Contrasting Populus and Ashcroft polls
Tony Twyman, who died last year, was the man behind much of the mechanics of TV and radio viewing figures, most notably as technical advisor for BARB viewing figures. In broader market research he is more widely known for coining Twyman's Law - "Any figure that looks interesting or different is usually wrong". The point is, of course, that strange and unusual things in a single poll are more likely the result of sample variation or error than some amazing shift in public opinion, and you should be cautious of them before getting excited (My colleague Joe Twyman likes quoting it without attribution in the hope people will jump to conclusions... not so fast!).
Anyway, today we have a classic case. Two polls that look interesting when compared to recent averages, but which are both probably no more than the result of normal sample error.
Today's twice weekly Populus poll had figures of CON 32%, LAB 37%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 13%, GRN 4% (tabs). The five point Labour lead is the biggest Populus have shown since November, their 37% share the largest any company have shown since November. Labour resurgence?
Lord Ashcroft's weekly poll however had figures of CON 34%, LAB 28%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 16%, GRN 8% (tabs.) A six point Conservative lead, by far the best poll for the Tories from any company for several years (the largest Tory leads up to now were the last two MORI polls, which had them three points up). Tory surge?
Of course the actual answer is that there is probably neither a Labour nor a Tory surge, that both of these changes are probably just down to sample error and that people should watch the overall trend across multiple polls, not get overexcited about individual polls. If the figures in one poll look strange or unusual, it's probably wrong.
In some ways it's quite nice they come on the same day, as it should stop people getting too excited over an outlier in just one direction. On the other hand, it does tend to produce lots of confused comments about how polls can be accurate when they are showing both a five point Labour lead and a six point Tory lead. Bottom line for those who are confused, part of it is down to pollsters using slightly different methods (in this case, the way Populus weight their polls tends to produce a bigger share of the vote for the main two paries than does Ashcroft). A bigger chunk will be simple margin of error - polls are not precision instruments and no one who understands them would claim they are. They are randomish samples of about 1000 or so people. The quoted margins of error are about plus or minus 3% (though given response rates, weighting effects and that polls are not pure random samples, that's a bit of a polite fiction). That means if the real position was Labour and Conservative tied on 33%, you would expect to see the Conservatives ranging from 30% to 36% and Labour from 30% to 36%, and while the results would tend to be clustered around the middle of that range, random variation could reasonably vary between a 6 point Tory lead and a 6 point Labour lead. Taken alone and in isolation, it does mean an individual voting intention poll isn't that useful... which is why you shouldn't look at them alone and in isolation - watch the trend.
