Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Newsnight's decision to commission American pollster Frank Luntz to conduct a focus group on Gordon Brown is one of the most blatanlty unprofessional and dishonest decisions I have ever seen. Mr Luntz is a leading figure of American conservatism and is a prominent supporter (and sometimes advisor) of David Cameron. I wonder when the Ö÷²¥´óÐã will host Charlie Whelan’s roundtable on the pros and cons of David Cameron.

Besides the conflict of interest and obvious bias of Mr Luntz, I find it hard to believe the Ö÷²¥´óÐã would work with a man whose methods are so thoroughly discredited. As Dante Chinni reported for Salon in May of 2000, 'In 1997, Luntz was formally reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for his work polling on the GOP's 1994 "Contract with America" campaign document. Mr Luntz claimed from his research that 60% of the country supported the Republican Party's 'Contract with America' policy manifesto. During a fourteen month investigation, Mr Luntz refused to share his research questions, his verification methods or his data with the professional association.

Similarly, when conducting polls and focus groups for NBC, Mr Luntz was again reprimanded by the National Council on Public Polls for 'mischaracterising on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the Republican National Convention'.

The use of Mr Luntz by Newsnight is so egregious that it can only really be interpreted as either gross incompetence or deliberate bias.

Just wondering if there's any point staying up to watch Newsnight tonight if it's mostly going to be about the sickeningly awful Brown. Is it not enough that we have to suffer with the bliar ruining our lives and then grinning like the devil on our TV screen?
For all those who believe that Brown is their saviour please wake up from your trance before it's too late. Remember the 30s, the National Socialists and the Brown shirts? These devils are alot more cunning and subtle but they are one and the same.

I for one am sick to death of the lies and blatant bull that spawns forth from new labour in a constant stream.
They should as a group be in court for crimes against their own people.
As for Brown pfffffft he's the worst chancellor since the last time labour were in power.
I dont trust labour and i dont trust the tories both are all smoke and mirrors and are not to be trusted.

Oh dear. Newsnight is passed its s sell by date.

Cherie Blair has denied saying what the Bloomberg reporter alleges she said.

A rather pathetic soap opera inspired report on Cherie Blair in effect calling her a liar.

Journalists should remember that they are held by the public in just as low esteem as the politicians the journalists report on.

Stop spinning stories (about any political party) as soap opera and then more people will treat politicians seriously and more people will vote.

Leave the soap opera to the soaps, the irreverence to 'Have I Got News For You' and concentrate on the issues.

What a load of crap this focus group was. 10 out of the 30 didn't recognise / couldn't name Gordon Brown (according to Mr Luntz!), yet they're described as either being Labour voters, Labour swingers or previous voters of Cons. / Lib. Dem. Some of the focus group didn't want a Scot to be Prime Minister, but voted for John Reid (a fellow Scot!) instead! What tosh! The Ö÷²¥´óÐã should be ashamed of itself.

The Luntz exercise was a total waste of time. The trivia and glaring inconsistencies emerging - objecting to Brown for being Scottish but apparently not realising that Reid was too - then judging the candidates from clips showing them speaking on completely different subjects ....

I resent my money and my time being wasted on that kind of garbage. How much did the Ö÷²¥´óÐã pay Luntz for it?

"I can do that gies a job."

This is Frank Luntz. I just wanted to respond to the first posting -- just to keep the record straight.

First, I do not advise or even support any British candidate or political party. And if I did, it would be Tony Blair. Regardless of how I feel, professional researchers require the separation of personal beliefs and scientific conclusions.

Second, the criticisms leveled at me by a polling organization dominated by professional competitors is no different than what one candidate says to another. The fact that I continue to work for so many media outlets, associations, and Fortune 500 companies all over the globe is testiment to both insight and accuracy.

And third, my record in Britain speaks for itself. My session last year picked David Cameron as the top Conservative Party contender when he was at just 2% in the polls. And this year it picked Labour to drop seats in the local elections when the Ö÷²¥´óÐã itself was projecting a status quo election.

As for the substance of today's programme (notice the British spelling -- I did attend Oxford), what was said about Gordon Brown is no different from all the published polls.

You attacked the messenger, but I can tell from the tone of your posting that what really bothers you is the message. I can't change how Gordon Brown is perceived by the British electorate. That's up to people like you.

Frank Luntz

As part of his critisism of theists Professor Richard Dawkins says he does not believe we were put here to be comfortable. Put by who? Well Mr. Dawkins, talk about compartmentalised thinking.

As part of his critisism of theists Professor Richard Dawkins says he does not believe we were put here to be comfortable. Put by who? Well Mr. Dawkins, talk about compartmentalised thinking.

What a disgrace Ö÷²¥´óÐã. You employ a Republican supporter of David Cameron to lead a partial and ill-informed discussion about the Labour leadership election... Why? And why have you wasted so much time on it when the buffoons in the audience made such laughably contradictory points: ooohh that Scottish Gordon Brown is horribly Scottish but that lovely John Reid. well let's not bother about his origins; only 7 of us 'loyal Labour supporters' have heard of John Reid but seconds later 13 of us decide we'd support him; and so it went on. I am not a fan of Gordon Brown but this looked like character assassination and I don't think that's part of your Charter. Leave that to News International, who have been undermining Brown for months now in favour of Rupert's choice of the boy David at the next General Election. Oh, that's right, you managed to get a News International employee on after the focus group debacle to provide us with 'expert analysis'; if I was Mr Broon I'd be getting paranoid!

This focus group not only makes frightening viewing for Gordon Brown but also for the Labour Party and Britain.

To think that John Reid could be our Prime Minister is the most frightening prospect of all. A man who has expressed Irish Republican sympathies in the past and a man whose name has been associated with the Catholic mafia that made Lanarkshire council politics such a dirty, incestuous (jobs for the bhoys) business in the not-too-distant past.

As someone who knows both men, to say that John Reid is honest and Gordon Brown is not is a complete reversal of reality. In intellectual terms, it is also like comparing Plato with Alf Garnett.

And that so-called cross-section of British society made my blood boil. "Why should we have a Scottish leader of an English parliament?". Is this an indication of the education levels in England? Have they not been taught in their schools that it is a BRITISH parliament, not an English one? I could equally ask why should an Englishman be prime minister of Britain? But I wouldn't be so stupid or racist.

Just a thought...Menzies Campbell is Scottish and, since Cameron is a Scottish name, the wee boy David obviously has roots north of the border, what are all such narrow-minded Englishpersons going to do? Vote for the BNP no doubt!

Firstly, the people polled were complete ignorant about the Labour Party. They cited Gordon Brown's Scottish-ness as an issue and choose the equally Scottish John Reid instead. Not to mention that Tony Blair is also Scottish!

Secondly, the suggestion that a Scot could not stand for election to lead the Parliament of the United Kingdom (NOT England) is completely unconstitutional and undemocratic.
The Scottish Parliament has only devolved powers not executive powers.
It has no authority on such issues as, say, the war in Iraq, or policing, or immigration. See:

England should be given its own Parliament or restrict voting rights to English MPs for English issues. Then we could maybe get rid of these narrow nationalist, partially racist sentiments.

What a day! Cabinet Ministers & wanabees grovel & give weasel worded praise to Gordon Browne along with
party rhetoric robotically delivered to any Qs asked....without ever answering the question....It is so false & insincere they must think we are all bonkers to believe their claptrap. The ,so called, wicked witch happens to voice her dislike twixt Blair & Browne publicly (does anyone seriously doubt"Bloomberg" heard it wrong)then is persuaded to alter her words some 7 hrs later! We are supposed to believe these politicians are to be trusted with governance of our country...it's a sham.
The Focus group,all Labour supporters,voiced their views & hammered the nail in Gordons coffin... he maybe the only one that Labour has to get the leadership(doesn't say much for their Cabinet!) , but they can kiss goodbye to any aspirations for winning the next Election...perhaps some are already plotting to beg Blair to stay on... I hope not! Browne will prove New Labours downfall.!

Yes the focus group wasnot well informed; yes it made irrational judgements; but this is what makes them so representative of the electorate!

What the politerati forget is that although Gordon may rule supreme in Westminster to the rest of the nation he is a dour, old and highly unelectable prospect.

I do not know the science behind participant selection for the Frank Luntz survey, but clearly it has been thought through. If his group is a typical cross-section of those likely to decide the future leadership of Labour, it speaks volumes about the Labour party. As Frank himself says above, don't shoot the messenger.

But, let's face it, in a week when we have learned that politicians do not always tell the truth (well, not in Hungary) and that God is dead (official confirmation of Nietsche's earlier report), are there any more blinding scientific revelations in store?

Well maybe. Tonight's Newsnight email came from big JP himself! Good reading it is too. Welcome to the 21st century Mr.P!

with regard to gordon brown's apparent lack of popularity with the focus group, perhaps, like me, they disliked the idea that the transition
of british prime ministers could be arranged years in advance (if you believe the rumours)by a deal behind closed doors. Surely, the post of prime minister is something that voters should be able to decide. Perhaps we would all like to think we are still living in a democracy.

Reporting of Party Conferences and the news in general should be more straightforward and journalists in the media need to ask why a group of supposed voters appeared to know so little about well-known politicians even though there are endless news bulletins. Fewer camera tricks and jumping and less thumping noise would help especially when there are criticisms of political spin from programmmes spinning even faster.
An understanding of the Parties' policies and their implications is necessary or the vote is totally meaningless. For instance if a party were to promise to lower taxes there ought to be a requirement to explain what might be affected. Furthermore a general public reputed to be in massive debt with personal incomes has little room to make rude comments on the management of a whole country's finances.

Oh - Collected Eric - can you think of any other news programme that would have given even a passing thought to the Shostakovitch centenary? Credit where it's due.

So much for the voice of the true Labour voter. They opted for John Reid. Isn't he the same person, as Defence Minister, who stated that our soldiers would most likely return home from Afghanistan without a shot being fired? Or did he mean that no shot would be fired because those same soldiers had been sent to war ill-equipped and ill-trained for the job?

Ref Caroline Kennedy #23

"Or did he mean that no shot would be fired because those same soldiers had been sent to war ill-equipped and ill-trained for the job?"

ill-equipped, YES

ill-suppoerted YES

ill-trained - NO

Unless you were not aware, The Airborne besides Marines best specialist troops in numbers we have, besides regular units.

Except of course for SAS, SBS & Special Duties etc.

vikingar

This Luntz charade was a waste of time and money: the fact he picked up on pretty boy Cameron was not miraculous, only a moron would not have known that Howard and his clique were backing the Eton chinless wonder (so hardly the outsider); in the current feeding frenzy, Brown was not going to do well; and Brown has only ever been viewed as the big bad tax collector, so unlikely to be seen as 'warm and cuddly'. I would very much doubt whether Luntz would have picked Clem Atlee out either, the day our destinies are decided by this pseudo-scientific trickery is the day that we should, lemming-like, head for the nearest cliff!

Firstly I am not a Brown supporter ..

There were so many flaws in this exercise it was unbelievable ..

The motives of the guy running it are very questionable ..

All I heard in this focus group were London accents .. where is the balanced representation of the labour leaning UK voting population here?

Also watching this and seeing how each candidate was presented, especially the video footage, there was clearly a bias against Brown .. shown in the light of the recent upheaval in Labour .. no mention of his record as chancellor and the economy etc etc i wonder how many of that focus group were unemployed in the 80s and early 90s ..? short memories!

All candidates should have been presented to the group speaking on the same topics .. Reid was made to look tough since taking over the Ö÷²¥´óÐã Office debacle ..

Brown may not be popular as per other scientific polls but this focus group nonsense was a load of pseudo-science nonsense with an agenda to peddle.

I love it when the fakers and forgers get one over on the so called experts-its gets at the massive stink of a kind of fetish snobbery of importance which is the mire of the art world.

hmmm the Luntz focus group...
Having heard on the radio at lunch time about this I was quiet worried for Mr G Brown but having seen it it's not that bad at all.

If I can be bold to summaries:

Even followers of political parties don't know who their politicians are (with some either not understanding the question: who is this? or failed to recognise labour politicians of 25 years).

People would rather vote for someone they know nothing about than someone they know lots about.

You can change people's minds very easily depending on what you show them on a telly.

Politicians are not very interesting.

I look forward to Mr Luntz and his focus group on Jesus: Is he the Son of God?
Hotly followed by Elvis: Alive and Well and living in Bromley.

I am not a suppoter of Gordon Brown. However, there is one thing that really annoys me, and that is the ageist attitude, of some in this debate, including some of the postings here.

Gordon Brown, is not old. He is in his fifties, so what? You are as young as you feel! David Cameron, is forty. So there is only a decade between them.. There is no real answer, to the problem, where does youth end, and middle age begin. If a man dies at 30, he was clearly middle aged at 15! It is all in the mind. In any case, 'youth' however you define it, does not always bring wisdom.

I will vote for any candidate, irrespective of age, if they show that they can do the job, have vision and imagination, and can be trusted to carry out their promises.

Whether that person is 20, or 120, is completely irrelevant.

I despair. A "scientific" (as Frank Luntz puts it) poll consisting of only 30 people, all from London, are subjected to non comparable samples of each "candidate". The result, comments such as "he is dishy", "I liked his jumper" and the offensive "a scot shouldnt be allowed to be a british prime minister". Have people forgotten that we live in the UNITED KINGDOM. Parliament is BRITISH not English.
I suppose its Blairs fault that we all seem to be now under the impression that we are voting for an individual, american president style, and not for a political party or ideal. So why not have a phone poll each week to see who gets "evicted" from "the house" then the last person in there gets to be boss.
I am not myself a Brown supporter, nor am I Scottish. But I belive what this country needs is strong honest politicians who are not scared to speak out on issues because of some popularity contest or media spin.
Since when has charisma been the single most important aspect of a PM. Surely ability, intelligence and experience count for something.
Finally, the Frank Luntz comment "I can't change how Gordon Brown is perceived by the British electorate." Is he and the Ö÷²¥´óÐã really so modest as to suggest this, when, the only thing that the item did actually scientifically prove was that he could indeed change the minds of the British electorate with the simple use of selective Ö÷²¥´óÐã news programming.

In addition to all of the preceeding comments re the entirely facile focus group. Since when did 30 labour voters from London represent the majority of labour voters in this country? They might well give an idea to the thinking of so called "middle England", but, since the majority of labour voters live north of the Watford Gap and have a completely different set of social values the results from the group are entirely bogus. The Ö÷²¥´óÐã should present much better quality research than this superficial trash.

Well done Newsnight.

The Frank Luntz focus group, gave some very interesting insights - new approaches & new technologies to gauge public opinion.

Rather than focus the whole discussion on a demoralised & angry New Labour party conference (so much back stabbing, ill will, insincere gestures & congratulations) no wonder the electorate are turned off.

Given the results, no surprise either that certain factions & posters don't like what they saw :)

John Reid came out of it rather well (speaking myself as a liberal conservative).

It was interesting to see Paxman engage with Trevor Kavanagh (associate editor of The Sun) [1] & Steve Richards (Chief Political Commentator for The Independent etc) [2]

Richards clearly a Brownite, was visibly shaken by the results & was trying to limit the damage done to Dour Gordon, for all he was worth - though wholly unconvincing.

Personally, feel Blair long time ago planted the 'poison pill' by declaring at the election that he would up to serving a full term. So when he goes next year, if by remote chance Brown does acquire the battered crown, there will have to be an election before time for credibility sake.

Ref next Labour leader - what has Brown really got left in the bag? He's taxed the nation to nearly the hilt, ruined pensions (no mean feat given they were the envy of Europe), went into default Labour mode of terminal tax & unsustainable spend, this time just being more creative via PFI.

Brown as keeper of the purse strings, has wasted such pension monies & other revenues on failed projects & failing to deliver on policies, without insisting on real reforms (no change there … literally).

So why will it be any different with Brown as PM? given he centralised so much decision making already via the encroaching Treasury Tentacles - there has been a dead hand on the tiller since New Labour came to power in 1997.

But out of the limited New Labour stable, much prefer John Reid, someone who has actually been a minister in several departments having a go, rather than just a brief 'brief' (PM) or a mediocre finance director (sorry I mean Chancellor).

Though just in case, please remind me, when do mediocre finance director become competent MD's?

PREDICTION: if Brown wins the party election, the party will loose the next general election.

vikingar

SOURCES;

[1]
[2]

Although I would never profess to being a member of the 'silent majority' - seeing that as they stay silent, you can never tell what they really think - I found Frank Luntz's polling of 30 Labour leaning voters both fascinating and informative.

I drew several conclusions from the article. The repeatable ones are:

[1] Gordon Brown's hovering at the Prime Minister's table without being invited to sit down has damaged his political standing permanently; if he does become leader of Labour without picking up his game significantly he will be perceived as a Prime Minister who was foisted on the electorate without consent.

[2] John Reid's populist, hard line rhetoric is gaining him support amongst grass roots Labourites and voters. Even if nearly all of them would struggle to name one policy he has delivered. Most of the 'focus group' even forgot he was Scottish, which appeared to be a major stumbling block for Brown

[3] The other Labour candidates have the charisma of a wet tea towel. I couldn't even bother to commit their names to memory, and despite following politics reasonably closely I didn't recognise a single one of them outside of Brown or Reid.

Dear Sir/Madam,
The choice of alternatives to Mr. Brown was altogether too narrow. I am certain that if Charles Clarke had been one of the people set up in rivalry to Mr. Brown he would have done as well or better than Mr. Reid - he is the most obvious person of warmth, quality and honesty to give leadership, listen to and be attractive to the public. He is the most conspicuous of the people whom your American left out.
I think that the Ö÷²¥´óÐã's television news coverage towards the Labour party conference has been very loaded towards giving a gentle let out to Mr. Blair. It is a disgrace that a person who has lied so often both to the public, above all in relation to Iraq, to his party and to Parliament, and at least one key point before the war misleading the Cabinet should still be in power. It is a sign of the spinelessness of very many Labour MPs.
The failure to do more to rectify the terrible state of our rail system, the false compromises on environmental policy, and the failure to equip our troops properly are to be blamed on Mr. Blair and Mr. Brown jointly. We have no nuclear deterrent independent of the USA's supplying it, and so persisting with it is pointless. It would be better to do the things that we can do well better, and that depends on supplying and encouraging the army and other forces it coordinates with. This pair of leaders have made our prosperity depend upon an ever increasing amount of personal debt, crippling to pensions in the future.

Just watched Blair's exit speech at the conference.

A master class in structure & delivery (take note Gordon & remember it New Labour).

Only went to emphasise the differences between Brown & Blair & what New Labour will be loosing.

As a liberal conservative, never been a supporter of New Labour, but have always recognised Blair's skills.

Speech content, bang on ref global challenges, esp Islamic extremism.

First time I have heard mainstream politician make clear distinction of fact that more Muslims killed by other Muslims (sectarianism & terrorism) given the real world example Blair gave of "Muslim driven suicide car bombers in Baghdad to murder Muslims" - not by British Soldiers.

However, since the Labour Party has no similar winners awaiting in the wings, the follow on act will presumably be anti-anticlimaxical, struggling under the formers shadow, deafened by the echoes & burdened by the formers accomplishments (perceived or real).

Since we have been here before ……..

Q. who is the Labour party's - John Major?

vikingar

I believe that Gordon Brown should be given the opportunity to put right what the English prime minister - Tony Blair has put wrong: Afterall, all the hullabaloo about Grodon Brown is simply because he's a Scotts man, of which the English detest to govern over them.

I'm afraid, but the truth is that a scotts man will definitely rule over the English wether they like it or not; of which I see nothing wrong, afterall the English have rulled this country for centuries by failing to deliver, it's time the Scotts deliver for all and sundry what the English have been unable to do over the centuries.

Up in Scotland we say that A NEW BROOM SWEEPS CLEANER THAN AN OLD BROOM - it's time for the Scottish Broom to show the English broom what a clean sweep should be like.

DS.

Ref David Mercer #37

"And after that? Well the next challenge would be as the new Secretary-General of the United Nations. ...... where he alone would have the backing of the skeptical US public!"

Very good point.

Trust those sceptical of US/Israel position, realised they would not find much of a credible go between amongst the alternatives than Blair, who will also advance their causes (& who US will accept at the helm).

On the international stage, Blair could continue to have credible impact (I am saying that as a liberal conservative, who does not like him)

Ref the UN SC position, last thing we need is a well meaning politician from 2nd/3rd world, out of their depth, who has become embroiled in suggestions of scandal, failing address issues & threats to the whole world.

vikingar

So what if Gordon Brown is not as good-looking as Tony Blair, not as good an orator or have the same common touch as him? He's a politician not an actor. I give Gordon the benefit of the doubt and believe he can run the country as "prudently" as he's run the economy.

An out-of-date page is coming up, sept 2006, when I try to get the "Newsnight" page.