politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The EU referendum: A battle between the social classes
The above breakdown is from the latest ComRes referendum poll and shows how different socio-economic groups responded to the 16 word referendum question.
I think it's interesting that the C2s are the most likely to say that they will vote leave. There's definitely something about being confident about the future and these people earn decent money and many will have paid off a good chunk of their mortgage. Many of these people will make the calculation that their skills will be required whether we're in the EU or not. The Ds and Es by contrast might not be keen on the EU but might fear suffering from the potential negative affects of leaving the EU.
A ComRes survey finds only 23 per cent of respondents across the UK back the Named Person scheme, with similar support in Scotland.
Fewer than one in four people support the SNP’s plan to appoint every Scottish child a state guardian and nearly two-thirds believe it is an “unacceptable intrusion” into family life, according to a new opinion poll.
I think it's more middle class people can avoid the unattractive bits of immigration such as marginalised in their schools, neighbourhoods, trades and housing.
But the snobbery is still a factor, Exhibit 1. Matthew Parris on Clacton.
How does the pro-education slant for remain compare to the pro-old-person slant for leave? Right now it's not obvious that Remain have a good strategy for getting young people to turn out.
those classified as ‘C2DEs’ , that is those in working class occupations, were rather more likely to vote Yes than those in more middle class ABC1 jobs. According to Ashcroft, 44% of ABC1 voters voted Yes compared with 47% of C2DE ones. The gap in YouGov’s data is a little larger, with 41% of ABC1 and 50% of C2DE respondents saying the voted Yes.
Is the suggestion here that "clever" people back remain and the opposite back leave...?
Only if you think that "lower socioeconomic groups" are less clever.
As a rule, lower socioeconomic groups will be less clever.
The relationship is indirect and imperfect but the less clever will tend to earn fewer qualifications and end up in less-well-paid jobs, which is presumably a large part of the definition of "socioeconomic group".
Obviously, there's more to it than that. Two children, both with the same intelligence, one born in a sink estate and one born to a millionaire, are quite likely to remain in their social class for social factors - expectations, schooling, support, networks and so on - but the loose relationship between class and ability holds.
Not too surprised. Those currently doing well are less likely to welcome something which they see as a change to the status quo [even though that's also true of Remain].
EIT, according to MORI, turnout among AB voters was 18% higher than among DE voters. But it's 25% higher among the 55+ cohort than among the 18-34 cohort.
I think it's more middle class people can avoid the unattractive bits of immigration such as marginalised in their schools, neighbourhoods, trades and housing.
But the snobbery is still a factor, Exhibit 1. Matthew Parris on Clacton.
Is the suggestion here that "clever" people back remain and the opposite back leave...?
It's probably more that one of the most visible advantages of the EU to many people is the ability to go away for the weekend with little bureaucratic hassle to their cottage in Tuscany, or to take Quentin and Millicent to Disneyworld for the week. Or even the booze cruise.
I would also reckon that the same people are also more in favour of joining the Euro than the average Brit.
Leaving may not mean that changes. But they worry that it might.
They are also less foreigner-afraid, as they will have some, or lots, of contact with very nice foreign-born middle-class people such as doctors and the like.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
No idea of the veracity of this poll but it does confirm the attitude of the likes of Meeks.
The number of people in each socioeconomic group will also affect the outcome. I presume that the number of people in the C2 group is less than the AB and C1 groups combined, so the snake oil salesmen will have nothing to worry about on 23rd June. The balance of support for each camp in the DE group is similar, so the propensity to vote in this group would not affect the outcome based on this poll.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
No idea of the veracity of this poll but it does confirm the attitude of the likes of Meeks.
That sort of talk used to be frowned upon on here. The the 2015 GE came along ...
It's not actually in their interests to deliberately falsify results. Their reputation comes from their accuracy, and that is what is useful to their customers.
Now, what their customers ask them to ask is another matter.
On voter registration: Labour made a serious effort last year before the crucial Boundary Commission cutoff date, and there's a bit going on in London now as part of the Mayoral effort, but otherwise it's just the usual council posters saying "don't lose your vote" etc., so far as I know. In general I think the parties are preoccupied with the May elections and will turn to the referendum after that. It's IMO a pity it's not on the same day.
I think it's more middle class people can avoid the unattractive bits of immigration such as marginalised in their schools, neighbourhoods, trades and housing.
But the snobbery is still a factor, Exhibit 1. Matthew Parris on Clacton.
Is the suggestion here that "clever" people back remain and the opposite back leave...?
It's probably more that one of the most visible advantages of the EU to many people is the ability to go away for the weekend with little bureaucratic hassle to their cottage in Tuscany, or to take Quentin and Millicent to Disneyworld for the week. Or even the booze cruise.
I would also reckon that the same people are also more in favour of joining the Euro than the average Brit.
Leaving may not mean that changes. But they worry that it might.
They are also less foreigner-afraid, as they will have some, or lots, of contact with very nice foreign-born middle-class people such as doctors and the like.
I'm not sure if that's tongue in cheek but it resonates with me. I'll give you another example. In a well known Kent coastal town Eastern European prostitutes operate (so I'm told) its not poor people that can afford prostitutes even at (what I'm told) are relatively low prices.
Immigration is undoubtedly good for the middle classes, less so if you're bobbing along the bottom.
The EU is not about immigration to me but it is to plenty of others.
On voter registration: Labour made a serious effort last year before the crucial Boundary Commission cutoff date, and there's a bit going on in London now as part of the Mayoral effort, but otherwise it's just the usual council posters saying "don't lose your vote" etc., so far as I know. In general I think the parties are preoccupied with the May elections and will turn to the referendum after that. It's IMO a pity it's not on the same day.
That's been my experience, having moved house. It's only the Council want me to register.
I think it's more middle class people can avoid the unattractive bits of immigration such as marginalised in their schools, neighbourhoods, trades and housing.
But the snobbery is still a factor, Exhibit 1. Matthew Parris on Clacton.
Is the suggestion here that "clever" people back remain and the opposite back leave...?
It's probably more that one of the most visible advantages of the EU to many people is the ability to go away for the weekend with little bureaucratic hassle to their cottage in Tuscany, or to take Quentin and Millicent to Disneyworld for the week. Or even the booze cruise.
I would also reckon that the same people are also more in favour of joining the Euro than the average Brit.
Leaving may not mean that changes. But they worry that it might.
They are also less foreigner-afraid, as they will have some, or lots, of contact with very nice foreign-born middle-class people such as doctors and the like.
It may also be that, on balance, they think it's best for the country.
Note that E apparently includes all state pensioners, but I suspect it means people relying only on state pension.
So where would other pensions go? I wish I'd paid more attention to this when I was working on the 2011 Census. I reckon I'm C1. My brother-in-law is a C2 but earns quite a bit more than me.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
No idea of the veracity of this poll but it does confirm the attitude of the likes of Meeks.
That sort of talk used to be frowned upon on here. The the 2015 GE came along ...
It's not actually in their interests to deliberately falsify results. Their reputation comes from their accuracy, and that is what is useful to their customers.
Now, what their customers ask them to ask is another matter.
Thanks, interesting. I don't pay a polling company twice if the first time they tell me I'm rubbish.
Right or wrong polls influence people, always check who's paying.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
Mainly because;
1) It's not true - their 'worth' lies in 'accuracy' - not 'keeping clients happy' 2) It's libellous - if by 'the right results' you mean 'the results the client wants' - but I'm sure you didn't mean that.....
If we are going to attribute narrow, superficial, self-interested reasons to ABs for voting Remain in the referendum, presumably the same reasoning applies to their choice of political party at general election time.
If we are going to attribute narrow, superficial, self-interested reasons to ABs for voting Remain in the referendum, presumably the same reasoning applies to their choice of political party at general election time.
As you observed - 'doing the right thing for the country....' ;-)
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
I think it's interesting that the C2s are the most likely to say that they will vote leave. There's definitely something about being confident about the future and these people earn decent money and many will have paid off a good chunk of their mortgage. Many of these people will make the calculation that their skills will be required whether we're in the EU or not. The Ds and Es by contrast might not be keen on the EU but might fear suffering from the potential negative affects of leaving the EU.
C2s are, perhaps, the people whose incomes and pay-rates have been most threatened by EU migration.
I can imagine them being pretty motivated on this subject.
If we are going to attribute narrow, superficial, self-interested reasons to ABs for voting Remain in the referendum, presumably the same reasoning applies to their choice of political party at general election time.
I think that's right, and not just for ABs. Otherwise why would bungs / guarantees for certain portions of the population (e.g. pensioners) work?
It won't be the whole story, and some people will look at larger issues. But what they think is best for them will always be at the back of their minds, and those larger issues might be skewed by that personal perspective.
However for many people, even self-interested reasons will be absent. It will be "I've always voted Conservative / Labour", and everything - good or bad - will be viewed through that prism. For some, the most that would happen is that they wouldn't vote rather than vote for another team.
The idea that many voters (even on here) calmly sit down, read the prospectuses and other information, analyse them and try to come up with a view of what is best for the country seems rather odd.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
Thanks for that, let's discuss.
First of all, not at any stage have I suggested pollsters make things up. However, as you very well know, the wording of a question can lead to very different outcomes.
Incidentally, it was unanimous on here post GE that polling companies reputations WERE trashed.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
No idea of the veracity of this poll but it does confirm the attitude of the likes of Meeks.
That sort of talk used to be frowned upon on here. The the 2015 GE came along ...
It's not actually in their interests to deliberately falsify results. Their reputation comes from their accuracy, and that is what is useful to their customers.
Now, what their customers ask them to ask is another matter.
Thanks, interesting. I don't pay a polling company twice if the first time they tell me I'm rubbish.
Well you should do. If you want a cheerleader, hire Roger.
If a pollster tells you that you're rubbish then do something about it. No-one's forcing you to publish the data.
Let's be honest, C2s are the ones reading the Daily Mail or Daily Express and over the years building up a subconscious cache of EU myths about bendy banana bans, EU banning Christmas to not offend Muslims, and all that tripe.
Whether they are in actual real life affected negatively by EU membership is another story. By globalisation, perhaps, but probably not by EU membership.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
No idea of the veracity of this poll but it does confirm the attitude of the likes of Meeks.
That sort of talk used to be frowned upon on here. The the 2015 GE came along ...
It's not actually in their interests to deliberately falsify results. Their reputation comes from their accuracy, and that is what is useful to their customers.
Now, what their customers ask them to ask is another matter.
Thanks, interesting. I don't pay a polling company twice if the first time they tell me I'm rubbish.
Right or wrong polls influence people, always check who's paying.
So if a polling company tells you your campaign isn't working you'd sack the polling company rather than do something to improve your campaign? That's real shoot the messenger stuff.
I'm not a politician but if I commissioned a poll and it told me I was doing badly I would definitely keep that polling company on. If my campaign isn't working I need to know.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
No idea of the veracity of this poll but it does confirm the attitude of the likes of Meeks.
That sort of talk used to be frowned upon on here. The the 2015 GE came along ...
It's not actually in their interests to deliberately falsify results. Their reputation comes from their accuracy, and that is what is useful to their customers.
Now, what their customers ask them to ask is another matter.
Thanks, interesting. I don't pay a polling company twice if the first time they tell me I'm rubbish.
Right or wrong polls influence people, always check who's paying.
You're not paying them to tell you you're rubbish: you're paying them to tell you how popular you are so you can react accordingly.
Most public political polls are performed by the media, and they need stories. But with four national parties, and natural deviation in polling results, there will almost always be some story for them, whether it is a Lib Dem bounce or a government decrease. But what they all want is the fabled, mythical crossover.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
Let's ask Survation, who admitted to supressing a poll because it had the wrong numbers.
If we are going to attribute narrow, superficial, self-interested reasons to ABs for voting Remain in the referendum, presumably the same reasoning applies to their choice of political party at general election time.
I think that's right, and not just for ABs. Otherwise why would bungs / guarantees for certain portions of the population (e.g. pensioners) work?
It won't be the whole story, and some people will look at larger issues. But what they think is best for them will always be at the back of their minds, and those larger issues might be skewed by that personal perspective.
However for many people, even self-interested reasons will be absent. It will be "I've always voted Conservative / Labour", and everything - good or bad - will be viewed through that prism. For some, the most that would happen is that they wouldn't vote rather than vote for another team.
The idea that many voters (even on here) calmly sit down, read the prospectuses and other information, analyse them and try to come up with a view of what is best for the country seems rather odd.
I think that's more or less true.
The credibility of party leaders plays a huge role too.
Economic self-interest is often as simple as whether the party seems like it could be trusted with a macroeconomic decisions.
Regarding bungs, giving them has less effect than taking them away.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
No idea of the veracity of this poll but it does confirm the attitude of the likes of Meeks.
That sort of talk used to be frowned upon on here. The the 2015 GE came along ...
It's not actually in their interests to deliberately falsify results. Their reputation comes from their accuracy, and that is what is useful to their customers.
Now, what their customers ask them to ask is another matter.
Thanks, interesting. I don't pay a polling company twice if the first time they tell me I'm rubbish.
Well you should do. If you want a cheerleader, hire Roger.
If a pollster tells you that you're rubbish then do something about it. No-one's forcing you to publish the data.
Because you're reasonably intelligent I'll assume you're missing the point on purpose.
Either that or you don't have the foggiest idea how businesses work.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
No idea of the veracity of this poll but it does confirm the attitude of the likes of Meeks.
That sort of talk used to be frowned upon on here. The the 2015 GE came along ...
It's not actually in their interests to deliberately falsify results. Their reputation comes from their accuracy, and that is what is useful to their customers.
Now, what their customers ask them to ask is another matter.
Thanks, interesting. I don't pay a polling company twice if the first time they tell me I'm rubbish.
Right or wrong polls influence people, always check who's paying.
So if a polling company tells you your campaign isn't working you'd sack the polling company rather than do something to improve your campaign? That's real shoot the messenger stuff.
I'm not a politician but if I commissioned a poll and it told me I was doing badly I would definitely keep that polling company on. If my campaign isn't working I need to know.
And you'd pay for another poll to confirm to the world how useless you are?
Let's be honest, C2s are the ones reading the Daily Mail or Daily Express and over the years building up a subconscious cache of EU myths about bendy banana bans, EU banning Christmas to not offend Muslims, and all that tripe.
Whether they are in actual real life affected negatively by EU membership is another story. By globalisation, perhaps, but probably not by EU membership.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
Let's ask Survation, who admitted to supressing a poll because it had the wrong numbers.
Wasn't it that they didn't trust the numbers, and felt they'd got a bad sample or somesuch? Which was a terrible mistake, and very telling. But I'm not sure they did it because they were hiding a result they did not like/want.
After all, their client (a newspaper, I think) would have loved the resultant story. And most of us on her would have screamed "outlier!" and Basil would have got tired for nothing ...
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
Thanks for that, let's discuss.
First of all, not at any stage have I suggested pollsters make things up. However, as you very well know, the wording of a question can lead to very different outcomes.
Incidentally, it was unanimous on here post GE that polling companies reputations WERE trashed.
Now wind your neck in.
But the very fact that the reputations were trashed - leading, one presumes, to financial losses - is exactly the outcome that mitigates against polling companies knowingly producing anything other than what they believe to be an accurate poll.
Yes, of course wording affects outcomes, as does differing methodologies - and those that are keen to see a certain outcome may well be attracted to companies whose questions and methodologies produce results favourable to their cause. However, that doesn't mean a company will necessarily accept a commission that they suspect will produce a skewed result. If they fear that the reputational damage would be greater than the profit from the survey, why would they?
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
First of all, not at any stage have I suggested pollsters make things up. However, as you very well know, the wording of a question can lead to very different outcomes.
Which is why they now all use the question that will be asked in the referendum.
Which polling companies, specifically, do you think have been producing inaccurate results to please which clients?
Or is this just a baseless smear from someone who might be thought a tad paranoid?
I almost posted a link to the South Park clip compilation of DERKA DERP DERR but satire aside they're right. Jobs have been shipped out, remaining jobs have seen huge competition drive down wages and conditions.
The cost of living in cities like London is genuinely absurd - but there is a reason that wages can rise so little and cost of living to rise so much, and thats the imported labour pool that's willing to live 6 to a room so beloved of the Daily Wail.
But - and its a very big But - the effect of reducing the labour pool by leaving the EU should be to force up wages. I get the impression that the Business-type Brexiters have the opposite in mind, seeing the EU as blocking their plans via red tape. A lot of C2DEs may be in for a nasty shock if they get their way.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
No idea of the veracity of this poll but it does confirm the attitude of the likes of Meeks.
That sort of talk used to be frowned upon on here. The the 2015 GE came along ...
It's not actually in their interests to deliberately falsify results. Their reputation comes from their accuracy, and that is what is useful to their customers.
Now, what their customers ask them to ask is another matter.
Thanks, interesting. I don't pay a polling company twice if the first time they tell me I'm rubbish.
Right or wrong polls influence people, always check who's paying.
So if a polling company tells you your campaign isn't working you'd sack the polling company rather than do something to improve your campaign? That's real shoot the messenger stuff.
I'm not a politician but if I commissioned a poll and it told me I was doing badly I would definitely keep that polling company on. If my campaign isn't working I need to know.
And you'd pay for another poll to confirm to the world how useless you are?
Yeah, that works.
For this purpose, there are two types of poll. Ones by media organisations that should become public, and private ones for organisations such as parties.
The former want stories, therefore deviations from the current picture are valuable to them. But with four parties and the natural deviation in polling results, there will almost always be a story. Especially if they five down into subsamples, which they sometimes do.
The latter want to know the true position, so they can react. A false position is worse than useless as it may cause them to put resources in the wrong places.
There is a third category: Ashcroft polls. But I think we can ignore those as being useless ...
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
Thanks for that, let's discuss.
First of all, not at any stage have I suggested pollsters make things up. However, as you very well know, the wording of a question can lead to very different outcomes.
Incidentally, it was unanimous on here post GE that polling companies reputations WERE trashed.
Now wind your neck in.
But the very fact that the reputations were trashed - leading, one presumes, to financial losses - is exactly the outcome that mitigates against polling companies knowingly producing anything other than what they believe to be an accurate poll.
Yes, of course wording affects outcomes, as does differing methodologies - and those that are keen to see a certain outcome may well be attracted to companies whose questions and methodologies produce results favourable to their cause. However, that doesn't mean a company will necessarily accept a commission that they suspect will produce a skewed result. If they fear that the reputational damage would be greater than the profit from the survey, why would they?
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
Thanks for that, let's discuss.
First of all, not at any stage have I suggested pollsters make things up. However, as you very well know, the wording of a question can lead to very different outcomes.
Incidentally, it was unanimous on here post GE that polling companies reputations WERE trashed.
Now wind your neck in.
But the very fact that the reputations were trashed - leading, one presumes, to financial losses - is exactly the outcome that mitigates against polling companies knowingly producing anything other than what they believe to be an accurate poll.
Yes, of course wording affects outcomes, as does differing methodologies - and those that are keen to see a certain outcome may well be attracted to companies whose questions and methodologies produce results favourable to their cause. However, that doesn't mean a company will necessarily accept a commission that they suspect will produce a skewed result. If they fear that the reputational damage would be greater than the profit from the survey, why would they?
Wow, talk about tying yourself in knots.
Look, polling companies are not dishonest, but they are businesses, like any other they rely on customers, revenue. If I, as a Leaver, hypothetically, pay them to produce a poll its in their interest to keep me happy in the hope of repeat business. They will word the question and speak to a certain type of person in order to placate me. Do you think they say to me:
Don't bother mate, you're a loser.
You do understand that, don't you? I mean how do you think PR companies and advertising agencies work?
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
No idea of the veracity of this poll but it does confirm the attitude of the likes of Meeks.
That sort of talk used to be frowned upon on here. The the 2015 GE came along ...
It's not actually in their interests to deliberately falsify results. Their reputation comes from their accuracy, and that is what is useful to their customers.
Now, what their customers ask them to ask is another matter.
Thanks, interesting. I don't pay a polling company twice if the first time they tell me I'm rubbish.
Right or wrong polls influence people, always check who's paying.
So if a polling company tells you your campaign isn't working you'd sack the polling company rather than do something to improve your campaign? That's real shoot the messenger stuff.
I'm not a politician but if I commissioned a poll and it told me I was doing badly I would definitely keep that polling company on. If my campaign isn't working I need to know.
And you'd pay for another poll to confirm to the world how useless you are?
Yeah, that works.
For this purpose, there are two types of poll. Ones by media organisations that should become public, and private ones for organisations such as parties.
The former want stories, therefore deviations from the current picture are valuable to them. But with four parties and the natural deviation in polling results, there will almost always be a story. Especially if they five down into subsamples, which they sometimes do.
The latter want to know the true position, so they can react. A false position is worse than useless as it may cause them to put resources in the wrong places.
There is a third category: Ashcroft polls. But I think we can ignore those as being useless ...
Well this was my whole point before people started jumping up and down: the person paying is as important as the outcome.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
Thanks for that, let's discuss.
First of all, not at any stage have I suggested pollsters make things up. However, as you very well know, the wording of a question can lead to very different outcomes.
Incidentally, it was unanimous on here post GE that polling companies reputations WERE trashed.
Now wind your neck in.
But the very fact that the reputations were trashed - leading, one presumes, to financial losses - is exactly the outcome that mitigates against polling companies knowingly producing anything other than what they believe to be an accurate poll.
Yes, of course wording affects outcomes, as does differing methodologies - and those that are keen to see a certain outcome may well be attracted to companies whose questions and methodologies produce results favourable to their cause. However, that doesn't mean a company will necessarily accept a commission that they suspect will produce a skewed result. If they fear that the reputational damage would be greater than the profit from the survey, why would they?
But in fairness they asked their clickbait questions after the VI questions - unlike that notorious Panelbase SINDYREF Poll which went through several questions before getting to the SINDY question.
I think blackburn63 needs to put up or shut up:
- Which polling company has asked a potentially leading EURef question - Which polling company has asked the EU Ref question after asking other leading questions.
But the very fact that the reputations were trashed - leading, one presumes, to financial losses - is exactly the outcome that mitigates against polling companies knowingly producing anything other than what they believe to be an accurate poll.
Yes, of course wording affects outcomes, as does differing methodologies - and those that are keen to see a certain outcome may well be attracted to companies whose questions and methodologies produce results favourable to their cause. However, that doesn't mean a company will necessarily accept a commission that they suspect will produce a skewed result. If they fear that the reputational damage would be greater than the profit from the survey, why would they?
Wow, talk about tying yourself in knots.
Look, polling companies are not dishonest, but they are businesses, like any other they rely on customers, revenue. If I, as a Leaver, hypothetically, pay them to produce a poll its in their interest to keep me happy in the hope of repeat business. They will word the question and speak to a certain type of person in order to placate me. Do you think they say to me:
Don't bother mate, you're a loser.
You do understand that, don't you? I mean how do you think PR companies and advertising agencies work?
There aren't many VI polls which are paid for by partisan groups. I think by polling council rules the company has to lay out in what order the questions were asked, so you can easily look for any attempts to bias the result.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
No idea of the veracity of this poll but it does confirm the attitude of the likes of Meeks.
That sort of talk used to be frowned upon on here. The the 2015 GE came along ...
It's not actually in their interests to deliberately falsify results. Their reputation comes from their accuracy, and that is what is useful to their customers.
Now, what their customers ask them to ask is another matter.
Thanks, interesting. I don't pay a polling company twice if the first time they tell me I'm rubbish.
Right or wrong polls influence people, always check who's paying.
So if a polling company tells you your campaign isn't working you'd sack the polling company rather than do something to improve your campaign? That's real shoot the messenger stuff.
I'm not a politician but if I commissioned a poll and it told me I was doing badly I would definitely keep that polling company on. If my campaign isn't working I need to know.
And you'd pay for another poll to confirm to the world how useless you are?
Yeah, that works.
For this purpose, there are two types of poll. Ones by media organisations that should become public, and private ones for organisations such as parties.
The former want stories, therefore deviations from the current picture are valuable to them. But with four parties and the natural deviation in polling results, there will almost always be a story. Especially if they five down into subsamples, which they sometimes do.
The latter want to know the true position, so they can react. A false position is worse than useless as it may cause them to put resources in the wrong places.
There is a third category: Ashcroft polls. But I think we can ignore those as being useless ...
Well this was my whole point before people started jumping up and down: the person paying is as important as the outcome.
Not if the VI question was asked in the normal fashion before any potentially leading questions. Then it doesn't matter who paid for it.
Blackburn, if I were running a political campaign, I'd want my pollster to give me an honest assessment of its effectiveness, rather than just assuring me everything was fine. I'd rather find out where I'm going wrong before the vote, so I can fix it, rather than only finding out afterwards.
Let's be honest, C2s are the ones reading the Daily Mail or Daily Express and over the years building up a subconscious cache of EU myths about bendy banana bans, EU banning Christmas to not offend Muslims, and all that tripe.
Whether they are in actual real life affected negatively by EU membership is another story. By globalisation, perhaps, but probably not by EU membership.
You do talk bollocks.
OK, I'm sure there are people down south who have seen their communities entirely changed by immigration. I get that. But in most cases isn't that in large part non-EU immigration anyway? Up here in the North East I can predict who is going to be 'Leave' not because they are affected in any way, but just because they have said vaguely racist stuff in the past or bought the myths about Christmas being banned in schools - the 'this country's going to the dogs' crowd. Where I live you rarely see a foreigner, and particularly not Europeans. And yet, I expect the North East will have a pretty big Leave vote.
It's like how London, capital of immigration, is a UKIP-free zone while places like Hartlepool and the east coast are uber-UKIP.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
Thanks for that, let's discuss.
First of all, not at any stage have I suggested pollsters make things up. However, as you very well know, the wording of a question can lead to very different outcomes.
Incidentally, it was unanimous on here post GE that polling companies reputations WERE trashed.
Now wind your neck in.
But the very fact that the reputations were trashed - leading, one presumes, to financial losses - is exactly the outcome that mitigates against polling companies knowingly producing anything other than what they believe to be an accurate poll.
Yes, of course wording affects outcomes, as does differing methodologies - and those that are keen to see a certain outcome may well be attracted to companies whose questions and methodologies produce results favourable to their cause. However, that doesn't mean a company will necessarily accept a commission that they suspect will produce a skewed result. If they fear that the reputational damage would be greater than the profit from the survey, why would they?
Wow, talk about tying yourself in knots.
Have you ever actually worked with consumer research?
If I had a pound for every time R&D or the Advertising Department would have fired the Consumer Research people for coming up with the 'wrong' result I'd be rich indeed.....
Blackburn, if I were running a political campaign, I'd want my pollster to give me an honest assessment of its effectiveness, rather than just assuring me everything was fine. I'd rather find out where I'm going wrong before the vote, so I can fix it, rather than only finding out afterwards.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
First of all, not at any stage have I suggested pollsters make things up. However, as you very well know, the wording of a question can lead to very different outcomes.
Which is why they now all use the question that will be asked in the referendum.
Which polling companies, specifically, do you think have been producing inaccurate results to please which clients?
Or is this just a baseless smear from someone who might be thought a tad paranoid?
I won't beat around the bush, you're a fucking idiot who is putting words in my mouth. I have never said pollsters produce inaccurate results, however it is self evident they do as they produce different results. Why does that happen?
Try dealing with the message rather than the messenger, it'll prevent you looking like a whining little girl.
Blackburn, if I were running a political campaign, I'd want my pollster to give me an honest assessment of its effectiveness, rather than just assuring me everything was fine. I'd rather find out where I'm going wrong before the vote, so I can fix it, rather than only finding out afterwards.
Isn't that you want from your private internal polling? For the public polling you'd probably want your chances of winning to be slightly overstated to motivate your supporters without making them complacent.
Mr. Fire, it'd be no bad thing if election coverage now was banned from the excessive special effects/CGI nonsense they churn out.
I still remember the local election results a few years ago. At about 2-3am they had Jeremy Vine doing some nonsense (I forget if it were the time Ming was portrayed as a rapper, or the cowboy horror).
Mr. Fire, it'd be no bad thing if election coverage now was banned from the excessive special effects/CGI nonsense they churn out.
I still remember the local election results a few years ago. At about 2-3am they had Jeremy Vine doing some nonsense (I forget if it were the time Ming was portrayed as a rapper, or the cowboy horror).
Thankfully the Beeb have been moderating their coverage of late, although wish Neil had been given more airtime last year.
For this purpose, there are two types of poll. Ones by media organisations that should become public, and private ones for organisations such as parties.
The former want stories, therefore deviations from the current picture are valuable to them. But with four parties and the natural deviation in polling results, there will almost always be a story. Especially if they five down into subsamples, which they sometimes do.
The latter want to know the true position, so they can react. A false position is worse than useless as it may cause them to put resources in the wrong places.
There is a third category: Ashcroft polls. But I think we can ignore those as being useless ...
Well this was my whole point before people started jumping up and down: the person paying is as important as the outcome.
You're missing my point. It's in no-one's interest to get false results.
Blackburn, if I were running a political campaign, I'd want my pollster to give me an honest assessment of its effectiveness, rather than just assuring me everything was fine. I'd rather find out where I'm going wrong before the vote, so I can fix it, rather than only finding out afterwards.
Sigh.
If I were a polling company I'd give my customer an honest assessment, but I'd also want repeat business.
Look, this is very straightforward, different firms produce different results - ever wondered why?
Mr. Fire, it'd be no bad thing if election coverage now was banned from the excessive special effects/CGI nonsense they churn out.
I still remember the local election results a few years ago. At about 2-3am they had Jeremy Vine doing some nonsense (I forget if it were the time Ming was portrayed as a rapper, or the cowboy horror).
Agreed, I remember watching that too. Definitely BBC Election coverage's darkest hour. To be fair, they have improved a little since then but there needs to be less CGI showing off.
Love how the 1966 coverage just cut to a roving reporter in a phone box!
Mr. Fire, it was the timing as much as anything that got me. People interested enough in politics to be watching election results (and locals, at that) around 2-3am are unlikely to be impressed by the sort of delinquent graphical tosh that would earn derision from the Lower Sixth.
Mr. D, aye. Replacing Dimbleby with Edwards and ignoring Neil (whilst consigning Raworth to a giant map gimmick, last time at least) is daft.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
First of all, not at any stage have I suggested pollsters make things up. However, as you very well know, the wording of a question can lead to very different outcomes.
Which is why they now all use the question that will be asked in the referendum.
Which polling companies, specifically, do you think have been producing inaccurate results to please which clients?
Or is this just a baseless smear from someone who might be thought a tad paranoid?
I have never said pollsters produce inaccurate results, however it is self evident they do as they produce different results. Why does that happen?
Random variation, sampling differences, weighing differences....to name a few.
I'm guessing your knowledge of polling and consumer research is, how shall we say.....'small base'......
Blackburn, if I were running a political campaign, I'd want my pollster to give me an honest assessment of its effectiveness, rather than just assuring me everything was fine. I'd rather find out where I'm going wrong before the vote, so I can fix it, rather than only finding out afterwards.
Sigh.
If I were a polling company I'd give my customer an honest assessment, but I'd also want repeat business.
Look, this is very straightforward, different firms produce different results - ever wondered why?
Differences in methodologies, weighting schemes etc?
Comments
BBC Parliament Channel - 8:20am - 20:00pm - 1966 General Election ..
Reminder 2 ... coming soon ..
25 hours 25 minutes 25 seconds
Conversely, 50% of 18-34 year olds voted, compared to 75% of 55+. That split favours Leave.
But the snobbery is still a factor, Exhibit 1. Matthew Parris on Clacton.
those classified as ‘C2DEs’ , that is those in working class occupations, were rather more likely to vote Yes than those in more middle class ABC1 jobs. According to Ashcroft, 44% of ABC1 voters voted Yes compared with 47% of C2DE ones. The gap in YouGov’s data is a little larger, with 41% of ABC1 and 50% of C2DE respondents saying the voted Yes.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/09/voted-yes-voted/
Among voters aged 55+, the figures should be 82% for AB voters, ranging down to 65% among DE voters.
The relationship is indirect and imperfect but the less clever will tend to earn fewer qualifications and end up in less-well-paid jobs, which is presumably a large part of the definition of "socioeconomic group".
Obviously, there's more to it than that. Two children, both with the same intelligence, one born in a sink estate and one born to a millionaire, are quite likely to remain in their social class for social factors - expectations, schooling, support, networks and so on - but the loose relationship between class and ability holds.
Not too surprised. Those currently doing well are less likely to welcome something which they see as a change to the status quo [even though that's also true of Remain].
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
I would also reckon that the same people are also more in favour of joining the Euro than the average Brit.
Leaving may not mean that changes. But they worry that it might.
They are also less foreigner-afraid, as they will have some, or lots, of contact with very nice foreign-born middle-class people such as doctors and the like.
Hull 1 : 3 Chelsea .... Er ....
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
No idea of the veracity of this poll but it does confirm the attitude of the likes of Meeks.
B: 23%
C1: 29%
C2: 21%
D :15%
E: 8%
Source: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/1285_MediaCT_thoughtpiece_Social_Grade_July09_V3_WEB.pdf
Note that E apparently includes all state pensioners, but I suspect it means people relying only on state pension.
It's not actually in their interests to deliberately falsify results. Their reputation comes from their accuracy, and that is what is useful to their customers.
Now, what their customers ask them to ask is another matter.
How much do any of us trust polling companies at the moment?
Edit: thanks @NickPalmer for the numbers!
Immigration is undoubtedly good for the middle classes, less so if you're bobbing along the bottom.
The EU is not about immigration to me but it is to plenty of others.
Right or wrong polls influence people, always check who's paying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1966
1) It's not true - their 'worth' lies in 'accuracy' - not 'keeping clients happy'
2) It's libellous - if by 'the right results' you mean 'the results the client wants' - but I'm sure you didn't mean that.....
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
I can imagine them being pretty motivated on this subject.
It won't be the whole story, and some people will look at larger issues. But what they think is best for them will always be at the back of their minds, and those larger issues might be skewed by that personal perspective.
However for many people, even self-interested reasons will be absent. It will be "I've always voted Conservative / Labour", and everything - good or bad - will be viewed through that prism. For some, the most that would happen is that they wouldn't vote rather than vote for another team.
The idea that many voters (even on here) calmly sit down, read the prospectuses and other information, analyse them and try to come up with a view of what is best for the country seems rather odd.
First of all, not at any stage have I suggested pollsters make things up. However, as you very well know, the wording of a question can lead to very different outcomes.
Incidentally, it was unanimous on here post GE that polling companies reputations WERE trashed.
Now wind your neck in.
If a pollster tells you that you're rubbish then do something about it. No-one's forcing you to publish the data.
Whether they are in actual real life affected negatively by EU membership is another story. By globalisation, perhaps, but probably not by EU membership.
I'm not a politician but if I commissioned a poll and it told me I was doing badly I would definitely keep that polling company on. If my campaign isn't working I need to know.
Most public political polls are performed by the media, and they need stories. But with four national parties, and natural deviation in polling results, there will almost always be some story for them, whether it is a Lib Dem bounce or a government decrease. But what they all want is the fabled, mythical crossover.
The credibility of party leaders plays a huge role too.
Economic self-interest is often as simple as whether the party seems like it could be trusted with a macroeconomic decisions.
Regarding bungs, giving them has less effect than taking them away.
Either that or you don't have the foggiest idea how businesses work.
Those poll numbers though.
#GE66 https://t.co/B5hxT56ySx
Yeah, that works.
After all, their client (a newspaper, I think) would have loved the resultant story. And most of us on her would have screamed "outlier!" and Basil would have got tired for nothing ...
#DidYouKnow, 1928 an Act was passed to create a fixed date for Easter but never implemented? https://t.co/z9SzFxdVWC https://t.co/BAei4Qn8ss
Yes, of course wording affects outcomes, as does differing methodologies - and those that are keen to see a certain outcome may well be attracted to companies whose questions and methodologies produce results favourable to their cause. However, that doesn't mean a company will necessarily accept a commission that they suspect will produce a skewed result. If they fear that the reputational damage would be greater than the profit from the survey, why would they?
Which polling companies, specifically, do you think have been producing inaccurate results to please which clients?
Or is this just a baseless smear from someone who might be thought a tad paranoid?
The cost of living in cities like London is genuinely absurd - but there is a reason that wages can rise so little and cost of living to rise so much, and thats the imported labour pool that's willing to live 6 to a room so beloved of the Daily Wail.
But - and its a very big But - the effect of reducing the labour pool by leaving the EU should be to force up wages. I get the impression that the Business-type Brexiters have the opposite in mind, seeing the EU as blocking their plans via red tape. A lot of C2DEs may be in for a nasty shock if they get their way.
The former want stories, therefore deviations from the current picture are valuable to them. But with four parties and the natural deviation in polling results, there will almost always be a story. Especially if they five down into subsamples, which they sometimes do.
The latter want to know the true position, so they can react. A false position is worse than useless as it may cause them to put resources in the wrong places.
There is a third category: Ashcroft polls. But I think we can ignore those as being useless ...
Look, polling companies are not dishonest, but they are businesses, like any other they rely on customers, revenue. If I, as a Leaver, hypothetically, pay them to produce a poll its in their interest to keep me happy in the hope of repeat business. They will word the question and speak to a certain type of person in order to placate me. Do you think they say to me:
Don't bother mate, you're a loser.
You do understand that, don't you? I mean how do you think PR companies and advertising agencies work?
I think blackburn63 needs to put up or shut up:
- Which polling company has asked a potentially leading EURef question
- Which polling company has asked the EU Ref question after asking other leading questions.
I'm sure we'll all welcome finding out.
1966 was the high watermark for popular music btw, according to the late, great Iain Mcdonald.
Pet Sounds, Revolver, Blonde en Blonde, Aftermath..... unbelievable year of creativity.
And the English won the World Cup. A good time to be alive.
I'll get my coat...
Up here in the North East I can predict who is going to be 'Leave' not because they are affected in any way, but just because they have said vaguely racist stuff in the past or bought the myths about Christmas being banned in schools - the 'this country's going to the dogs' crowd. Where I live you rarely see a foreigner, and particularly not Europeans. And yet, I expect the North East will have a pretty big Leave vote.
It's like how London, capital of immigration, is a UKIP-free zone while places like Hartlepool and the east coast are uber-UKIP.
If I had a pound for every time R&D or the Advertising Department would have fired the Consumer Research people for coming up with the 'wrong' result I'd be rich indeed.....
Try dealing with the message rather than the messenger, it'll prevent you looking like a whining little girl.
I still remember the local election results a few years ago. At about 2-3am they had Jeremy Vine doing some nonsense (I forget if it were the time Ming was portrayed as a rapper, or the cowboy horror).
It might be worth reading up on the BPC.
http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/index.html
If I were a polling company I'd give my customer an honest assessment, but I'd also want repeat business.
Look, this is very straightforward, different firms produce different results - ever wondered why?
Love how the 1966 coverage just cut to a roving reporter in a phone box!
Mr. D, aye. Replacing Dimbleby with Edwards and ignoring Neil (whilst consigning Raworth to a giant map gimmick, last time at least) is daft.
I'm guessing your knowledge of polling and consumer research is, how shall we say.....'small base'......