Why The Last General Election Opinion Polls Were Wrong

[Qetesuesi]

Sorry if this has already been addressed in this thread or elsewhere, but could someone please quickly explain why the polls were wrong THIS time, and not in e.g. 2010 where 48 out of 50 predicted a hung parliament and that's exactly what we got? What happened during those 5 years to ruin the quality of the polling organisations?

For those with longer memories: in 1987, the BBC exit poll predicted a Tory majority of 26 - David Dimbleby said, "It is going to be a close-run thing". The actual result was 101. Again, famously in 1992, a generally predicted minority Labour government was replaced by a majority Tory one - partly because of the newly-identified 'shy Tory' factor but also the late swing thanks to Kinnock and that Sheffield rally. Oh, and the Sun wot wunnit.

What I absolutely don't recall is any suggestion that the less accessible poll respondents were systematically more likely to vote Tory.

[Steppenpig]

but could someone please quickly explain why the polls were wrong THIS time, and not in e.g. 2010

....

What I absolutely don't recall is any suggestion that the less accessible poll respondents were systematically more likely to vote Tory.

That Ratio of mouthy lefties to busy Tories had significantly increased in the previous five years.

[Qetesuesi]

That Ratio of mouthy lefties to busy Tories had significantly increased in the previous five years.

Ah yes - all that Tory white propaganda about "hardworking" people/families has obviously had the desired effect of making their supporters ever more "busy" and therefore unwilling or unable to respond to polling enquiries!

As for mouthy lefties - just look at what's been happening to Labour SINCE the election.

[Steppenpig]

Ah yes

For whatever reason, the propensity to reply (or reply truthfully) to pollsters (or others) varies with political outlook and is not necessarily constant over time.

I am pretty sure there was a thread on here quite recently, where a lot of us (probably mainly of varying shades of rightishness) said we had just got too tired of the other lot to bother arguing any more.

[Frank Hovis]

For whatever reason, the propensity to reply (or reply truthfully) to pollsters (or others) varies with political outlook and is not necessarily constant over time.

I am pretty sure there was a thread on here quite recently, where a lot of us (probably mainly of varying shades of rightishness) said we had just got too tired of the other lot to bother arguing any more.

Yes, there's a good line about never arguing with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

One key marker is that anybody who equates the cost of bailing out the banks (a policy decision to preserve the economy in it's then state) with any spending cuts (a general reduction in government spending to reduce the deficit) is an idiot.

Either could certainly be said to be wrong; but to equate them and compare their relative cost is nonsense.

[Qetesuesi]

Yes, there's a good line about never arguing with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

One key marker is that anybody who equates the cost of bailing out the banks (a policy decision to preserve the economy in it's then state) with any spending cuts (a general reduction in government spending to reduce the deficit) is an idiot.

Either could certainly be said to be wrong; but to equate them and compare their relative cost is nonsense.

We're drifting from the topic again here. The question isn't whether Tories are less and less willing to argue with Labourites, but whether - or why - they're more and more reluctant to even disclose their positions to presumably impartial pollsters. You guys seem to be equating the two groups of antagonists. Paranoia much?

What does all this about the deficit and banks have to do with opinion polling procedure?

[Bruce Banner]

Three words....

Shenanigans..... Green..... Michael.....

[Frank Hovis]

We're drifting from the topic again here. The question isn't whether Tories are less and less willing to argue with Labourites, but whether - or why - they're more and more reluctant to even disclose their positions to presumably impartial pollsters. You guys seem to be equating the two groups of antagonists. Paranoia much?

What does all this about the deficit and banks have to do with opinion polling procedure?

When you get tired to the bones of attempting to discuss politics with halfwits you withdraw from the debate as being pointless, witness the BBC Question Time / Any Questions rent-a-leftie baying mob, so you disengage from the media apparatus and leave it until the polling booth to stick two fingers up at the smug liberal consensus that pollutes the airwaves.

That is made all the sweeter if they don't see it coming; I always lie on voting intention click polls.

So it has a lot to do with it.

[LiveinHope]

For whatever reason, the propensity to reply (or reply truthfully) to pollsters (or others) varies with political outlook and is not necessarily constant over time.

I am pretty sure there was a thread on here quite recently, where a lot of us (probably mainly of varying shades of rightishness) said we had just got too tired of the other lot to bother arguing any more.

I think that was the climate change thread

[Riedquat]

I am pretty sure there was a thread on here quite recently, where a lot of us (probably mainly of varying shades of rightishness) said we had just got too tired of the other lot to bother arguing any more.

Not that that necessarily says anything much about either side.

[Steppenpig]

Paranoia much?

That fact that views opposing the general groupthink are received with hostility, and thus not readily expressed in public acts the same way as propaganda or intimidation. Floating voters will tend to move towards the safety and conformity of the mainstream. But in the privacy of the election booth, they have nothing to fear.

I don't know if it's been posted or you already read it, but there was a big article yesterday in the Guardian. The conclusion there ironically, was that the group think affected them in exactly the same way, so they deliberately biased their polls towards labour (I may be paraphrasing).

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/19/general-election-opinion-poll-failure-down-to-not-reaching-tory-voters

[Qetesuesi]

That fact that views opposing the general groupthink are received with hostility, and thus not readily expressed in public acts the same way as propaganda or intimidation. Floating voters will tend to move towards the safety and conformity of the mainstream. But in the privacy of the election booth, they have nothing to fear.

I don't know if it's been posted or you already read it, but there was a big article yesterday in the Guardian. The conclusion there ironically, was that the group think affected them in exactly the same way, so they deliberately biased their polls towards labour (I may be paraphrasing).

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/19/general-election-opinion-poll-failure-down-to-not-reaching-tory-voters

Yes I saw that article, and again, the failure to address why this problem arose this time and not previous times is precisely what drove me to join this thread with the question.

The nearest they got to it was at least to acknowledge the issue:

If you look at the opinion polls at all of the elections since 1959, on average the polls have overstated the Labour share of the vote by 1.4%. The difficulty is [that it hasn’t happened] at every election. Our 2010 results were pretty good, 2005 too

Which actually points towards a possible explanation that occurred to me yesterday after I'd posted here: namely, that the 'shy' (or busy, or otherwise inscrutable) Tory effect shows up most prominently when the Tories are in government. That would neatly explain the discrepancies in 1987, 1992 and 2015, while giving a pass on the 2005 and 2010 referred to in the quote above. (Naturally, 1983, 1997 and 2001 were so obviously going to be landslides that nobody bothered about any slight anti-Tory polling bias.)

And the reason why this effect would be there when the Tories are in government is simple: when intending Tory voters are polled, they feel they have to justify the current government's record and policies, which may make them shier than they would be if their party's out of power and vying to get back in.

Does that kinda make sense to y'all?

[Frank Hovis]

Yes I saw that article, and again, the failure to address why this problem arose this time and not previous times is precisely what drove me to join this thread with the question.

The nearest they got to it was at least to acknowledge the issue:

Which actually points towards a possible explanation that occurred to me yesterday after I'd posted here: namely, that the 'shy' (or busy, or otherwise inscrutable) Tory effect shows up most prominently when the Tories are in government. That would neatly explain the discrepancies in 1987, 1992 and 2015, while giving a pass on the 2005 and 2010 referred to in the quote above. (Naturally, 1983, 1997 and 2001 were so obviously going to be landslides that nobody bothered about any slight anti-Tory polling bias.)

And the reason why this effect would be there when the Tories are in government is simple: when intending Tory voters are polled, they feel they have to justify the current government's record and policies, which may make them shier than they would be if their party's out of power and vying to get back in.

Does that kinda make sense to y'all?

The pollster on the radio was very clear that the polls that did get it right did so by taking longer and following up to get nearly all of their sample. The first respondents were biased towards Labour; the last respondents towards Conservatives. He thought it was because a Conservative voter was more likely to be either employed or if unemployed / retired having the money to pursue a range of leisure interests.

Possibly when there is a Conservative government in power they are also fed up with endless leftie moaning and, being satisfied with the status quo, disengage from the gobsh1thes. Whether you wish to cliam this makes them shyer / embarrassed / or, as my would take would be, satisfied is up to the individual interpretation.

[Reck B]

Whats the point of election polls anyway?

It's like a child tearing off the corner of a present.

[Steppenpig]

And the reason why this effect would be there when the Tories are in government is simple: when intending Tory voters are polled, they feel they have to justify the current government's record and policies, which may make them shier than they would be if their party's out of power and vying to get back in.

Sounds plausible. You can express that part as being a pro government adustment (of either colour) to add to a fixed tory adjustment. Keep it under your hat, and you could make a killing at the bookies next election,

I thought the guardian said the pollsters were specifically biasing towards labour to match their gut feeling or something, but only gave the example of one organisation not publishing their poll because it looked out of line.

[Qetesuesi]

The pollster on the radio was very clear that the polls that did get it right did so by taking longer and following up to get nearly all of their sample. The first respondents were biased towards Labour; the last respondents towards Conservatives. He thought it was because a Conservative voter was more likely to be either employed or if unemployed / retired having the money to pursue a range of leisure interests.

Possibly when there is a Conservative government in power they are also fed up with endless leftie moaning and, being satisfied with the status quo, disengage from the gobsh1thes. Whether you wish to cliam this makes them shyer / embarrassed / or, as my would take would be, satisfied is up to the individual interpretation.

Why would Tories equate pollsters with leftie gobsh1tes?

[Steppenpig]

Why would

I believe general withdrawal from engaging in political debate probably extends (at least partly) to not engaging with opinion pollsters.

Separate from the left-right argument, I used to be quite excited when I was stopped by pollsters. My attitude has certaanly changed these days, and if I was sick of engaging in political debate, I would be even less inclined to give them the time of day