“Professor” Rob Ford of the University of Manchester was a member of Professor John Curtice’s election night results team at the BBC. But he is also a very active anti-Corbyn and anti-SNP propagandist.
Indeed just the day before the election, which he was covering for the BBC as a “neutral and independent psephological expert”, Ford posted this nasty attack on Nicola Sturgeon. Please note that this is not a retweet – the slogan “All Hail Supreme Dear Leader, Daughter of Great Helmsman Sal-Mon” is all Ford’s own brilliant witticism.
It is of course a free country, and if this puerile behaviour makes Ford happy it is his business. If the BBC want to interview him as a right wing Labour man that is also their business. But for the BBC to employ him as an “independent expert”, to interpret the electoral results for us, is beyond a joke. Many of us already do not trust Curtice. That the right hand man on his BBC team is this anti-SNP and anti-Corbyn bigot is an outrage.
I had never heard of Ford until he foolishly decided to attack me on twitter over my coverage of the fake Nuneaton research designed to rubbish Corbyn. Ford had lovingly tweeted the details of this fake research, and retweeted uber-Blairite John Rentoul’s vicious article based on it. Ford suggested I criticised it because I am a conspiracy theorist who believes in lizard people and the Illuminati. (He has since asked me to clarify that this was a “joke”. He must be great company).
Ford rejected angrily the argument that the Nuneaton “research” was orchestrated anti-Corbyn spin prepared by the Blairites. It was legitimate and ethical focus group research, he said, rather heatedly. His refutation of accusation of disingenuous PR spin was, I felt, perhaps slightly undermined by the fact that he chose as his own twitter profile photo a picture of himself with Peter Mandelson! I think that probably says all you need to know about him.
Except that by attacking me on twitter he inadvertently caused me to notice something else extremely important. I had published that the Nuneaton “research” that made front page news, stating that voters found Corbyn “scruffy and old-fashioned”, was based on interviews with just 16 people. Those people were all Tory voters. There were no gays, no unemployed, no retired people, no tenants, nobody under thirty, no singles and no ethnic minorities. None of the media coverage – including the New Statesman article by the report authors – made those parameters clear. What is more they distorted the views of the respondents and did not make plain that 2 of the 16 said they will vote Labour next time.
The simultaneous publication in the Blairite outlets of this fake Nuneaton research – Guardian, New Statesman, and John Rentoul in the Independent – was plainly coordinated by the Blairite lobby in anticipation of Labour losing Nuneaton. (In the event to the bitter disappointment of the Blairites, Labour held the council). And here is the new information – looking through Ford’s twitter stream, I found tweets by BBC political correspondent Norman Smith. On results day, out of scores of councils contested, Smith had tweeted about only one single council – Nuneaton. And what he tweeted was specifically “Corbyn critics flagging up swing in key Middle England seat of Nuneaton.” So the day before the co-ordinated publication of this fake “academic research” in Blairite media, “Corbyn critics” were pointing out Nuneaton and only Nuneaton to the BBC.
It stinks to high heaven. What stinks still more is the refusal to state who paid the extremely expensive Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for the research. And why.
Oh, and the BBC employing Ford as a neutral expert. If they had any political credibility left, that would destroy it.
UPDATE This excellent comment was posted below. I thought it worth highlighting.
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner doesn’t just do research. It helps you spin it:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Greenberg_Quinlan_Rosner_Research
On its website, it says:
For over three decades, we have used sophisticated polling and opinion research to help leading candidates, parties, government leaders, corporations, and advocacy groups across the United States and around the world. Whether you want to win your election, govern your country, raise your profitability, or change the world, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner has the research and strategies to help you succeed.
IOW, if I were looking for independent neutral research, I’d go somewhere else. For the dirt on my opponentst, I’d go to GQR.
Who paid for this?
“Ford suggested I criticised it because I am a conspiracy theorist who believes in lizard people and the Illuminati. ”
An absolute and utter lie.
Notwithstanding the chagrin of some regular posters here, the blog’s host has never backed up any “conspiracy theory” of any kind as described, and has actually equivocated on what reasonable people regard as established fact, such as the science of impending, dramatic and disastrous climate change. For example:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/more-and-more-extreme-weather.html
It is clear why anyone speaking the truth will be undermined, be it Sanders, Corbyn, Craig Murray, or those pointing out that climate change means nothing will matter – to us – just a few decades from now.
Well said Glen
And on the Climate note –
” Researchers used aerial and satellite images dating back to 1947 to track coastal erosion across 33 islands. At least 11 islands across the northern region of the archipelago “have either totally disappeared over recent decades or are currently experiencing severe erosion,” the study found.
“This is the first scientific evidence…that confirms the numerous anecdotal accounts from across the Pacific of the dramatic impacts of climate change on coastlines and people,” the researchers wrote at Scientific American on Monday.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/10/warning-world-five-pacific-islands-officially-lost-rising-seas
Glenn,
Thank you. I am not quite sure I accept your point about climate change though. I very much accept man made climate change as fact. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/12/copenhagen_and/#respond What I have alluded to are the real difficulties of measuring and determining its rate, and perhaps a tendency to be over-apocalyptic about its consequences. I hold the rather strange view that man is an animal and man-made change is natural change. I take issue therefore with extreme environmentalists who think for man to impact the environment is wrong, as man is part of his environment. I agree nonetheless that the world needs to be very much more serious about cutting emissions in our own self-interest, and that this is pretty damn obvious.
I hope that didn’t sound like some back-handed complement, nor was it meant to imply you’re a climate change denier (which is a conspiracy theory in itself). I was trying to illustrate that you are very far from any kind of wild-eyed conspiracy believer.
>man-made change is natural change.
This is a widely taught obtuse treatment of the word natural, please reconsider the argument sometime. The unwieldy term ‘anthropogenic’ is used to avoid it. All that humanity can do, is not shown safe, for the fact that they can be stubbornly described as being natural. Modern anthropogenic activities include causes and effects without precedent in natural history.
Craig,
I have been reading your reflections about the Kuenssberg-38 Degrees fiasco today. Incisive, if I may say so, and damning of many you have in your sights. As somebody who submitted a complaint to the BBC on 7 Jan about LK’s JC reshuffle report, then complained about the BBC’s reply, and then signed Joe Haydon’s petition, I was delighted to see my own anger given such an articulate voice through your interventions. I reply here, because I’m also an angry climate change campaigner. Klein’s This Changes Everything did indeed change everything for me. I expect you’ve read it, but if you haven’t, you should. And even if you’re sceptical, I suggest this is a good candidate for Pascal’s wager.
Rentoul by name; rent tool by nature.
Well said Craig
Complete Numpty of a specimen, Do the bbC seek out these types, rather than decent souls. I hope Mr Keane lasts
I remember too, being floored as i posted here on Indy ref night that Inverclyde would be Yes.. And not long after, Squonk was there with the result…Ooch.
But I was wondering how the No’s 87 majority, could be turned into over 8.000 majority for the SNP, in little over a year
Keep up the fight
I think Messrs Ford and Stanley are not so much mocking Sturgeon as the ludicrous portrayal of her on the cover of The National which does bear more than a passing resemblance to old Soviet propaganda.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-national-nicola-sturgeon-cover-sees-scottish-national-party-leader-compared-to-the-numskulls_uk_572b4d84e4b05c31e5719464
You might only think it was meant that way if
a) you ignore the entire trend of Ford’s twitter output
b) were someone whose sole role on this blog for years has been to defend the Establishment in any circumstances
If Conservative Central Office had been daft enough to issue a similar image of Cameron looking so “heroic” you’d have been all it like a rash. It’s just asking to have the piss taken out of it.
Kempe
This is absolutely true. But then the BBC does not present me as a neutral and independent election analyst.
It will be a cold day in hell BBC presents you in any way, Craig, as you are well aware. I sometimes wonder exactly how formal their blacklist is. However, their fondness for PR hacks is pretty well established.
~~~~~no gays, no unemployed, no retired people, no tenants, nobody under thirty, no singles and no ethnic minorities.~~~~~
Isn’t this an example of identity politics? I would have thought that writing that none of the 16 were working class should have been enough.
No it is evidence that the selection was not in any sense random and was deliberately confined to about as narrowly defined a group as you can think of. Remember all Tories too.
So they’re petty bourgeois, not working class.
Habbabkuk (The Arbiter)
If perhaps you’d check details on Manchester Uni’s website you’ll note there are actually two Rob Ford’s, one being a Professor in Life Sciences and the other being a Senior Lecturer in the Politics Department, so the Rob Ford CM is referring too is not a Professor. However, as you are no doubt aware anyone who teaches in US Higher education is referred to as a ‘Professor’.
Again, a quick Google enquiry brings up lots of detail, like Rob Ford being accused of being the Canadian Mayor Rob Ford who liked to indulge in Class ‘A’ Drugs. Same as under my name there are approx. 5 individuals who share my first and last name in Asia alone, and that’s before we get to the UK and the USA, my name being quite common as Rogers is not an unfamiliar surname in the UK, whilst a Rogers was actually aboard the Mayflower on its trip to America carrying pilgrims.
So a moot point as ever, but now you have your bloody answer.
Well, thanks for that answer, Mr Chris Rogers. As you claim to be Welsh, perhaps we could distinguish you from all the other Chris Rogerss by henceforth referring to you as “Rogers the Blog”?
Well, I usually refer to myself as a cantankerous old git in the spirit of Victor Meldrew, and of course with my ‘addictive’ personality can become a little obsessed with issues of import to me, so, if you desire to refer to me as the ‘Welsh cantankerous old git’, one has no issues, indeed family members would know from the off it is indeed me!
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner doesn’t just do research. It helps you spin it:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Greenberg_Quinlan_Rosner_Research
On its website, it says:
For over three decades, we have used sophisticated polling and opinion research to help leading candidates, parties, government leaders, corporations, and advocacy groups across the United States and around the world. Whether you want to win your election, govern your country, raise your profitability, or change the world, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner has the research and strategies to help you succeed.
IOW, if I were looking for independent neutral research, I’d go somewhere else. For the dirt on my opponentst, I’d go to GQR.
Who paid for this? I think you’d have to ask someone who, like GQR, has strong connections with the Democrats, has transatlantic instincts and has loadsamoney. Possibly someone who is in Rwanda at the moment…
Consider this: NuLab are so shit scared of Corbyn they’d rather the Tories won. And will pay for that.
Whilst obviously one does not object to this move, is it not perhaps a little distracting and moving us away from the central theme of CM’s actual post. Indeed, given Dr. Ford is active on Social Media, why don’t you have some intercourse with him and delight us with your conclusions. And, you don’t have to use your ‘real’ identity on Twitter, which is a bonus for you I believe?
JSM,
Thank you sir, beat me to the punch, but CM was of course correct in placing inverted commas around Professor, nonetheless, if Habbs wanted to further this dialogue, rather than hinder, perhaps he too could have shown some genuine initiative.
From the Manchester website: (Robert Ford)
I joined the Institute for Social Change as a Hallsworth Research Fellow in September 2009. Prior to this I was employed in the Cathy Marsh Centre for Census and Survey Research for two years as a postdoctoral research fellow. I completed aDPhil in Sociology at Nuffield College, Oxford University in 2007. I have previously worked as a Stipendiary Lecturer in Politics at Christ Church, Oxford and taught for St Hughs College and Oriel College. Prior to beginning graduate studies I worked as a researcher in the Department of Sociology, Oxford. I have been employed by the BBC as a consultant psephologist for their coverage of general, devolved, European and local elections since 2005.
Hmm. I’d have thought the Cathy Marsh Centre (it was part of Manchester Uni, but has now been absorbed into a larger structure) would at least have taught him the basics of collecting and interpreting data, as well as the importance of sample size. Indeed, I’d be mildly amazed if an undergrad doing a stats module for a science course didn’t see the glaring faults in the Nuneaton ‘survey’.
Ah, well, I’ve long recognised that more than mere talent is involved in becoming a prof.
Sturgeon once answered to the question, “who would you most like to go on a dinner date with?” she said “Hilary Clinton”. Not the answer I would want from a first minister in any country. She is also an advocate of the insidious “Named Person” legislation. Do not be fooled by the wee Scottish Lassie bollocks!
BBC is so predijuce against Scotland, the Scottish nation, and our fantastic SNP government that they have no right to be broadcasters. They are a British biased organisation clinging to the belief that somehow Britain is great. Britain is not great, never was and never will be. Everyone now recognises Britain as a mysoginistic, abusive, cruel and outdated organisation. Scotland will thankfully be freed from this corruption called the UK and that cannot happen soon enough. SAOR AOBA. A FREE AND INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND COMING SOON.
The dear leader imagery seems somehow less hilarious in light of your devotion. Of course the UK is shite.
Wee Bonny Greater Scotland will be Free!
Thanks Dear Leader & team Murdoch, Trump and Hilary!
Arising Like Nessie from the Sea to the Gorbals!
Greater Tartan to the Urals!
From the pan to the fire, the prophesy of McDuff’s third hag,
take care Greater Scotland, same shit, different flag.
The King is dead, long live the King!
Proving your opponent’s point for them is an interesting strategy.
What, you don’t like my poem? Is it the SNP fan or writer I hear groan?
Look further is all, it’s not options we lack, it’s hobson’s choice this crack and smack,
Fair doos I admit, as Albion and Aoba me rymes is shit.
But at least it’s not nationalist toff-wank self-published in paperback.
Academics do not necessarily need to be impartial but they DO need to be credible and independent. Otherwise they should not use their academic titles for faux respectability.
Social and mainstream media are sadly awash with those that are more interested in their own profiles than in doing their jobs properly and they give those of us that are trying to present balanced and credible evidence a bad taste in our mouths.
I think you are confusing opinion polls with focus groups.
Say, for example, an opinion poll is published showing Labour (or the Tories, it doesn’t matter) on 90%. You then find that the poll was entirely conducted among active trade union members (or middle-aged stockbrokers from Surbiton). You can then disregard the poll. It clearly isn’t a snapshot of national opinion. Many years ago I worked as a market research interviewer and when I did political polls I spent a large amount of time making sure that my quota achieved the balance in age, gender and social class I was asked for because if I hadn’t my work would have been valueless.
Now a focus group is different. It is a snapshot of opinion among a selected demographic. In this case former Labour voters who had switched to the Conservatives and who might, conceivably, switch back. The point is to find out how likely this is and the reasons.
Both these methodologies have their strengths and weaknesses. An opinion poll will tell you (within a margin of error) how support stands for the parties at any one time. A focus group may give you the reasons for this support, or lack thereof, among a representative subset of the population. Neither tells you the election result but either can give you a snapshot as to how the parties might be faring on a given day in the electoral cycle. Now, as Ed Miliband and Neil Kinnock could tell you, polls are not infallible guides to election results and screening process for focus groups may not always lead to useful data – they might, by dumb luck, have found the only Labour-Tory switchers in Nuneaton who are not inspired into a new found blaze of ‘Jez we can’ enthusiasm by the Corbyn project. But, based on the evidence in the public domain it’s not unreasonable to add this to the pile of evidence suggesting that Mr Corbyn is not yet convincing Tory-Labour switchers to switch back. In his defence he’s got until 2020 and, given the paucity of positive media coverage he gets he could claim to be doing better than expected. But, if he doesn’t turn things around, he’ll lose. Pointing this out is less an indicator of anti-Corbyn bias and more a grasp of British Electoral Politics 101.
Incidentally, the ‘crude anti-Sturgeon’ graphic was the front cover of ‘The National’. If they object to mickey-taking they might think twice about running copy that would not be out of place of the front of the Pyongyang Examiner or the Kazakhstan Daily News.
How do you feel about presenting a focus group in terms that represent it as a statistically valid survey?
… they might, by dumb luck, have found the only Labour-Tory switchers in Nuneaton who are not inspired into a new found blaze of ‘Jez we can’ enthusiasm by the Corbyn project….
No, with malice aforethought, they went looking for switchers in the particular demographic most likely to support their case. Ignoring any others.
And if the Third Way supporters hanging onto the tail of Bush’s poodle weren’t negating their party’s present, elected, leader, I’d say that the impression of unity and purpose might bring some of those floaters back in short order*. All Labour needs is unity, and as long as its global capitalists have their way, it’s not going to get it. If it loses the next election, it will be due to the determined efforts of its quislings.
*Because this statement will not appear in the Guardian or the BBC, it is just an opinion, and must not be taken as a gold-plated fact supported by spurious statistics.
If you don’t want people taking the piss out of ridiculous Stalin-like propaganda on the face of the National, don’t print ridiculous Stalin-like propaganda on the face of the National.
Your article very much reads as a conspiracy theory. This is suggested by, amongst other things, your repeated use of inverted commas, your evident persecution complex, your attribution to another of bias and an allegation of an *actual* Blairite media conspiracy based on a Twitter profile photo, your use of the word “fake” to describe a small focus group based piece of research (had it included representatives of all the groups you describe and also remained broadly representative of the swing voters Labour needs to win over to win in 2020 it would have ended up somewhat larger than 12 and therefore not a focus group).
Reading your original piece, it is clear you see yourself as unusually gifted, clear sighted and able to perceive what others cannot, that you have special intelligence and other qualities that enables you to speak truth when others lie.
Maybe you are unusually gifted and it is all others who are the deluded fools.
Maybe, though, the exercise was a well recognised form of research widely used in politics and industry which was carried out in good faith by trained, respected and experienced researchers who know their trade, and that the purpose of the research was to measure perception of the leader of the Labour Party amongst a key group of swing voters most commentators agree some of whom will need to vote Labour at the next election in order for Labour to win. Maybe it was not intended to measure reactions across the whole population, perhaps because there was an actual election taking place which provided some of that information. Maybe the media does like to run anti-Corbyn stories, just as they have run stories against past Labour leaders for time immemorial and indeed against leaders of other political parties (the one about Cameron and the pig for example? Major didn’t get a great press as I recall). Maybe it is not orchestrated by Blair or some sort of cadre of true Blairite believers.
It’s a point of view, and at least you try to support it. But I think you’re being disingenuous here.
trained, respected and experienced researchers who know their trade,
Sure, they do.The focus group was run by an American company which specialises in doing research which favours its political clients (see mine above), at considerable cost. Someone paid for this. It’s very unlikely that the paying client was acting on his own, or that he wanted a picture favourable to Corbyn. The Labour MP’s who are most publicly and frequently opposed to Corbyn are Blairites to the bone. The party funders recruited by Blair (at least in part to bypass union funding and make him attractive to big business) are making noises about pulling out, linked to antisemitism smears, also supported by the Blairite wing. The facts support a general consensus, if not a conspiracy, among the New Labour contingent, sidelined by the street vote for Corbyn, that it would rather see Labour go down than support its current leadership.
had it included representatives of all the groups you describe and also remained broadly representative of the swing voters Labour needs to win over to win in 2020 it would have ended up somewhat larger than 12 and therefore not a focus group
It would then have resembled a statistically valid poll of swing voters, rather than cherry-picked data, mendaciously presented as authoritative.
What a lot of assumptions all in one place. Why is it assumed everyone’s motives but your own are less than honest? Why is it alleged I am “disingenuous” rather than simply expressing an honestly held opinion? What does it matter that a company is American? Why is it assumed that the cost was considerable? Where is the evidence that the paying client was acting other than alone or as part of an anti-Corbyn conspiracy? Blair hasn’t been leader for quite some time so why is anyone a “Blairite”, unless they are pursuing some sort of Second Coming? Isn’t it perhaps time to move on from accusing people of being Blairites as the label no longer has any relevance? Isn’t it clear that there is some anti-semitism in the Labour Party, although how much is open to question? Which “facts” support the “general consensus” and among whom is that consensus held? Some below the line commentators on this obscure website run by a one-time ambassador to an obscure country? And as I said before, the research did not present itself as a representative poll but as a focus group. Lots of people use focus groups for research purposes and that does not make them conspirators.
This place seems a very dark corner of the conspiracy underworld.
So many questions. Designed to distract. The term ‘Blairite’, to respond to just one, is a perfectly apt one to describe a member of the Labour Party supportive of its scrapping of Clause 4 and in all other respects supportive of the supremacy of global corporatist interests, as is Blair himself. It’s pretty damn cheeky of you to hijack the party and then complain that those who support the principles you scrapped are calling a hijacker a hijacker.
I sense absolute headless-chicken pandemonium among the Blairites, who are terrified that their corporate gravy train will be derailed, and that they may one day have to do what their original constituency (and raison d’etre) wants.
Alternative working definition of ‘Blairite’:
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Another Blair, of course.
Read Chomsky.
Why? Is he the Holy Writ?
As I have said on several occasions, like many other extremely gifted people, Chomsky is splendid in his own field (linguistics) but rather less so in others.
Or, to phrase it differently, genuis in one field is no guarantee of valid insight in another.
Shouldn’t be so difficult for you to outline where his arguments fall down then.
Funnily enough you never quite seem able to manage this.
The odious snitch has an aversion to reading. Books, at any rate.
Or maybe it was just nonsense….
A reader
I’m inclined to agree with you that the real political issue of the moment, for which the EU referendum, and attacks on the Labour Party are a deliberate political distraction, is David Cameron’s re-colonisation of Syria using terrorism as proxy genocidal weapon.
You are right in saying that Major was lampooned. He was portrayed as wearing his underpants over his trousers at the very time that he rescued Iraqi Kurdistan from the unrelenting persecutions of Saddam Hussain. Humanity is extremely rare amongst politicians. If they could the MSM would portray Jeremy Corbyn as Waybuloo dreamies with big eyes and his underpants over his nose.
Corbyn is a man of peace, and both Blair/Brown and Cameron/Osborne have been and will continue to be agents of violent, unremitting genocide. Of course he is going to be side-tracked and ridiculed.
The shitty, aggressive, violent psychopaths of the Anglo-Saxon world want regime change in the oil-rich Middle East. The disgusting piece of shite who serves as UK Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, described Saudi Arabia’s latest round of executions as all resulting from due process of law. May Allah’s curse be upon you Phillip Hammond.
Off topic but I heard the BBC living up to type on GMS this morning when they had Alistair Carmichael, he of ‘lying-through-his-teeth fame, on to advise the SNP on how they should conduct their pro-Europe referendum campaign. The SNP spokesman was much more restrained than I would have been.
Oh dear, did someone make fun of St Nicola?
I have to admit that she rather asked for it. But for the BBC’s consultant psephologist to have a giggle at it mocks the very idea of impartial broadcasting. That’s the point.
I think he’s only paid to be impartial when he’s on the BBC and he’s entitled to opinions in his personal life.
His opinion seems to have been pretty much the same as mine and everyone else not in the flag waving braveheart cult on seeing the cover of the National.
I think he’s only paid to be impartial when he’s on the BBC and he’s entitled to opinions in his personal life.
Not sure that airing your opinions on worldwide social media counts as ‘personal’, myself. And what if he’d supported Sturgeon, eh, Fred? Think carefully. You have never, and I repeat never, had a charitable thought about the SNP….
Or the BNP or the EDL.
All the political leaders get the mickey taken out of them, it goes with the job, only Nationalists consider it close to blasphemy.
But what if he’d supported Sturgeon, Fred? You’d have had plenty to say about his partiality then. OK, that’s a what-if. But the evidence thus far favours it.
Yes, I agree about Curtice. Having at first believed him to be “an independent expert”, of late his conclusions seem to be based on little, or no, evidence.
So, I keep a large pile of salt to be taken when I hear his views.
When will the Blairites ever learn that you don’t mess with your ex, even if he/she offers you free accommodation, access to your children, cups of tea even. The Blairites should go and get a life of their own because things have a habit of getting nasty when like Corbyn you have been 26 years under the thumb of your former partner and then you break free of them. Just saying.
I see that is classed as a swear word now. Can’t say I blame you, and I didn’t even mention lizards.
Fake research from the dodgy dossie party? Why not get a special report from Loch Nessie on Nicola Sturgeon.
Dryden: MacFlecknoe:
All humane things are subject to decay,
And, when Fate summons, Monarchs must obey:
This Fleckno found, who, like Augustus, young
Was call’d to Empire, and had govern’d long. . . . (ll. 1-4)
who most resembles me:
Sh– alone my perfect image bears,
Mature in dullness from his tender years. (ll. 15-16)
This Curtice, is he an academic or an Acker Bilk, the belief that the status quo, the world we currently live in, in 2016 , in the UK, is the most perfect possible and we should close our minds to all other possible worlds?
Reseach means investigation , but what seems to have happened here is closing of the minds.
“Ford suggested I criticised it because I am a conspiracy theorist who believes in lizard people and the Illuminati.”
Meanwhile, the main proponent of that particular conspiracy theory began his “Broadcasting career” with the BBC
“All Hail Supreme Dear Leader, Daughter of Great Helmsman Al Sal-Mon”
Note the implicit racism here. “Supreme leader” and “Al Sal-Mon”. What could be worse than implying that the Scots are like those brain washed Ay-Rabs, with their zealotry and militarism.
…. meaning racism toward folk from the middle east.
I am even more shocked to read this pricks research interests. He actually specializes in racial attitudes and immigration.
Research interests
I have various research interests within the broad umbrellas of racial attitudes and inter-group relations, public opinion research and methodology and partisan and electoral politics. My doctoral research focused on evolving British attitudes towards immigrants and ethnic minorities, and their political effects past and present. Along with developing this work, I am involved in several collaborative projects:
With Scott Blinder (Oxford) and Elisabeth Ivarsflaten (Bergen) , I am investigating how the interaction between racial prejudices and anti-racist norms influences the politics of immigration and the anti-immigrant far-right in Europe.
With Nic Cheeseman (Oxford) I am harnessing newly available comparative survey data to examine the role of ethnicity in structuring politics in emerging African democracies
With Matthew Goodwin (Manchester) I am examining the resurgence in support for the far right in Britain using newly developed survey and aggregate data sources. A book based on our extensive work in this area will be published in 2011.
With Anthony Heath (Manchester and Oxford) I have secured funding to develop a new module of questions on attitudes to immigration which will be deployed on the British Social Attitudes survey.
Ethical Guidelines for the conduct of Sociologists from the British Sociological association…
http://www.britsoc.co.uk/the-bsa/equality/statement-of-ethical-practice.aspx
I really love Sociology and it really really pisses me off when Sociologists are muppets
9) In their relations with the media, members should have regard for the reputation of the discipline and refrain from offering expert commentaries in a form that would appear to give credence to material that, as researchers, they would regard as comprising inadequate or tendentious evidence. (Also see 20.-24).
Thank you Dave
Oho. GOOD catch, Dave.
Ford’s not very good at spotting statistical bias here. either, it seems. (The study referred to , Ford and Goodwin, promoted the view that Labour-right voters were defecting to UKIP in significnt numbers) This time he leaves out the demographic most likely to contradict his hypothesis:
Unfortunately, even Ford and Goodwin’s (2014a, pp. 294–296) presentation of data on class and UKIP voting using the Goldthorpe–Heath class schema: ‘the most robust and theoretically well-grounded way to measure social class’ (Ford and Goodwin, 2014a, p. 292) does not include the petty bourgeoisie. This may be because the primary basis of Ford and Goodwin’s analysis of support for UKIP, YouGov’s Continuous Monitoring Survey, uses the Social Grade classification, which does not allow the identification of the self-employed and small business owners. In fact, 21% of respondents in the British Election Study (BES) who are classified as skilled manual workers in Social Grade are actually self-employed, the highest proportion among any of the Social Grade categories.
http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/04/16/pa.gsv005.full
Why is it “shocking” that someone’s research should specialise in racial attitudes and immigration, and why does such research specialisation make the researcher a “prick”?
Is it the poster’s view that these subjects should not be researched, and if so, why?
Habbabkuk
I disapprove of your method of proceeding ie just attacking other commenters without stating your own view on the substantive question at stake, Until you tell us what you actually think of the Nuneaton research and its presentation, I am asking the Mods to delete all your comments.
And, as it transpires, responses to these comments that added zero to the post – namely is it right to have people commenting on certain issues, that should remain impartial, while they themselves hold strong convictions aired on social media, thus undermining any claims to impartiality, which again is central to the BBC and the public money it receives to guarantee said impartially – just a shame our elected officials clearly don’t understand the Charter as they apply huge pressure in order that news reports follow a certain agenda, rather than report on the agenda and question its validity.
It is shocking (to me at least) that a Dr of Sociology who specializes in the study of racial attitudes should make comments that are implicitly racist. The statement “All Hail Supreme Dear Leader, Daughter of Great Helmsman Al Sal-Mon” is extremely ugly because it assumes that by using ‘Arabized’ language he is being derogatory. Sociology is the very subject that specializes in rooting out pernicious normative language use like this and describing its effect of reinforce and reproduce positions of domination and subordination. It is contemptible at the best of time, but coming from a professional Sociologist, it maddens me. Given the mans specialty he cannot claim ignorance of these effects, he doubtless teaches them every day in Sociology 101. I can only assume that he is a state intellectual for whom, otherizing folk from the middle east is acceptable, perhaps desirable. However, since i lacked evidence of a long term trend of such behaviour, i decided to restrict myself to the relatively safe conclusion that the man was, at very least, ‘a prick’.
What strikes me is the amazing superficiality of the work he proposes. This, for example, suggests a willingness to plunge from great heights that ought to frighten his insurers if not his friends:
“With Nic Cheeseman (Oxford) I am harnessing newly available comparative survey data to examine the role of ethnicity in structuring politics in emerging African democracies…”
The funniest part of the transcript of the Nuneaton focus group is when they try to suggest names of Labour politicians who might replace Corbyn (pp. 44-56):
A long list of Blairites is reeled off, including Blair and Brown, all of whom were considered unstuitable replacements at best (if they were known at all) and toxic at worst.
It seems they want a political David Beckham…:/
The poor Blairites, even Tory voters are rejecting them.
When will they just give it up?
Ba’al
Was that impartial or Imperial broadcasting , please?
The commitment to impartiality is in the BBC Charter, Giyane. Take it up with them.
Now, I rarely get annoyed. I accept the world has gone mad, that it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to do anything about it, and that soon it will be illegal to make jokes about the lunatics in control of the madness. I have just read in the Telegraph that the EU is going to ban what they class as high energy kettles.
I would just like to point out, that some idiot where I used to work, bought a low energy kettle for eco reasons, and binned the old one that worked fine.
This was far less efficient than a normal high energy kettle for multiple reasons.
1. It takes a lot of energy to manufacture and distribute yet another kettle – whilst the old one will go to landfill.
2. It took more than twice as long to boil – and lost more energy in the process than the old one.
3. Instead of doing any work – lots of people were just chatting waiting for the thing to boil.
4. Sometime people got so bored waiting – they just left it – and started the process again – after the kettle had cooled down.
It would make far more sense for these idiots in Brussels to learn how to teach people in hot 3rd world countries how to build and distribute solar cookers and kettles. They are one of the few solar products that work really well, and make massive savings on environment destruction.
They don’t tend to work too well in The UK, except for about 3 days a year.
Tony
Nice one Tony.
“I would just like to point out, that some idiot where I used to work, bought a low energy kettle for eco reasons, and binned the old one that worked fine.
This was far less efficient than a normal high energy kettle for multiple reasons.”
This is the same as the EU`s idiot decision to force CFL`s on us which are energy wasting as-well as being toxic and nearly three times the mass of a Edison bulb which is composed of a piece of tin,glass and tungsten a simple construction .While not so efficient in light out output is still 100% efficient as it goes towards heating our houses in our colder climates.
And the light’s horrible.
In theory the very latest generation of LED bulbs are great. They are the same shape and size as conventional bulbs, use one tenth the energy, come in warm light as well as white light, and only cost 4 times as much as a conventional bulb if bought direct from China. In fact they do not seem to be available in the UK yet. That’s less than £4 a bulb 6 watts power for the equivalent of 60 watts light. I will see if they last more than 4 times as long. If so, they are obviously well worth buying
Everyone slags off China, but they make almost everything now – and design a lot of it too. They also deliver incredibly quickly most of the time – sometimes less than a week.
Several of my kids friends have moved to China to get a job after University. More fun than stacking shelves.
Tony
£4 a bulb? Sounds a lot to me. You can still get 60w incandescent bulbs with proper light and no mercury for 50p each (pack of two in Poundland).
A reader writes:
“Your article very much reads as a conspiracy theory.This is suggested by, amongst other things, your repeated use of inverted commas, your evident persecution complex, your attribution to another of bias and an allegation of an *actual* Blairite media conspiracy based on a Twitter profile photo, your use of the word “fake” to describe a small focus group based piece of research (had it included representatives of all the groups you describe and also remained broadly representative of the swing voters Labour needs to win over to win in 2020 it would have ended up somewhat larger than 12 and therefore not a focus group).”
The use of inverted commas, far from being a sign of irrationality, indicates a scrupulous separation of quotations and unsubstantiated assertions from material the writer has confidence in owning.
You assert that the author has an “evident persecution complex” but make no effort to share any of the evidence. I assume that you, as an authoritarian conformist, have the view that any reports of ill treatment by authority are either false or must be denounced as such-for the good of the state.
You assert that “your attribution to another of bias” is an indication that the author gives undue credence to reports of conspiracy (I take this to be what you mean by describing him as a conspiracy theorist) .
This doctrine also suggests that you are pre-disposed to the belief that such bias, in agents of authorities, is either impossible or has to be denounced as such.
You seem to believe that, and I note your proper employment of inverted commas, that “an actual ‘Blairite’ media conspiracy” is an idea so outlandish that it can be discounted as an indication of mental imbalance. You suggest that the idea of such a concerted effort is based entirely on one twitter profile photo, whereas the author is at pains to tell us that the photo prompted him to researching the matter which produced evidence, in abundance, that the tweeter is indeed part of an effort embracing many people to discredit Corbyn and reverse the changes that his election has brought to politics.
As to the authenticity of the focus group in question, your weak argument is here at its weakest: what possible legitimate purpose could assembling a group which is so homogeneous in its attitudes, in a constituency known to be volatile have? The question is not why so many categories of behaviour were not included but how Labour voters and the other categories referred to were excluded. And why, if not to serve an entirely disreputable enterprise, a parody of research not unlike, that other spectre of the conspiracy theorist’s mind, the dodgy dossier which played a part in preparing for the killing of hundreds of thousands and the ruination of millions of lives.
Excellent response. Some people seem so brainwashed, that the idea that conspiracies have ever happened amongst those deemed to be in authority, is not only beyond their imagination, but has been deleted from their cerebral cortex as completely impossible.
Meanwhile because of the recent nonsense, that is now a banned subject, I downloaded a book legally available for free (though it is available on amazon in printed format for less than £20)
I can’t however mention its name for obvious reasons.
It was written before I was born, and although numerous previous books by the author (who worked for The Times of London for most of his life) were published, this one wasn’t until nearly 30 years after he wrote it.
It sort of gives a hint who has been running the publishing (or not) show for most of the last century.
I reckon they are now past their sell by date.
Tony
Hillary Clinton, according to a new poll reported in The Hill, continues to trend downward against Trump. Poll: Trump, Clinton in statistical tie:
Ford’s connection to Curtice, does make one wonder if Curtice is as impartial as he makes out to be.
The Nuneaton research debacle shows that there’s no lengths they won’t go to smear or discredit Corbyn, a sure sign they fear his popularity with the public.
I knew John Curtice personally about thirty years ago, he was my Politics tutor at the University of Liverpool.
He was definitely not left-wing, deprecating his own knowledge of left-wing literature. However, he struck me as essentially apolitical. He was a good deal more interested in the mechanics of the political process than in talking about issues. If he held any strong political views, that was not apparent in conversation with him. I would have described him as typically liberal, if anything. Also a very decent and fair-minded man.
If he has changed, well and good, but that is my take on the man I knew.
JSD.
Thank you for that info, I now, wonder if Mr Curtice has been caught up in the crossfire, of it all.