I mentioned this voodoo poll last week when it was being touted about social media. It looks like the Mail on Sunday was the only paper to fall for it. Well done to all those other newspapers who did not. It's tosh of course. I'll explain why below (1/20)
I should add that the poll won't "send shockwaves through Downing Street", as people working in Downing Street will know the difference between a properly conducted poll and a self-selecting propaganda exercise. I do wish journalists did (2/20)
Let's start at the start. The poll was not conducted by a proper independent market research company that paid attention to using unbiased wording and ensuring a representative sample. It was conducted by a pressure group, sent to its own mailing list and on social media (3/20)
What does that matter? A poll is only meaningful *if it is representative of the population it is trying to represent*. That is, if the population is 51% female and 49% male, the sample should be 51% female and 49% male, and so on (4/20)
Proper market research companies go to great lengths through quotas & weights to ensure their samples are representative (and publish tables to demonstrate that they are!). Pressure groups doing open-access surveys of their own mailing lists? Well... (5/20)
More importantly, market research companies recruit samples using methods that aim to minimise bias. This poll was primarily sent to a mailing list of people who had signed up to a pressure group campaigning for pro-motorist policies and lower fuel taxes. (6/20)
By definition, the Fair Fuel mailing list is going to be heavily biased towards the sort of people who care enough about pro-motorist policies & cutting fuel duty to join an organisation campaigning for those ends (7/20)
That the link was also circulated on social media by pro-cycling activists cannot hope to correct that. It is the direct equivalent of a voting intention poll done by sending an email to the Tory party's own mailing list. I *hope" no newspaper would publish that (8/20)
Secondly, a primary function of polling companies is to ensure that questions in polls are fair and balanced. To say the Fair Fuel questions did not meet that standard is something of an understatement (9/20)
For example, their question on whether people wanted an increase or decrease in fuel tax was prefaced by a table claiming Britain had the highest tax in Europe & a lengthy quote from an economic consultancy calling for a tax cut (10/20)
Their question about haulier's fuel duty was prefaced by a statement saying a tax reduction would lower inflation and the cost of products. These are obviously not unbiased questions (11/20)
The question the claim that only 2% of cyclists think they should have to adhere to the laws of the road is based on this beauty of a question - the only way to say yes was to endorse a road tax for cyclists (12/20)
Finally, even if they are asked using a proper sample, and not after a million leading questions, polls asking "would X make you more likely to vote Y" are still bollocks. I've written about this at length before - for example here ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/… (13/20)
and a chapter in @robfordmancs and @philipjcowley's Sex Lies and Politics (available amazon.co.uk/Sex-Lies-Polit…
... though sadly the Amazon preview cuts out half way through my chapter, so you'll have to buy it) (14/
In short, a sample of people who joined a pro-motorist mailing list, having just answered a lot of questions about policies for motorists, and then asked whether it will impact their vote are obviously going to say yes. I amazed it was only 27% (15/20)
If you actually ask a representative sample what issues are important to them transport is picked by 2% of people. Policies are not necessarily very important drivers of voting, but if they are, it's things like the NHS, Brexit, economy & Covid that matter yougov.co.uk/topics/politic…
Meanwhile, if you are a journalist who actually cares about making sure that polls and surveys you support are robust and reliable before writing them up in your newspaper, there is some good summary advice from the BPC here
britishpollingcouncil.org/wordpress/wp-c…
(17/20)
In particular, pay attention to this paragraph
And these questions at the end... (19/20)
If the answers are

"A pressure group did it themselves"
"Their own supporters, and activists on social media"
"They just sent it out into the world, and let it get passed about"
"A pressure group"
"Ones a pressure group wrote themselves"

Then maybe ask if it's worth reporting?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Anthony Wells

Anthony Wells Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @anthonyjwells

23 Oct 19
This story in the Times surprised me - a claim that support for nationalising water had fallen to 27%
thetimes.co.uk/article/suppor…
Nationalisation tends to be fairly popular. A genuine drop from 83% to 27% would be very surprising indeed so, it's fair to say I was a tad suspicious.
Let's start with the 2017 result. That was from this Populus poll for the Legartum Institute. It may not be the greatest of questions (it really should have a don't know!), but it's straightforward and not leading
populus.co.uk/poll/public-op…
Read 13 tweets
19 Jul 19
A longish thread about trying to explain the differences in party support - primarily Labour - in the polls.
It is often very difficult to get to the bottom of the differences between polls. There is rarely one big, easy simple answer, it's normally a bit of lots of little, different to explain things. Hence stupid & simple explanations prosper.
One current cause seems to be different approaches to past vote weighting. Most pollsters* weight by how people voted at the last election (ensuring that the sample has 44% people who voted Conservative in 2017, 41% Labour in 2017 and so on)
Read 18 tweets
4 Apr 19
Rule 1 in interpreting public opinion should be too look at the polling in the round. Public opinion can be nuanced and complicated and taking one single poll finding that appears to back up your preconceptions and ignoring the wider picture can be deeply misleading (1/...)
So, given there's been some of that sort of rubbish written about polling on No Deal today here's a quick thread summarising what YouGov's recent polls on No Deal have actually said - giving both sides of the story
First - a No Deal Brexit (or "Leaving the European Union without any deal", which is the wording we use to avoid ambiguity) is seen as a bad outcome. Only 25% think it would be good for Britain, 50% bad.
Read 7 tweets
23 Apr 18
The Mirror, the i and lots of local papers are today all running stories about their "big Brexit survey" which purports to show a majority of people want to remain in the single market. (1/...)
It claims relevance due to the unusual large sample size - 200,000+. As you'll hopefully know, a big sample size alone does not make a poll accurate or meaningful. What determines whether a poll is worth paying attention to or not is whether it is *representative* of the public
The classic illustration of this is the Literary Digest poll - a magazine that used to do polls of literally millions of Americans at Presidential elections, and got it catastrophically wrong in 1936 when George Gallup's representative poll got it right.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!