It goes without saying that it's a very good thing that a person convicted of repeated domestic violence (and without really the slightest shred of doubt over his guilt) has been effectively forced to resign his parliamentary seat. But from the point of view of hard political calculation, is this a setback for the SNP? After all, if Walker had pigheadedly soldiered on, the party could have avoided a very tricky by-election, while still distancing themselves from the "independent" MSP. For the avoidance of doubt, a contest in Dunfermline would have been murderously difficult regardless of how it had come about, because the typical (although thankfully not universal) pattern in by-elections is that the incumbent government lose at least some ground - and the SNP government will be defending an absolutely wafer-thin majority.
But the reality is that this was a situation where the SNP just couldn't win. If Walker had stayed in place, he would have remained an acute embarrassment to the party, because everyone knew full well that he had been originally elected as an SNP candidate. So we all just have to put this one down to experience, and hope that lessons are learned that will prevent this entirely avoidable mess from ever occurring again. At least now a line will be drawn - in an ideal world the SNP will retain (or technically gain) the seat with a candidate who bears as little resemblance to Walker as humanly possible, or less ideally they will finish second in a constituency that is in any case traditional Labour territory, and will be seen to have accepted a fair penalty for their mistake in selecting Walker in the first place.
I'm slightly troubled, though, by the efforts I've seen on Twitter to browbeat the main parties into making this by-election an all-woman contest. It would certainly be tactically savvy for the SNP to select a female candidate, and fortunately it just so happens that the best potential candidate I can think of is a woman (Shirley-Anne Somerville). But the message that will be sent out by a deliberately concocted all-woman contest is that men are the guilty parties, who are atoning for their sins by leaving the floor to women on this occasion. That would be entirely inappropriate. These were not crimes committed by "men" - they were committed by an individual called Bill Walker. By all means, let's ensure that the tackling of domestic violence is a key issue for debate in this contest, but that debate should not censor - as is sadly all too common - the voices of male victims of domestic violence, or indeed female victims where the perpetrator was another woman.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Monday, September 9, 2013
'Besides, as one of my aunties put it, that Ruth Davidson has been a bit of a disappointment, hasn't she?'
One observation I made in Michael Greenwell's podcast the other day was that there is, in fact, something positive that campaigners can do about polls, in the sense that (if you have the money) you can simply commission one that pushes your own priorities, and in which the dice are loaded in your favour in terms of getting a favourable result. The findings can then be used to shape the media narrative. Lord Ashcroft has just proved that point by effortlessly getting his latest 'research' featured as the lead story in the Scotsman, although I'm sure it's just pure coincidence that a billionaire No-supporting Tory peer of the realm was able to pull off that trick where crowd-funding Yes supporters failed just a few weeks ago.
So how do we know that this poll was tactical, rather than a dispassionate attempt to uncover the views of the electorate? Well, apart from the obvious point that Lord Ashcroft is Lord Ashcroft, we need look no further than this part of his commentary on the results -
"I also found many voters deeply sceptical about the idea of giving the Scottish Parliament more powers"
Er, no. If you want to know whether voters are deeply sceptical about giving the Scottish Parliament more powers, what you do is ask voters whether they think the Scottish Parliament should be given more powers or not. Lord Ashcroft mysteriously (well, let's face it, not very mysteriously) failed to ask that question, and instead chose to grill his respondents about a string of Tory hobby-horses such as the likelihood of fiscal discipline under devo max. Those results may well be of great interest to him, but shouldn't be of much interest to the rest of us - unless of course we've been hoodwinked by his spin into thinking they mean something that they don't.
But if that part of his commentary is a touch cynical, Ashcroft's closing line is just plain risible -
"Besides, as one of our participants put it, Alex Salmond has quite enough power as it is."
Which is about as meaningful as me saying that I met a guy called Barry down the pub who made some cutting comments about Jackson Carlaw. Seriously, your lordship, a general rule of thumb in polling is that one person's opinion is not statistically significant, no matter how pleasing that opinion may be to your own ears.
Unsurprisingly, the Scotsman has also misrepresented the poll to some extent -
"Researchers also found voters believe the Scottish Government cares more about independence than issues such as jobs, the economy and the NHS, and say this priority is wrong."
Not true on the latter point. We know that 61% of respondents said that the Scottish government should have a different priority from the one it currently has, but since less than half of respondents actually thought that the Scottish government's priority is independence, that isn't sufficient to substantiate the Scotsman's claim.
The referendum voting intention figures from this poll can also be safely filed away as little more than a historical curiosity, as the fieldwork is between four and seven months out of date. (The main referendum question was also asked FIFTH, which ought to instantly destroy the poll's credibility in the eyes of certain unionist commentators if they are interested in maintaining at least a semblance of logical consistency.) The Scotsman valiantly attempt to breathe some relevance into it by pointing to the unusually high sample size, but the reality is that a normal-sized sample of 1000 only carries a very slightly greater margin of error. Meanwhile, the Holyrood voting intention figures (showing SNP leads of five points on the constituency ballot and twelve points on the regional list ballot) are "only" three months out of date.
So how do we know that this poll was tactical, rather than a dispassionate attempt to uncover the views of the electorate? Well, apart from the obvious point that Lord Ashcroft is Lord Ashcroft, we need look no further than this part of his commentary on the results -
"I also found many voters deeply sceptical about the idea of giving the Scottish Parliament more powers"
Er, no. If you want to know whether voters are deeply sceptical about giving the Scottish Parliament more powers, what you do is ask voters whether they think the Scottish Parliament should be given more powers or not. Lord Ashcroft mysteriously (well, let's face it, not very mysteriously) failed to ask that question, and instead chose to grill his respondents about a string of Tory hobby-horses such as the likelihood of fiscal discipline under devo max. Those results may well be of great interest to him, but shouldn't be of much interest to the rest of us - unless of course we've been hoodwinked by his spin into thinking they mean something that they don't.
But if that part of his commentary is a touch cynical, Ashcroft's closing line is just plain risible -
"Besides, as one of our participants put it, Alex Salmond has quite enough power as it is."
Which is about as meaningful as me saying that I met a guy called Barry down the pub who made some cutting comments about Jackson Carlaw. Seriously, your lordship, a general rule of thumb in polling is that one person's opinion is not statistically significant, no matter how pleasing that opinion may be to your own ears.
Unsurprisingly, the Scotsman has also misrepresented the poll to some extent -
"Researchers also found voters believe the Scottish Government cares more about independence than issues such as jobs, the economy and the NHS, and say this priority is wrong."
Not true on the latter point. We know that 61% of respondents said that the Scottish government should have a different priority from the one it currently has, but since less than half of respondents actually thought that the Scottish government's priority is independence, that isn't sufficient to substantiate the Scotsman's claim.
The referendum voting intention figures from this poll can also be safely filed away as little more than a historical curiosity, as the fieldwork is between four and seven months out of date. (The main referendum question was also asked FIFTH, which ought to instantly destroy the poll's credibility in the eyes of certain unionist commentators if they are interested in maintaining at least a semblance of logical consistency.) The Scotsman valiantly attempt to breathe some relevance into it by pointing to the unusually high sample size, but the reality is that a normal-sized sample of 1000 only carries a very slightly greater margin of error. Meanwhile, the Holyrood voting intention figures (showing SNP leads of five points on the constituency ballot and twelve points on the regional list ballot) are "only" three months out of date.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
He's terrific, he's magnific, he's the greatest secret agent in the world
Just a quick note to let you know that I'm one of the participants in this week's For A' That podcast, alongside Michael Greenwell, Andrew Tickell and Pat Kane. Topics discussed include Anas Sarwar's extraordinary performance on Thursday's Scotland Tonight debate (from which the only stunt that was missing was the donning of a full Danger Mouse costume), the huge divergence between the most recent opinion polls, and the cultural value of Twitter-based indyref poetry.
When Michael warned me that the recording of the podcast had been brought forward 24 hours, I didn't think I'd be able to take part because I had already arranged to spend Friday afternoon in Edinburgh. But many thanks to my friend Eman for letting me take the long Skype call in her living-room, and equal thanks to her flatmates for letting me use their computer!
You can listen to the podcast HERE.
When Michael warned me that the recording of the podcast had been brought forward 24 hours, I didn't think I'd be able to take part because I had already arranged to spend Friday afternoon in Edinburgh. But many thanks to my friend Eman for letting me take the long Skype call in her living-room, and equal thanks to her flatmates for letting me use their computer!
You can listen to the podcast HERE.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Cameron's Syria setback - what impact on the independence referendum?
I have a new article up at the International Business Times (in fact it's been up for over 24 hours now, but I forgot to check). It considers the potential impact on the referendum campaign of last week's dramatic Commons vote. You can read it HERE.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
McDougall still in no particular rush to find a leg to stand on
I've just spotted this truly extraordinary tweet from the anti-independence campaign troll-in-chief Blair McDougall -
"he [Salmond] is refusing to debate against anyone in Scotland! We choose Alistair Darling on our side..."
OK, so the No campaign affirm the right to put up whoever they want for a public debate, and they have chosen Alistair Darling. So what happens if the Yes campaign say "yes, fine, it's not quite the Cameron v Salmond showdown that everyone wants to see, but nevertheless we'll happily put up Dennis Canavan to debate against his direct counterpart Mr Darling"? Does that second-string debate go ahead, because the No campaign respect the fact that Yes have exactly the same right to put up whoever they like? Er, no. Apparently not. Apparently No get to pick whoever they want, but Yes can only pick anyone who happens to be called Alex Salmond.
Remind me - who decided these rules?
* * *
UPDATE : You can breathe a sigh of relief - this TNS-BMRB poll that No campaign insiders (and a certain Mr Smithson) have been licking their lips about all day has essentially turned out to be a no change affair, albeit with both Yes and No curiously losing a significant amount of support to the Don't Know column. Usual rules apply - if "support for independence is waning", then by definition "support for the United Kingdom is plummeting". I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it, chaps.
Yes 25% (-5)
No 47% (-4)
This means of course that TNS-BMRB have rejoined the ranks of pollsters showing that fewer than half of Scots actively support continued membership of the UK. The 22-point No lead is also a full eight points lower than the YouGov poll with the dodgy preamble. Does this mean that YouGov are, to use Alex Massie's line about Panelbase, an "extreme outlier"? No, but it does mean that they remain at the extreme end of a very broad spectrum which ranges from a No lead of thirty points to a Yes lead of one point.
"he [Salmond] is refusing to debate against anyone in Scotland! We choose Alistair Darling on our side..."
OK, so the No campaign affirm the right to put up whoever they want for a public debate, and they have chosen Alistair Darling. So what happens if the Yes campaign say "yes, fine, it's not quite the Cameron v Salmond showdown that everyone wants to see, but nevertheless we'll happily put up Dennis Canavan to debate against his direct counterpart Mr Darling"? Does that second-string debate go ahead, because the No campaign respect the fact that Yes have exactly the same right to put up whoever they like? Er, no. Apparently not. Apparently No get to pick whoever they want, but Yes can only pick anyone who happens to be called Alex Salmond.
Remind me - who decided these rules?
* * *
UPDATE : You can breathe a sigh of relief - this TNS-BMRB poll that No campaign insiders (and a certain Mr Smithson) have been licking their lips about all day has essentially turned out to be a no change affair, albeit with both Yes and No curiously losing a significant amount of support to the Don't Know column. Usual rules apply - if "support for independence is waning", then by definition "support for the United Kingdom is plummeting". I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it, chaps.
Yes 25% (-5)
No 47% (-4)
This means of course that TNS-BMRB have rejoined the ranks of pollsters showing that fewer than half of Scots actively support continued membership of the UK. The 22-point No lead is also a full eight points lower than the YouGov poll with the dodgy preamble. Does this mean that YouGov are, to use Alex Massie's line about Panelbase, an "extreme outlier"? No, but it does mean that they remain at the extreme end of a very broad spectrum which ranges from a No lead of thirty points to a Yes lead of one point.
Why Alex Massie is wrong
Alex Massie has a new post up at the Spectator website, weighing up the respective merits of the YouGov and Panelbase polls, and concluding to everyone's amazement that YouGov are probably closer to the mark. Alas, some of the points he makes are just plain factually wrong, so I felt moved to leave the following response in the comments section -
"There was much chuntering and whispering and people asking if YouGov could be trusted. Had they asked the same question as will be posed in the independence referendum itself? (Yes they had)."
Er, no, Alex, they hadn't. This, in fact, was the tortuous and leading question that YouGov asked -
"If there was a referendum tomorrow on Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and becoming an Independent Country and this was the question, how would you vote? Should Scotland be an independent country?"
Now, then. I can absolutely promise you that voters will not be faced in September 2014 with a ballot paper that reads as follows -
"This is a referendum about leaving the comforting warmth of the United Kingdom, and being cast adrift in the North Atlantic without food, shelter or warmth. But please note that the official question in this referendum is "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Now have a very, very careful think and tell us how you want to vote."
Moving on -
"So, if pushed, I would guess that YouGov’s poll is considerably more likely (though not certain) to be more accurate than Panelbase’s. It is certainly more in line with the findings reported by other pollsters. It is Panelbase versus the field."
Er, no, Alex, it is not. The most recent Angus Reid poll showed a relatively modest No lead of thirteen points, which is slightly closer to Panelbase's one-point Yes lead than it is to YouGov's thirty-point No lead. More to the point, however, it is far closer to the more typical Panelbase figures showing a 4-10% No lead than it is to the figures from the unionist-friendly camp of pollsters (TNS-BMRB, Ipsos-Mori and YouGov).
"But taken as a whole I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suspect that this [Panelbase] is a poll nudging people towards affirming support for independence."
And what in heaven's name do you think YouGov's ludicrous preamble was nudging people towards? Studied neutrality?
"There was much chuntering and whispering and people asking if YouGov could be trusted. Had they asked the same question as will be posed in the independence referendum itself? (Yes they had)."
Er, no, Alex, they hadn't. This, in fact, was the tortuous and leading question that YouGov asked -
"If there was a referendum tomorrow on Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and becoming an Independent Country and this was the question, how would you vote? Should Scotland be an independent country?"
Now, then. I can absolutely promise you that voters will not be faced in September 2014 with a ballot paper that reads as follows -
"This is a referendum about leaving the comforting warmth of the United Kingdom, and being cast adrift in the North Atlantic without food, shelter or warmth. But please note that the official question in this referendum is "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Now have a very, very careful think and tell us how you want to vote."
Moving on -
"So, if pushed, I would guess that YouGov’s poll is considerably more likely (though not certain) to be more accurate than Panelbase’s. It is certainly more in line with the findings reported by other pollsters. It is Panelbase versus the field."
Er, no, Alex, it is not. The most recent Angus Reid poll showed a relatively modest No lead of thirteen points, which is slightly closer to Panelbase's one-point Yes lead than it is to YouGov's thirty-point No lead. More to the point, however, it is far closer to the more typical Panelbase figures showing a 4-10% No lead than it is to the figures from the unionist-friendly camp of pollsters (TNS-BMRB, Ipsos-Mori and YouGov).
"But taken as a whole I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suspect that this [Panelbase] is a poll nudging people towards affirming support for independence."
And what in heaven's name do you think YouGov's ludicrous preamble was nudging people towards? Studied neutrality?
Monday, September 2, 2013
Pro-independence campaign storms back into the lead for first time since 2011
It was fairly obvious from the hints being dropped on Twitter last night that a new Panelbase poll on the independence referendum was on its way, and that it was far more favourable for Yes than yesterday's YouGov poll (which we now know was indeed tainted by using a leading question that painted independence in a pejorative light). However, I couldn't have imagined quite how favourable it would prove to be -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 44% (+7)
No 43% (-3)
This is the first time that the pro-independence camp have been in the lead with any pollster since a TNS-BMRB poll in the late summer of 2011 put Yes ahead by one point.
So what can possibly explain the extraordinary divergence between two polls published in successive days, one which puts Yes one point ahead, and another which puts No thirty points ahead? Methodology, obviously, but what in particular? It's easy to home in on the outrageously leading preamble that YouGov use when posing the referendum question, but as I've said on previous occasions that's unlikely to be anything more than a small part of the explanation - if I was going to hazard a guess, I'd say that it probably doesn't make more than 2% of a difference. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle it's extremely bad practice for YouGov to continue behaving in this way, and it's high time that greater pressure was brought to bear on them, both from their peers and from psephologists. In case you're wondering, the Devoplus campaign that commissioned the poll almost certainly aren't to blame in this particular regard - as far as I can see, the preamble is identical to the one YouGov have used on several previous occasions. Peter Kellner just seems to have a bee in his bonnet that he can 'improve' on the actual, Electoral Commission-approved referendum question.
If Professor John Curtice was prepared to go out of his way to criticise the recent WoS poll for using leading wording in one particular question, then he really has no excuse left for not issuing a warning to YouGov that their polls will have a question mark hanging over them for as long as they continue to steer their respondents in such a blatant way towards giving an anti-independence response on the headline question.
* * *
Undoubtedly the daftest comment about today's poll was made by former "senior Labour MSP" George Foulkes - but did he do it deliberately? He claimed that it was "astonishing" that the Courier had led on the results of a poll conducted by an organisation that pays its online panel for responses - apparently unaware that all online pollsters use a paid panel, including YouGov, who carried out the poll that George's campaign were quite content to see Scotland on Sunday lead with yesterday. When this rather obvious double-standard was pointed out to him, George mumbled something about YouGov being an "established" pollster. Oh-kaaay. So the difference in credibility is that YouGov merely pay their respondents in an "established" way? How does that work?
* * *
A quick appeal - does anyone reading this have an account at Political Betting? If so, I'd be grateful if you could write a quick comment there about the sensational news from the Panelbase poll - I can't see any reference to it so far, and I'm obviously not in a position to put that right. The reason it might be important to do so is that some London journalists still seem to take their cue from PB when summarising the lie of the land in polling terms. Inexplicable, but there it is.
Even if you don't have an account, it would only take a minute or two to set one up (although your first comment might have to go through pre-moderation).
* * *
UPDATE (6.30pm) : At last - John Curtice speaks out on YouGov's dodgy preamble...
"Conversely, at the other end of the spectrum YouGov’s poll for Devo Plus described the referendum as a ballot on ‘Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and being an independent country’ a description that might have been thought capable of discouraging some respondents from saying Yes."
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 44% (+7)
No 43% (-3)
This is the first time that the pro-independence camp have been in the lead with any pollster since a TNS-BMRB poll in the late summer of 2011 put Yes ahead by one point.
So what can possibly explain the extraordinary divergence between two polls published in successive days, one which puts Yes one point ahead, and another which puts No thirty points ahead? Methodology, obviously, but what in particular? It's easy to home in on the outrageously leading preamble that YouGov use when posing the referendum question, but as I've said on previous occasions that's unlikely to be anything more than a small part of the explanation - if I was going to hazard a guess, I'd say that it probably doesn't make more than 2% of a difference. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle it's extremely bad practice for YouGov to continue behaving in this way, and it's high time that greater pressure was brought to bear on them, both from their peers and from psephologists. In case you're wondering, the Devoplus campaign that commissioned the poll almost certainly aren't to blame in this particular regard - as far as I can see, the preamble is identical to the one YouGov have used on several previous occasions. Peter Kellner just seems to have a bee in his bonnet that he can 'improve' on the actual, Electoral Commission-approved referendum question.
If Professor John Curtice was prepared to go out of his way to criticise the recent WoS poll for using leading wording in one particular question, then he really has no excuse left for not issuing a warning to YouGov that their polls will have a question mark hanging over them for as long as they continue to steer their respondents in such a blatant way towards giving an anti-independence response on the headline question.
* * *
Undoubtedly the daftest comment about today's poll was made by former "senior Labour MSP" George Foulkes - but did he do it deliberately? He claimed that it was "astonishing" that the Courier had led on the results of a poll conducted by an organisation that pays its online panel for responses - apparently unaware that all online pollsters use a paid panel, including YouGov, who carried out the poll that George's campaign were quite content to see Scotland on Sunday lead with yesterday. When this rather obvious double-standard was pointed out to him, George mumbled something about YouGov being an "established" pollster. Oh-kaaay. So the difference in credibility is that YouGov merely pay their respondents in an "established" way? How does that work?
* * *
A quick appeal - does anyone reading this have an account at Political Betting? If so, I'd be grateful if you could write a quick comment there about the sensational news from the Panelbase poll - I can't see any reference to it so far, and I'm obviously not in a position to put that right. The reason it might be important to do so is that some London journalists still seem to take their cue from PB when summarising the lie of the land in polling terms. Inexplicable, but there it is.
Even if you don't have an account, it would only take a minute or two to set one up (although your first comment might have to go through pre-moderation).
* * *
UPDATE (6.30pm) : At last - John Curtice speaks out on YouGov's dodgy preamble...
"Conversely, at the other end of the spectrum YouGov’s poll for Devo Plus described the referendum as a ballot on ‘Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and being an independent country’ a description that might have been thought capable of discouraging some respondents from saying Yes."
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Battle of the pollsters
When I first heard whispers a couple of hours ago that there was a new poll out showing a substantial No lead, I can honestly say the first thought that went through my mind was "I just hope to goodness it's a YouGov poll". Reasons? Well, there were three main ones -
1) It would mean that No have nothing much to celebrate, as there has only been a very modest increase in their lead since the last comparable poll (which, remarkably, was published almost a year ago!).
2) YouGov are notorious for using a leading preamble when posing the referendum question, and can probably be assumed to have done the same thing this time, thus detracting somewhat from the credibility of the results (although I'll happily apologise tomorrow or on Monday when the full tables go up, if it turns out that for the very first time they have let the official Electoral Commission-approved question speak for itself).
3) There are increasing question marks over YouGov's Scottish sampling. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since the 2003 Holyrood election, when YouGov towered over their old-school competitors as by far the most accurate pollster of the campaign. They also performed reasonably well in 2007, but by 2011 the tables had well and truly turned, and YouGov were now the 'establishment' pollster being outshone by their less prestigious rivals. They continued to show a tight race right up to polling day, entirely failing to pick up the impending SNP landslide. The problem seems to have got even worse since then - the Scottish subsamples in most YouGov daily polls this year have shown the SNP trailing Labour badly, and in many cases even languishing in a thoroughly implausible third place behind the Tories. By contrast, the subsamples of all other pollsters have typically shown the SNP either in the lead, or only very slightly behind Labour. It doesn't automatically follow that YouGov are getting it wrong - we have to at least entertain the possibility that they are getting it right and everyone else is getting it wrong. But intuitively it seems much more likely that there is an ever-growing rift between real-world Scotland and YouGov's Scottish samples.
Thankfully, this weekend's poll did indeed turn out to be a YouGov poll. That means we don't learn anything new, but we do have a reaffirmation of the gulf between the two pollsters that are showing a relatively modest No lead (Angus Reid and Panelbase), and the three pollsters that are showing a more substantial one (YouGov, TNS-BMRB and Ipsos-Mori) - although YouGov find themselves at the extreme end of the latter group. So which group is getting it right? Or is the truth somewhere in between the two? You pays your money and you takes your choice, although it's worth pointing out that media commentators who tell you that "No have a handsome lead, full stop" are failing to take account of the complete picture - probably willfully.
Curiously, this YouGov poll was commissioned by the Devoplus campaign, with the apparent intention of producing results that would demonstrate to the No camp that they would have a better chance of victory if they committed to increased powers for the Scottish Parliament. That doesn't seem to have really come off - the Devoplus crowd would probably have been better advised to use a pollster that doesn't routinely produce inflated No leads in the headline figures.
By the way, have you noticed that when we see a poll showing a modest increase in the No vote, there are headlines screaming about "the No vote hardening up", but when Angus Reid showed a two-point increase in the Yes vote a few days ago, it was billed as a "no change" poll? I'm confused...
1) It would mean that No have nothing much to celebrate, as there has only been a very modest increase in their lead since the last comparable poll (which, remarkably, was published almost a year ago!).
2) YouGov are notorious for using a leading preamble when posing the referendum question, and can probably be assumed to have done the same thing this time, thus detracting somewhat from the credibility of the results (although I'll happily apologise tomorrow or on Monday when the full tables go up, if it turns out that for the very first time they have let the official Electoral Commission-approved question speak for itself).
3) There are increasing question marks over YouGov's Scottish sampling. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since the 2003 Holyrood election, when YouGov towered over their old-school competitors as by far the most accurate pollster of the campaign. They also performed reasonably well in 2007, but by 2011 the tables had well and truly turned, and YouGov were now the 'establishment' pollster being outshone by their less prestigious rivals. They continued to show a tight race right up to polling day, entirely failing to pick up the impending SNP landslide. The problem seems to have got even worse since then - the Scottish subsamples in most YouGov daily polls this year have shown the SNP trailing Labour badly, and in many cases even languishing in a thoroughly implausible third place behind the Tories. By contrast, the subsamples of all other pollsters have typically shown the SNP either in the lead, or only very slightly behind Labour. It doesn't automatically follow that YouGov are getting it wrong - we have to at least entertain the possibility that they are getting it right and everyone else is getting it wrong. But intuitively it seems much more likely that there is an ever-growing rift between real-world Scotland and YouGov's Scottish samples.
Thankfully, this weekend's poll did indeed turn out to be a YouGov poll. That means we don't learn anything new, but we do have a reaffirmation of the gulf between the two pollsters that are showing a relatively modest No lead (Angus Reid and Panelbase), and the three pollsters that are showing a more substantial one (YouGov, TNS-BMRB and Ipsos-Mori) - although YouGov find themselves at the extreme end of the latter group. So which group is getting it right? Or is the truth somewhere in between the two? You pays your money and you takes your choice, although it's worth pointing out that media commentators who tell you that "No have a handsome lead, full stop" are failing to take account of the complete picture - probably willfully.
Curiously, this YouGov poll was commissioned by the Devoplus campaign, with the apparent intention of producing results that would demonstrate to the No camp that they would have a better chance of victory if they committed to increased powers for the Scottish Parliament. That doesn't seem to have really come off - the Devoplus crowd would probably have been better advised to use a pollster that doesn't routinely produce inflated No leads in the headline figures.
By the way, have you noticed that when we see a poll showing a modest increase in the No vote, there are headlines screaming about "the No vote hardening up", but when Angus Reid showed a two-point increase in the Yes vote a few days ago, it was billed as a "no change" poll? I'm confused...
Friday, August 30, 2013
Tony Blair's very finest handiwork
There are a number of obvious dangers attached to taking Nick Robinson's billing as a political expert too seriously. If I had turned the television off in disgust after hearing his 'reveal' of the Labour leadership result three years ago, I might still be firmly under the misapprehension that an entirely different Miliband had become Leader of the Opposition. I didn't make that particular mistake, but unfortunately I did stop paying much attention to the Syria debate yesterday after Robinson insisted that the government were assured of a win, mainly because their own foot-soldiers wouldn't want to give Ed Miliband any sort of fillip. I should, of course, have known that the government were doomed to defeat from the moment those words passed his lips.
The moral issues at stake yesterday weren't straightforward, because the use of chemical weapons is indeed different to the use of conventional weapons, and there's certainly a danger of a slippery slope if the world is seen to shrug its shoulders at a moment like this. But there are alternatives to studied disinterest that don't involve bombing civilians to kingdom come, or opportunistic Anglo-American attempts to alter the balance of power in the Middle East, or exercises in rank hypocrisy from politicians (including, disgracefully, Liberal Democrats) who spend much of their leisure time lecturing us about how failure to accept NATO as a first-strike WMD club is a sign of political 'immaturity'. Just for once, the Commons have stunned us all by getting a judgement call entirely right.
And for that we have Tony Blair to thank, paradoxically enough. He is the unwitting author of this result. It's worth making a comparison with the 2003 parliamentary vote on the invasion of Iraq - back then, the only real question was whether a majority of Labour backbenchers would vote for the war. Overall victory for the PM was assured in spite of the fact that the motion before the House was an umambiguous authorisation of military action that was just hours away. Fast forward ten years, and a watered-down motion that wouldn't have authorised anything has been rejected outright by a chamber in which the government hold a handsome majority of 77. And all because Blair lied, and because people's memories aren't quite as short as he'd care to think.
Philip Hammond suggested that the result of this vote would have a negative impact on the 'special relationship' with the US, which is presumably code for a marginally less slavish loyalty to US foreign policy. Now that's the kind of Blair handiwork of which I can thoroughly approve. It's almost as splendid an irony as Mrs Thatcher turning out to be the midwife of devolution.
The moral issues at stake yesterday weren't straightforward, because the use of chemical weapons is indeed different to the use of conventional weapons, and there's certainly a danger of a slippery slope if the world is seen to shrug its shoulders at a moment like this. But there are alternatives to studied disinterest that don't involve bombing civilians to kingdom come, or opportunistic Anglo-American attempts to alter the balance of power in the Middle East, or exercises in rank hypocrisy from politicians (including, disgracefully, Liberal Democrats) who spend much of their leisure time lecturing us about how failure to accept NATO as a first-strike WMD club is a sign of political 'immaturity'. Just for once, the Commons have stunned us all by getting a judgement call entirely right.
And for that we have Tony Blair to thank, paradoxically enough. He is the unwitting author of this result. It's worth making a comparison with the 2003 parliamentary vote on the invasion of Iraq - back then, the only real question was whether a majority of Labour backbenchers would vote for the war. Overall victory for the PM was assured in spite of the fact that the motion before the House was an umambiguous authorisation of military action that was just hours away. Fast forward ten years, and a watered-down motion that wouldn't have authorised anything has been rejected outright by a chamber in which the government hold a handsome majority of 77. And all because Blair lied, and because people's memories aren't quite as short as he'd care to think.
Philip Hammond suggested that the result of this vote would have a negative impact on the 'special relationship' with the US, which is presumably code for a marginally less slavish loyalty to US foreign policy. Now that's the kind of Blair handiwork of which I can thoroughly approve. It's almost as splendid an irony as Mrs Thatcher turning out to be the midwife of devolution.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Pro-independence campaign makes gains in latest Angus Reid poll
Many thanks to Marcia for alerting me to the latest Angus Reid poll on referendum voting intentions, which shows the Yes campaign closing the gap from fifteen to thirteen points -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 34% (+2)
No 47% (-)
John Curtice's blogpost about the poll essentially bills it as a 'no change' affair. That's arguably a slightly odd analysis given that this is the second successive Angus Reid poll to show a cut in the No lead, which stood a full five points higher at the start of the year. But give Curtice his due - his post is a hell of a lot more justifiable than the 'report' in the rag that actually commissioned the poll, which largely ignores the rather inconvenient headline figures and instead focuses on the "shock" findings that 16% of Scottish residents would "think about" leaving if Alex Salmond achieves his "dream" of "breaking up" the "United" Kingdom. Apparently we should be particularly concerned that Tory voters are most likely to "think about" finding a new haunt, because of all the tax revenues they kindly donate to us less enlightened souls.
"The potential loss of tax revenue would be a disaster for the first government of an independent Scotland, as well triggering a crash in the housing market and leaving the nation with a catastrophic skills gap.
It would also prove a damaging blow to the confidence and credibility of the SNP."
Hmmm. If even Paul Daniels didn't keep his promise to leave these shores in the event of a Labour government, consider me a tad sceptical that one-sixth of the population of Scotland would up and leave in the event of a Yes vote. Even so, it would have been interesting just for balance to discover what percentage of the population of the rest of the UK would "think about" moving to Scotland after independence, to become refugees from London's austerity politics.
Another supplementary finding that the Express seem to consider more important than the headline figures is that "a sovereign Holyrood would be left in charge of around three million people who wish to remain citizens of a foreign nation". Well now, this is odd, because I'm already a citizen of a foreign nation (the United States), and I've no wish to give that citizenship up in the event of independence. In unionist-speak, I suppose this is "a catastrophic blow to the confidence and credibility of the SNP, as a pro-independence daft wee laddie (© Duncan Hothersall) declares that he would want to be a foreigner in a separate Scotland".
To move away from the Express for a moment and back to sanity, what strikes me most about this poll is that it is no longer really the case that Panelbase are the exotic outliers of independence polling. Although Angus Reid are still showing a slightly higher No lead than Panelbase, they're now much closer to Panelbase than to Ipsos-Mori or YouGov (admittedly we haven't had an official YouGov independence poll for almost a year, but it's probably safe to assume their methodology will continue to flatter the No campaign).
Now, a couple of quick questions for Blair McDougall, if he can take a moment away from his firefighting efforts in the wake of the disturbing #pounds4mcdougallgate revelations -
1) When the recent Panelbase poll on referendum voting intentions was released, you claimed in a tweet that the undecideds were "breaking for No", on the grounds that the No vote was up 2% and the Yes vote was up only 1%. Would it be fair to say, therefore, that this Angus Reid poll clearly shows that the undecideds are breaking for Yes, given that the Yes vote is up 2% and the No vote is static?
2) In your Sunday Times piece last week, you claimed that only one pollster - Panelbase - showed an increase in the Yes vote. In future #pounds4mcdougallgate articles, will you be equally keen to update that observation, and note that both pollsters who have reported most recently agree that the Yes vote has increased?
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 34% (+2)
No 47% (-)
John Curtice's blogpost about the poll essentially bills it as a 'no change' affair. That's arguably a slightly odd analysis given that this is the second successive Angus Reid poll to show a cut in the No lead, which stood a full five points higher at the start of the year. But give Curtice his due - his post is a hell of a lot more justifiable than the 'report' in the rag that actually commissioned the poll, which largely ignores the rather inconvenient headline figures and instead focuses on the "shock" findings that 16% of Scottish residents would "think about" leaving if Alex Salmond achieves his "dream" of "breaking up" the "United" Kingdom. Apparently we should be particularly concerned that Tory voters are most likely to "think about" finding a new haunt, because of all the tax revenues they kindly donate to us less enlightened souls.
"The potential loss of tax revenue would be a disaster for the first government of an independent Scotland, as well triggering a crash in the housing market and leaving the nation with a catastrophic skills gap.
It would also prove a damaging blow to the confidence and credibility of the SNP."
Hmmm. If even Paul Daniels didn't keep his promise to leave these shores in the event of a Labour government, consider me a tad sceptical that one-sixth of the population of Scotland would up and leave in the event of a Yes vote. Even so, it would have been interesting just for balance to discover what percentage of the population of the rest of the UK would "think about" moving to Scotland after independence, to become refugees from London's austerity politics.
Another supplementary finding that the Express seem to consider more important than the headline figures is that "a sovereign Holyrood would be left in charge of around three million people who wish to remain citizens of a foreign nation". Well now, this is odd, because I'm already a citizen of a foreign nation (the United States), and I've no wish to give that citizenship up in the event of independence. In unionist-speak, I suppose this is "a catastrophic blow to the confidence and credibility of the SNP, as a pro-independence daft wee laddie (© Duncan Hothersall) declares that he would want to be a foreigner in a separate Scotland".
To move away from the Express for a moment and back to sanity, what strikes me most about this poll is that it is no longer really the case that Panelbase are the exotic outliers of independence polling. Although Angus Reid are still showing a slightly higher No lead than Panelbase, they're now much closer to Panelbase than to Ipsos-Mori or YouGov (admittedly we haven't had an official YouGov independence poll for almost a year, but it's probably safe to assume their methodology will continue to flatter the No campaign).
Now, a couple of quick questions for Blair McDougall, if he can take a moment away from his firefighting efforts in the wake of the disturbing #pounds4mcdougallgate revelations -
1) When the recent Panelbase poll on referendum voting intentions was released, you claimed in a tweet that the undecideds were "breaking for No", on the grounds that the No vote was up 2% and the Yes vote was up only 1%. Would it be fair to say, therefore, that this Angus Reid poll clearly shows that the undecideds are breaking for Yes, given that the Yes vote is up 2% and the No vote is static?
2) In your Sunday Times piece last week, you claimed that only one pollster - Panelbase - showed an increase in the Yes vote. In future #pounds4mcdougallgate articles, will you be equally keen to update that observation, and note that both pollsters who have reported most recently agree that the Yes vote has increased?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)