Astonishing Tory poll lead...but is it accurate?

What should one make on the extraordinary YouGov poll published in this morning's Sun - a 26 point Tory lead with Labour on 23 per cent?

Clearly it is telling a large truth - that Brown is in terrible trouble and that Cameron's shift to the centre is working. But what about the actual figures? What should we think of them?

Let's leave aside the question of margins of error, and whether the poll is a slight outlier, and look at the big picture - the scale of it.

This is the sort of scale of lead that Labour registered more than once at the height of King Tony. And then he won in a landslide.

Just one thing though - the poll leads weren't accurate. The result produced a much smaller gap between the parties, but a very big majority because the swing wasn't uniform. Companies that adjusted for the so-called spiral of silence - the shy Tory effect - got closer to the voting proportions than those that didn't.

This produces a fascinating debate. I'll put the always stimulating Peter Kellner's side first.

YouGov use computer surveys. These have several advantages, including the fact that it is easier to poll busy people. Kellner believes that this helped them get the London Mayoral result spot on.

He also believes it has another important advantage - it eliminates interviewer bias. In other words, respondents don't wish to admit they are Tories when talking to a real person, but when interacting with a computer they can tell the truth. Hence YouGov get larger Tory leads. And they did get London right.

Now I'll put the alternative.

Since YouGov was established there hasn't been much of a spiral of silence because Tory shyness has diminished. The other companies haven't really needed to adjust for it. YouGov's failure to do so hasn't mattered.

Now the spiral is back. But what we are getting is shy Labour supporters not shy Tories.

The idea is that the herd effect has an impact on anybody's willingness to admit they are on the minority side. This impact is the same for Labour people as for Tories.

ICM and Times pollster Populus are weighting their polls exactly as they used to - redistributing a proportion of the don't knows to reflect past voting behaviour. In the 1990s this boosted the Tory share. Now the exact same method ends up boosting Labour.

And as for computers, well, it is far from certain that people are honest to computers. A recent study showed that people are polite to computers exactly as they are to interviewers. You may get a spiral of silence, or at least a proportion of it, when conducting an internet poll.

This theory would suggest that YouGov are overestimating the Tory lead by failing to compensate for Labour shyness.

What about London? It is possible that YouGov were more accurate in London largely because of the superiority of sampling in a busy city using the internet.

It is also possible that the spiral of silence that prevents people admitting that they support Gordon Brown did not exist for Livingstone. And the shyness of Ken voters may have faded during the campaign accounting for the drop in Johnson's YouGov poll lead as the vote came closer.

Then again, maybe London just shows YouGov are right.

As I say, a fascinating debate.

Incidentally, I don't think Gordon Brown's salvation lies in the answers to these questions. In retrospect, the existence of shy Tories in 1992 was the leading indicator that electoral disaster was just over the horizon.

It isn't good news if even your supporters won't admit it. Particularly to a computer.

Comments

[Tom Freeman]

Danny, I've been thinking about this in relation to your piece last week on why polls are a better indicator of future general elections than local election results are.

I think you're completely right on that, but there is significance to 'real votes in real ballot boxes' - but it's in what the local results cause rather than what they indicate.

There's a demonstration effect at work: once people see that many others really are voting for a previously unpopular party, then their willingness to admit that they would and even their willingess to do so at all will increase. Hence poll shifts following a surprisingly good election result. Conversely for a bad result.

I'd expect that polls this month would show both an increase in 'shy Labourites' (artificially inflating the Tory lead) and also a genuine increase in Tory support.

[James]

I think You Gov remain most accurate and shy Tories remain shy.

The polling show us that Labour still has one priceless advantage over the Conservative Party. They are still perceived as fundamentally good. This is clear from the fact that even today people lie to pollsters about who they are going to vote for. People just won’t admit to being anti-Labour because voting Labour is perceived as virtuous.

Let me take the analysis a step further by noting that the middle classes actually want to be virtuous. As well as their material aspirations for conservatories, early retirement and luxury German cars, we aspire to be good. We feel better about ourselves if we can believe we are doing something for the less fortunate. A vote for Labour, in other words, is a kind of civic duty that allows the middle classes to feel that they have done their bit. And Labour still has that advantage, as all those people lying to opinion pollsters shows.

But there is a problem for Gordon Brown. The aspiration to virtue cannot override material desires. Only if people feel secure will they hanker after the spiritual goods that Labour can offer. With the economy looking shaky, it was always going to be hard for Labour (the Conservatives, conversely, can win when the economy looks bad, as they did in 1992, even if the economic problems were their own fault). But with the middle classes also deeply suspicious that Brown doesn’t care about them, Labour is in big trouble. Tony Blair made the middle classes a wonderful offer – painless virtue. They could feel good by voting Labour safe in the knowledge that it would cost them nothing.

So, contrary to most opinion formers, the Labour Party doesn’t need a new narrative. It needs a new Tony Blair.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Things can only get worse!

I always thought that politics would start melting when Blair went but desertification of the Labour field was not to be expected by anyone.

[Gavin]

Yes its a murky business of polls and I am sure that other politicians can be trying to push the polls so that they can get brown to resign. We are is the disaterous state in this country where because of blinded electoral party rule changers it is now nearly impossible to get a poor leader out of the top job which has huge powers of patronage and influence. so we have an unelected president that none can remove outside of a huge general election. Time for change in party rules for PMs me thinks

[Andy Watt]

Broadly speaking (very broadly I concede) both parties have the same goals - planned immigration, better schools, better health service, better funding for the military, fewer people on welfare, etc.

The difference between the parties is in their theory of how these goals can be achieved. The last 10 years has been a Labour "experiment" as they have tried to implement their theory - big government, throwing money at problems, knee-jerk legislation, high taxes to pay for all this, etc.

It is now clear to people that the "experiment" is failing and thus the implementation theory has become discredited. People want a new management team.

[Nathon]

Although I have no idea of YouGov's methods, I would imagine that various factors skew their results.

For example, working-class voters are more likely to vote Labour but less likely to use the internet. Do YouGov take such things into account?

[Jonathan M. Scott]

It is pretty accurate. And, as I have blogged today on The Wilted Rose, the 19 point Tory lead (up from level pegging) in the NORTH suggests a Conservative win in Crewe & Nantwich!

[steve]

I have no sympathy for Brown, he has surrounded himself with expensive advisors,who either provide good advice which he ignores or he has chosen a poor team. His cabinet is stuffed with lightweights who are not talented enough to take over from him, so we have to accet that Brown will muddle along. We have endured ten years of economic calm, which would have happened nomatter who was in power. Brown (no more boom or bust)has bluffed his way and the Labour spin machine has brain washed the electorate into believing that he was someone special.

[Peter Hinton]

One swallow does not make a summer. Cerainly polls give an indication of what is happening and certainly the Tories are way ahead. However the ral problem for Labour will be the number ofpeople who will come out to vote. Will fe up Labour supporters stay at hme and will the Tory voters who hav not voted from middle England stand up and be counted? If that happens then meltdown for Laour may be an understatement.

[David]

Were I Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democratic Parliamentary Party, I would be simply drooling. This could be the LibDems chance to make the leap at least to Official Opposition and perhaps the first step towards being in Government. Labour's latest numbers are starting to look very similar to the Canadian Tories' just before Kim Campbell called THAT election, and they went from Government to not even having enough seats to be an official party. Labour is heading for a wipe out, and it has more to do with a desire for change than anything else.

[Sarah Henry]

There's another explanation for YouGov success. Unlike in an interview, where people politely answer the interviewer, when responding online people choose to do so, just as they choose to vote. YouGov is better placed to get a response from people who will actually vote, not just those who say they will because they are too shy to say they wont, no matter what party they support. People who are not interested in participating in this democratic process don’t vote and don’t respond to YouGov Polls. If they are interested, they’ll do both.

[Eric]

If the Poll asked the question............Which Party would you expect to get social justice from?..........then Labour would have a 20 point lead...........These polls should state WHERE they were conducted and WHAT the question asked was

Eric, I think you'll find they do.

Also, just because you clearly think that Labour is the party of social justice, it doesn't mean everybody else does. Social justice includes protection from crime and relative poverty. After 10 years of Labour, people are quite reasonably looking for a better results and a better message than simply "Labour is good. Tories evil". They are starting to engage their brains as well as their hearts, which can only be good for the country.

Back on polling, the evidence from the last 20 years is that the telephone polling companies have a persistent left wing bias, which is not explained merely by 'shy Tories'. YouGov may not be perfect and subject to other biases not yet discovered but it has to be said their record to date has consistently out-classed traditional polls. Labour supporters should not shoot the messenger. That didn't do Ken any good. Instead they should be asking themselves what has gone so disasterously wrong such that a majority of people no longer think of Labour as the party of social justice or indeed any justice at all.

[paul freeman]

The result of the years of Labour spin (=lies and evasion) coupled with inability to deliver, and high taxation, are a lack of public belief now in anything New Labour says. Add to that a very poor and inexperienced set of ministers, an unelected, ineffectual and pig-headed PM, and uncontrolled inflation, and you have an electorate asking what on earth the benefit is from Labour's tax and spend philosophy. Seen it all before? Every time if you're old enough. Messed up schools, messed up health service, messed up police force, messed up armed forces. Look, this isn't about polls or about Gordon Brown, though he doesn't help, it's about reaping the results of New Labour's failure, failure of policy, failure to implement, failure to manage, and failure to control spending. The game's up.

[Matt Jessop]

The thing that both comforts me and worries me at the same time is that Labour are going through pretty much what the Conservatives did previously. I think the worst think for Labour to do at the current situation would be to abandon Brown, as that would just make them look like political opportunists, who can't even ride out an unpopular storm. Even if Brown is destined to lose the next general election (keeping in mind that people have come back from worse) - it makes far more sense for the long term for Labour to stick with him.

More on topic though, I agree with the general points put forward by this article, that a 'Shy Labour' voter does exist, and that internet polling does provide a more private way for people to express their views on voting. After all, if voting is a private affair, then so should the polling.

[Tom Mein]

Another case of the author refusing to believe that people could be so stupid as to believe something he disagrees with.

[steve tea]

All polls are accurate if the same measure and extrapolation of data has taken place. I think the question should be asked of what type of questions were asked, what was demographic of the people answering and what assumtions did they make when answering

[The Bag of Health and Politics]

Same thing happens in the states. People no longer want to admit they're Republicans. If that's happening, there's a pretty good chance that they aren't going to vote for "their party." We saw it in 2006 in our Congressional election. We're seeing it a big now in the Presidential election. I'd say this is a good sign for the Tories. Though I am a Democrat in the US, I think I'd probably be a Tory in Britain. I've never been a fan of Tony Blair. Gordon Brown seems to have taken the worst aspects of Blair and ditched the best ones. Hope the Tories win!

[Charles Bailey]

To Andy Watt: I am "working class" and surprise , surprise I can use a PC, and my wife and three sons can as well. My youngest son could teach you a thing or two on how to use a PC correctly.
I have voted "Conservative" since I was of an age to vote, as they have always been the best people to run this Country in my opinion. Learn this. Just because someone is in a lesser job, or lives in a Council House, does not make them a NuLabour supporter. I will tell you this now. The Tories have already won the next General Election whenever it comes. NuLabour are imploding and knifing each other in the back, it's not new, I've seen it before. If Gordon Brown had any honour he would pay a visit to see Her Majesty (how she stands him, I don't know?) and ask her to dissolve Parliment.

An Oldgattonian.

[DBX]

I'm surprised by the "Labour is good" remarks. I think the precise problem is that they're perceived as BAD. Intrusive, police state, crooked, incompetent, and placing the interests of cronies ahead of the interests of a sound economy.

But part of what is opening voters' eyes to this is that the formerly solidly Thatcherite Bullingdon Alumni Association, excuse me, Tory front bench, tacked strongly to the centre. And so rather than a bunch of authoritarian, hanging, flogging tosh like the previous generation of Tories, we are treated to a Tory party that promises not to police your bedroom, photograph your every move, or means-test every tax credit. Oh, and NuLabor®'s managerial failures are such that the Bullingdon Alumni Association hardly even needs to point out that they'll do a better job of managing your precious taxes, because after all nobody could do it worse.

If the BAA can keep their personal sense of entitlement in check, and manage to operate less incompetently than that other BAA, while keeping the new liberal Toryism in the forefront, they'll get serious credit for it from the voters and be in power for a generation.

[Mike Dickinson]

The electorate are determined that Labour and Gordon Brown are going to pay the price at the polls for their arrogance, stealth taxes and smugness. The 10% tax rate abolition was one of the best example of these traits. I well recall Gordon Brown sitting down after his last budget with triumphant smugness announcing a 2% reduction in the 22% tax band. Sitting down to the cheers of his backbenchers,conveniently forgeting to mention the loss of the 10% rate in his budget speech.

Now the game is up Gordon Brown is showing all the traits of someone caught with his hand in the till. "Sorry - I'll put the money back and it won't happen again" is the cry but the jury of the people do not believe this, as evidenced by the latest polls.

The outcome is quite clear, when the Election comes, he and his cheering supporters in the Goverment are "going down".

[Edward, Cheltenham]

What exactly is the disaster which has caused this hysteria? Gordon being grumpy? Where are the million-strong marches and rioters because of all the abominable things he has done?

What happens if in six months time the credit crunch has receded and people are realising they're still in work, still in their own homes and paying an affordable mortgage rate? Supposing the news is all about finally eradicating MRSA and hospital waiting lists and ever-improving school results?

There's two years to go before the next election, and there's nothing we or the Tories can do about it, whatever the polls say. Of course, it may all go pear-shaped properly for Gordon, but supposing he sharpens his act and he starts to deliver? He's only been in a few months, people should get a grip.

[Carol]

Why does no-one ever mention the low turnouts? Won't votes are the largest party. Someone mentioned that both parties are more or less the same and the public simply want a change of management. Well that isn't what I want. I want politicans with passion and ideas and a competent Civil Service to implement those ideas.

[NBeale]

N=30 study published in 1999 - not very convincing I'm afraid. It's not well cited and the main citation (apart from a book by a co-author) is a study that disagrees with it (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=642661)

[Sceptic]

All David Cameron has to do now is to give us his solemn promise that he will deport all illegal immigrants and preachers of hate, stop all benefits for anyone even loosely associated with Terrorism or anti British rantings, withdraw benefits from anyone sending money to relatives or friends in their home countries.

Close all Mosques where suspected terrorists are being brainwashed and withdraw their planning permissions and refuse planning permission, sine die, for a new mosque if it is within a 30 miles radius of the one closed.

Close and withdraw planning permission for any book shop which is in any way dealing, supplying, supporting, or fostering, anti British literature or any teachings of terrorism.

Consider whether British born terrorists should be charged with Treason, all asylum seekers and immigrants, genuine or otherwise, to be deported if found guilty of a crime where the statutory penalty is 12 months imprisonment or more, any company or Government Department employing illegal immgrants to be, without exception, severely fined and the Directors or Government Officials responsible for engaging these people to be dismissed and or, subject to the number employed, charged with a criminal offence.

If David Cameron promises us these things and keeps his word he will not only win this Election by an overwhelming and unassailable majority but he will also win many more to come because this is what the people want.

Sceptical

[Perduta]

A very interesting article, but there is a simple question to your supposition, how do you know that the shy Tory or the shy Socialist is evident one way or the other? I am certain that the 'herd' instinct plays a part, but to what degree does it influence either the Left or the Right vote? Intuitively, I believe that the 'spiral of silence is more likely to affect the Tory voter, simply because of the antagonism that they encounter whenever they question a Socialist's beliefs. Remember Jesse Helms' comment when he said (my apology's for any slight misquote), 'When you disagree with a liberal, why do they get so mad?'

[Truthseeker]

Sceptic, 10.22 p.m. Please add, at the very least, a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and, preferably, a referendum on continued (and expensive) membership of the bureaucratically-bound EU. Repeal of the so-called Human Rights legislation, that seems to provide more rights to perpetrators of crime than to its victims, would also not go amiss.

[Dave Green]

Sceptical and Truthseeker forgot the
restrictions on travel within the Uk,disbanding parliment and free elections and preventive detention for people disagreeing with the ruling junta, sorry, ruling party and who needs free speech anyway?

[KW]

Accepting that Labour means well, I am afraid that is not substitute for competence. Anyone with half a brain could see that the loss of the 10p tax band would hit the low paid, what should have happened was that the thresholds should have been adjusted to keep the tax neutral for the low paid, unfortunately that would have meant Brown giving the taxpayers something back, which he does not like

[Steve]

Why is everyone so surprised,Labour
got in because the economy at the time was bad, house prices low,
people vote with there wallets, without the sub-prime crisis the difference between the parties would be minimal so dont lets think the Cameron is the greatest thing since Winston/thatcher, he may still end up in office with a
pretty gloomy economy for him to sort out, he's lucky Gordon did not call the election last year and won because he would be getting the blame even if everyone knows that the city/banks are the main culprits

[Ian Tinn]

A great article, though it may benefit from one additional point:

Shy Labour voters usually remain shy at election time. It is easier to get Tories out to 'do their duty' on the day.

Therefore, perhaps the Labour vote should not be boosted artificially by pollsters.

[Andrew Baker]

This is just another facet of the simple tribal politics we have is this country. Nobody wants to be associated with the losing side. Maybe it would be better if we ditched first-past-the-post for the preference system used in the London Mayoral elections? This would boost turnout as people would be less inclined to think their vote would be wasted and more thought would go into making a vote (as opposed to merely supporting the tribe).

[Eric]

There is no doubt that the tory party should be given some sort of medal for their success in the areas of deceit and distortion..........I believe reality will prevail PRIOR to a General Election

[Dominic]

Things are only going to get worse as we go on.

Explosive money supply growth over the past decade created the "good" economy, failure to accept a mild recession in 2001 or a major recession in 2005 will cause a massive recession in 2009, or another stagflationary blast like the 70's.

The idea that Labour has our best interests at heart has been replaced with a tyranny of apparchiks and an enforcement gestapo, which I would guess has an effect on poll results too.
I remember the story going round that postal votes were traceable and you'd be fired if you voted BNP or UKIP.
A few days ago a man was given a criminal record for overfilling his bin.
Are you going to be honest when you recieve an unsolicited phone call?

[Ian King]

If any view is to be based on the governments actual performance since coming to power the gap should be a lot greater.

[MARK WILLIAMS]

I have just watched Prime ministers questions, and Brown has trotted out the now weekly response of what the Tories did or didnt do when they were in power 15 years ago, i wish he would just answer the questions and be straight with people instead of giving us this old spin.He comes across as having no personality and no sense of humour and just fails to gel with the electorate, hence the reason the Labour party are keeping him away from Crewe.

[Robert Peters]

The article's point about the relcutance of people to declare an allegiance to Labour just now is a very valid one and applies equally to all opinion polls. It is not only that people feel that they are going out on a limb, at a time when the media are baying for blood, but also there is an intention even among loyal Labour followers to send a message to Brown that things need to change.
The internet methodology of the Yougov survey is cheap and cheerful. I know the majority of the population have access to the internet, but they do not give their time to completing online opinion polls. It would be interesting to see whether the sample is representative of those employed/not employed and how it splits by different social class groupings. And what percentage of people are approached in these internet polls to give their opinion and how many refuse to take part.

[Nothonotus]

"Cameron's shift to the centre is working..."

It's not the centre: it's the politically correct Marxist left selling itself to big business in return for power. Cameron is not a conservative in any proper sense and nor, obviously, is Daniel Finkelstein.

[Martin]

I always take these yougov polls with a huge pinch of salt, seeing as i've never been contacted, ever.