YouGov rejects Telegraph claim of Labour bias

Polling group at war with former partner.

The Telegraph is due to publish a story tomorrow questioning YouGov's reliability and claiming that the polling group's methods have a pro-Labour bias.

But over at the firm's website, the YouGov president, Peter Kellner, has issued a pre-emptive rebuttal of the claims, as put to him by the paper's deputy political editor, Robert Winnett.

Before we go any further, it's worth recalling that before signing a deal with News International this year, YouGov carried out regular surveys for . . . the Daily Telegraph.

Kellner's piece deserves to be read in full, but here are some highlights.

Asked by Winnett to explain the disparity between YouGov's figures and those of other polling firms, Kellner replies:

Comparing the average of our March results with those of our established rivals (ICM, Ipsos-MORI, ComRes, TNS), I calculate that the figures are:

* YouGov: Con 37%, Lab 32%, Lib Dem 18%
* Other companies: Con 38%, Lab 31%, Lib Dem 20%

The remarkable thing, given the variety of methods employed, is how close we are, not how far apart.

Elsewhere, Kellner responds to claims that the Sun rejected a YouGov poll showing a 1 per cent Tory lead.

He writes:

Untrue. Our daily voting intention polls started appearing in the Sun on February 18. To test our systems, we started asking about voting intention, never intended for publication, for some weeks preceding that. Our poll showing a one-point Conservative lead was one of these. (It was conducted immediately after Piers Morgan's interview with Gordon Brown which, I believe, caused a real but short-lived movement in voting intention.) But this finding was never destined for the Sun and therefore never rejected by it. The Sun has published every voting intention result we have supplied.

It's fascinating to learn that the poll in question (never intended for publication) did show a 1 per cent lead and that Kellner attributed this to Brown's interview with Morgan.

Let's wait to see if the Telegraph story contains anything new tomorrow but for now it looks likes Winnett's claims don't stand up.

Follow the New Statesman team on Facebook.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.