Cameron's still trailing. Photo: Getty.
Show Hide image

Here’s what would actually be news in polling – and three rules for reporting polls

It’s only news if you’ve compared lone polls to all the others, compare it to that pollster’s past and know each firm’s outliers.

Read this piece on May2015.com, our election site, for all the graphs that come with it.

On Monday an ICM poll suggested the Tories will win the election by more than a million votes. Today a TNS poll indicated Labour will win by 2 million. That’s quite a change.

In reality, little has changed. We’ve had six polls since Monday morning, but May2015’s 5-day Poll of Polls hasn’t moved much: Labour’s lead has shortened from 2.3 to 1.5 points.

Over the weekend we suggested the race has scarcely changed since the party conferences in early October. Labour have lost support in Scotland, which is why they’ve dipped since September, when they had a 3-4 point lead. But the party may not have slipped much at all in England & Wales.

The race is alternating between a small Labour lead (1-2 points) and a tie. The Tories have only twice led May2015’s 5-day Poll of Polls in 2015.

Outliers are being given air time by punters tired of a lifeless campaign.

That analysis looked at more than 150 polls over the past five months. But this week has shown how a lone poll can excite pundits into thinking everything has suddenly changed.

Outliers are being given air time by punters tired of a lifeless campaign. That’s all that’s really happening. The TNS poll should be taken with a pinch of salt: they’ve put Labour ahead like this before (by 6 two weeks ago, 7 in early January and 7 in mid-December). The ICM poll was more surprising, but it’s still just one poll with a 3-point margin of error.

So what would actually make news in polling? Here are three things we wouldn’t brush over so quickly.

1. YouGov hand one party a series of significant leads

YouGov poll five times a week. They are the highest-profile pollster, publish in the Sun andSunday Times, and have UK Polling Report’s Anthony Wells manning their numbers (not to mention Peter Kellner, Nigel Farage’s favourite pollster).

So far in 2015 they’ve published 33 polls. The leads they’ve given each party have all been within the margin of error (± 3 per cent). They swing between showing ties and small Labour leads, with the occasional small Tory lead.

If they had put Labour ahead by 7 today, it would have been news (their little noticed overnight poll put Labour up 1). It would still have been an outlier. But if they were to consistently put either party ahead, by say 3-4 points, something will have changed.

2. Populus start handing the Tories’ leads

Populus, the UK’s second most-prolific pollster, have given Labour a lead in every one of their thirteen 2015 polls. On average, they give them a 2.3-point lead. That’s in-line with the 2-point leads they gave the party throughout late 2014.

A series of polls showing the reverse, with the Tories in front by a few points, would be news.

3. Ashcroft … becomes more consistent

The Ashcroft polls that make news – Labour up five in late November, Tories ahead by six in mid-January – have proven to be outliers. Eight of his past twelve polls have shown a tie or put the parties within a point of each other.

It would news if he started putting one party ahead regularly, or stopped occasionally putting either ahead by a bunch. Not that a series of ties will win much coverage.

*

YouGov, Populus and Ashcroft are the most regular pollsters. But there are six others. Here are three general rules for when any poll is released:

1. Compare it to all the other polls

ICM and Ipsos MORI are the oldest pollsters, and they publish once a month (in the Guardianand Evening Standard respectively). The rarity of their polls and platform these papers give them – along with their name recognition in Westminster – makes their numbers newsworthy.

But they should always be compared to other polls at the time. If we look at how ICM’s numbers have compared to our Poll of Polls each month, we can see how this week’s ICM poll was more different than any other in the past year.

On average, they had been different by 1.9 points across the eleven polls before this week’s. So on Monday we should have expected anything from a 2.9-point Labour lead to a 1-point Tory lead.

That’s why the 4-point Tory lead was news. It suggested a shift for ICM. But because they only poll one a month, we can’t put too much stock in the number. They put the Tories ahead twice last year (in May and July) before reverting to a Labour lead.

2. Compare it to that pollster’s previous polls

We can’t put too much stock in individual polls, but we should track the trend. The trend among each pollster’s numbers is what really tells a story, not the specific lead they’ve shown that week or month.

Plugging every poll into a ‘Poll of Polls’, as we do, is helpful, but it irons out the way each pollster is shifting over time.

Ipsos MORI’s monthly polls are a showcase for tracking the trend. Since January 2014, they’ve gone from showing a consistent and comfortable Labour lead to showing a mix of small Labour leads, Tory leads and ties.

In other words, we’ve gone from a 6-7 point Labour lead to a 1-2 point Lab lead, which is what our Poll of Polls shows.

The specific monthly numbers are really approximations. MORI are saying “This is the state of the race, ±3 points”. [1]

3. Be aware of each pollsters’ past ‘outliers’

We treated TNS’s 7-point Labour lead lightly today because they’ve put Labour ahead by at least 6 points in three of their last four polls.

If Opinium, the Observer’s pollster, published a similar poll we’d have a fairly similar reaction. They have put Labour ahead by 5 or more three times in the past three months, although recently they’ve had fewer outliers.

The precedents of ComRes and Survation, two of the industry’s newest firms, shape the way we think about them too.

When Survation put Ukip on 24 per cent again in a few weeks, it won’t mean much.

Survation, who poll irregularly for theSunday Mirror and privately for Ukip, think Ukip are polling 23-25 per cent. These aren’t occasional outliers so much as systematic differences. Our Poll of Polls puts Ukip on 14-15 per cent. So when they put Ukip on 24 per cent again in a few weeks, it won’t mean much.

Correspondingly, they give the Greens 2-4, rather than 5-6, per cent. It’s the same story with ComRes’ monthly-ish poll for the Independent on Sunday. [2] They put the Greens low and Ukip high (close to 20 per cent).

If Survation or ComRes started putting Ukip on 10-12 per cent and the Greens on 8-9 per cent, that would be news.

For a broader look at why pollsters differ, check out Anthony Wells’ recent take.

Explore May2015.com.

May2015 is the New Statesman's new elections site. Explore it for data, interviews and ideas on the general election.

Getty
Show Hide image

Justin Trudeau points the way forward for European politics

Is the charismatic Canadian Prime Minister modelling the party of the future?

Six months after Canadian election day, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party continues to bask in the glow of victory. With 44 per cent of support in the polls, the Liberals are the most popular party amongst every single demographic – men and women, young and old, and people of all educational backgrounds. 

While most European mainstream parties only dream of such approval, this is actually a small dip for the Liberals. They were enjoying almost 50 per cent support in the polls up until budget day on 21 March. Even after announcing $29.4 billion in deficit spending, Canadians overall viewed the budget favourably – only 34 per cent said they would vote to defeat it.

Progressives around the world are suddenly intrigued by Canadian politics. Why is Justin Trudeau so successful?

Of course it helps that the new Prime Minister is young, handsome and loves pandas (who doesn’t?) But it’s also true that he was leader of the Liberals for a year and half before the election. He brought with him an initial surge in support for the party. But he also oversaw its steady decline in the lead up to last year’s election – leadership is important, but clearly it isn’t the only factor behind the Liberals’ success today.

Context matters

As disappointing as it is for Europeans seeking to unpack Canadian secrets, the truth is that a large part of the Liberals’ success was also down to the former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s extreme unpopularity by election time.

Throughout almost ten years in power, Harper shifted Canada markedly to the right. His Conservative government did not just alter policies; it started changing the rules of the democratic game. While centre-right governments in Europe may be implementing policies that progressives dislike, they are nonetheless operating within the constraints of democratic systems (for the most part; Hungary and Poland are exceptions).

Which is why the first weeks of the election campaign were dominated by an ‘Anybody But Harper’ sentiment, benefitting both the Liberals and the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP). The NDP was even leading the polls for a while, inviting pundits to consider the possibility of a hung parliament.

But eight days before election day, the Liberals began to pull ahead.

The most important reason – and why they continue to be so popular today – is that they were able to own the mantle of ‘change’. They were the only party to promise running a (small) deficit and invest heavily in infrastructure. Notably absent was abstract discourse about tackling inequality. Trudeau’s plan was about fairness for the middle class, promoting social justice and economic growth.

Democratic reform was also a core feature of the Liberal campaign, which the party has maintained in government – Trudeau appointed a new Minister of Democratic Institutions and promised a change in the voting system before the next election.

The change has also been in style, however. Justin Trudeau is rebranding Canada as an open, progressive, plural society. Even though this was Canada’s reputation pre-Harper, it is not as simple as turning back the clock.

In a world increasingly taken by populist rhetoric on immigration – not just by politicians like Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and other right-wingers, but also increasingly by mainstream politicians of right and left – Justin Trudeau has been unashamedly proclaiming the benefits of living in a diverse, plural society. He repeatedly calls himself a feminist, in the hope that one day “it is met with a shrug” rather than a social media explosion. Live-streamed Global Town Halls are one part of a renewed openness with the media. Progressive politicians in Europe would do well to take note.

Questioning the role of political parties today

Another interesting development is that the Liberal party is implicitly questioning the point of parties today. It recently abolished fee-paying, card-carrying party members. While this has been met with some criticism regarding the party’s structure and integrity, with commentators worried that “it’s the equivalent of turning your party into one giant Facebook page: Click ‘Like’ and you’re in the club,” it seems this is the point.

Colin Horgan, one of Trudeau’s former speechwriters, explains that Facebook is “literally a treasure trove for political parties”. All kinds of information becomes available – for free; supporters become easier to contact.

It was something the Liberals were already hinting at two years ago when they introduced a ‘supporters’ category to make the party appear more open. Liberal president Anna Gainey also used the word “movement” to describe what the Liberals hope to be.

And yes, they are trying to win over millennials. Which proved to be a good strategy, as a new study shows that Canadians aged 18-25 were a key reason why the Liberals won a majority. Young voter turnout was up by 12 per cent from the last election in 2011; among this age group, 45 per cent voted for the Liberals.

Some interesting questions for European progressives to consider. Of course, some of the newer political parties in Europe have already been experimenting with looser membership structures and less hierarchical ways of engaging, like Podemos’ ‘circles’ in Spain and the Five Star Movement’s ‘liquid democracy’ in Italy.

The British centre-left may be hesitant after its recent fiasco. Labour opened up its leadership primary to ‘supporters’ and ended up with a polarising leader who is extremely popular amongst members, but unpopular amongst the British public. But it would be wrong to assume that the process was to blame.

The better comparison is perhaps to Emmanuel Macron, France’s young economy minister who recently launched his own movement ‘En Marche !’ Moving beyond the traditional party structure, he is attempting to unite ‘right’ and ‘left’ by inspiring French people with an optimistic vision of the future. Time will tell whether this works to engage people in the longer term, or at least until next year’s presidential election.

In any case, European parties could start by asking themselves: What kind of political parties are they? What is the point of them?

Most importantly: What do they want people to think is the point of them?

Ultimately, the Canadian Liberals’ model of success rests on three main pillars:

  1. They unambiguously promote and defend a progressive, open, plural vision of society.
  2. They have a coherent economic plan focused on social justice and economic growth which, most importantly, they are trusted to deliver.
  3. They understand that society has changed – people are more interconnected than ever, relationships are less hierarchical and networks exist online – and they are adapting a once rigid party structure into a looser, open movement to reflect that.

*And as a bonus, a young, charismatic leader doesn’t hurt either.

Claudia Chwalisz is a Senior Policy Researcher at Policy Network, a Crook Public Service Fellow at the University of Sheffield and author of The Populist Signal: Why Politics and Democracy Need to Change