Opinion Polls Are Rigged. Elections?

From Peter Hitchens’ latest book ‘The Broken Compass – How British Politics Lost Its Way’ page 4 –

opinion polls are a device for influencing public opinion,not a means of measuring it.

I would only add to Hitchens’ words, that opinion polls can equally be used to prepare a public for a rigged election result, to make it look as if the result was expected, such as a Hung Parliament.

I asked Peter Hitchens about the possibility that elections can be rigged. His reply was that he does not possess or has not seen evidence for such a claim.

This is the first time I have seen it in print from an authoritative journalist that public opinion polls are ‘manipulated’.

It’s a start on the long road back to political honesty.

Here he is at it on QT –

Trains, education, spending and more.

Enjoyable stuff, the programme and the book.

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

8 Responses to “Opinion Polls Are Rigged. Elections?”

  1. Twig says:

    Have you read “The Abolition of Liberty” – He sets out how the left emasculated the police force and turned them into a bunch of politically correct automatons who record crime rather than prevent it.

  2. tapestry says:

    No. I haven’t read it, Twig. He’s very thorough with each topic that he takes on, and I am sure it would be a good read.

    It is interesting how frustrated Hitchens is with the Conservative Party.

    He explains how The Left end up seizing more and more power, driving the poor down and keeping them down, trying to create a classless society…except for themselves of course.

    He seems to think the Conservatives, in contrast, should wish for a meritocratic society.

    But many Conservatives fear losing what advantage they have, and would not like a meritocratic system, where intelligence is preferred over wealth. Overall they prefer the maintenance of class advantages.

    Remember the phrase ‘too clever by half’. All humans fear that someone else might cleverer than they are, and get into a position of advantage over them.

    It is not necessarily weakness of heart that stops Conservatives fighting to promote social mobility and meritocracy, but more a combination of resignation at the folly of their opponents, as described by Hitchens, but also delight that they won’t have to compete too hard to keep on top.

    If the idiots from the Left cannot be bothered to help their own people, then why should we, kind of attitude?

    Inasmuch as Hitchens is right about what has happened, and no one could give a better account of the history of our nation’s politics (even Marr lacks the incisiveness of many of Hitchens’ perceptions), he seems to suffer from strong idealistic notions about how things should be, to the point that frustration overpowers objectivity.

    You can forgive him, as anyone aware of how much bloody stupidity has been achieved by the left in his lifetime in Britain and elsewhere, would surely have gone right round the bend by now.

    The tragedy is that the Left exceed even the selfishness of the Conservatives, once they are on top, and they don’t have any genuine feelings of care for poor people at all.

    Who knows? Cameron might shock Hitchens by not conforming to the description he gives of him. Winning power has involved acting as if another Blair to get the media. That tells you little or nothing about what lies inside the tin.

    But for a clear assessment of what needs doing, if someone in politics really wanted to do what is right and just, and not merely achieve advantage for themselves, you could not find a better synopsis.


  3. Twig says:

    Agree with your comments about the Left, but as for Cameron I’m affraid your faith may be tested to the max.
    If he had accepted UKIP’s offer he would have romped ahead and walked the election, but by snubbing them he has indicated his true intentions.

  4. tapestry says:

    Now they say he need only offer a cap on immigration at 50,000 a year, and he’d romp home.

    If it was that easy Michael Howard would have won in 2005.

  5. Yasin Akgun says:

    I have his Abolition of Liberty book. A really well written book which pulls no punches and has no pretentiousness at all, rare for a political book.

    Henry you definitely should have a read of it, it’s influenced a lot of my political thinking.

  6. tapestry says:

    OMG. That will be two Hitchens’ Hardbacks purchased in one week. Thanks for the tip, Yasin. I’ll order it.

    I still think he is too sure about Cameron. No one could have detoxed the Tory brand without schmoozing the media, and playing modernising games.

    Cameron may or may not be all he claims. It’s easy enough to say no more Grammar schools to ensure the Beeboids think you one of the equalizing gang. But once in power, and with momentum, such policies could be altered easily enough.

    I didn’t mention Europe, as smoke would rise from the keyboard.

  7. Phil says:

    I think that the newspapers cherry pick opinion polls. In other words they report on the ones that favour their political persuasion!

  8. John ward says:

    It was the “wrong” message for 2005. Now more people are awrae of the real issues and their causes.

    There is a lot of “mass” in the electorate. Just as one cannot turn an ocean-going liner on a sixpence, this exercise has to be a carefully managed and painfully slow one. If it weren’t so it would be so much better and easier — but that’s the real world out there.

    I know: I’ve had to deal with it for long enough to have learned many (probably not all, yet!) of the lessons…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.