It’s difficult to escape the opinion polls. As a result of the reduced cost of internet polling, there will be more of them during this general election campaign than any before it.
National polls give the national picture, but the polls in marginal constituencies should attract the most attention. Are they more or less reliable than the national ones?
The answer is less. To see why, take a look at a recent poll of marginals conducted by the Populus polling organisation. It surveyed 100 key seats, currently held by Labour and targeted by the Conservatives. It showed that the switch of voters from Labour to the Tories was about 1.5 to two points higher in the battleground seats than nationally.
But what was the poll actually based on? Populus spoke to 1,500 voters in the 100 seats. That would have meant an average of 15 people in each marginal constituency. In fact, the actual number used to make the forecast was even lower. Of those 1,500 respondents, 313 either said they would not vote, would not indicate a preference or didn’t know. In effect, the Populus forecast was based on the views of an average of just nine voters per marginal constituency – far too small to form the basis of a meaningful national prediction.
The real problem with polls is that they can tell us what people are thinking at the time they are polled, but not why. That is the great conundrum. Take the stories about Gordon Brown being a bully. It was thought they were bound to lead to Labour tumbling in the polls. That didn’t happen. Why not?
Perhaps because we expect our political leaders to be – if not actually bullies – then at least strong. Margaret Thatcher was the great example of this. She wasn’t much loved, but she was respected – mainly on account of her perceived strength.
One explanation for this phenomenon can be found in the best book on politics and spin ever written: The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli, published 500 years ago. Machiavelli asks if it is better for a political leader to be loved or feared. His answer: “One should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved.” He justifies this proposition with a less than charitable view of his fellow man (women did not come into the reckoning), described as “ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you.”
While that might not be a fair portrayal of the British electorate, the Prime Minister may see as an apt description of his colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party
