Jag Singh is a blinkered, naive soul, keeping very bad company. I value his view on this about as much as I value the ‘objective’ opinion of Iain Dale.

Hi Sunny,

Since Ashcroft is a squillionaire, couldn’t he just pay for this kind of indepth polling himself and use/keep the results for himself and team Tory? How does owning ConHome and Politics Home help him do this?

This doesn’t really make sense to me.

If Ashcroft wants to conduct massive polls, he can do it without PoliticsHome. He can just pay YouGov or another polling company directly. Anyone can commission polls if they pay for them, surely.

Nevertheless, I’m glad you all resigned from the panel.

You see where I’m going with this? Is it tenable for a Labour or Libdem MP to be associated with a website that could be generating polling data that could be used to fight for their seats.

I’m not sure I get this. I understand why left-of-centre of people are unhappy at the thought of contributing to a website owned by Lord Ashcroft – he’s a polarising figure. But to have as the rationale the fact the Politics Home conducts polls? Why does that matter?

It seems as though a lot of the resignations have been like Tom Harris or Matthew Taylor – ‘I did it because a friend asked me too; the friend has left so I’m leaving too.’ That’s fair enough, but I’m not sure I see the desperate danger in opinion polling.

The question of polling to one side for a moment, I think it’s interesting to watch this change in the Conservative Party and its associated organs – but it’s important to take away the right lesson, if indeed the follow up is Story Time for the Left.

I’ll have more to say on this at my place, I think, but the major thing is that there can and will never be such a one-man modernisation juggernaut for the Left. Labour has seen how that works – and the complete unzipping of links between the grassroots and the Party is the result. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but (and Sunny can correct me) reading this article, I just felt a little too much admiration coming out from between the lines.

When Sunny says “the Tories” are “organised”, “well-connected” and “disciplined”, he’s not talking about the average Tory member or voter. He’s talking about coalitions of millionaires and policy flunkeys, of a few bought-and-paid for bloggers and so on. Quite a few of the ‘netroots’, on the other hand, prefer Nigel Farage and UKIP to True Blue Tory Bercow. This division is not something the Left can or should want to emulate.

“When Sunny says “the Tories” are “organised”, “well-connected” and “disciplined”, he’s not talking about the average Tory member or voter. He’s talking about coalitions of millionaires and policy flunkeys, of a few bought-and-paid for bloggers and so on. Quite a few of the ‘netroots’, on the other hand, prefer Nigel Farage and UKIP to True Blue Tory Bercow. This division is not something the Left can or should want to emulate.”

But Dave, surely Sunny’s point is that despite the grass-roots Hannanite morons, the scheming and bitching about Bercow, and the Thatcher adoration, the national party retains a very firm grip and exercises a level of national discipline which is remarkable *given that* the grass roots are full of dissent and bitching.

What really matters is not who said what in which comment thread of ConHome, it’s which party is best organised, clued-in and responsive at the national level. That is already the Tories – and as Sunny is right to point out, they’re extending their advantage.

For my money, Sunny’s piece is the best yet written on the Ashcroft buy-out.

As for everyone saying “he’s got enough money to do it himself, why use PolHome?”

Well, the point is, why start from scratch when you can buy a ready-made entity which is established and trusted.

And it would take a lot of time, money and effort to get the sort of reach that PolHome has in its in-depth polling.

@Paul. I’m sure it is Sunny’s point that it’s remarkable how the Tories have done this *despite* the raving Thatcherites. But the Tories have always been fairly undemocratic, their MPs relatively patrician or businessmen of some standing (excepting the PR spivs?), their leaders virtual autocrats.

The Conservative Party is no more ‘nationally responsive’ than it has ever been – like New Labour, its PR machine is putting cart before horse in trying to pander to everyone rather than advancing from a principled position. Isn’t this why LibCon and the rest of us make fun of Cameron as something of a gasbag? Isn’t this why, for that matter, David Cameron won the election for leader over David Davis? Because the Tory Party MPs wanted someone who would in effect be Blair and talk one show while performing another?

So we now have four parties – the Tory PR machine and the Tory Party, the Labour PR machine and the Labour Party, and probably more connection between the PR “wings” than from PR wing to party. And my problem is that people start believing this sort of organisation allows the transcendence of partisan allegiance (the ‘nationally responsive’ thing you mentioned) and the creation of shining governments of ‘the centre’ – which is the way we used to talk about Blair – as though that’s a good thing.

I agree that paying more attention to the ConservativeHome implications makes sense.

It seems to me legitimate for a partisan funder to have some influence over the strategic direction of ConservativeHome – though to seek direct editorial control would of course be a problem for trust with its partisan audience and its ability to carry out the various ideologically and politically motivated missions and objectives which it has.

The problem is of combining such partisan movement spaces in a company which owns neutral ‘independent’ spaces, especially where there appears to be very little to verifiably guarantee the latter beyond expressions of good faith. Montgomerie today reveals that the overall organisation has only a two-person board: so the question of whether Ashcroft or Shakespeare has the casting vote within it (it is Shakespeare) seems to me rather irrelevant.

There is something of a tension between Montgomerie being naturally excited to stress how much the investment and the new arrangements can boost right-wing campaigning and activism; against the need of PoliticsHome to present everything as a merely administrative reorganisation with no effect or impact on anything it does.

What Paul said at #7. ConHome is, I believe, financially viable. polHome is worth the polling infrastructure and expertise.

Dave – the difference is that they’re organised but also intelligent enough to keep the grassroots on side. Online at least.

I think the only danger for them is that one man basically owns the party and it’s key media counterpart. That’s a lot of influence and it’s dangerous to have it so concentrated. But to compare this to Tony Blair doesn’t work because Ashcroft also has access to the hardcore grassroots and litsbof polling info about what people want in their politicians.

Tim J – c’mon, you really think ppl will want to associate with a project that may be used against them?

Sunny, good post.

I made the point on my blog that data and campaign knowledge are a key part of this but you’ve got a much deeper analysis here and I agree with it.

I disagree on ‘couple of cameramen’ bit. He’s buying an infrastructure that can make TV quality output as opposed to a couple of guys with cameras.

Sunny, think you missed this in my post:

“So what does this all mean? In one fell swoop, Lord Ashcroft has streamlined the Tories’ area of the web, and created a private firm that combines all the synergies that come along with having access to arguably the biggest pipeline/distribution network, with access to all the important media contacts, as well as the content that flows through that pipeline, and the knowledge of what kind of content is most popular and effective.”

I think the only danger for them is that one man basically owns the party and it’s key media counterpart.

This is over-stated. Ashcroft has donated less to the Tories than Lord Sainsbury has to Labour. Since Cameron became leader Ashcroft (through his company) has donated about £3 million to the Tories. In 2008 alone the Tories received more than £9 million in donations. Lord Sainsbury gave Labour £2 million in 1999, and another £2 million in 2008, as well as other donations. The focus on Ashcroft is not entirely rational.

Tim J – c’mon, you really think ppl will want to associate with a project that may be used against them?

But it’s just polling – the figures will have to be published if it’s to retain its membership of BPIX, which means that everyone can benefit to the same extent. Before Ashcroft bought it, the same polls were being done, and the same lessons were being drawn from it by the Tories. As I said, I understand why lefties don’t want to be associated with PolHome now, but I don’t get why it’s opinion polling that does it.

I believe UK Polling Report is also owned by the same group.

Sorry mate, I inadvertently misled you on that (my recollection was inaccurate), Anthony Well contacted me via Twitter to say he owned UK Polling Report:

http://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/4326972685

http://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/4327636176

As for everyone saying “he’s got enough money to do it himself, why use PolHome?”

Well, the point is, why start from scratch when you can buy a ready-made entity which is established and trusted.

Indeed, Google do it all the time. Also, I think people really are underestimating the power of the brand and what you get when you buy the associated traffic/community…

Good piece Sunny, it veers a little close to conspiracy but over all it’s a refreshing take on this story.

As a point of interest, I enquired about buying data for one constituency from that PolHome YouGov mega-poll, and was told that one buyer had purchased the entire data on an exclusivity basis, so no one else could get any of the individual constituency level polling.

Tim J – IIRC they had constructed and published the poll in such a way that the BPC (think you mean that rather than BPIX) disclosure rules did not apply to the constituency level data.

17 – sorry, I did mean BPC. And that’s intriguing, because it (strongly) suggests that Ashcroft/the Tories were already using the PolHome poll as effectively a private poll.

18. And, of course, as anyone interested in polling will tell you, it’s no good merely having the nodding dogs on side. Regardless of the political bent of the owners, they want to build up a strong cohort of let-ists, right-ists and middle-ists to chart opinion swing; perceived key strengths and weaknesses of other parties and the like.

If the left REALLY wants to poke Ashcroft in his Belize-registered eye, we should all charge round there, fill in questionnaires as Labour voters and lie our gorram asses off to queer their surveys.

Cue: “Labour voters say that the most important issue facing the country today is Pet Obesity,” turning up in Conservative strategy meetings.

“Quite a few of the ‘netroots’, on the other hand, prefer Nigel Farage and UKIP to True Blue Tory Bercow. This division is not something the Left can or should want to emulate.”

I thought Polly had been banging on for years about how this was actually the problem with hte left: that it was split between Labour and the Lib Dems?

On Polly’s part, there’s a streak of self-justification there. For my part, I disagree with her that the Lib-Dems are left-wing. But then I don’t think half the PLP is left wing either.

Edit: when I said a division we don’t want to emulate, I don’t mean between UKIP and the Tories.

Mark – it was just a throwaway comment about cameramen. I just think it’s talent easy to have, and I doubt much of the equipment survived from 18 Doughty Street given it closed so long ago.

Leon – whoops, corrected.

Jag – yes loosely interpreted it could mean what I said above.

But I wanted to focus on two points. Firstly, this is all about polling.

Secondly, that polling is gonna hurt Labour and the Libdems. So I don’t see how they’ll happily go along like lambs to the slaughter.

the figures will have to be published if it’s to retain its membership of BPIX, which means that everyone can benefit to the same extent.

Don’t polling companies also keep a lot of data hidden so they can sell it? That’s how they make money right? So do we know for sure any large-scale poll that PH does will be made public? I doubt it. But happy to be proven wrong.

I enquired about buying data for one constituency from that PolHome YouGov mega-poll, and was told that one buyer had purchased the entire data on an exclusivity basis,

- that’s what I’m thinking.

Donut: If the left REALLY wants to poke Ashcroft in his Belize-registered eye, we should all charge round there, fill in questionnaires as Labour voters and lie our gorram asses off to queer their surveys.

They’re not doing polling aimed at blogs. They’re polling people of specific demographics in target constituencies.

I have seen how PoliticsHome is supposed to monetize – this is before Ashcroft was involved. I think their business model is good and will ultimately be profitable once it’s up and running,

Just to clarify on the BPC thing – I think the way that they do it is to release aggregate data, so you can check their methodology and everything (the purpose of the BPC statement of disclosure is not to get the data itself in to the public domain, it’s to ensure that people can judge the methdology – it’s just that it’s usually hard to do the one without the other in a normal opinion poll) but to keep the individual seat polling private.

Because they don’t publish specific numerical results from individual seats – just the national and regional figures and one example constituency result so you can see the methodology – I think they can get away with it.

Still, if a lefty blogger wants to put in a request to YouGov and then complain to the BPC if they don’t release the full tables, the one chink in the armour might be that they do publish the projected election results seat-by-seat. You might try arguing that that amounts to publication of the individual seat polling.

Ashcroft ran his own independent target seats campaign in 2005, coordinated by Stephen Gilbert. After the 2005 election this operation was taken in house at CCHQ. This operation already funds a lot of polling and campaigning activity targeted at marginal seats. I’m not sure what ownership of PoliticsHome adds to this.