The imperfections of post-debate polling

Voting on allegiance or on merit?

Interesting post from Gary Gibbon, political editor at Channel 4 News, as he sheds some light on those post-debate polls. Not the daily, party-based opinion polls but those conducted by many of the same firms immediately after the weekly debates finish.

Take one from last night:

[ComRes] polled people who expressed their voting preference as 35 per cent Con, 24 per cent Lab and 36 per cent Lib Dem. And here's how those same people voted on the instant poll on who performed best in the debate: 35 per cent Cameron, 26 per cent Brown and 33 per cent Clegg. As Michael Howard's posters used to say in 2005, "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"

Isn't there more than a possibility that voters are simply voting for their man, regardless of performance?

A quick call to ComRes helps clarify how it conducts these surveys.

First it identifies a sample of 2,000 people broadly reflecting the demographic of the electorate, albeit only those intending to watch 90 minutes of hardcore politics. All 2,000 receive an automated call within five minutes of the debate finishing, and each is asked two standard questions -- who do you think won the debate? how are you intending to vote? -- plus two topical questions. (Yesterday there was one about public services and one, inevitably, about Bigotgate.)

ComRes says that in the first two debates there was a much wider discrepancy between the voting intentions of its sample and who they thought had won the debate. And there's little doubt that those post-debate surveys two weeks ago detected the first stirrings of Cleggmania.

The company does accept, however, that as election day gets nearer, and people's voting intentions solidify their debate verdict could well be dictated by personal preference.

ComRes is not the only firm under the spotlight. As Gibbon notes:

YouGov have been very open, saying that means they tend to include more prosperous voters, more broadsheet readers, older voters, to be slightly more Conservative and sometimes more male-dominated than the voting population as a whole.

Given how influential these polls are in setting the agenda -- witness this morning's near-uniform newspaper headlines and the way the debate was treated on the Today programme - it seems that all polling organisations will need to review how they conduct these surveys.

It's not just the politicians and the broadcasters that are feeling their way.

Follow the New Statesman on Twitter.

Jon Bernstein, former deputy editor of New Statesman, is a digital strategist and editor. He tweets @Jon_Bernstein. 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May is paying the price for mismanaging Boris Johnson

The Foreign Secretary's bruised ego may end up destroying Theresa May. 

And to think that Theresa May scheduled her big speech for this Friday to make sure that Conservative party conference wouldn’t be dominated by the matter of Brexit. Now, thanks to Boris Johnson, it won’t just be her conference, but Labour’s, which is overshadowed by Brexit in general and Tory in-fighting in particular. (One imagines that the Labour leadership will find a way to cope somehow.)

May is paying the price for mismanaging Johnson during her period of political hegemony after she became leader. After he was betrayed by Michael Gove and lacking any particular faction in the parliamentary party, she brought him back from the brink of political death by making him Foreign Secretary, but also used her strength and his weakness to shrink his empire.

The Foreign Office had its responsibility for negotiating Brexit hived off to the newly-created Department for Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) and for navigating post-Brexit trade deals to the Department of International Trade. Johnson was given control of one of the great offices of state, but with no responsibility at all for the greatest foreign policy challenge since the Second World War.

Adding to his discomfort, the new Foreign Secretary was regularly the subject of jokes from the Prime Minister and cabinet colleagues. May likened him to a dog that had to be put down. Philip Hammond quipped about him during his joke-fuelled 2017 Budget. All of which gave Johnson’s allies the impression that Johnson-hunting was a licensed sport as far as Downing Street was concerned. He was then shut out of the election campaign and has continued to be a marginalised figure even as the disappointing election result forced May to involve the wider cabinet in policymaking.

His sense of exclusion from the discussions around May’s Florence speech only added to his sense of isolation. May forgot that if you aren’t going to kill, don’t wound: now, thanks to her lost majority, she can’t afford to put any of the Brexiteers out in the cold, and Johnson is once again where he wants to be: centre-stage. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.