As Peter also commented (possibly on a different thread), Political Leaders should seek to lead public opinion into doing what is right and just, and not just following every fashion or trend. To that end, the volatility of the polls is immaterial for public-policy making, since to suggest otherwise imoplies that public policy should follow the polls, rather than simply be “informed” by them.

It has always been when government action (or legislation) has been motivated purely by polling evidence that we have had the worst outcomes. For a government to base its entire priogramme on polls (or focus groups) leads to bad law, bad government, and is generally bad news for the country.

or as the adage goes;

“You never fight the same war twice”

Bush though Gulf War 2 would be just like Gulf War 1, and look where that got us.

Peter.

Have to take issue with you re Holland – a commonly used shorthand for the Netherlands – especially pre WWII – notwithstanding it only being a part the latter.

Firstly, I agree with Peter Cairns’ basic point that Hitler was going to invade Holland whatever their government said / did. This was a strategic imperative for several reasons.

Your comparison with WWi is invalid because the underlying causes of those two wars were actually quite different, and the nature of what was strategically important had changed dramatically. It was not just a question of Geography, but of resources, and the Netherlands had both – in particular the port of Rotterdam.

It was in thinking that WWii would be a replay of WWI that got France into such trouble. The lesson of History is that when economic factors change, one’s response should also change, and the tools of yesteryear may not work today, let alone tomorrow. Rather apt at present wouldn’t you say ?

Anthony, sorry if this is a bit off thread, but I thought Peter deserved defence.

(will comment on Thomas’ last point separatel;y)

On the point about statistical methodologies, if you reread the comments you’ll find I wasn’t disagreeing but augmenting the argument that different methodologies can’t be judged alike, in order to conclude the WMA is flawed. I’ll take it that you agree on the mathematic theory.

Holland comprises just two regions within the Netherlands, which is itself only one of the three states commonly known as the ‘low countries’, but I’m sure you don’t need to read up on your geography.

The Netherlands wasn’t invaded in WW1 because it’s strategic position means it doesn’t have a border with France, does not control the approaches to the straits and therefore did not have a mutual defence pact with the entente powers. This didn’t change between then and ’40, as I’m sure you’ll know from your history.

As for dictionary definitions, that’s English language, and I’m sure I can afford a Scot some discretion on that.

Finally the politics: your need to reply is a demonstration in point that this is in fact quite acute and contrary to your own interpretation.

Perhaps you could engage with the issues at hand rather than making personal attacks – would you indeed prefer plotted graphs which give scope to integrate the poll variations we are attempting to make sense of, and is not the identified polling volatility a actually only a symptom of the line graph used?

I think it is impossible to infer the swings in individual poll results are due to to the effects of news events when these cannot easily be disentangled from the different polling methodologies.

I can only conclude that either you think any such inferences are safe, that you cannot suggest any way to disentangle one from the other, or that it suits your personal ends to see confusion reign.

Considering the latest result from ComRes how we disinter meaningful conclusions about public opinion as a basis for policy-making is a subject of growing importance.

Some Dictonary definitions for you.

Sceptical; Not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.

Some of the electorate may well be easily convinced and thus change from party to party, some may be sure about most policies but shift weight between them depending on events, and some may well just not care and indeed far from being not easily convinced they are actually easily convincted that the parties are all the same.

If you are saying that the electorate are sceptical but that there could be many reasons for that ,it still doesn’t prove wide spread scepticism.

Some may be sceptical but it doesn’t have to be wide spread and indeed there could be many people who are sceptical about their party of choice but still vote for them as the lesser of two evils.

Hawthorne effect; The alteration of behaviour of a study due to their awareness of being studied.

That’s the dictionary definition I’ve got, although wiki ( never the definitive source for anything) does say that the definition has changed over time and is now variously definied.

And no I am not mixing it up with the Heisenberg principle. You may make about as much sense as a Star Trek script but I am not mistaking it for quantum uncertainty.

On Holland in may 1940 this from wiki;

“The strategic position of the Low Countries, located between France and Germany on the uncovered flanks of their fortification lines, made them the logical route for an offensive by either side. The Entente tried to convince them not to wait for the inevitable German attack but join them first.”

As I said never a definitive source but if you have anything better I’d like to see it.

The fact that I support Anthony’s right to set his own policy on his own site and to take action if he sees neceassary hardly amounts to the SNP trying to restrict democracy, unless you are advocating that all websites should be open to all comments without moderation or restriction.

No one is saying you can’t say what you like but rather that there are limits that you agree to before you enter and if you don’t like them don’t come in.

It’s just like a pub, if the sign outside says “No Spitting” (well seeing I am from Glasgow) then if you spit inside expect to be shown the door. You may see that as some infringement of human rights I see it as the rules of the house.

If anyone doesn’t like it they can find a pub that lets them s**t on the tables if they like.

Also I never said you omitted any polls, but by listing them without the organisation that conducted them we couldn’t tell if the different methodologies of the pollsters accounted for the variations rather than volatility as you claimed.

As Anthony has pointed out repeatedly different pollsters have different methodologies that either increase or decrease the shares for different parties. On that basis a set of pols which have the same basic raw data could have a variation in the results depending on who conducts the poll.

Like most of your arguments it was sloppy, thats why I intermittantly pick you up (when I can be bothered), you aren’t as bad as Mike, but you do tend to make sweeping assumptions on very little evidence.

You also just dig yourself in deeper, as with the comments on Holland in WW2 where rather than accept it was a weak analogy you try harder and harder to justify it.

Of and using things like “Hawthorne effect” and “perversions of the actuality?” just make it look like you are trying to be clever by being deliberately obtuse.

Peter.