In Twenty-Two Words

O’Shannessy is still refusing to say how many of his 1149 respondents was over sixty.

I call for his arrest for fraud.

Leave a comment ?


  1. Totally agree Bob.

  2. Perhaps you should arrest him Bob? I made a successful citizens arrest once, way back in my railway days when my body was still holding up. A petty crook breaking into railway employees cars, breaking glass. It caused a sensation, it was the first case of its type successfully prosecuted in railway living memory.

    • Run rabbit run, run rabbit run,
      Stay shivering down your burrow
      avoiding Kevin’s gun,
      Don’t give any answers, the
      electorate can wait,
      But the electorate’s not that stupid,
      And Malcom’s not your mate.

  3. Bob, like many people I have reservations about surveys (particularly landline calls) but you are coming on really strong here. Naming people and claiming fraud is powerful and dangerous stuff. Under the current defamation laws the onus is upon the claimant to prove it. Do you have solid proof?

    Passion is one thing but please be careful.

    • The proof is in the refusal to supply those numbers.

      And the refusal to sue.

      • I’m sure you know what you are doing but neither of your points is legal proof.

        I wish you luck.

        • They are not any kind of proof. There is no evidence they know of the questions and allegations.

          • Exactly.

            I’m going to make an allegation against Bob on another blog on the internet. If Bob doesn’t respond there I’m going to assume he’s guilty.

            That’s how this works apparently.

              • I see you haven’t rebutted the claim he makes on the blog of which you are not aware. That means it must be true.

            • Watson: leave the detective-work to Holmes; Winston and Roger too - you have all met your Moriarty in Ellis

              • Hey johnsalmond, have you ever been involved in a defamation case? They are nasty and expensive to both sides. Unless you are certain of provable facts, not just (a vibe) then you are in for a torrid time. Maybe Bob has the proof, maybe he has deep pockets and to him it is worth the cost of losing. I just want him to be careful. You, on the other hand don’t seem to care.

                • What about you Roger, have you ever been involved in a defamation case.

                • You’re getting anal Roger. We get your point, but can’t you appreciate it’s Bob’s way of getting O’Shannessy to answer the questions put to him. O’Shannessy makes public statements about the state of play in this election, then why can’t he be questioned about the veracity of his information? As for the arrest thing, it’s called banter, dry humour, blokeworld, or if you will, good old rollicking Aussie humour, that often has an ‘edge’ to it. Perhaps you should revisit “They’re a Weird Mob.”

                  • A kind soul, this Roger Winston Watson.

                  • “arrest” may well be banter but words like “lies”, “fraud” and “criminal behaviour” are specific claims. Still, as you say Bob knows what he is doing. Last comment from me on this matter.

                  • ‘but can’t you appreciate it’s Bob’s way of getting O’Shannessy to answer the questions put to him. ‘

                    I can’t appreciate that Chris. If Bob wants to ask him a question, if he wants to accuse him of something, I suggest he does so directly.

                    Skulking about on a fringe blog is not the way to get a question answered.

                    And the less said about Ellis’ standards of ‘proof’, the better.

  4. A very important question.Rudd has immediatly taken up my debate theme that I have been pushing ever since Helvi saved my bacon on this blog…….BOB……….all Rudd needs to do now to easily guarantee victory, endless big steaks at The Lodge is to EXPOSE the HOWARD DARK YEARS. This needs to occur without haste or it will be too late.For 6 years the war criminal and refugee demoniser has been untouchable as he outspends every other ex PM year by year. On this, arecU lot awarecHoward spentv $2million in his 1st yearcas exPM and he is still at it……but back to the theme……BOB…….when wil Labor start exposing The Howard Dark Years……like the debates I will NOT let up on this. And REMEMBER,who cut $1billion out of health during those Dark Years? Abbott did!

  5. Apologise typos… is this bloody small keyboard on the phone.

    • Expect the kids of future generations to be born with a special slender finger, evolution and all that. Off subject: I’d left the lounge TV running on Sky news last night. A bit later, up in the computer room, I heard this awful mocking, jeering, screeching sound, rising and falling, quite hideous. On investigating I realised it was coming from a stand in (female) for Paul Murray, on his comedy hour. Sheer noise pollution, had to turn that off right smart quick. Fuck it was an awful noise. I suffer from tinnitus and it certainly wasn’t helping.

  6. It doesn’t matter how many respondents are over 60. You said it yourself that they weight their results by age. This means they:
    1 calculate an average for each of the age groups in their sample, out the proportion of the population in each age group.
    3. multiply each of the numbers from step 1 by the corresponding number from step 2.
    4. Add up the numbers from step 3 to get the weighted average.

    There is nothing immoral or illegal about weighting survey results when your sample is not representative of the population.

    • Which begs the question, why are they not representative in the first place, why not get it straight from the horses mouth? Do they use the Duckworth-Lewis system after a full days play, when there has been no match interruptions, are they in an air raid shelter somewhere, hunkered down, segregated from every day society, send three and four pence, we’re going to advance?

      • Heh. Good question. The answer is that pollsters care more about representative results at the cheapest price than representative samples. If you segment the population up and aim to get representative samples of each subset then it usually does not matter that one part of the population is represented more than another.

        • So .. they put up numbers which were not the numbers they got? But the numbers they should have got?

          This reminds me of the lines in Guys and Dolls:

          ‘But, Big Julie, these dice have no spots on them.’

          ‘Don’t worry, I remember where the spots formerly were!’

          • No. Your understanding is completely wrong.

            The ALP employs the services of pollsters and market researchers. Why don’t you use your ALP connections to contact one of them and get them to explain it to you?

            • I know what the explanation is. But it is a method anyone could rort. You say for kevery four people over sixty-five who vote Liberal there are four and a half under forty five who vote Labor.

              But what if the second number was six? How would you know? You haven’t asked them.

              You methodology doesn’t allow you to get to them.

              So you make up the number Rupert wants.

              • But they have asked both age groups. Finally, your allegation that they are making up numbers at the behest of Murdoch is serious. If you have any evidence that they are doing so then you should present it.

            • send reinforcements, we’re going to a dance…

    • Your explanation sounds good as a general principle. But surely there is a point at which it becomes unreliable to just extrapolate.

      It would certainly make the surveys more useful if we knew what proportion of respondents were in each age group, so we could see how different the poll respondents were to the general population, and so how extreme the mathematical massaging had been

      The rapid shift to mobile-only use among the young must be having considerable effects, and perhaps within that age group there are inconsistencies in voting patterns vs mobile use that are further distorting results in unknown ways.

  7. In this case it appears they would, as Bob notes, find it hard to get a representative sample by calling landlines. But presumably, the youngsters they get are representative of all the youngsters.

    • The ones at home with their mum on Friday nights, you mean.

    • Duckworth: Not a ball was bowled.
      Lewis: Never mind, we can work it out.
      Duckworth: We’ll multiply the age of the doddering cuckold with the number of balls that should have been bowled.
      Lewis: Medium pace or spin?
      Duckworth: And then divide by the average age of the gate attendants.
      Lewis: Medium pace or spin?
      Duckworth: It doesn’t matter. The doddering cuckold wins.

    • Malcolm Kukura

      Captain Morgan buried treasure Bundaberg now harvests crushes ferments distills bottles and we drinx.

      I know - he told me so on a mountain top in the Catalina range of south central Arizona -near the Bigelow telescope.

      The comment I authored that follows was a response to the prevailing general artificially cultivated mythical status of private political polls and the spiritual impoverishment of the greedy subhuman swine who use them to extract wealth from productive human prey herds - not a response to the previous comment in particular - were it otherwise I’d have posted here in this locale so please do not take it personally as “whatever” seems nihilistically to imply - the ambiguity of it all - its so draining.

  8. Malcolm Kukura

    Only cyber-half-wits & digital e-morons may claim that political poll results can be truly representative of the whole Australian electorate when we know beyond any doubts that what is sampled is human and Australian not inanimate and passive. Yet that assumption of inanimate passivity and representativity is made to justify the veracity of ALL private political polls with no exceptions.

    All are counterfeits.

    Sampling theory from standard scientific statistics works with unconscious passive inanimate physical commodities like iron ore and coal, nickel, copper concentrate, bauxite and alumina but NOT with conscious human beings who change ceaselessly and are never the same.

    Defending the assumption that any small micro-minority subset of the Australian population or poll results extracted from them then mathematically massaged can in any way be representative of the whole electorate is a subhuman predators’ parasitic neoliberal pretence of false knowledge intended to deceive confuse capture and devour naïve human prey. It is delusional and a symprom of alienated disconnection from reality – and thus powerful evidence of the psychosis pandemic that is the underlying cause of the worldwide political battle rolling our around the planet:

    There are uprisings here there and everywhere. In Australia it takes the form we’ve witnessed last week and the week before when menugate exposed the depravity of the racist misogynist enemies of democracy. Kokoda Drowings, enlarged rouged genitals, hessian bags, chalices of blood, knivings in the back and assasinations like the Palin cross hairs on Gabby Giffords may be funny when a war criminal in prancing and dancing for a crowd in Melbourne but not when you see the results that the violent talk leads to.

    Uses of these types of fake private poll data are nearly all fraudulently exploitive in their intentionality.

    Online defenders of predatory and parasitic exploiters are mercenary cyber-prostitutes like the one Edward Snowden was until he escaped from the Carlyle trap.

    Mercenary cyber-whores are not only spiritually impoverished shadows of civilized human beings – they are manufactured in the image of Goebbels and Bernays.

    Such enemies of civilization are opponents of constitutional democracy. They are no more welcome in civilized societies than the black death or small pox.

    You can run but hiding doesn’t work because like transparent wolves in Italian woollen suits you think you are invisible but you are seen like naked emperors.

    Private Polls are used to influence immediate decisions being made when the results are released.

    Australian public elections are managed by the AEC and have no scientifically discernible relation to the fake private polls used by parasites to confuse the naive decisions makers they are intended to influence.

  9. May I suspect that the ones who reply to polls do so because they have an axe to grind?

    If a person being polled thinks things are going OK, and there’s nothing really to complain about, they may not bother to answer.

    But if the person polled is upset, pissed off at the government for whatever reason, would they not give an earful to the pollster?

    How can a pollster “adjust” or “weight” a survey for this?

    They surely cannot. Thus the only true poll is the one where voters - all 14m of them - are required to vote.

    Anything taking a sample of 1000 or 2000 voters cannot be better than an educated guess.

    Am I not correct?

  10. Seems newspoll are a sensitive lot, defensive and given to assumptions.

    —-Original Message—-

    From: Peter Anson [mailto:[email protected]]

    Sent: Monday, 1 July 2013 10:04

    To: Newspoll Enquiries

    Subject: federal election

    Looks to me,like you invent figures to suit whatever line the news ltd jounalists are pushing on any particular day. I doubt your integrity and consider your results plain bullshit.

    Peter Anson

    Dear Peter,
    Please remember that my staff opening these emails are just ordinary people doing their jobs. It’s not necessary to swear.
    I assume that you are unhappy that the Labor party has gained a boost from the appointment of Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister. I have to say that I got a lot of mail from people who were unhappy about Tony Abbott being in front of Julia Gillard up until last week and I have no doubt that the polls will turn again in time and the emails will start coming in from somebody else.
    Please be confident that our polls are independent of any journalist and that they are as often surprised by them as other people.
    Just to give you an idea of how we do our polls have a look at the info below.
    Our voter intention polls are published exclusively in The Australian. Each Newspoll voter opinion poll is conducted on the Newspoll Telephone Omnibus.
    This is a weekly survey in which we interview 1200 people each weekend setting age, sex and geographic quotas across more than sixty distinct regions that cover the whole of Australia. Our voter opinion surveys run approximately fortnightly during parliamentary sitting weeks.
    To make sure everybody has a chance of selection, we randomly select telephone numbers from the whole of Australia, allocate age and sex quotas within each area, randomise the person in the household who is interviewed by asking for the person who had the most recent birthday (rather than chatty types who pick up first). We also call a number back 3 times if it is unanswered before we give up and make appointments with people who want to be interviewed but are too busy. This means we are also allowing people who are busy or hard to reach an opportunity to be polled.
    Most people wonder why they have not been polled… There are about 17 million adults eligible to vote in Australia. We interview 1200 each fortnight so the odds of being interviewed for a voter poll in any fortnight we are polling are over 14,100 to one against.
    We have correctly called every one of the 56 state and federal elections since we were founded in 1985 using our methods, so we know they are working properly.
    We set out to give the fairest possible view of public opinion and rely on getting it right as part of our broader business process. It’s not in our interests to campaign for either side or misrepresent polls.
    All staff involved in polling are members of the Australian Market and Social Research Society and are bound by a code of professional behaviour that prevents misrepresentation of the type you refer to in your email.
    A link to the code is here -

    I hope this helps,
    Martin O’Shannessy

    CEO Newspoll

    T 02 9921 1001 M 0419 988035

    Newspoll_Logo_RGB S

    • Very interesting! Bullshit is swearing? A new one to me. Vulgar or coarse perhaps, but certainly not swearing.

      Assumptions : that the inquirer is upset with the Rudd redux jump - when you might just be taking offence at the efforts of the last two years or so to try to panic and depress Labor members and supporters.

      The substance of the reply is predictable - what else can he say about their methodology?

      A point I would like to make is that someone who has an axe to grind is far more likely to want to respond than someone who is more or less satisfied with the status quo.

      How exactly do they allow for that effect? Compulsory voting?

      • So what you’re saying Doug is that no answer they give is acceptable? Did you bother looking at the code of conduct link? If you think they are in breach of the code report them. Bob says that their lack of response is proof yet when they do respond it’s still proof. I’m all for holding the bastards to account but there needs to be stronger proof than just “the vibe”.

        • I’m not saying any such thing; but “they would say that wouldn’t they” covers this reply quite well.

          I would like them to admit that political polling is a very different beast from ascertaining whether 95% of people polled recognise Coca Cola whilst only 23% recognise brand X.

          As for the code of conduct, yes I did read it. And I could drive the Queen Mary through the gaps in its motherhood statements and “agreements”.

          BTW, is it not convenient how the polls can identify a “late swing” to achieve accuracy on the day of elections - well most of the time anyway.

          With different tgime zones as in the USA, it may have still been an attempt to sway voters in western states, as they tried to call the election for Romney. And were left with potential omelettes all over their conservative faces.

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>