Tweet
The accuracy of his polls may prove interesting!
August 2007 opinion poll indicates wide lead by JLP
Wignall's World
Mark Wignall
Sunday, August 26, 2007
In May of this year when I ran a national poll which included interviewing 1,588 persons of voting age in 50 communities islandwide, a seven percentage point lead was registered. In my most recent poll, conducted in August on the weekend of the debates, the JLP gained four percentage points while the PNP failed to move from its May position.
Prior to those times, all other pollsters were showing PNP leads via the print and electronic media. I found this most puzzling, especially where eight constituency polls conducted by me had indicated leads by the JLP of between three percentage points and six percentage points. At those times also, information had come to me that other pollsters had been conducting extensive constituency polling and these were, in most instances, showing JLP leads.
How could there be this glaring disconnect between the findings at the constituency level and the broad comparative findings at the national level? Although many political commentators were drawn in by what was obviously flawed polling, they bought the 'disconnect theory' and then, in their attempt to bring credence to their own explanations, began to cite the oft heard and ridiculous, 'If the electorate votes national, the PNP will win; if the vote is constituency-by-constituency, the JLP will win'.
It was a most foolish position to hold because the national vote, in its most basic form, is 60 organised pockets of voting which, taken one at a time, comprise the whole, the national total. In each constituency it takes a strong and effective MP/caretaker to place his or her stamp on the constituency. In a highly efficient, properly funded and well-run constituency campaign, the constituents are constantly drawing links between the candidate, the party and the party leader.
It is a most difficult process to determine just which factor has more merit in the eyes of the likely voter. Even if one of those three factors supersedes the other two, the fact is, a gain in one can only come about because of the effectiveness of the other two.
Where there are no sharp ideological differences between the PNP and the JLP, all it takes is a few 'loud' errors or triumphs (or a series of these) at the national level to cement a strengthening of a 'national vote' at the constituency level.
In all the years that I have been conducting political polls, and even before that while I was conducting interviews for the late Professor Carl Stone, I learned that even though much information could be gathered in the field to form a library of data/trends, in each poll done, with the best will in the world, there is just not enough time to interpret ALL the responses from each person interviewed.
If, for example, an educated, informed person gives Trafigura as one reason for saying the PNP is corrupt, does that mean that the Trafigura scandal meant nothing to the undereducated and theoretically, under-informed person? Not necessarily so.
The poor, undereducated person may be a more pragmatic person who takes the cynical view that if the JLP was in power, it would have accepted Trafigura money. Which does not take away anything from the perception held that the PNP administration is corrupt. The educated person may put more stock in 'values' while the poorer, undereducated person takes the view that ALL politicians will dip, double-dip and triple-dip, all under the table.
Over time, however, it falls to the pollster to make an informed judgement based not just on past trends but also on a crucial reading of the most recent happenings.
Portia must blame Portia for the impending PNP defeat
Early in the year, the question that was being asked was, on the assumption that the ideal in political polls is to present them as having a predictive factor, was that factor being used - and in instances, crassly so - to influence and manipulate the electorate?
Second, who or which entity was pulling the strings in this game?
Let us accept that there are some 'givens' in last year and also in this year. In the early days of 2006, especially in the time just following Portia Simpson Miller's ascendancy to the post of prime minister, it was taken as a given that there was no other politician present who could successfully defeat her in an election. Let us appreciate one thing here.
It is my belief that former prime minister PJ Patterson saw where the days of the PNP under his leadership were numbered. In the 2002 general elections, the last-minute re-entry of Bruce Golding sent shock waves through the PNP and they narrowly won that election.
In 2003, the JLP won the Local Government elections. Then later the JLP and especially the young turks in that party manoeuvred themselves into key positions allowing them to mount a concerted effort to rid the party of Eddie Seaga, a stone-footed leader who acted as if the party was his to lock off, lock down and totally dominate, especially where his position ran counter to those of others in the second-tier leadership slots.
Together with what he knew along with a growing trend towards not just the revitalising of the JLP but the reality of burn-out, laziness and rank arrogance in the PNP administration, PJ Patterson decided that that headache to come had to be somebody else's.
With little 'qualifications' for the post of prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller's victory in the PNP race was assured by virtue of the inclusion of Omar Davies in the line-up. One definitely got the impression that Peter Phillips in that race did not have the support of Mr Patterson.
In a November 2005 poll commissioned by one of the losing participants in that race, my numbers indicated huge differences in the likely face-off of the participants. Forty-six per cent of respondents wanted Simpson Miller to replace Patterson, compared with 15% who wanted Peter Phillips, now critically positioned to replace Simpson Miller as PNP president after the PNP defeat.
The 2005 poll gave indications as the likely positions:
Question: If at the next elections Omar Davies is leading the PNP and Bruce Golding is leading the JLP, which party would you vote for?
Answers
JLP 39%
PNP 21%
Question: If at the next elections Karl Blythe is leading the PNP and Bruce Golding is leading the JLP, which party would you vote for?
Answers
JLP 40%
PNP 23%
Question: If at the next elections Peter Phillips is leading the PNP and Bruce Golding is leading the JLP, which party would you vote for?
Answers
JLP 37%
PNP 29%
Question: If at the next elections Portia Simpson Miller is leading the PNP and Bruce Golding is leading the JLP, which party would you vote for?
Answers
JLP 31%
PNP 42%
Bear in mind that in that same poll, five per cent more persons believed that the JLP would do a better job of running the country than the PNP.
Bobby Montague of the JLP, who is set to trounce Delano Franklyn of the PNP in the Western St Mary constituency, was probably the only person in the JLP who was not perturbed over the JLP facing off with the PNP with Portia as leader. Indeed, all of what is taking place now was predicted by him, if not in detail then certainly in the general sense.
Portia Simpson Miller came to the PNP leadership table with literally nothing. Her networking skills were virtually non-existent and worse, for that and many more reasons unknown to many then, she did not have the respect of a majority of those in the PNP Cabinet.
Recognising that she had all of that stacked against her, instead of engaging in political horse-trading, which would involve bringing in more of those who were not with her, she locked up and began to preach to the converted. Always believing that 'the people love me', she saw that as the Alpha and Omega of her prime ministerial role.
In her failure to romance those in the 'solid as a rock' faction in the PNP, she should have read them the riot act and present a cosmetic face to the electorate but certainly at a parochial level, to the many PNP supporters who wanted her to win her own mandate.
The errors add up
When she attended a church in Portmore and told the congregation that she was 'the appointment of the Almighty,' persons in the media like myself who were among her most ardent supporters began to take a second look. When she told the congregation that they had a 'duty' to support the elect of God, we thought her too 'energised' almost as if she was searching for the right theme to define her early days.
However, when she said that if persons failed to support the elect of God, 'when the whip fell' it would not fall on her but on them instead, I believe that the megalomania had set in too early.
In her first budget debate as prime minister, it was plain to see that she was not in charge of the Government, as crucial inputs to her presentation were either late or absent.
In that period she failed to appreciate that the role of a prime minister had to be more than just she being chief mechanic among all mechanics. When one of her political confidants, Percival LaTouche, promised to furnish me with all of her accomplishments, both he and the prime minister had missed the big point, the all-encompassing picture.
A prime minister is not just the chief administrator. He or she must occupy head space way above the rest of the Cabinet ministers. A prime minister must have a vision of the country; where it is in its historical sense and in its relations with other countries in the region and the world. A prime minister is more than a person who is able to cut a ribbon for a photo opportunity. He or she must take all the historical perspectives into consideration and chart a course for the country and its future.
A prime minister must be able to shuck aside the old, dangerous games of the past and in rising above all of that, he or she must be able to 'think outside the box'.
In Trafigura she failed most distressingly. If there was one common feature of her administration which truly defined her, it was her inability to convince those in her party who had little respect for her that she had grown by leaps and bounds in the short time she occupied the post. If anything, her actions caused a hardening of the factionalism inside not just the PNP but in the heart of government.
Apart from the total confusion which now exists in the PNP with the head, the body and the tail mismatched, the most important happening which brought about a radical change in the outlook of those who were going soft on supporting her was the manner in which she foisted Lisa Hanna on the people of South East St Ann. If one adds to that her horrible showing in the debate with Bruce Golding and her self-denials, then it really does not look good for the PNP.
Between the time of that horribly botched effort and the present confusion over the aftermath of Hurricane Dean, the postponed election date and her refusal to face the nation squarely and place her stamp of leadership on it, Portia Simpson Miller may just be presenting to the JLP a landslide win which many thought was never in the making.
Who is in charge of the government?
I suppose that where I can deal with the rest of those in this global village we call the world dismissing us as 'underdeveloped in leadership', it comes hard on me to know that in the region we have become a laughing stock.
First, the prime minister did what no other Jamaican prime minister has ever done and that is, she announced in July an election date which fell in the height of the hurricane season. The matter would be laughable if people had not suffered damage. The fact is, there is damage but there is even more confusion now because the prime minister has not been providing the needed leadership.
With a tentative election date set for September 3, many bought it as the new final date after the postponement. My personal view is that the election should be postponed for 30 days. So many of the people with power and influence reside in the Kingston Metropolitan area that we begin to think that St Andrew is Jamaica.
That said, it is very obvious that the PNP administration is split very unevenly, with most supporting a position opposed to the prime minister. Last Wednesday, she failed to face the nation and instead opted for an audio feed which was more than two hours later than the original time it was planned for.
Why did the prime minister not appear on television? Has the media been asking about this? Has her press secretary explained why the choice was made to carry on TV a still picture of OUR prime minister when, from all we know, she is not ill or maimed?
But we heard her and, of course, in that we have seen the crass giveaways announced. It seemed to me that whoever was behind that Wednesday presentation must have done the numbers homework. Why the need to give all 90,000 households under the PATH programme a $2,000 per household one-off payment? Has any assessment been completed to determine which of those households suffered damage?
Is it not unfair to the victims of hurricane damage for other households, undamaged, to be receiving the same amount? Instead of giving the money across the board, why not do a proper assessment which would exclude those who suffered no damage and increase the amount to the victims? Is it not plain that this is one big vote-catching exercise?
Are all of the 300,000 pensioners affected? Why give all $5,000 each, that is, the relative few who suffered damage and the majority who suffered none? Politics!
Let us understand one thing here. The prime minister is a politician first. The very fact that she has announced the 'goodies' package while seeking a 30-day postponement of the elections must mean that she hopes the giveaways will have some effect prior to elections.
For the naive among us who see this as altruism on the part of the PM, if she really cared about the poorest, why not, as the electoral commission has advised, hold elections early September anyway?
The fact is, the prime minister is aware that the PNP is badly behind in the polls to the extent that that party may score wins in less than 20 seats come the elections. If the prime minister was sure of her party's supremacy in the polls, do you believe that she would have been agitating for an additional extension to the election date? No way!
One online reader summed up the situation thus:
'Yes Mark, you better believe that I am very vexed over the whole election date fiasco, and now that I have read your article I am even more livid that (my) Portia's fixation and dependence on superstition has caused a lengthy delay and possibly more political violence. Plus, I am so sick of the prolonged election campaigns!! It can't be good for anybody!!! What the hell is she thinking, and I always liked her a lot!
'So, I am changing my vote from the PNP to the JLP! Damn foolishness! There is no way I can trust her or her administration now. It has to be Bruce, if only for his sensibleness.' That seems to be one of the key factors defining the Portia Simpson Miller-led PNP administration.
observemark@gmail.com
August 2007 opinion poll indicates wide lead by JLP
Wignall's World
Mark Wignall
Sunday, August 26, 2007
In May of this year when I ran a national poll which included interviewing 1,588 persons of voting age in 50 communities islandwide, a seven percentage point lead was registered. In my most recent poll, conducted in August on the weekend of the debates, the JLP gained four percentage points while the PNP failed to move from its May position.
Prior to those times, all other pollsters were showing PNP leads via the print and electronic media. I found this most puzzling, especially where eight constituency polls conducted by me had indicated leads by the JLP of between three percentage points and six percentage points. At those times also, information had come to me that other pollsters had been conducting extensive constituency polling and these were, in most instances, showing JLP leads.
How could there be this glaring disconnect between the findings at the constituency level and the broad comparative findings at the national level? Although many political commentators were drawn in by what was obviously flawed polling, they bought the 'disconnect theory' and then, in their attempt to bring credence to their own explanations, began to cite the oft heard and ridiculous, 'If the electorate votes national, the PNP will win; if the vote is constituency-by-constituency, the JLP will win'.
It was a most foolish position to hold because the national vote, in its most basic form, is 60 organised pockets of voting which, taken one at a time, comprise the whole, the national total. In each constituency it takes a strong and effective MP/caretaker to place his or her stamp on the constituency. In a highly efficient, properly funded and well-run constituency campaign, the constituents are constantly drawing links between the candidate, the party and the party leader.
It is a most difficult process to determine just which factor has more merit in the eyes of the likely voter. Even if one of those three factors supersedes the other two, the fact is, a gain in one can only come about because of the effectiveness of the other two.
Where there are no sharp ideological differences between the PNP and the JLP, all it takes is a few 'loud' errors or triumphs (or a series of these) at the national level to cement a strengthening of a 'national vote' at the constituency level.
In all the years that I have been conducting political polls, and even before that while I was conducting interviews for the late Professor Carl Stone, I learned that even though much information could be gathered in the field to form a library of data/trends, in each poll done, with the best will in the world, there is just not enough time to interpret ALL the responses from each person interviewed.
If, for example, an educated, informed person gives Trafigura as one reason for saying the PNP is corrupt, does that mean that the Trafigura scandal meant nothing to the undereducated and theoretically, under-informed person? Not necessarily so.
The poor, undereducated person may be a more pragmatic person who takes the cynical view that if the JLP was in power, it would have accepted Trafigura money. Which does not take away anything from the perception held that the PNP administration is corrupt. The educated person may put more stock in 'values' while the poorer, undereducated person takes the view that ALL politicians will dip, double-dip and triple-dip, all under the table.
Over time, however, it falls to the pollster to make an informed judgement based not just on past trends but also on a crucial reading of the most recent happenings.
Portia must blame Portia for the impending PNP defeat
Early in the year, the question that was being asked was, on the assumption that the ideal in political polls is to present them as having a predictive factor, was that factor being used - and in instances, crassly so - to influence and manipulate the electorate?
Second, who or which entity was pulling the strings in this game?
Let us accept that there are some 'givens' in last year and also in this year. In the early days of 2006, especially in the time just following Portia Simpson Miller's ascendancy to the post of prime minister, it was taken as a given that there was no other politician present who could successfully defeat her in an election. Let us appreciate one thing here.
It is my belief that former prime minister PJ Patterson saw where the days of the PNP under his leadership were numbered. In the 2002 general elections, the last-minute re-entry of Bruce Golding sent shock waves through the PNP and they narrowly won that election.
In 2003, the JLP won the Local Government elections. Then later the JLP and especially the young turks in that party manoeuvred themselves into key positions allowing them to mount a concerted effort to rid the party of Eddie Seaga, a stone-footed leader who acted as if the party was his to lock off, lock down and totally dominate, especially where his position ran counter to those of others in the second-tier leadership slots.
Together with what he knew along with a growing trend towards not just the revitalising of the JLP but the reality of burn-out, laziness and rank arrogance in the PNP administration, PJ Patterson decided that that headache to come had to be somebody else's.
With little 'qualifications' for the post of prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller's victory in the PNP race was assured by virtue of the inclusion of Omar Davies in the line-up. One definitely got the impression that Peter Phillips in that race did not have the support of Mr Patterson.
In a November 2005 poll commissioned by one of the losing participants in that race, my numbers indicated huge differences in the likely face-off of the participants. Forty-six per cent of respondents wanted Simpson Miller to replace Patterson, compared with 15% who wanted Peter Phillips, now critically positioned to replace Simpson Miller as PNP president after the PNP defeat.
The 2005 poll gave indications as the likely positions:
Question: If at the next elections Omar Davies is leading the PNP and Bruce Golding is leading the JLP, which party would you vote for?
Answers
JLP 39%
PNP 21%
Question: If at the next elections Karl Blythe is leading the PNP and Bruce Golding is leading the JLP, which party would you vote for?
Answers
JLP 40%
PNP 23%
Question: If at the next elections Peter Phillips is leading the PNP and Bruce Golding is leading the JLP, which party would you vote for?
Answers
JLP 37%
PNP 29%
Question: If at the next elections Portia Simpson Miller is leading the PNP and Bruce Golding is leading the JLP, which party would you vote for?
Answers
JLP 31%
PNP 42%
Bear in mind that in that same poll, five per cent more persons believed that the JLP would do a better job of running the country than the PNP.
Bobby Montague of the JLP, who is set to trounce Delano Franklyn of the PNP in the Western St Mary constituency, was probably the only person in the JLP who was not perturbed over the JLP facing off with the PNP with Portia as leader. Indeed, all of what is taking place now was predicted by him, if not in detail then certainly in the general sense.
Portia Simpson Miller came to the PNP leadership table with literally nothing. Her networking skills were virtually non-existent and worse, for that and many more reasons unknown to many then, she did not have the respect of a majority of those in the PNP Cabinet.
Recognising that she had all of that stacked against her, instead of engaging in political horse-trading, which would involve bringing in more of those who were not with her, she locked up and began to preach to the converted. Always believing that 'the people love me', she saw that as the Alpha and Omega of her prime ministerial role.
In her failure to romance those in the 'solid as a rock' faction in the PNP, she should have read them the riot act and present a cosmetic face to the electorate but certainly at a parochial level, to the many PNP supporters who wanted her to win her own mandate.
The errors add up
When she attended a church in Portmore and told the congregation that she was 'the appointment of the Almighty,' persons in the media like myself who were among her most ardent supporters began to take a second look. When she told the congregation that they had a 'duty' to support the elect of God, we thought her too 'energised' almost as if she was searching for the right theme to define her early days.
However, when she said that if persons failed to support the elect of God, 'when the whip fell' it would not fall on her but on them instead, I believe that the megalomania had set in too early.
In her first budget debate as prime minister, it was plain to see that she was not in charge of the Government, as crucial inputs to her presentation were either late or absent.
In that period she failed to appreciate that the role of a prime minister had to be more than just she being chief mechanic among all mechanics. When one of her political confidants, Percival LaTouche, promised to furnish me with all of her accomplishments, both he and the prime minister had missed the big point, the all-encompassing picture.
A prime minister is not just the chief administrator. He or she must occupy head space way above the rest of the Cabinet ministers. A prime minister must have a vision of the country; where it is in its historical sense and in its relations with other countries in the region and the world. A prime minister is more than a person who is able to cut a ribbon for a photo opportunity. He or she must take all the historical perspectives into consideration and chart a course for the country and its future.
A prime minister must be able to shuck aside the old, dangerous games of the past and in rising above all of that, he or she must be able to 'think outside the box'.
In Trafigura she failed most distressingly. If there was one common feature of her administration which truly defined her, it was her inability to convince those in her party who had little respect for her that she had grown by leaps and bounds in the short time she occupied the post. If anything, her actions caused a hardening of the factionalism inside not just the PNP but in the heart of government.
Apart from the total confusion which now exists in the PNP with the head, the body and the tail mismatched, the most important happening which brought about a radical change in the outlook of those who were going soft on supporting her was the manner in which she foisted Lisa Hanna on the people of South East St Ann. If one adds to that her horrible showing in the debate with Bruce Golding and her self-denials, then it really does not look good for the PNP.
Between the time of that horribly botched effort and the present confusion over the aftermath of Hurricane Dean, the postponed election date and her refusal to face the nation squarely and place her stamp of leadership on it, Portia Simpson Miller may just be presenting to the JLP a landslide win which many thought was never in the making.
Who is in charge of the government?
I suppose that where I can deal with the rest of those in this global village we call the world dismissing us as 'underdeveloped in leadership', it comes hard on me to know that in the region we have become a laughing stock.
First, the prime minister did what no other Jamaican prime minister has ever done and that is, she announced in July an election date which fell in the height of the hurricane season. The matter would be laughable if people had not suffered damage. The fact is, there is damage but there is even more confusion now because the prime minister has not been providing the needed leadership.
With a tentative election date set for September 3, many bought it as the new final date after the postponement. My personal view is that the election should be postponed for 30 days. So many of the people with power and influence reside in the Kingston Metropolitan area that we begin to think that St Andrew is Jamaica.
That said, it is very obvious that the PNP administration is split very unevenly, with most supporting a position opposed to the prime minister. Last Wednesday, she failed to face the nation and instead opted for an audio feed which was more than two hours later than the original time it was planned for.
Why did the prime minister not appear on television? Has the media been asking about this? Has her press secretary explained why the choice was made to carry on TV a still picture of OUR prime minister when, from all we know, she is not ill or maimed?
But we heard her and, of course, in that we have seen the crass giveaways announced. It seemed to me that whoever was behind that Wednesday presentation must have done the numbers homework. Why the need to give all 90,000 households under the PATH programme a $2,000 per household one-off payment? Has any assessment been completed to determine which of those households suffered damage?
Is it not unfair to the victims of hurricane damage for other households, undamaged, to be receiving the same amount? Instead of giving the money across the board, why not do a proper assessment which would exclude those who suffered no damage and increase the amount to the victims? Is it not plain that this is one big vote-catching exercise?
Are all of the 300,000 pensioners affected? Why give all $5,000 each, that is, the relative few who suffered damage and the majority who suffered none? Politics!
Let us understand one thing here. The prime minister is a politician first. The very fact that she has announced the 'goodies' package while seeking a 30-day postponement of the elections must mean that she hopes the giveaways will have some effect prior to elections.
For the naive among us who see this as altruism on the part of the PM, if she really cared about the poorest, why not, as the electoral commission has advised, hold elections early September anyway?
The fact is, the prime minister is aware that the PNP is badly behind in the polls to the extent that that party may score wins in less than 20 seats come the elections. If the prime minister was sure of her party's supremacy in the polls, do you believe that she would have been agitating for an additional extension to the election date? No way!
One online reader summed up the situation thus:
'Yes Mark, you better believe that I am very vexed over the whole election date fiasco, and now that I have read your article I am even more livid that (my) Portia's fixation and dependence on superstition has caused a lengthy delay and possibly more political violence. Plus, I am so sick of the prolonged election campaigns!! It can't be good for anybody!!! What the hell is she thinking, and I always liked her a lot!
'So, I am changing my vote from the PNP to the JLP! Damn foolishness! There is no way I can trust her or her administration now. It has to be Bruce, if only for his sensibleness.' That seems to be one of the key factors defining the Portia Simpson Miller-led PNP administration.
observemark@gmail.com
Comment