A poll

Ah, polls! To believe them, or not to believe them, that is the question. 

There's a poll out today which the BBC won't like one bit. 

It's from Savanta ComRes, one of the UK's leading pollsters, and it finds that the public wants to defund the BBC. 

The poll was commissioned by...🥁...Defund the BBC.

The results say that 64% want a nationwide referendum on the BBC’s funding, with a mere 13% saying they would not support a referendum. 

And if a referendum was held, 62% say they would vote to scrap the licence fee against a mere 24% who say they would keep it. 

Those are quite some results.

A telling divide

 

The BBC can cherry pick polls as much as it likes, but this speaks volumes:

85%

Before my latest disappearing act, I posted about a Sky News/YouGov poll which suggests massive and growing distrust of broadcast journalists.

I think it's fair to say that this particular poll didn't go down too well with many in the media, with lots of leading lights - from Sky's Adam Boulton to ITV's Mark Austin and the BBC's John Simpson - pouncing on other polls that suggest far higher levels of public trust.

They also promoted dismissive comments from other pollsters and commentators in response to it. 

Other media defenders pointed to multiple polls suggesting that distrust in the media has been around for a while and long preceded the coronavirus crisis (though how helpful that is for the media I rather doubt!). 

In the first flurry of reaction and counter-reaction I noted that Cardiff University's Professor Stephen Cushion was prominent among the media defenders being cited by the likes of John Simpson, and this week Prof. Cushion was being cited again by John Simpson for a new Cardiff University study which finds - surprise, surprise - that the public do still trust the media.

Here's John Simpson's tweet about it:

Note to Culture Sec Oliver Dowden, who claims that the BBC risks losing public confidence: a study in today’s Independent finds that BBC News has a trust rating of 85%, while ITV & Ch4 have 73% & Sky has 69%. And people want more scrutiny of govt policy, not less.

My cynicism about Cardiff University's reports remains strong: Previous studies, you will recall, found the BBC to be right-wing and anti-EU. Their key researchers are a mix of hardcore left-wing media conspiracy theorists, far-left-activists, pro-EU people, centre-left folk and ex-BBC staff. And their hand-in-glove relationship with/dependency on the BBC, which uses them to reinforce all their major impartiality reviews, appears deeply unhealthy to me. 

But that's a bit too ad hominem. What actually troubles me about their latest study of less than 200 people is the mirror image of Prof. Cushion's concerns about the Sky/YouGov poll. 

He suggests that this Sky/YouGov poll asked its questions in a way that wasn't ideal  - even though it was commissioned by Sky News. But I'm far happier with the transparent questions put by YouGov (which anyone can read) than I am with Cardiff University's opaque in-depth one-on-one discussions with voters. 

What did the Cardiff University researchers ask the people being studied? Were their questions in any way leading questions? Did they comment throughout the discussions in such a way as to influence their subjects? Was there hidden bias in their questions?

Obviously, we'd need to see transcripts of the in-depth one-on-one discussions the Cardiff University researchers conducted and we'd need to inspect the wording of every question put by the researchers...

...especially if they bring about the truly fantastical-sounding result of 85% trust for BBC News, which I simply don't believe.

Still, I can see why the likes of John Simpson would enjoy reading Stephen Cushion in The Independent telling him that the public loves the BBC. 

But, John, what if it's not true that 85% of the public trust the BBC's journalists? What if Sky/You Gov were actually nearer the truth? What price your well-Cushioned comfort blankets then?

Trusting the media

To while away a locked-down day blog favourite Alex Deane proposed a game yesterday: 

Tweet an unfashionable opinion. I don’t mean one that you pretend is unfashionable but really makes you look “cool”. One that makes most people say NO. I’ll start. Most Bob Dylan covers are better than the originals. 

Suggestions included "Wine doesn’t actually pair very well with food", "Two spaces after a full stop. Unfashionable, but correct" and "The Victorian Workhouse was an excellent idea. Feckless wastrels got a roof over their heads and three meals a day in return for gainful employment".

The undisputed winner, however, was:

I'm a big fan of the journalists asking questions at the daily press conference...They're doing a great job.

(Just between us, I think this canny chap was cheating by being sarcastic 😉) 

Humour in a time of crisis: 

The splendid Rich, who I also follow on Twitter, posted something the other day which others then swiped (without crediting him) and wrote close variations on:

This is how it'll play out if we make the vaccine:  

*Hancock calls briefing, says we've created world-saving vaccine*  

BBC: Will you apologise for not creating it sooner?  

ITV: Isn't it true that it contains dead kittens?  

C4: Why didn't you join an EU vaccination scheme?   

Sky: You said creating a vaccine would be difficult, do you now accept that you weren't telling the truth?  

Buzzfeed: 37 reasons why the UK is still a shit country  

Independent: Isn't it true that austerity stopped the vaccine being made sooner? 

Guardian: Vaccines are racist  

Then 12 days later, in what he thinks is a massive scoop, Robert Peston will tweet that his well-placed sources have informed him that a vaccine may be close.

*******

Whether that's fair or not, something definitely gone badly wrong for the media during the coronavirus crisis - at least if Sky/YouGov's poll into public trust is anything to go by:

While the NHS has a +81 trust rating and Boris Johnson a +12 rating, TV journalists have a -40 rating and newspapers a -55 rating.  

Newspapers have long had dreadful ratings, but for TV journalists to plummet to such dismals depths when it comes to public trust is highly striking, and ought to give them considerable pause for thought.

So why has the public drastically lost trust in TV journalists?

One possible factor is that the public has, by all accounts, seen a lot more of these TV journalists than usual - through watching the daily press conferences and by tuning in in greater numbers to BBC One's news bulletins, etc. (Even Newsnight cites a rise in viewing figures). Could it be that familiarity has bred contempt - and distrust?

Reading the non-bubble parts of Twitter, those daily press conferences do seem to be a particular bone of disquiet with the public. The likes of Laura Kuenssberg, Robert Peston, Beth Rigby, etc, now stand charged with all manner of things - including (to be brief): grandstanding, making fools of themselves, asking the same questions day after day, asking the same questions other journalists have asked before them (even during the same press conference), asking ill-informed questions, betraying scientific ignorance, being rude, asking the wrong questions, adopting a hostile tone, pushing an agenda, all singing from the same hymn sheet, failing to reflect or give voice to minority opinions (e.g. over the usefulness of lockdowns and the harmful economic effects of lockdowns), asking too many 'Will you apologise?' questions, being knee-jerk anti-government, and going for 'gotchas'. And, above all, of failing badly to catch the public mood.

Also: Could that anti-media stat have something to do with a swathe of the public reacting against swashbuckling, high-profile loudmouth Piers Morgan?

Or maybe it's because of people disliking aggressive, gotcha-style interviews by TV presenters/journalists? From Naga in the morning on BBC Breakfast to Emily in the evening on Newsnight, I'm seeing complaints along those lines chiming and rhyming with other complaints on my broad Twitter line. Such interruptions and gotchas are, understandably, winning our Naga and Emily & Co. vociferous plaudits from the tiny minority Twitter bubble and their media colleagues, but are they alienating/angering the vast public beyond that bubble?

And finally: Is more and more of the public starting to see such journalists as being little more than a vast ocean of agenda-pushers? 

Whatever, it's still quite something when the public trusts the politicians more than they trust the journalists who believe themselves to be holding the politicians to account. 

Oh dear, Huw!

Huw Edwards has hit back at BBC bias accusations, but nearly half of Brits (48%) say they don't trust BBC News journalists to tell the truth. This figure was 41% just back in October https://t.co/UVZoNbiOC5 pic.twitter.com/Rx0OxAwPQR

— YouGov (@YouGov) December 16, 2019

Update: Given that the BBC has, over the past couple of years or so, been relying rather too heavily for its defence against its critics by citing a BBC-sponsored Ipsos Mori opinion poll showing public trust for the corporation holding up, this YouGov poll will surely go down very badly with them. 

In fact, I suspect it will be about as welcome as norovirus. 

To the question, 'How much do you trust BBC News journalists to tell the truth?' only 8% said "a great deal". The other options were 'a fair amount', 'not much' and 'not at all'. 

Meanwhile, the BBC's John Simpson has been in action today retweeting ex-Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger saying:

And to all those saying "no-one trusts the BBC" the evidence is not with you. This is a 2017 snapshot, but pretty consistent over the years, and, imho, won't have changed much.

I doubt it will ever have crossed John's mind to think that citing Alan Rusbridger in defence of the BBC is exactly the kind of thing people like us expect of people like him at the BBC!

No, they haven't

One of the top three headlines on the BBC News website this morning is Have UK voters changed their minds on Brexit? 

It's a piece by Sir John Curtice and, reading it, the answer he gives is 'No, they haven't':

...very few voters on either side of the argument have changed their minds about whether the UK should leave the EU. The country appears to be just as divided as it was three years ago. 

On average, during the last month, polls that ask people how they would vote in another referendum suggest that 88% of those who backed Remain would do so again. Among those who voted Leave, 86% have not changed their minds. 

These figures have changed very little during the last two years. 

True, most polls suggest - and have done so for some time - that the balance of opinion might be tilted narrowly in favour of remaining a member of the EU. On average, this is by 53% to 47%. 

However, this lead for Remain rests primarily on the views expressed by those who did not vote three years ago - and perhaps might not do so again. 

In truth, nobody can be sure what would happen if there were to be another referendum.

Very interestingly, the main question - 'Which of these scenarios do you favour the most? - results in the three 'Leave' options getting 46% and the 'Remain' option getting 34%.

Also intriguing is Sir John's finding that how you word the question in a poll really does influence the outcome (not that that's really a huge surprise):

When people are asked about a "public vote" they are more likely to show support for another ballot than when asked about a "referendum" on the UK's membership of the EU.

...which is why the BBC needs to be very careful about the language it uses - specially when it talks about a 'public/confirmatory vote' rather than 'another/a second referendum'.

It will be interesting to see how the BBC itself covers (or spins) these findings. 

42%

When campaigning organisations commission polls you kind-of expect the results of the poll to back up their position, even if the poll is conducted by a reputable polling company.

So if, say, the People's Vote campaign or the Leave Means Leave campaign commissions a poll and the results reinforce their respective positions, then it's easy to feel wary - even if the polls are just as scrupulously-conducted as any other poll and, in all probability, just as reliable - or unreliable.

You always need to look at the question though.  One of the questions Leave Means Leave put via ComRes a few days ago ran as follows: 

Some have described the government's approach to Brexit as a 'stitch-up'. Reflecting on this, do you agree or disagree with the following statement?:

Organisations like the BBC seem to be in favour of remaining in the EU and fail to give an impartial view on Brexit

Now, there's undoubtedly a 'leading' quality (or two) to that question. I'd prefer a simple 'Do you agree or disagreement with the following statement? The BBC reports Brexit in a biased way' kind of question (complete with follow-up questions), with none of that framing. 

But, it's a question nonetheless and it was conducted by ComRes in their usual way, so - for what it's worth - the results are as follows:

42% agree that the BBC has a pro-EU, anti-Brexit bias

25 % disagree

33% don't know

Polls and cheers

This may be of interest (or not):

Andrew Adonis: The loudest cheers I get in my Brexit public meetings, a bit to my surprise, are when I say: ‘it’s time for the BBC to once again become an impartial public broadcaster’. 

Sunder Katwala: This could suggest one of two things: (1) growing pressure/scepticism at BBC; (2) v.narrow self-selection for Brexit rally attendees (not reflective of what most Remainers think of BBC). The evidence is that (1) is unlikely. 13% of remain voters saw BBC as pro-Brexit early this year. (14% saw it as pro-Remain). That niche may have grown to a slightly bigger minority of Remainers.

He was basing that on YouGov polling from February which found that 45% of Leave voters think the BBC is anti-Brexit but only 13% of Remain voters thought the BBC is pro-Brexit (yes, less than the Remain voters who agreed with that 45% of Leave voters about the anti-Brexit direction of the bias). 

The BBC outfoxes Fox....just

...elves...breaking news about ourselves....breaking news about ourselves...breaking news about ours... 

Here's something from the BBC News Press Team.

(Please stand to attention and take your hands out of your pockets!)

That made me smile. 

Given how low an opinion BBC types have of Fox News, here's the BBC boasting that Katty Kay, Anthony Zurcher, Jon Sopel and Co. are just about equal with Fox News when it comes to being considered trustworthy by Americans. 

Not that they put it that way of course.  

An opinion poll the BBC wants you to believe (update)

Here's a curious postscript to a post from earlier today....

The BBC Press Office sent this tweet out a couple of days ago about a BBC-commissioned IPSOS Mori showing the BBC to be trusted much more than any of its competitors (well, on this particular take anyhow) : 

But it turns out that this IPSOS Mori poll isn't quite the 'new research' the BBC Press Office claims it is. 

A commenter on that earlier thread noted that the 57% figure also appeared in that new (and flawed) Cardiff University which 'found' the BBC to be right-wing biased. 

The presumption would naturally be that the BBC shared it with their academic impartiality-checking chums at Cardiff University. But when? 

Digging into this mystery, the Cardiff report's citation of this same figure - and it is the same figure - takes you to a link.

You pass through that very wormhole and land back in March 2017 at a BBC Trust transcript of a speech by the Trust's last head Rona Fairhead where she does precisely what the BBC Press Office was doing a couple of days ago - quotes from, and gloats over, that very polling data:

So what's going on? Well, if you look at the small print of this 'new' IPSOS Mori poll you'll see that all the polling for it was done in January and February of this year. 

In other words, this 'new' poll is some nine months out of date.

And as for it being 'new research', well if 'new' means getting on for a year old then 'new' it is. Unfortunately, 'new' usually means 'new'. (And I've re-checked my dictionary to make sure).

I don't know about you but I feel misled by the BBC Press Office here...

...ironically over a poll about BBC trustworthiness.

As Abraham Lincoln once said, you couldn't make it up!

An opinion poll the BBC wants you to believe

The BBC Press Office has been eager to promote a poll which it commissioned from Ipsos Mori - and one of its findings in particular:

Of course that slide is the most dramatic-looking. Others, however, are less dramatic:

It's no surprise that the spin-friendly BBC preferred the top one.

That said, both are excellent news for the BBC. Over 7 out of 10 here say that they trust the BBC as a news source and well over half say that go to the BBC first for trustworthy news.

Can you believe it? After all our hard work and people still trust the BBC!

Well anyhow, I'm off for a long lie-down with a very large bottle of gin. For some reason, the words of Honest Abe are springing to mind: You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. It's a nice positive thought to cling on to. How true it is I'm not sure.

Meanwhile, just for the sake of it, here's another reaction to the BBC Press Office from an eminently fair-minded-sounding individual on Twitter:

Does the BBC make you most proud to be British?

As no one believes in polls any more (except everyone who still does), here's an interesting one from Ipsos. The especially interesting things for readers of blogs like ours are the poll's overall rankings (with the BBC placed joint bottom) and the findings about contrasting attitudes towards the BBC between Remain and Leave supporters.

Click to enlarge

Another 'Newsnight' voter panel

All credit to Newsnight for their voter panel on how Brexit is going last night. I feared the worse, given the travesty of previous voter panels on Newsnight, but this was a well-chosen, varied panel of voters from a city (Sheffield) which voted 51-49 to leave the EU. They were all suitably labelled too, presumably for the sake of transparency, on how they voted in the referendum and their declared party allegiances:

Ben  - Leave (Liberal Democrat)

Gillian - Remain (Conservative)

Michael - Leave (Labour)

Roger - Remain (Labour)

Sonia - Remain (Labour)

Janetta - Leave (Conservative)

Carole - Leave (Conservative)

Albert - Leave (Labour)

Richard - floating 

It was a lively, interesting discussion, full of surprises.

A Labour landslide in Walsall?

Ah, pollsters and BBC panels again!....

There was a classic Newsnight voter's panel last night. It came from a Labour marginal in Walsall (presumably Walsall North - the most marginal of the three Walsall constituencies - update: Yes, it was Walsall North. Evan said so earlier), and Evan Davis admitted from the start that it had an inbuilt Labour bias:

And to get a taste of how all this has played with voters in this marginal seat, we convened a panel of Walsall voters. A small focus group of people who have been Labour or Tory, or undecided between Labour and Tory. Ipsos Mori selected the panel for us, and, as this is a Labour seat, there is a tilt towards Labour in the numbers, but Tories and undecideds are there, too. 

Tories there? Really? When asked for their voting intention at the end the panel split fairly evenly between Labour and undecideds, with no one declaring they were going to vote Tory, and all the (former) Tories either turning undecided or gravitating towards Labour. 

So, if this panel is representative then Labour veteran David Winnick should have absolutely no fears on election day. His 1,937 majority in 2015 looks set to be massively increased as the Tory vote collapses. 

As Evan said at the end,

The people of Walsall there and their views. And you see Jeremy Corbyn getting a relatively warm reception in that group. Is that the prevalent view in places like this, or was the panel untypical? You never really know until the day, do you?

Indeed you don't. This was a panel which answered 'Jeremy Corbyn' to the question, 'Which one looks more confident, Jeremy Corbyn or Theresa May?' and answered the same way to identical questions about 'Which one looks more prime ministerial?', 'Which one looks more compassionate?' and 'Which one looks more competent'? Only on 'Which one looks more serious?' did Theresa May get a few shouts.

It will be interesting to see how the Walsall constituencies declare on Friday morning. Ipsos Mori is another polling organisation whose reputation will be under heavy scrutiny this week.

Another poll

Here's an opinion poll finding from YouGov:

Besides the bizarre (but probably inevitable) 9% who think the BBC was biased in favour of Brexit, the interesting statistic here is that only 30% of voters think the BBC behaved impartially over Brexit.

O, wad some Power the giftie gie us/To see oursels as others see us!

In other bias-related news, a survey for The Herald shows that 36% of Scots think the BBC is biased against independence. 

I can't say that comes as particularly surprising news, but the other figures - 23% disagreeing and 41% neither agreeing or disagreeing - are still striking.

Less than a quarter of Scots were prepared to give the BBC the thumbs-up in this survey. 

That's not good for the BBC, is it?

Is the BBC biased?

Everyone trusts polls. So here's a poll, courtesy of YouGov and published in The Times just under a month ago. The question put is a good one. (Wish we'd thought of it!). 702 people took part. 

Stephan Shakespeare of YouGov's Times article is headlined:

...though that could have read:

46 per cent say BBC 'biased'

The BBC might take comfort from the 'complaints from both sides' argument but given that nearly half of respondents think the BBC is biased can hardly be much comfort for them!

As I may have said before...

More and more people are angry at the BBC - from the Corbynistas and the SNP on one side to all the many-and-various 'people like us' on the other.

The old 'complaints from both sides' no longer washes either. Both sides are firing from different sides at the same place (loathe as they would be to admit it): the place where the BBC sits.

And the BBC doesn't sit where many of us/they sit. It (generally-speaking) sits with people other than us/them, somewhere on the socially-liberal, strongly pro-EU, economically-centrist, politically left-leaning, pro-modern-Establishment spectrum between Ken Clarke and Angela Eagle.

Here endeth the lesson.

A poll

Here's a brand new ComRes poll (for what such polls are worth) which might just give those pushing for a second (EU) referendum cause to pause and reflect (as if!):

One for Newsnight and others at the BBC there (as if!)

And there's more (which might be more to the BBC's taste):

56% of British people think Islam is a threat to Western liberal democracy

The BBC got into a spot of difficulty earlier this year over its attempts to put a positive spin on a BBC/ComRes survey in which 27% of British Muslims expressed  some sympathy with those who carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre. 

The BBC headlined its findings, "Most British Muslims 'oppose Muhammad cartoons reprisals'"; other media organisation chose headlines such as "One in four British Muslims 'have some sympathy for motives behind Charlie Hebdo attacks'" (The Independent) or "Quarter of British Muslims sympathise with Charlie Hebdo terrorists" (The Daily Telegraph). 

Such behaviour fuelled claims that the BBC is far from impartial in its reporting of such stories, that it actually pursues an agenda to downplay negative angles, often downplaying or ignoring them.

It will be interesting then to see how or even if  the BBC reports the latest Huffington Post/YouGov poll into the British public's attitude towards Islam. So far I can't see a thing.

The question they posed was a highly specific one, asking their respondents to focus on Islam in general rather than on Islamic extremists: 

Do you feel that Islam (as distinct from Islamic fundamentalist groups) poses a threat to Western liberal democracy?

The results were:

27% said 'Yes', it's 'a major threat'

29% said 'Yes', it's 'some threat'

20% said 'No', it's 'not much threat'

15% said 'No', it's 'no threat at all'

8% said 'Don't know'

That's a total of 56% saying Islam is a threat to Western liberal democracy compared to just 35% saying Islam isn't a threat to Western liberal democracy...

...and even the majority of that 35% who said 'No' chose the 'not much threat' option rather than the 'no threat at all' option.

The results also show a significant shift in attitudes over the years. In 2001 (in a post-9/11 poll), the figures were almost reversed (32% saying Islam is a threat, 63% saying it isn't), and even in 2005 (in a post-7/7 poll) the figures were pretty evenly split (46% saying Islam in a threat, 47% saying it isn't a threat). 

That is a major shift in public opinion. Will the BBC cover it?

The head of the BBC's Political Research Unit gets it wrong (again)

There's an interesting piece from the head of the BBC's Political Research Unit, David Cowling, on the BBC website entitled, Election 2015: How the opinion polls got it wrong.

David argues that the pollsters are being unfairly harangued:

Following the outcome of the 2015 general election, a mixture of anger and contempt was showered on the pollsters who had spent six weeks suggesting a different result. [Yes, and not least by Andrew Marr!]

I understand those feelings, but I do not share them.

It's a characteristically clearly-written piece, but, on reading it, my trust in the conclusions of the head of the BBC's Political Research Unit has hardly been enhanced by reading this jaw-dropping sentence from his article:

The actual result was Conservatives 38% and Labour 32%. 

Er, no David...

Wasn't it actually 37% (36.9%) and 30% (30.4%)? 

Where, in Allah's name, did David Cowling, the head of the BBC's Political Research Unit, get 38% and 32% from? 

That's really not good, is it, especially in a piece about the accuracy of pollsters?

And why didn't the BBC website fact-check this before publishing it? (Did they just assume their top polling expert must have got it right?)

********

Of course, most people won't be too familiar with David Cowling, other than seeing him on the BBC's election night programme as the BBC's official expert on such matters. 

Yet here he is, on the BBC website, giving his verdict that the pollsters are still to be trusted (despite getting the result of the election wrong himself after the election!!)...

...but I recall him from the days of my old 2009-10 blog, where his (as I saw it) deeply biased analysis of the polls featured quite often. 

Here are a couple of examples:

SATURDAY, 1 MAY 2010
WHAT?!
Before I move on from yesterday's BBC internet election coverage, here's a post from the BBC's polling expert last night:

2205: Two of the latest polls show that only 5% separates the parties in first and third place, while in the other the gap is just 4%, says David Cowling, editor of BBC political research. "All three polls keep this election firmly in hung parliament territory, with Labour the largest party," he says. "It is still a genuinely close three-horse race."

And that was it for last night on the polls.
This puzzles me because there were (as far as I can see) only two polls last night, and neither bares any resemblance to the figures Mr Cowling is describing.

SATURDAY, 17 APRIL 2010
COME AGAIN?
David Cowling, editor of the BBC Political Research Unit, has posted this today on the BBC website's Poll Watch: Analysis:

SATURDAY UPDATE:
A Sun newspaper poll, carried out after the TV debate, suggests Labour are in third place on 28% (down 3%), with the Lib Dems on 30% (up 8%) and the Conservatives 33% (down 4%). Applying the figures from The Sun poll, which came from a YouGov survey of 1,290 people, to the BBC News website's election seat calculator, results in the following: Labour 276 seats; Conservatives 245 seats; Lib Dems 100 seats; Others 29 seats.
This is the first national poll sampled after Thursday's debate. Clearly the findings, if confirmed by the polls expected on Sunday, are important. It is worth pointing out that the two point difference between the Liberal Democrats and Labour is within normal sampling error, so it does not mean Labour is definitively in third place.
Although the headline focus may be on the Liberal Democrats appearing ahead of Labour we should not ignore the poll's suggestion that the Conservative fall in support is bigger than Labour's.
Perhaps it is best to consider this single poll as an immediate referendum on Thursday night's debate, until we have evidence, if any, that it represents the settled will of British voters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8626154.stm

Why does Mr Cowling emphasize the possibility of a sampling error concerning the 2% Lib Dem lead over Labour but ignore it when foregrounding the additional 1% fall in support by the Conservatives (4% compared to 3% for Labour)? Surely we 'should not ignore' that the'normal sampling error' also 'does not mean' 'that the Conservative fall in support is' 'definitively' ' bigger than Labour's'.

Now, returning to the present, David Cowling's defence of the pollsters (and pollster-monitoring pundits like him) is that, yes, the pollsters may have got it wrong this time, but:

But lest we forget, the British polling industry has provided very accurate election vote share forecasts in the past, recently as well as historically.

And yet, as you can see from the two posts from my old blog above, the pollsters - and David Cowling - were way off the scent last time too. The results in 2010, if you recall, were:

Conservatives - 36.1%

Labour - 29.0%

Liberal Democrats - 23.0%

i.e. nothing like what David Cowling was reporting, with some confidence, at the time.

David may be sticking up for himself here, as the BBC's official polling expert, but his own record (both past and present) doesn't exactly justify his confidence, does it?

********

P.S. For more from this blog about David Cowling, please see here. It's a piece about David Cowling's BBC Academy tutorial on how the BBC should report the EU (and UKIP).

Even by the standards of the BBC, that is one heck of a biased tutorial (though he got UKIP's general election prospects right).