjusted to accomodate the last occasion we were asked whether we wanted additional powers, then what, exactly are they measuring? Is this not the problem? Political voting identity is not the same an Independence voting identity?

    Whilst I am currently a member of the SNP that is for pragmatic reasons. I want independence so's a thousand flowers may grow.

    I doubt our post-independence political groupings will be anything like what we are familiar with.

    On the point immediately at hand, I thought Polling Companieswere supposed to be completely transparent.

    What weasel words are they using?

    There was some sort of a poll done for Westminster that, afaik, has never seen the light of day?

    How does that work on a transparency spectrum.

    Rerally enjoy your blog.

    Best wishes.






    ReplyDelete
  21. Rod : I must admit it made me smile, because Kellner specifically cites the bizarre practice of splitting SNP voters into two distinct groups as a reason for thinking YouGov are right and others are wrong. I'm not quite sure where that leaves Mr Janta-Lipinski's claim that it's OK to be ultra-secretive about that part of the methodology because it's just one trivial detail out of "thousands"!

    I'll write a post about Kellner's piece when I can. In the meantime, I've posted a comment under the article asking the same questions I asked last night (plus one more). According to the Janta-Lipinski Doctrine, now that the blog has been published it is at last permissible to ask "reasonable" questions about YouGov methodology, and any such questions should be answered in full, so we'll see what (if any) response I get. It'll be interesting to see if the man is true to his word, but frankly I'm not holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree with LJP, why should YouGov give you a personal breakdown of their database? If you don't like their methods discount them, don't get het up about them, try to provke an employee and then write an indignant blog about it. It smacks of childish attention seeking. The man said numerous times that he'd answer any questions once their official blog post was out. It's probably not within his remit, especially on his personal twitter feed, to discuss the ins and outs of the Yougov database with an overexcited nobody. Let him look after his kid!

    Dean

    ReplyDelete
  23. Won't somebody think of the children Dean? Here's an idea, if the YouGov representative was so utterly clueless and unable to answer questions (as you imply) then why on earth did HE start the entire exchange when he was completely unable to offer any answers? Or did you simply fail to grasp that somewhat pertinent fact which James repeated several times?




    O/T- Since I know for a fact the PB tory twits potty Carlotta and tiny JohnO are reading this.. :)

    Pointing out the truth (that your cowardly tory moderator chum TSE banned me for no reason) is hardly pining to be let back in to the right-wing joke politicalbetting has become.

    Perhaps you should choose your friends more wisely since there is absolute proof that the coward TheScreamingEagles lied about his own baby dying to try and welch out of a bet.

    The Proof is here in case you somehow missed it the first time

    > http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/political-betting-moderator-screaming.html

    Then again since your obsequious fawning adoration of Cammie is so pathetic maybe you can both have a good old laugh over Cammie's appaling choice of friends which is even more gruesome than your own. Like Cammie's friend and spindoctor Coulson facing a possible two years is prison. No? Still confidant that was a non-story? Oh dear. You PB tories are always wrong, aren't you? Or how a his other close friend and senior adviser Patrick Rock who was charged with making and possessing 59 indecent images of children? Not so funny now, is it?

    How do you like those ugly facts?

    It's not going to end happily, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dean : That would have been a truly fabulous point (well, maybe) if it hadn't been for one small inconvenient detail - it was in fact Janta-Lipinski who started the exchange, because he was annoyed about something I had written on this blog. Even before the exchange started, he was writing tweets aimed at no-one in particular going on about how beastly people were being to YouGov, which everyone should simply accept is the UK's most accurate pollster. He was looking for an 'offender' to preach at (not engage with, let alone - heaven forbid! - explain himself to) and I just happened to be selected. Presumably he already knew his child had a cold when he made the decision to go down that road.

    I'll leave others to decide what conclusions to draw on the "childish attention-seeking" front.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh, and I should just add again that the "personal breakdown of their database" jibe looks even more risible and defenceless in the light of Kellner's piece, which makes clear that the issue I've raised is emphatically not one trivial detail out of "thousands".

    ReplyDelete
  26. This will be my last comment on the matter as even I have better things to do than engage in a Internet based argument with egotistical Scottish Nationalists. So if I don't respond to future barbs please don't count it as a victory, I simply haven't read them.

    I never implied he was 'utterly clueless and unable to answer questions' I said it was probably beyond his remit to do so on his personal twitter feed.

    Remit - the task or area of activity officially assigned to an individual or organisation.

    As he said questions will be answered following the publication of an official blog post detailing Yougov's methodology.

    When he first tweeted JK he was probably expecting a reasonable and intellectual conversation rather than ludicrous and vitriolic accusations of bias and 'obsessive secrecy'.

    Anyways I need to get some stuff done before watching GB's Andy Murray defend his Wimbledon title.

    Dean

    ReplyDelete
  27. "So if I don't respond to future barbs please don't count it as a victory, I simply haven't read them."

    I don't think any of us are looking for a victory. We're just explaining to you for your own benefit that you're factually wrong. Apparently you won't be reading this, though, and I must say it always breaks my heart when I see someone preferring to live in ignorance.

    "I never implied he was 'utterly clueless and unable to answer questions' I said it was probably beyond his remit to do so on his personal twitter feed."

    If you're suggesting that he'd been specifically instructed not to explain anything to the peasants on Twitter, then how can it have been anything other than vexatious of him to start an exchange on the subject?

    "When he first tweeted JK he was probably expecting a reasonable and intellectual conversation rather than ludicrous and vitriolic accusations of bias and 'obsessive secrecy'."

    That's highly unlikely given that his very first tweet was specifically complaining about me pointing out that YouGov were more secretive than other BPC pollsters. He was out for a fight, looking to defend his beloved company's honour - but unfortunately he didn't have a Plan B when the "unanswerable" questions he asked me turned out to be answerable. Then he suddenly remembered that he had a child with a head-cold.

    Yeah, let's all get behind the EU's Andy Murray this afternoon. Will Jean Claude-Juncker be celebrating yet another sporting triumph for the world's biggest economy?

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I have better things to do than engage in a Internet based argument"

    Yet somewhat tellingly you have already done exactly that so I'm afraid you're quite clearly full of shit Dean old chap.

    Not that it wasn't obvious anyway with your petulant whining excuses. The fact of the matter is Janta started the exchange but did not answer perfectly reasonable questions. Nor does it matter that you so ineptly attempt to misconstrue those questions old bean.

    Misconstrue - interpret (a person's words or actions) wrongly.

    Questions that still have not been answered. So much for that excuse.

    Toodlepip 'Dean'.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If this is "one of Scotland's top ten political websites" I pray to god we don't vote Yes or we'll all be fucked!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hmmm. Evidently you're not a fan, but I'm still struggling to understand your logic - are you labouring under the misapprehension that an independent Scotland will be run by political websites?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Don't act dense laddie. You know what I mean. If this is one of our best political websites it reflects badly on the strength of Scottish politics as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I do hope you're actually older than me, otherwise the "laddie" condescension will be a bit embarrassing for both of us. You'll doubtless be horrified to learn that in the last running of the Total Politics Blog Awards, Scot Goes Pop was voted one of the top 100 political blogs in the whole UK. No wonder Britain is going to hell in a handbasket.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "laddie"

    LOL

    Some truly priceless stuff from the twits today James. They seem even more agitated and upset than usual.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Top 10 my arse, you're number 11 you lying toe rag. God knows what else on here is bullshit. Quick quick Mike Pork come and defend your boyfriends honour.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'll break this to you gently, old chap - you're looking at the wrong poll. That's why the tagline now says "one of Scotland's top 10 political websites", rather than "one of the UK's top 100 political blogs", which is what it used to say when it was referring to the 2011 Total Politics blog poll (in which Scot Goes Pop did indeed finish 11th in Scotland). Were you under the impression that was the only such poll ever to be conducted? Chortle.

    Incidentally, are you another one of those "courageously anonymous" PB Tories? If so, instead of making up fairy-stories about me being a liar, you might want to reflect on the fact that it's a matter of public record that PB's leading moderator ("TSE") has in the past told very serious lies in order to delay the settling of bets.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Oh oh that's a poll you do agree with then?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Scottish Indpendence Referendum Guide isn't completely convinced going with "allegedly one of Scotlands top ten political websites"

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Oh oh that's a poll you do agree with then?"

    It's merely one of the many, many polls that I've accurately reported on this site.

    "Scottish Indpendence Referendum Guide isn't completely convinced going with "allegedly one of Scotlands top ten political websites"

    You'll have to forgive me - I've never even heard of the "Scottish Indpendence Referendum Guide".

    By the way, I take it from your non-answer that you are indeed a courageously anonymous PB Tory?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Google it then

    ReplyDelete
  40. How can I Google whether an anonymous commenter is a PB Tory? In any case, what I'm most interested in is which one you are. No sense of humour, so you're obviously not Avery/Seth.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Got a link for this poll?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Is that the third or the fourth time you've evaded my question? If you're so fascinated by the poll of Scottish political websites, feel free to follow your own advice and Google it. It was a two-category poll - Scot Goes Pop was eighth or ninth in one category and tenth in the other. So inside the top ten on both counts.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I have done, 11th is the best I can get for you.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm not Seth Avery that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ah, so you know who Seth/Avery is, then? Thankyou for finally confirming that you are a courageously anonymous PB Tory.

    I've already pointed out that you're looking at the wrong poll. Anyone would think you're not really paying attention...

    ReplyDelete
  46. http://www.scottishindependencereferendum.info/yesblogs.html 'allegedly'

    ReplyDelete
  47. Link? Link? Well done - you finally provided the link! And what a corker it was.

    If you're not capable of using a search engine, feel free to avail yourself of the search/archive functions on this blog. I provided the link to the poll at the time - I've no reason to keep doing it on the demand of some random passing troll from Stormfront Lite.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Won't provide information when questioned? Insults the questioner? The Angry Face of James Kelly.

    ReplyDelete
  49. You have a section on your site called 'TOPLISTS THIS BLOG APPEARS ON...' Not in the top ten of any of them. Making it up?

    ReplyDelete
  50. The "angry" and "insults" bits would have worked marginally better if you hadn't started this exchange by wrongly accusing me of lying. Hey-ho.

    I didn't direct you to the 'toplists' section - I directed you to the search/archive function. Do pay attention, there's a good troll.

    ReplyDelete
  51. If it is not made up why are you being so obsessively secret about this?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Keep him talking James since it's becoming more and more apparent who it is.

    You made a bit of a mistake with your "boyfriend" comment, didn't you twit?

    I know of one deranged PB twit in particular who used infantile jibe that more than once before and the CAPITALISED petulant anger narrows it down even further.

    LOL

    Let me see if I can find it on PB and show everyone who the twit is.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  53. 2.5 hrs later still no answer, still no link. Google search brings nothing but the 11th place 3 years ago. Through the format I'm viewing your blog there is no search option. Archive wise you have 1647 articles for me to search through. Why the Obsessive Secrecy?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hey here's Porky! The capitalisation was simply the result of a copy and paste, excellent detective work though.

    ReplyDelete
  55. 'I know of one deranged PB twit in particular who used infantile jibe that more than once'

    Even better Scottish.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Through the format I'm viewing your blog there is no search option."

    Hmmm. It's starting to look like you might need to invest in a better viewing format. I mean, look at it this way - even if YouGov did get their act together and publish the secret information, I still wouldn't expect them to personally send me a copy of Adobe Acrobat so that I could view the PDF file.

    But whatever you do, don't you dare give up - you'll get there eventually. Good luck!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=273eSvOwpKk

    ReplyDelete
  57. Another smart Alec answer but still no link? You couldn't be making it up could you?

    Also I hope your mate Pork hasn't upset you by talking of 'CAPITALISED petulant anger' below an article where you've evidenced yourself using that very technique?

    http://vimeo.com/79758676

    ReplyDelete
  58. Extremely pertinent and sensible questions simply brushed away by someone who clearly think it's outrageous that they could ever possibly be asked about their authenticity.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Oh, I think I grasped the full sophistication of Mick's point, even if it was beyond you. Now please stop begging to be spoon-fed.

    Be a man, this is Tory Britain! Get on yer bike, and find that poll!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Keep talking twit. Even if you are clearly too stupid to use a search function I can use one and I'm running through PB comments right now.

    You might want to think about not posting on PB while you're posting on here as that just makes it easier to find a spineless coward like yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Why tell me to "be a man", what exactly is "manly" about that? Seems James Mac was right about you all along. Misogynist.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Crikey. I've heard of unholy alliances before, but PB Tories and James Mackenzie? I do hope you realise what you're signing up to!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Just don't like liars.

    ReplyDelete
  64. So I presume you've had quite a few stern words with TSE?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Just give us the link or admit your a liar eh?

    ReplyDelete
  66. "Either give us the link, or you're with the terrorists!"

    ReplyDelete
  67. That ones gone over my head. Top 11 nothing to be ashamed of.

    ReplyDelete
  68. You're right, it wasn't, but moving up to the top 10 last year was such a lovely bonus.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Since the cowardly PB twit gets so upset at TheScreamingEagles being proven a liar it would be remiss of me not to remind him why his chum is is so repulsive.

    After all, his entire purpose in trolling on here was to deflect from that fact so the more he posts the worse it will get.

    "And finally to the information about TSE I've helped to suppress for a very long time. Before he was inexplicably appointed as a moderator (although perhaps it's not so inexplicable, given that sycophancy is the only qualification for the job), he left Smithson in the lurch by offering to host a PB get-together in the north of England, and then going AWOL at a very late stage. At roughly the same time, he failed to settle bets with the site's aforementioned leading left-wing poster for over six months, using a series of increasingly bizarre excuses to buy himself time. This is a serious matter in PB-world, because welching on a recorded bet is considered a banning offence (it's almost as heinous a crime as...er, whatever it was that was the excuse for my own lifetime banning). The saga culminated in TSE fabricating two terrible and contradictory stories about his family to excuse what had happened - firstly that his wife had lost a baby (one of twins), and secondly that he'd been forced to consent to the termination of a pregnancy to save her life, and that she hadn't forgiven him. The deceit went so far that "PB Queen" Plato actually collected condolence messages. When the truth came out, TSE's Tory friends briefly turned against him - but he somehow turned the situation to his advantage by hinting that he'd been maliciously lied about by the left-wing poster, and that he had never in fact used the stories about his family as a delaying tactic. Unfortunately, I've seen the full set of emails that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he did."



    Be in no doubt twit, I know a great deal more about the moderators on PB than you will want revealed. Including the names and emails of three moderators since Smithson accidently sent forwarded me an email intended for them long ago when he was still trying to think of excuses for TSE banning me and was still replying to my emails.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I don't know where to stand on all this T.S. Elliott bullshit Porky, but I had it on good authority you were kicked out for reneging on a bet.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "I had it on good authority you were kicked out for reneging on a bet."

    God, is that what they told you?! Talk about meta-irony in a discussion about lying!

    ReplyDelete
  72. ROFL

    What the fuck are you on son?

    For Betting???


    Even for a PB twit that's superb comedy!

    Christ what a prize fuckwit you are. Run along back to PB you sad clueless twit before you embarrass yourself and the PB moderators even more.

    ReplyDelete
  73. You must've known James? You and Porky seem tight. Anyway, back to the top ten thing. Either I'm awful at searching or it doesn't exist, I don't know why you wouldn't just clarify the matter with a sweet link? Unless.....

    ReplyDelete
  74. Unless I'm just finding this considerably more entertaining than putting you out of your misery?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anyway back to the PB moderators our deranged PB twit seems intent on embarrassing.

    On the emails which prove TSE is a liar who lied about his child dying to welch on a bet.

    This is the most damning one -

    TSE (in response to the question 'Family OK?') : Not really.

    My wife collapsed last weekend, and I had to give the Doctors permission to terminate the pregnancy to save my wife's life.

    A decision my wife hasn't forgiven me for.


    As someone privately pointed out at the time, the story was never remotely credible because no husband would be asked to give consent in those circumstances.

    And this is the man who 'prominent pollsters' are happy to have as a chuckle chum? You're welcome to him, guys.


    I don't know why you wouldn't just clarify who you are with a sweet PB username? Unless you're a spineless coward of course.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "Smithson accidentally sent forwarded me an email"

    Porky, Porky, Porky, you need to calm down before you try and type. You're embarrassing yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Said Mr Dignity?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Coward, coward, coward, you need to reveal who you are or we'll just keep laughing at your spineless chicken impersonation.

    What's wrong? Scared it might reveal you're just another far-right racist politicalbetting specialises in these days?

    Email for you James BTW. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  79. Who told you my name? Hahahahahahahahahahahahah night.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Awww... the coward is running away.

    What a surprise. Better luck next time twit.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  81. Nah I'm just trolling you. Didnt even know what PB was at the start of this conversation. You guys need to work on your paranoia. Specially you Porky, you're gonna give yourself a heart attack with all that vitriol! There never was a top ten poll tho was there James?

    Bye bye

    ReplyDelete
  82. "Didnt even know what PB was at the start of this conversation."

    *chortle*

    Furious and desperate backpedaling from the coward. Sorry chum, even for a PB twit you're sounding more and more unhinged as you go on. So you just admitted you're either you're a lunatic or a liar. Actually both is more than likely.

    I'm sure the PB moderators are eternally grateful to have a deranged twit like you on their side.

    Buh-bye!

    ReplyDelete
  83. TSE also lied about going on Deal or No Deal.

    ReplyDelete
  84. "There never was a top ten poll tho was there James?"

    Oh, I'll put you out of your misery, I don't want to get into the territory of cruel and unusual punishment. Here's your link -

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/now-that-daffodils-are-back-its-time-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  85. Just to rub it in even further for our lying PB twit chum, the questions James asked of YouGov and Kellner's methodology on Kellner's own blog is the most upvoted and popular post on that blog.

    Questions that have still to be answered.

    Looks very like James has his finger on the pulse, which is far more than can ever be said for out of touch tory twits.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Well, thanks for engaging with my fellow anonymous poster as this exchange has been very illuminating.

    It’s clear that you are nothing but a liar and a hypocrite.

    Given that you mention the 11th place on total politics and then say “I went one better”, you were clearly suggesting that the top 10 finishes were also from total politics, a reputable, neutral site.

    No wonder you didn’t want to provide the link.

    The truth is that you actually finishes 8th in a list on Wings over Scotland’s site, in a vote that didn’t even include Wings over Scotland.

    The claim that you’re voted “one of Scotland’s ten favourite blogs” is actually based on just 18 fellow cyber-nats choosing you in a self-selecting poll on a pro-indy website.

    That you’re one of Scotland’s top 10 bloggers is, clearly, a lie and your behaviour when asked simple and reasonable questions show what a slippery character you are. You want to hold others up to standards you refuse to keep yourself? No wonder nobody has responded to you delusional rants.

    You are not “one of Scotland’s top 10 bloggers”, you are actually “18 cyber-nats top 10 bloggers”.

    This comments section has confirmed what I have long suspected, you need to seek professional help and all this independence talk has turned you into a paranoid, delusional nobody. I worry what you will have left after Scotland votes to remain part of the Union? A life’s work and nothing to show for it.

    I would feel sorry for you but you’re clearly a deeply unpleasant human being.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Ha ha ha ha I was out but I've gotta come back in for one more.

    I suppose technically you were voted one of Scotland's top ten political blogs but sounds a lot less impressive when you know:

    The vote was held by Wings Over Scotland

    You asked your followers to vote for you.

    You still only got 18 votes.

    18 votes despite your blog being name checked in the introductory text.


    Ha ha ha no wonder you were being obsessively secret about it!

    ReplyDelete
  88. Bit quiet today aren't we Porky and the Brain?

    Funny how you two are only ever online at the same time...

    Anyhow, why the obsessive secrecy? Why not respond to these comments?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Well, I did anticipate a highly entertaining squeal of pain when you "both" discovered to your horror that I'd been telling the truth all along, but I must admit I couldn't have imagined it would be quite so exquisite. But, yes, I suppose in PB Tory world it must seem perfectly logical to say "you were telling the truth, therefore you require psychiatric help"!

    "It’s clear that you are nothing but a liar and a hypocrite."

    "Liar" seems to be a euphemism for "disappointingly honest", but where's the "hypocrisy"? Do even you know what you're talking about?

    "Given that you mention the 11th place on total politics and then say “I went one better”, you were clearly suggesting that the top 10 finishes were also from total politics, a reputable, neutral site."

    Er, no. If I'd wanted to say that, I imagine I would have said something like "I went one better in another Total Politics poll". And if I'd wanted to hint at it, I certainly wouldn't have gone out of my way to point out on this thread that the 2011 Total Politics poll was in fact the last one ever.

    "The truth is that you actually finishes 8th in a list on Wings over Scotland’s site, in a vote that didn’t even include Wings over Scotland."

    Thankyou for acknowledging the truth - it's remarkably consistent with what I've been saying all along, but apparently that makes me a liar. Hey-ho. As a matter of interest, do you think it would have been sensible for RevStu to include his own site on the poll? I certainly didn't include this blog when I ran a similar poll a year earlier.

    "The claim that you’re voted “one of Scotland’s ten favourite blogs”..."

    Which actually isn't the claim - it's "one of Scotland's top ten political websites". Not a hugely important distinction, but it does illustrate the way you're making this up as you go on.

    "on just 18 fellow cyber-nats choosing you in a self-selecting poll on a pro-indy website."

    Do you seriously imagine anyone would think I was talking about a NON-self-selecting poll? How the hell would that work - would someone commission Ipsos-Mori to do it?! (And more to the point - would they call mobiles as well as landlines?) And I don't want to blow my own trumpet here, but evidently you've overlooked the first category of the poll in which Scot Goes Pop got 155 votes.

    In truth, Wings over Scotland almost certainly has more readers than Total Politics. A poll run by any site has the problem that the results will reflect the readership of that site - the Total Politics/Iain Dale poll had exactly the same issue, especially in the early days, for the simple reason that Iain Dale is a Tory blogger.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "That you’re one of Scotland’s top 10 bloggers is, clearly, a lie and your behaviour when asked simple and reasonable questions show what a slippery character you are. You want to hold others up to standards you refuse to keep yourself?"

    Again, you might want to reflect on whether it would be a good idea to do a little double-checking before going down the "liar" road. As noted above, "top 10 bloggers/blogs" is not the claim, because it was actually a poll of political websites.

    "I worry what you will have left after Scotland votes to remain part of the Union? A life’s work and nothing to show for it."

    If I thought this was my "life's work", I'd stick my head in the oven right now, never mind after a No vote. But you've helpfully illustrated the difference between you guys and us - we're respectful of this democratic process, and haven't convinced ourselves that we already know the result before the referendum has taken place. I've certainly thought at length about how I'll feel if my side loses - have you? I suspect not, in which case I'd be far more fearful about the prospects for your mental health after September. The end of the most glorious political union the world has ever seen - and no mental preparation at all?

    ReplyDelete
  91. James, I'm the original troll, mine was the 09:31 response. I feel a bit hurt you've only picked apart this new guys points when it was me who put in all the groundwork!

    ReplyDelete
  92. This would be less confusing if there was a way to tell each commenter apart.

    Commenter? Commentator?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Yes, and I'm sure we all freely acknowledge that the proximity between the 9:27 and 9:31 trolls was in all likelihood just an astonishing coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
  94. 'Twas actually, their post wasn't there when I began writing mine, but was there after I posted it. Gimme a personal response eh? You gotta admit its a pretty poor and misleading claim to fame? That's why you were so shy to authenticate it, and why you don't link to it on the blog like you do the 2011 ones?

    ReplyDelete
  95. 'Twas actually, their post wasn't there when I began writing mine, but was there after I posted it. Gimme a personal response eh? You gotta admit its a pretty poor and misleading claim to fame? That's why you were so shy to authenticate it, and why you don't link to it on the blog like you do the 2011 ones?

    Here you go. I'll initial from now on. Tho all I was after was the link, as I knew it'd had to be from a poor source, so I'm pretty much done here.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "M. P."?

    Mick! It was you all along!

    "Tho all I was after was the link, as I knew it'd had to be from a poor source"

    So you knew the link probably existed, and were consciously lying when you called me a liar? I'm so disappointed in you, MP.

    If you're remotely interested in the answer to your question, I don't link to last year's poll for the very simple reason that there's no badge for it.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Ha I wish I was Porky!

    Oh you are pedantic and slippery. Okay I should have said; all I was after was you to post the link cus I knew it was either from a poor source or you were making it up.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "Okay I should have said; all I was after was you to post the link cus I knew it was either from a poor source or you were making it up."

    Funnily enough, I only recall you calling me a liar, not a "liar and/or poor sourcer".

    ReplyDelete
  99. In the interests of transparency you should make a hyperlink where it says 'voted one of Scotland's...'.

    Cus it's ever so slightly misleading as it is, you have to through a 12hr back and forth to find the source and therefore how reputable it is.

    Good job you've got me to hold you accountable eh?

    ReplyDelete
  100. This is a slightly confusing line of argument - this morning you were moaning about me asking for votes, and yet I apparently did that while keeping the nature of the poll a complete secret? Neat trick.

    ReplyDelete
  101. At the time of the poll you were open and asked for support. When it turned out you came in the top ten with just 18 votes, you thought that top ten bit sounds good I'll use that, but I won't link or blog about the actual poll results cus it's a bit embarrassing really and lessens the effect of the top ten bit.

    How else do you explain your secrecy? If you're not hiding it add a hyperlink?

    Anyway my point is made. You've been fun and a decent sport.

    It still makes me giggle to imagine Porky typing away too furious about his PB twits and their hidden agenda to concentrate on his English.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I mean Scottish.

    That was an unintentional dig.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "When it turned out you came in the top ten with just 18 votes, you thought that top ten bit sounds good I'll use that, but I won't link or blog about the actual poll results cus it's a bit embarrassing really and lessens the effect of the top ten bit."

    Alternatively I just thought : "Wow, my blog has been voted one of Scotland's top 10 political websites in a major poll. I'm rather proud of that, why don't I let people know?"

    And you're wrong again, by the way - I did blog about the results of the poll. I refer you once again to the archive/search functions. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  104. TSE also lied about going on the TV quiz Pointless!

    ReplyDelete
  105. Pointless, Deal or No Deal AND Countdown?

    ReplyDelete
  106. TSE also lied about surviving the fall of the South tower.

    ReplyDelete
  107. In the consciousness of the truth he has perceived, man now sees everywhere only the awfulness or the absurdity of existence and loathing seizes him. See the link below for more info.

    #awfulness
    www.matreyastudios.com

    ReplyDelete
  108. Very interesting story,. I didn't find it boring to read. In fact, I really had a fun reading your post. Thanks.

    Shella
    www.gofastek.com

    ReplyDelete
  109. Thank you for posting some kind of information. It was really helpful since I am doing some research now.

    www.imarksweb.org

    ReplyDelete