Monday, January 15, 2024

YouGov take the Telegraph firmly to task - indirectly highlighting a crucial point the SNP need to weigh up when interpreting the new MRP poll results

Before we start this blogpost, a reminder that the Scot Goes Pop opinion poll fundraiser urgently needs a boost - let's not leave it in limbo for months.  It's important that not all Scottish opinion polling is commissioned by anti-independence clients - we need to make sure that occasionally questions are asked that Yes supporters want asked.  The fundraiser page is HERE and details of how to donate directly by Paypal can be found at the bottom of this post.

Here's a question that has always interested me - do polling companies feel strong enough to take action if one of their clients, who after all is paying them thousands of pounds, misrepresents the results of a poll?  Some people say very cynical things about Panelbase, but what you might not realise is that Panelbase actually check in advance everything their clients publish about a poll.  Every single blogpost I have ever written about Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase polls has been pre-checked before publication - that doesn't mean, of course, that Panelbase were endorsing my political interpretation of the poll results, but it does mean that if I said anything factually inaccurate about the results, however small, however inadvertant, that would be flagged up and resolved.  Most firms do not follow the same practice, which begs the question of what they do after the event when a client says something wrong or misleading.

One notorious example was the #Matchettgate fake poll scandal of 2021, when the Scotsman (or possibly Scotland on Sunday) put ComRes on the spot by falsely claiming there was an independence poll showing a poor result for Yes.  To their credit, ComRes didn't let the matter pass, and put a note on their website explaining that what had been published shouldn't be considered one of their official independence polls, but notably they didn't feel able to criticise their client or explain how on earth the episode had come about.

Today has brought another example of sorts, because YouGov have directly criticised the Daily Telegraph for misleading claims when publishing the YouGov MRP megapoll - however that still doesn't count as a pollster taking a client directly to task, because the poll was in fact funded by Tory donors who passed it on to the Telegraph to publish.  Basically the Telegraph have claimed that the Labour vote is only up four percentage points since 2019 under Corbyn, and that thus the only real problem for the Tories is that they are losing votes to parties other than Labour, meaning mainly Reform UK.  YouGov have pointed out that an aggregate of constituency level results puts Labour on 39.5% and the Tories 26%.  This would appear to be a gain for Labour of seven and a half points, not four, but crucially Don't Knows are being treated in a special way, with an assumption that many will return to the party they voted for in 2019 - hence Labour not quite scaling the heights they can normally expect in YouGov's conventional polls.

The SNP probably need to take heed of that point too, because in Scotland allocating Don't Knows in that way will presumably have benefited the SNP far more than Labour, and whether that really reflects what voters will do in circumstances that have changed so radically since 2019 must be doubtful.  I said in my earlier post that there must be a danger that a weirdly complacent SNP leadership might look at a projection of 25 seats and think "we'll settle for that", even though it would mean the loss of half their MPs.  Well, this is another reason why they would be very foolish to think along those lines, because 25 may be an overestimate even as a snapshot of current public opinion.

*  *  *

Scot Goes Pop poll fundraiser: If you haven't already, please consider helping Scot Goes Pop commission a New Year poll so we as jndependence supporters can actually ask the questions we want asked and think need to be asked.  The fundraiser page is HERE, however if you have a Paypal account the best way to donate is via direct Paypal payment, because that can totally eliminate fees depending on which option you select, and payment usually comes through instantly.  My Paypal email address is:

jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

54 comments:

  1. I dont think SNP is complacent. They're going for the best result possible. Humza is growing in the polls. People didn't know him when he took over. But he is growing in popularity in recent polls. Granted he is no Sturgeon: a hard act to follow for sure. But the more people see of him, it seems the more they like him. Particularly in the last few weeks and months.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, and have to say Yousaf is growing on me. He needs to be given a proper chance, though no doubt a poor result for the SNP at the election and the knives will be out.

      Delete
    2. With my new liberal approach to comments, I won't delete the above, but I want to make clear that I do regard it as astroturfing/propaganda/whatever word is most appropriate. The same person has been attempting to post slight variants on the same "the public are growing to love Humza" comment for months now. It's been nonsense all along and it remains nonsense now.

      Delete
    3. Where wishcasting ends and propaganda begins…

      Delete
  2. What am I missing here? All the recent polls have suggested that the SNP can expect to lose roughly half its sitting MPs at the General Election. Yet there are posters here celebrating such a result as somehow being a victory because it doesn't amount to total annihilation! Have expectations really fallen so low? And, if they have, what can be done to change things? The party needs a much more proactive approach to independence and the abandonment of policies which have little relevance or appeal to the electorate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Felix for letting me know that on another thread that I have been outed as a unionist. James will know me from many years on here, even things that didn't get posted that I am definitely not a unionist. For the 'outer' let me tell you why I became disillusioned with the SNP. first it was the outright lies they told me over the last nine years. I have been up the hill with Sturgeon's gang and down again so many times over the piece and during that period some elderly people - YES voters that I know - died without getting their dream at a time when we had three of the lowest quality Prime Ministers in history down in WM. Remember that - we had the most incompetent buffoons running the UK and she couldn't move independence forward. These people died filled with the disappointment of Sturgeon's lies, of the referendum that's just around the corner, the referendum that keeps getting further away, just as you get nearer - a bit like a rainbow (now there's a thing).

    I didn't want the named person act - I voted for them,
    I didn't want minimum pricing of alcohol - I still voted for them,
    I didn't want the hate crime bill - still voted for them, I could go on, but after the Salmond carry on, the dodgy investigation, the dodgy prosecution, then Sturgeon's faulty memory at the inquiry (along with others) while still calling folk victims when the guy was exonerated - it was so low class, I'd had enough, but I still stuck with it. then there was the Martin Keatings fiasco - I still stuck with it, I was starting to vomit right enough, but then came the idea of getting rid of juries to get conviction rates up - that is not the basis for the administration of justice, justice is supposed to be blind and balanced - that move is a step too far for me. Elderly jurors were described as having outdated ideas - they would trust the elderly with votes on the future of the country but not as jurors? What more does it take?

    We had a woman in charge of the country who could not even offer a definition of what a woman was - now, we all know that she did know what a woman was - my point here has nothing to with the gender crap - it has to do with the lack of honesty. That is the hallmark of the Sturgeon era for me, dishonesty and disappointment. However, if they want my vote just go for a defacto referendum - as promised, or indyref2 as promised (19th October 2013) or go for UDI, just something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aye well said WT - amazing you stuck with it for so long. F*****g unbelievable numpties still stick with it. I mean, really, what is in it for the SNP numpties. Sturgeon's gang are not even trying to kid you on that they will deliver a referendum never mind independence. During the hustings Yousaf just sounded like an old time Labour phoney.

      Now as we all know Yousaf has already had an affair while married but SNP numpties go on about Salmond. I wouldn't be surprised if the Britnats are just holding back about another Yousaf affair until nearer the election. Using small beer stuff of Yousaf's brother in law being up on a charge for selling herion for now. Yes, I know, innocent until guilty but according to Sturgeon Salmond was guilty while still innocent then still guilty after being acquitted in a trial.

      Oh and WT missed out Covid and her devolutionalist 4 nations approach which killed people.

      Delete
    2. It doesn't matter what any other politician says or thinks, the court of public opinion which is the voters says Alex Salmond is and was guilty so they will not vote for him ever, get over it, he's a liability to Scotland

      Delete
    3. Sadly true. Alleged sex crimes == sex crimes, as far as the media is concerned. Salmond was successfully destroyed as a rival.

      Quite how recognising his political assassination then means I must vote like a good boy for the guilty party which committed it, however…

      Delete
    4. I agree Alex Salmond was acquitted so that matter should be closed. However if a significant number of people, for reasons known only to themselves, refuse to vote for Alba because of him, what is the point of anybody voting Alba? Surely it’s time to get behind the SNP. Or maybe if Salmond was replaced as leader they could replace the SNP as the voice of independence if significant numbers were prepared to vote for them with Salmond gone.
      Either way we can only drive forward towards independence fighting as one, that should be blatantly obvious.

      Delete
    5. If you want to vote for criminals then that makes you an accomplice. Salmond would have been a major asset to the SNP in getting independence but Sturgeon's gang lied in the High court. They don't want independence it is so so obvious. We have ALL been played by Sturgeon and her Britnat helpers.

      Delete
    6. WT, it was all a bit bizarre. Apparently there's a 'nat bashing' poster on Follow Follow with the username Academical and you said you support the Accies so...QEDπŸ˜‚. Anyway he thinks you should be banned as does another poster (or the same one, it's all done hidden behind anonymity) with me and IFS.

      IFS can speak for himself but my credentials as a unionist seem to stem from me arguing for a more aggressively pro-indy SNP - obviously I must be working deep undercoverπŸ˜‚! Still, much like the alphabetties, I have a plan to defeat any ban - we simply carry on with our dastardly plot by submitting our posts anonymously. If James banned all the 'anonymi' on here there would be nobody left! It's foolproofπŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

      Delete
    7. WT says " outright lies " - yep loads of them by the SNP. A de facto Holyrood referendum could have been carried out over the last few years if the SNP wanted to but instead of being truthful and saying they didn't want to do that SNP politicians blatantly lied and said it couldn't be done. Even people like WGD numpty Capella believed them. So what chance do ordinary SNP voters have to realise they were lying.
      Why trust people who keep lying to you? Why vote for them if you want independence and they keep lying about independence?

      Delete
    8. Not sure why “independence for Scotland” keeps going on about sturgeons de facto referendum idea.
      It’s a non starter, as it wouldn’t be recognised by either Westminster or the wider global community. Surely that should be obvious.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous at 1.38pm - it's a legal election and it would be a vote for independence. Surely that should be obvious. So when Sturgeon proposed a de facto she was wrong as well was she? Anyway she only proposed using the UK GE . I am not proposing her idea. Get your facts right.
      Why do you ignore the fact that SNP politicians lied about the fact that they could hold an ad hoc de facto Holyrood referendum? Is that ok in your opinion to blatantly lie about something as important as this.

      Delete
    10. Independence for Scotland, we need polls showing support for independence well over 50% then maybe try for a de facto in the Holyrood election. Obviously it needs to be well over 50% for a sustained period beforehand though.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous at 3.42pm you anonymous posters are just time wasters. " well over" - vague "sustained period" vague.

      Delete
    12. Ifs, if we had 60% in favour of independence for 2 years we’d be in a strong position. Sure you’ll agree.

      Delete
    13. WT ..i wanted all those laws so i voted for them , thats what voting is about but you will never get a political party that has policies of which you agree 100%

      Delete
    14. If we had 100% in favour of Independence for 200 years then we'd be in an even stronger position.

      Meanwhile in the real world 50% + 1 vote and we're free.

      Delete
    15. Anonymous at 6.06pm says:- " Sure you'll agree." No I don't agree. We would be in a strong position if Sturgeon's gang f****d off.

      Delete
    16. If we ever had a referendum and the outcome was Yes 50% + 1 the consequences don’t bear thinking about. We’d be a country forever divided and there would be every chance of civil unrest.
      This is something nationalists don’t seem to think about, it just seems to be independence and to hell with the consequences.

      Delete
    17. Anon at 9:01, indeed. That’s why it so important we drive support for independence up towards the 60% mark. Only then do we have a chance of securing a referendum and achieving independence.

      Delete
  4. Does it actually matter ?. If the SNP get 57 or 0 in what is effectively an English election. Just by participating they legitimise this farcical 'union".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s quite easy to picture the political landscape immediately after the coming landslide general election. If the SNP lose as many Westminster seats as projected, it will be reported as a catastrophic setback for them and, of course, independence. That’s what’s so laughable about the idea that an electoral humping for SNP constitutes any kind of mandate for independence.

      2015 was the mandate.

      Naturally, the SNP administration in Edinburgh will still be in power after the Westminster election. But time is ticking fast at that point. The SNP will be in a real pinch. Carry on as they are and face doom in Holyrood soon enough, or clean out the leadership and return to their true purpose as the party of Scottish independence.

      Delete
    2. It will only be a “farcical union” when support for independence is driven well north of 50% for a sustained period of time.

      Delete
    3. Indeed anon at 9:12 that is what is so important, we need to get support for independence up to that level.

      Delete
  5. As much as a lot of us resent Sturgeon, and what she did, at the end of the day we need to get behind the SNP. I fully agree there needs to be change within the party, but it’s the only way forward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The best possible way to ensure that change does NOT happen is to keep the very worst of the SNP—their Westminster MPs—comfortably ensconced. Vote for them and they will remain the same.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous at 12.38pm - correct. It will send a clear message to Holyrood if you keep Sturgeon's gang in power then the same will happen in 2016.

      Delete
    3. The SNP’s ruling faction has grown a bad attitude towards all supporters of independence. You saw it Nicola: never one grassroots AUOB Indy march, ever. Humza of course is just as bad. Independence campaigners, the heart and soul of the Yes movement, are a bunch of hateful rabble as far as the nuSNP is concerned. They look at us with disgust, as Tories do at their own base voters in the hard right, and how US Republicans do to all those deplorables who froth for Trump.

      “Vote for us (you vile scum), you have no choice!”

      The difference being that our movement is as open and civic as it gets. We are not the problem. The UK is. Yet the SNP’s top brass get on much better with The London Establishment than with any of us. They’ve got the self-denying cringe. They’ve been colonised.

      Delete
    4. The same could be said of Alba, vote for us because the SNP are liars, is what Alba is promoting, and the problem with that is as was already said, most of Scotland believes Alex Salmond to be a liar who they won't vote for
      So it's just as insulting to the public to insist they're the numpties for not listening to Alba
      Shouting the same thing at people only louder won't work, it annoys them

      Delete
    5. Anon at 5 05, I’m sure you’ve hit the nail on the head. Disgruntled SNP supporters switching to Labour, rather than Alba due to the Alex Salmond factor. I feel it’s too late to do much about this before the GE, but surely radical measures can be taken before the Holyrood election in 2026.
      Then again, we still have the ridiculous situation of 2 nationalist parties competing for independence voters.

      Delete
  6. Can I make a suggestion James? Can the posting system here be adjusted so that posters have to give a name. Names here are mostly made up anyway. Or at least make the system output Anonymous1,Anonymous2, etc.
    It gets really confusing sometimes when six or more Anonymous posters are arguing at once.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops. Meant to add a names to post.

      Delete
    2. πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘

      Delete
    3. The only way of banning anonymous comments is to insist on everyone being logged into a Google account, which would cut the posting rate and thus be counterproductive if the aim is to encourage free-flowing debate. That said, I've done it before to tackle trolling, so we'll see.

      Delete
    4. If people would even just 'sign' their posts with a username at the end it would help and avoid the need for a Google account although I'm sure most people have one anyway.

      Delete
    5. I do. I just don’t like all the 2-factor crap Google throws at me every time. Besides, mine is in my real name: which is not Mr. I. F. Scotland.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous at 2.05pm - perhaps I'll post as my real name Nicola Betrayer Sturgeon in future.

      Delete
    7. Anon@2:05 Can't you just sign a name at the end of your comment? Any name would do it's just to distinguish you from all the other anons.
      EG Signed Joe Bloggs

      Delete
    8. Alright, you’ve talked me into it.

      —Rear Adml. Bathtub

      Delete
    9. Fed up with these anonymous posters. Are they incapable of thinking up a moniker. Who is that IFS. I bet it’s Salmond. Why would all these people think I could get them independence.
      Nicola

      Delete
  7. Hanveys bill voted down by colonial Westminster. At the least the SNP voted for it. How much more evidence do people need to realise Scotland is Westminster's colony. The colony that keeps laying the golden eggs for them to buy arms to kill people - particularly in the Middle East. If you do not recognise what the problem is then it more than likely is more difficult to identify the correct solution.
    Scotland is Westminster's colony. Decolonisation is the solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently 37 SNP MPs voted for it , what about the six who did not i say chuck them out the SNP

      Delete
    2. Anonymous at 8.22pm - too busy in the bar. Whose round is it say the SNP six. Name and shame them. Did the six go against the whip or was it the 37 - getting worried about their job?

      Delete
    3. Scotland's Referenda Rights by Grousebeater.
      I hope James doesn't mind but this is an excellent article that I recommend to independence supporters.

      Delete
  8. My own view as an SNP supporter is that SNP should not stand aside in any constituency for a non-SNP party or individual, however worthy. This is because our voters deserve to have the option of voting for us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree the SNP should stand in every constituency.
      It’s for Alba and the Greens to think very carefully what they’re doing, and the potential damage they could do by standing candidates in certain seats.

      Delete
    2. Anonymites above - If you are interested in independence it should be unity candidates under Scotland United for Yes as a de facto referendum. Clearly you guys are more interested in " the party " until you change "the party " and yourselves you individuals should stop kidding on you are for independence. You ain't. You are just like Labour but registered in Scotland.

      Delete
    3. Nationalist parties competing against each other is lunacy.

      Delete
    4. Anon at 6.46: The only party damaging the pro-indy cause by standing in the Western Isles is the SNP, and you know that perfectly well.

      Delete
  9. If all these anonymouse posters who keep posting the same stuff about sustained majority are representative of how good AI currently is then society shouldn't worry for a while yet.

    ReplyDelete