The papers all agreed: Michael Gove lost his job as Education Secretary because his poll ratings were “toxic.” YouGov research was widely cited to support this view. A YouGov/Times survey conducted immediately after this week’s reshuffle confirmed his unpopularity. Only 22 per cent thought he had done well—as against 59 per cent who reckoned William Hague, the other high-profile minister to move on, had been a good Foreign Secretary. Only 12 per cent of voters, and just 22 per cent of Conservatives, thought Gove should have continued to be in charge of the nation’s schools.
As a pollster, I suppose I ought to celebrate the power of our data. After all, it’s not the first time our research has played a role in a big political decision. Last August, when Parliament voted narrowly NOT to back a military strike against Syria’s chemical weapons sites, a number of MPs invoked public opposition to military action. The only poll that week on the subject was a YouGov/Sun poll which did, indeed, find that voters divided two-to-one against military action.
However, I feel uneasy about what happened, both last August and this week. Had past governments surrendered their judgments to the polls, they would never have privatised the inefficient state monopolies that provided us with our water, gas, electricity and telephone lines. Nor would we have abolished capital punishment or legalised homosexuality when we did. It’s also a fair guess that, had YouGov been around and its findings determined national policy, we would have kept out of both world wars—or at least until we were directly attacked.
In a way, the role of polls is a special case of the enduring democratic dilemma: to what extent should MPs be delegates who simply do what their constituents want, or representatives who, ultimately, use their own judgement to decide what is best? I’m with Edmund Burke: I want our politicians to listen to their voters but then to make up their own minds. Like other polling companies, YouGov seeks to illuminate and explain the public mood. This is a vital function in an open democracy. But its function should not be inflated beyond that. The decisions about Syria and Gove should have been taken on their merits.
This week, David Cameron should have decided for himself who was best person to be Education Secretary, not whom the public liked or disliked. Instead he surrendered that judgement because a general election is just nine months away. His decision might backfire, if it ends up being seen as a craven abdication of leadership.
Over time, YouGov will track Cameron’s fortunes in the run-up to next spring’s campaign. If the Prime Minister loses ground because of what he has done, he will be in no position to complain. Those who live by the polls must be prepared to die by the polls.
