Cherry-Picked Polls: A Disturbing Deception Behind the Doctors' Strike

The Recent Strike of Resident Doctors

The latest strike by resident doctors began on Friday, 14 November. That morning, the Times blared an alarming headline: “Five days of NHS strikes opposed by most doctors.” The implication was clear: the majority of doctors stood against the very action they committed to—a narrative that demands scrutiny.

The Truth That Was Obscured

The article began, “Most junior doctors do not support Friday's strike, a poll has revealed,” yet sourcing from a reputable company like Savanta tells a different story entirely. According to question nine of the survey, a staggering 69% backed the strike, while only 12% were opposed. So, why was this crucial information held back from the Times readers?

Manipulation of Information

The Times chose to report on question ten, which inquired whether the British Medical Association should call off the strike, provided certain conditions regarding NHS training were met. This decision was not merely an editorial choice; it was a manipulative act, guided by a Department of Health eager to bolster its narrative.

If both questions had been disclosed, Times readers would have been enlightened about the deep-seated frustrations among striking doctors juxtaposed against potential future reforms.

Unraveling the Cycle of Deceit

These events showcase a troubling willingness among government bodies to cherry-pick data to fuel their agendas. As noted, this was not an obscure instance. The Department of Health had the insight into the two questions posed to doctors, yet opted to withhold data that contradicted their desired portrayal.

Questioning Accountability

We must ask: who within the Department of Health authorized this ouright omission? Was it a collective agreement, or did unknown officials act independently? What does this signal about the integrity of governmental institutions when it comes to transparency and accountability?

Statistical Integrity at Stake

It is essential to recognize that, unlike many government statistics sourced from independent agencies, polling conducted by private firms often lacks accountability. The rules of transparency should apply universally; manipulating data for political gain undermines the foundations of democratic engagement.

Calls for Greater Transparency

As I reflect on the ethos of transparency within the government, it is unsettling to witness a deviation from that commitment. When I chaired YouGov, there was no data so confidential that it warranted complete secrecy. If it's appropriate for us to voice our opinions, shouldn't the government openly share its understanding of public sentiment?

In Defense of Authenticity

I find myself in a position I had hoped to avoid: defending the striking doctors, despite my belief that their actions may not have been justified. Yet, even in this instance, the truth must not be twisted to suit any narrative, not even one I might agree with. If we allow such occurrences to become routine, we diminish the values of integrity and trust that underpin our democratic society.

The Stakes for Democracy

As we delve into the underlying issues of political deception, it becomes clear that allowing any government misinformation to proliferate endangers democracy itself. Our collective consciousness must demand accountability, even when the stories seem grim or inconvenient. Understanding the stakes of this deception is crucial—not just for the present, but for shaping a future where truth prevails.

• The nature of honesty in politics is paramount.
• Calls for transparency must resonate well beyond this incident.
• Our rights as citizens should always supersede any attempts at narrative control.