Joey Lucas, Iraq, Bush’s shoes? Pollsters are as scientific as me…

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the Telegraph disagree with my previous post.

In all honesty, it’s unlikely that anyone from the Telegraph (or anyone who reads the Telegraph) has read my post – so it’s less me they’re disagreeing with, and more the Guardian’s poll.

But yesterday – just four days after the Guardian had the Tories on 38 and Labour on 33 – the Telegraph revealed (on its front page, incidentally) that the Conservatives are now on 42, and Labour on 35. Brown’s bounce (get excited kids, it’s alliteration), the Telegraph tells us, is coming to an end. Oh how very Alan Partridge.

If you don't know who Joey Lucas is you should. Go away and watch the West Wing.

Now I’m no Joey Lucas, (and perhaps it is because of this that I think the following) but it seems to me like there’s something fishy about all this polling business. In just four days a number of things have apparently happened: Cameron is, apparently, the King of the Castle once more, Labour have gained two points, and the poor old Lib Dems are dying.

This would be perfectly acceptable if something dramatic had happened in politics in the last four days – something with an especially dramatic effect on the Lib Dems and Tories, for instance. Let’s have a quick look at what’s happened this week shall we:

Someone threw some shoes at Bush (yey – see below!) and was then allegedly beaten (boo!).

95,000 pensioners were overpaid (see further below).

Rhys Jones killer got life.

The closure of Woolworths stores was announced (boo!).

Brown announced his Iraq pull-out (yey!).

Brown warns about volatile fuel prices, and is then labelled “confused”.

Now, with the exception of the Iraq pull-out story, none of these “top stories” appear to have huge political ramifications. To add weight to this flimsy conclusion of mine I asked my brother whether anything in the news this week has made him feel particularly lovingly about the Tories or negatively about the Lib Dems. He replied with: “No, I don’t read newspapers.” Helpful.

Regardless, I think it’s fair to conclude that polls, be it the Guardian/ICM poll, or the Daily Telegraph/You Gov poll are fishy. And that’s before we even consider the fact that the polls commissioned by each paper rather conveniently, I must say, returned results perfectly in-tune with their readership’s political allegiances.

I reckon that polls are about as accurate and scientific as my ruler-manoeuvrings of the previous post. Then again, my ruler-manoeuvring was quite fun. Maybe I should become a Joey Lucas after all.

And just for kicks. Ha, kicks – could be tenuously linked to shoes:

Don’t go breaking my heart, The Times: Obama’s Aunt and Gating Galore.

The day before the election and there’s not much one can blog about except the election – or at the very least some media coverage of it. I am beginning to wonder what on earth I’ll spend my evenings doing in a few days time, if not staring at election gossip a la internet…. Living TV will no doubt beckon me, once again.

On Sunday, the Observer splashed with the story that Obama’s aunt is living in Boston as an illegal immigrant after her asylum request was rejected four years ago. And this isn’t a long lost what’s-her-name on some far away branch of the family tree, stashed away in the attic, covered in dust. Oh no, this is the “Auntie Zeituni” he affectionately – (apparently, I happily confess to not having read them) – refers to in his memoirs, Dreams From My Father.

This is “Autiegate”, apparently. (I assume it is not just me who’s getting somewhat bored of the horrendously overdone journalistic trick of gating everything: Mauel Gate, Yacht Gate – and they’re just from the last week. It always makes me think of fences.)

And gate or no gate, what’s super duper interesting about all this is not that Obama has an illegal immigrant for an Aunt. Although this is, quite obviously, pretty exciting stuff – I keep imagining the Daily Express’s reaction if Brown had a similar skeleton stashed away, just for laughs. No, what’s interesting is how the newspapers have covered the news.

Obvs, we’ve got the Observer. And the Inde. Now they both write it pretty straight. As it should, in my worthless opinion, be written. The “it’s news, and it’s potentially damaging to our love, Obama; but let’s not be too judgemental, shall we, for he is our saviour after all” line.

But you’ll notice, if a conscientious reader, that the Inde especially begins to raise questions regarding the timing of this revelation. Obama has been at this for two years. This came out two days before The Day We’ve All Been Waiting For. Now I’m a pretty cynical kind ‘a guy, but I reckon even the most naïve dear would find this timing all a little too convenient for one 72 year-old in particular.

The Telegraph reports on my (and even more important people’s) concerns: “Democrates suggest dirty play.” Noooooo…. (insert nine-year-old sarcasm noise here). And, unsurprisingly, loads of other papers have gone down the same route.

Except, The Times. Who, here at the very least, seem scarily proud of having at least something to do with the revelation. I admit that the story may turn out to be perfectly innocent and coincidental. But, for now, allow me to withhold judgement. The Times should remember how much we all love Obama (let me count the ways) before boasting quite so loudly about their part in potentially – although apparently avoided – breaking billions of hearts.

So if, over the next 24 hours, the Republicans’ resorts to lies and scheming gets you down, just do what I do – and dream up Daily Express headlines, just for fun.