We don’t have any more information on how the British Polling Council’s review of the election polls will progress beyond it being chaired by Pat Sturgis, but several pollsters have given some thoughts today beyond the initial “We got it wrong and we’ll look at it” statements most pollsters put out on Friday. Obviously no one comes to any conclusions yet – there’s a lot of data to go through and we need thoughtful analysis and solutions rather than jumping at the first possibility that raises its head – but they are all interesting reads:
Peter Kellner of YouGov has written an overview here (a longer version of his article in the Sunday Times at the weekend), covering some of the potential causes of error like poor sampling, late swing and “shy Tories”.
Martin Boon of ICM has written a detailed deconstruction of ICM’s final poll which would be have been an interesting piece anyway in terms of giving a great overview of how the different parts of ICM’s methodology come together to turn the raw figures into the final headline VI. Martin concludes that all of ICM’s techniques seemed to make the poll more accurate, but the sample itself seemed to be at fault (and he raises the pessimistic possibility that sampling techniques may no longer be up to delivering decent samples)
Andrew Cooper of Populus has written an article in the Guardian here – despite the headline most of the article isn’t about what Cameron should do, but about how the polls did.
Finally ComRes have an overview on their site, discussing possibilities like differential response and the need to identify likely voters more accurately.