I still reckon the YouGov one is leading, if not as outrageously as the CI. People generally prefer to pick moderate-sounding options in polls, and it clearly presents “20 weeks” as the moderate option.

If it had either left out “ban abortion altogether” (since that isn’t being debated by MPs and isn’t an imaginable option in this country, thank $DEITY), or presented “increase the limit” as an ‘extreme’ pro-choice option to compliment the extreme anti-choice option they presented, that would definitely have been fairer.

No.

It isn’t an unbiased poll. It is a poll with a clearly leading question.

And finally, MPs will shortly debate the law on
abortion. Currently, the legal time limit for
abortion is 24 weeks. Some MPs want to reduce
this limit to 20 weeks. Leaving aside medical emergencies which of
these options do you favour?

If that is not a leading question the Pope is an atheist. Bears don’t shit in the woods, etc, etc…..

Get a grip.

It is very hard to construct a perfectly unbiased poll while still enabling people to identify the issue at stake but that one for the Times isn’t bad. It is clearly doing its best to get the most accurate result. Unless we can get better evidence it doesn’t seem unreasonable to take that one at face value. Apply too strong a requirement on polls like this one and you’re likely to get Type II error.

Matt

Strangely, I learnt that in an English class. Seems odd that it isn’t taught anymore?

It is beyond understanding how ‘Dan’ thinks that that is a reasonable way to obtain an opinion.

Perhaps folk like Dan can’t even see a biased question, and their likely response.

For example:

Perhaps, if I put it like this:

“Many members of the BNP consider the haulocaust a joke. Do you agree, or support the Zionist bastards….. ”

That they would consider that a fair question.

Unbiased, even…

A yougov/sunday times poll from March asked about this (is this what you were talking about?). They had a plurality supporting 20 weeks, a majority if you include people who want abortion banned entirely : http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/poll.pdf

Here’s the question:
“And finally, MPs will shortly debate the law on
abortion. Currently, the legal time limit for
abortion is 24 weeks. Some MPs want to reduce
this limit to 20 weeks. Leaving aside medical emergencies which of
these options do you favour?
Keep the time limit at 24 weeks 35%
Reduce the time limit to 20 weeks 48%
Ban abortions altogether 8%
Don’t know 9%

That doesn’t seem outrageously rigged to me. OK, there was no option for ‘raise the limit’ - but that would hardly cause a 20% swing against 20 weeks.

Rilly? The Christian Institute’s utterly rigged poll (the question was something like “should the UK follow the lead of other European countries where the abortion cut-off rate is 20 weeks, or are you a sick baby-murdering bastard?”) is the only recent public one I’ve seen supporting 20 over 24, while the view among MPs seems to be majority-24 as far as I can make out…

One point though, is that it does look like - on the specific issue of 24 versus 20 weeks - you guys are in a minority on this issue. Normally, just as a matter of political strategy, when you are in that position you want to present the most appealing and welcoming face possible to the outside world. Try and do all you can to bring people on side. Of course, you guys are bloggers not campaigners and I could be wrong so feel free to ignore my advice.

The rest of your stuff is worth more serious consideration than I have time for right now so I’ll respond, if it seems necessary, later this evening.

It might also be worth pointing out to the uncommitted that the fragrant Ms Dorries, MP, is also against contraception:

From the:

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2008/04/nadine-dorries-mp-her-position-of-week.html

Nadine Dorries own words:

I was surprised to see the Department of Health focusing on a campaign targeting the use of condoms.

This is a campaign worthy of Mary Whitehouse. She is essentially a Victorian moralist.