Betting money on politics might not seem a particularly obvious way to enjoy your leisure time, or to be much use to society at large. After all betting folks are only aiming to make a little money to add to their salary tax-free. As most betting is badly informed, those who do specialise in this area, and make a study of the comings and goings behind the headlines, can make some quite useful money.
But betters are starting to, unintentionally, serve another useful purpose to the society in which they live. Because they need to follow all the little details of polling to be sure of correctly identifying political trends, they tend to analyse the supporting evidence, all the details of which questions were asked, how the answers were weighted and so on.
They see, before anyone else does, when the work being done by pollsters stops making sense, and when it does. It might affect their earnings, not to do so. Entirely separately, political bloggers and others can make use of this analysis, especially to match it up to political narratives in the media that are more the regular business of political commentators.
It’s when the ‘errors’ of pollsters start to match exactly the needs of the media narrative writers, who need to back up the trend that they are trying to persuade readers and listeners to believe in, often with precious little other evidence, that people like me start to get a tad suspicious. Human beings you know! They are capable of such awful things – especially when it’s the game of power being played out!!
You have to remember that narrative writers are in a different business altogether to betters and book-makers, the acquiring and the holding of power. Such people will play around with some pretty mischievous games, and where else might a trail be found to trigger an alarm that the media controllers, whose job it is to sow ideas in peoples’ minds via the MSM, are ‘on manoeuvres’, than in strange polling results?
Just today, for example, the diligent owner of Political Betting website and persistent winner of political bets, Mike Smithson, has noticed that Populus have failed to put the details of their Monday poll out on their website as they normally do by now, and as they are meant to be doing to conform with the industry’s self-administered standards.
The Populus poll in question somehow found that Labour are only 8% behind Conservative, which is not a result in the statistical centre, you might say, and the detail would be very interesting to see.
At the end of Smithson’s piece this morning, he adds –
A little reminder to Populus….!
The detailed data on your December voting intention poll does not appear to be on your site yet. It was published on Monday evening – it is now Friday.
I was one of the first people to write in the comment thread below the post, and wrote the following in reply. (I had been commenting on PB for a few weeks now that the polls do not seem to be leading the storylines in the media, as you would expect scientific testing to be doing.
The results of many polls now seem to be merely confirming the political narratives already placed into circulation in the media)
Today’s comment was –
The devil is in the detail. They are not paid to reveal that!
The narrative currently is specifying exactly an 8% gap, which is the level given by the Populus Poll – exactly. The narrative always gets what it orders one way or another whether it be Populus, ICM or MORI. Only Angus Read Strategies is not in the ’system’, and fires out results which occasionally blast the narratives to kingdom come.
17% is consistently the ARS figure of late, and that’s before the coming financial collapse kicks in, which presumably will impact on Labour’s polling levels.
The previous narrative, before the new one was launched this week in The Times, was the Hung Parliament Narrative.
This Narrative was beginning to tire (based on a widely queried 6% in Ipsos MORI) and was no longer being commented on in the MSM, so, as I predicted would happen only the day before, with my mind sensitive to these goings-on, a replacement was due. It was duly replaced with a new narrative, but not even I was expecting the extreme front of the new one, which I christened the Labour Victory Narrative.
This is, as you might say, going the whole way. It predicts not a Hung Parliament but that an outright Labour victory will be the result of the coming election, (Times) whereby the current 8% Conservative lead will, they believe, be overturned by polling day to give Labour an outright majority.
The new Labour Victory narrative has not yet got off the ground in a big way. As the PBR financial statement has dominated the media for the last two days, it has not been a good moment to give Labour’s electoral chances this narrational boost. But the ground is being prepared nonetheless, for when the narrative can be more energetically promoted.
The pollsters are playing their role by producing the requisite 8% Conservative lead in a poll, providing a second toe-hold for the narrative-writers, in Hung Parliament territory.
And this new narrative puts the world on notice, that this is merely a base camp, a jumping off point, from which total victory, a march to the summit will be attempted, nothing less than a fourth successive Labour election victory.
The final job of rigging actual elections cannot be done successfully without expectations managed into place first. 2005 was the first rigged election where there were a substantial number of incidents of electoral fraud. Why commit fraud unless this is intended to change the result?
2010 is going to be attempted next, you can bet your life. And the narrative and the pollster’s strange outliers acting in support are the detectable method of their clandestine assault on democracy.
I hate to draw parallels but this reminds me of the science supplied to the climate debate.
What temperature would you like us to say?
What level of support would you like the poll to give?
The rigging of climate data was targeted on a specific result – the raising of climate taxes to fund powerful international organisations. The rigging of polling data, if that is taking place – I’ll let you be the judge, all the information is in the public domain – or at least it should be if Populus observe normal practice – can only be targeted on achieving a specific electoral outcome.
It is the logical step of a power structure which believes that democracy is an intrusion, to start rigging elections, and as I keep saying, you can only rig elections within the realm of expected outcomes.
That is why so much effort appears to be going into arranging expectations so carefully, regardless of the scientific credibility of the information provided.
Now then Populus, about that data you promised us…..
Stewart Dickson, a PB regular, comments …
A couple of months ago it was about TEN DAYS before the findings were up on the Populus website. Andrew Cooper (Head of Populus) was on a PB.com thread slagging off Angus Reid, so I pointed out his breach of the BPC Disclosure Rules (for the umpteenth time). He got very shirty and claimed it was an oversight.
Well, truly professional firms do not make such public oversights. That is indeed the whole point of quality control. It makes one wonder what kind of state their internal management functions are in. Their marketing guy must pull his hair out as the thicko boffins taint the brand with their (ahem) fogetfulness.
The TIMES describes the Labour election strategy thus –
Labour’s election planners believe an 8-point gap between the current party of Government and the Tories can be closed. They say that a third of Lib Dem voters have suggested that they might vote Labour, which would equate to 5 percentage points.
Meanwhile, they believe that the numbers currently saying they support “others” in polls — greens, BNP and UKIP — may go back to Labour, closing the gap by a further 3 percentage points.
After twelve years enduring endless media manipulation, distortion and rigging from these very well known characters, you cannot afford the luxury of taking this strategy as a joke. The bunker is not ready to surrender. The ship is not sinking. The same rats are all still on board. Who says they don’t have the capability in place to engineer the result?