Monday, December 19, 2022

WINGS-WATCH: Fact-checking the bogus claim that the new Panelbase poll shows "SNP voters hate women"

So as Magnus Magnusson used to say back in the day, there's "just the one" factual inaccuracy to be corrected from today's Wings output - but, alas, it's an absolute whopper.

Mr Campbell claims that the majority of SNP voters who replied to Panelbase's latest poll think that the Scottish Government's planned gender recognition reforms pose a threat to women's safety, and that the majority of SNP voters in the poll also say that the reforms would make them even more likely to vote SNP.  He then goes full Sherlock, dons a deerstalker hat, puts two and two together and makes twenty-two, and declares that this combination of alleged results means that SNP voters hate women because they must be positively enthused about a policy that they think will put women at risk.  To emphasise that he means this absolutely literally, he sums up as follows...

"SNP voters say they’re MORE likely to vote for the SNP specifically because of a policy that they themselves think puts women in danger."

VERDICT: Lie.  There is, in fact, not a scrap of evidence in the poll that SNP voters support the idea of women being put at risk, and every reason to believe that the polar opposite is true.  Although a plurality of SNP voters say that the gender recognition reforms would put women at risk, this in fact amounts to only 39% of SNP voters in the sample (31% take the opposite view and the remaining 30% don't know).  Similarly, it's only a plurality of SNP voters who say that the reforms would make them even more likely to vote SNP, and it's a smaller plurality at that - just 28%.

To state what ought to be the bleedin' obvious, it is eminently possible that the 28% of SNP voters who say the reforms make them more likely to vote SNP, and the 39% of SNP voters who say that the reforms will put women at risk, are not actually the same people.  Indeed, it's overwhelmingly likely that they are not.  If there's any overlap at all between the two groups, it's likely to be extremely minor.

From listening to Mr Campbell you'd be forgiven for thinking that SNP-voting respondents to opinion polls all get together in a room and decide what the collective line is by majority vote.  "Right, chaps, we've decided that the reforms put women at risk, so all further questions must be answered in that light."  Er, no, Stu.  Each SNP-voting respondent in an opinion poll is an individual, answering individually, from their own individual perspective.  The question on whether the reforms make people more likely to vote SNP is not a proxy for whether SNP voters hate women or are excited about putting women at risk, because 61% of SNP voters do not buy into that premise and are therefore not answering the question with that premise in mind.

But that doesn't stop Mr Campbell piling bogus assumption upon bogus assumption and wandering deeper into Narnia with this ludicrous statement:

"Indeed, less than one in five of the party’s supporters are troubled by the fact. 53% of them merely don’t care that women will be put in danger, while 28% of them are actively enthused by the idea. (And of that 28%, two-thirds say they’re MUCH more likely, not just a bit more likely, to vote SNP as a result.)"

Back in the real world, it can be safely assumed that most of those "two-thirds of the 28%" come from the substantial minority of SNP voters who DON'T think the reforms will put women at risk.


One thing I will say about the Panelbase poll is that it's a tremendous relief to discover that the gender recognition questions appear to have been commissioned by the Sunday Times and not by Wings.  That means the wording of the questions is much more neutral and the findings therefore have far more credibility.  They add to the vast weight of polling evidence we already have - including from the earlier Panelbase poll commissioned by Scot Goes Pop - that the public are opposed to the reforms which are expected to be passed by the Scottish Parliament this week.  As I've said before, it's not illegitimate in a parliamentary democracy for MSPs to legislate in defiance of public opinion.  But what is absolutely not OK is for them to gaslight us into thinking that they are acting with the support of the public when they are doing the reverse.  Thankfully, we now have enough polls with a clear enough message to make it very hard for them to get away with that.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue in some form, donations are welcome HERE.

19 comments:

  1. I've said it before, James, and I'll say it again. Wingswatch is an invaluable corrective. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If Campbell believes what he's said in this case, he's an idiot. His logic often goes badly awry when he attempts what might loosely be called "polling analysis", but this is on a different level.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cluelessness from the fake "Reverend", or a deliberate deception? I know what I think.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yup and there was no nuance in the question either. How much risk are we talking? Perhaps some thought there is a tiny outside chance of increased safety issues, but that this is outweighed by the benefits of less suicides, better quality of life for trans folks, yada yada.

    They didn't ask how significant the risks would be. People are potentially thinking more nuanced and think, maybe there will be a 0.1% increase in incidents, which is obviously not great, but maybe they think that 5% less folk would kill themselves.. Whether that's factually correct or not doesn't matter - it's probably what people who answered yes to both think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there were any such people, it was probably only one or two.

      Delete
    2. Yes. But probably 1 or 2 more than those who want women to be in danger.

      Delete
  5. Strange comment from 'Ruby' on Wings:

    "Ruby says:
    19 December, 2022 at 6:52 pm
    Do you think we had visit from James Goes Pop earlier?"


    If that's asking whether I left a comment on Wings, the answer is no - I haven't even attempted to post there for several years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. It was me. Lol. I am dan2. Never got around to choosing a name on here. I promoted this post cos I thought it was worth reading.

      Delete
  6. I actually agree with the proposed GRA reforms, in principle. What I do not agree with is telling biologically-born women that if they have concerns they're just TERFs, rather than openly discuss and address their concerns. The disgusting manner in which the radical wing of the SNP & Greens refer to the likes of Joanna Cherry is deeply concerning. Screaming abuse at people who are simply asking questions resolves nothing. The way the SNP treated Joanna Cherry was the straw that broke the camel's back for me so I cancelled my SNP membership and joined Alba.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sacking of Joanna Cherry was a major turning point for me too. Call me naive, but I was shocked when I heard. I might have thought about joining Alba even without that, but that's the event that made it a no-brainer.

      Delete
  7. Anonymous asks ...how much risk are we talking? No data it seems is available from countries currently operating GRR. And therefore Sturgeon and Robison are taking a risk on persons' welfare.

    There is one very recent example of risk - from a Brazil video.

    Consider, if the transperson in the video was your son would be relaxed over his behaviour? And if the young woman your daughter...?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I love wings watch! Keep them coming.

    ReplyDelete
  9. " When a group or an individual advises you to look away from wrong doing in order to keep your eye on the prize, they are asking you to swallow your critical facilities and your conscience. You must ask yourself if you can live with the immorality of the act."

    No problem at all for the big dug and the doggers.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When I saw that article by Campbell I thought Wings Watch will be all over it. It's sad that someone who can, has done and will do very good analysis spoils it by going over the top particularly with his interpretations of polling. Sturgeon and the SNP are bad enough that the truth is all you need. You do not need fabrications and exaggerations to highlight they are a disaster for Scottish independence.

    Way too many lies in Scotland's political scene from the Britnats and Sturgeons gang. More lies to attack them are counter productive and unnecessary. I note Campbell has not yet disputed any of your Wings Watch articles

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stu will definitely be fuming about them, but he will just ignore them and pretend they don't exist. He's a coward

      Delete
  11. If elected representatives believe that they are promoting human rights, it is perfectly permissible for them to act in advance of, or against, public opinion. Or do you want to reinstate the death penalty?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With all due respect, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to read the blogpost before leaving a comment. Here's the part you're either ignoring or didn't read:

      "As I've said before, it's not illegitimate in a parliamentary democracy for MSPs to legislate in defiance of public opinion. But what is absolutely not OK is for them to gaslight us into thinking that they are acting with the support of the public when they are doing the reverse. Thankfully, we now have enough polls with a clear enough message to make it very hard for them to get away with that."

      Although your "in advance of public opinion" comment is delusional, by the way.

      Delete
  12. SKIER CALLS THE SNP LIARS

    Irish Skier or was it Welsh Skier when he said this: - " Yes I am pretty convinced now that the Scotgov totally knew that the UKSC would say no, and so deliberately took it to court to have the English government openly challenge the bill, then hide behind the ruling. This, as predicted, has got Scots hackles up and pushed yes into a majority."

    So the SNP kept lying when they said vote SNP (at multiple elections) for Indyref2 according to Skier. Skier says they knew they could not deliver it. Skier says the SNP lied continuously to Scotland. A proven liar Skier calling the party he supports liars. I guess he has found his natural home.

    The fact is, whether they knowingly lied to the people of Scotland for years, as Skier says, or not, they could have established the legality or otherwise many years ago but used the possibility of Indyref2 as a means to garner votes from independence supporters. This level of deceit is unacceptable.
    Another example of deceit is of course raising £600k for Indyref2 6 years ago when, according to Scottish Skier, the SNP knew they couldn't deliver Indyref2. Skier really sticks it to the SNP big time. Who needs Campbell and WOS.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have one minor quibble about the superb Wings Watch.

    Personally, I think the tagline should be "Undulating Under The Untruths".

    Or, better still, "Burrowing Beneath The B*llocks".

    ReplyDelete