David Cameron returns to Downing Street. Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

Why were the polls so wrong?

It wasn't just Labour and the Liberal Democrats who suffered a heavy defeat last Thursday - the opinion pollsters did too.

Like Ed Miliband, pollsters also suffered a severe defeat last week. Far from the dead heat which the national opinion polls had predicted for months, David Cameron won by a heavy margin. But how did the pollsters get it so fundamentally wrong? Especially, when just yesterday, even Cameron thought a Conservative majority was near impossible.

After the exit polls blew months and months of pollsters’ predictions out the water, it became clear that the Tories had been radically underestimated. We thought that the race couldn’t be any closer but we were in fact wrong. In the words of Cameron himself, “I’ve often said that there’s only one opinion poll that counts and that’s the one on election day and I’m not sure that’s ever been truer than today and tonight”.

To sum up, the Conservatives have now won 37 per cent of the vote, followed by Labour with 31 per cent, Ukip with 13 per cent, Lib Dems with eight per cent, and SNP with five per cent. None of the polls anticipated a conservative lead anything like this and not one mainstream polling projection predicted the Tories to win much more than 290 seats. In spite of this, they have now won a staggering 330 seats.

And while Labour was predicted to win roughly 270 seats, they have taken home a meager 232 seats. In failing to win key target seats in the North-West, Yorkshire and the Midlands, the swings that Labour so desperately needed slipped away from them. In spite of their dramatic failings to predict the Conservative and Labour share of the vote, it’s worth noting that the polls did accurately predict the share of the vote for the Lib Dems, Ukip, SNP and Greens.

All the same, the polls certainly failed to predict the extent of the Liberal Democrat bloodbath that has ensued. After claiming that they would be the “surprise success story of the night”, Nick Clegg has suffered a humiliating defeat and the Lib Dems have held just eight of its 56 seats. What’s more, none of the polls could’ve predicted the long list of eminent Liberals who have taken a farewell bow. As incumbency and local strength failed to save them from national collapse, Vince Cable, Charles Kennedy, Danny Alexander, Ed Davey, Simon Hughes and Lynn Featherstone have all lost their seats. In turn, the Conservatives - the second party in most Lib Dem seats – have been in the prime position to profit from Lib Dem losses.

Simon Atkinson, the global chief knowledge officer at Ipsos Mori,has expressed surprise at the Lib Dem collapse: “The expectation was that they’d hold the seats with their key players but they haven’t. If they had got below 20, I would’ve said it was a terrible night for them, but now they’ve got below 10. No matter how famous or high profile you are, it won’t save you”.

But the question remains on everyone’s lips - where did the so-called experts go so wrong? The truth is, polling is only ever as precise and accurate as its last error. The scope for inaccuracy always remains. And while, more polls were carried out in this election than ever before, voting intentions will still never equate to an actual tick in the ballot box.

Tom Mludzinski, head of Political Polling at ComRes, admits that, saying:

Polling companies have to be humble enough to say we’ve clearly missed the mark on the Conservatives and Labour. We’re not arrogant enough to say we’re done so let’s move on; instead we need to review our systems and consider where we went right and where we went wrong. It was never as close as we all believed”.

While, the pollsters might all be clinging onto the fact that they were in their three per cent margin of error, it goes without saying, that they vastly underestimated Tory support. The opinion polls haven’t got it this wrong since 1992 and it’s time for questions to be asked.  Is the late swing towards the Tories an issue of turnout – a question of who voted and who stayed at home? Or can it be blamed on the “don’t know voters” or disorganized Labour voters or “Shy Tories”?

With large numbers of Tory voters historically hiding their voting intentions, the phrase “shy Tory” was first coined in 1992, when pollsters wrongly predicted the election result. While the polls had shown Labour and the Tories to be neck and neck, the Conservatives won by eight points. Although pollsters have adjusted their methodology accordingly, perhaps modifications have been flawed and created new errors. After all, we still know surprisingly little about the “shy tory” - who are they, why are they so shy, and why are they still confusing pollsters?

Whatever the answer, it is clear that the core Conservative vote is far more resilient than the core Labour vote as Labour voters are far more likely to stray to Ukip, Greens, and the SNP. On top of this, the increasingly fluid nature of the British electorate means people are far less likely to identify with one single political party than they did in the past. Whatever the answers to these complex questions, it is clear that the polls have radically failed to predict the voting intentions of the British electorate. And if pollsters do not fundamentally reevaluate their methods, who will ever trust an opinion poll again?

 

 

 

 

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496