As very long-time readers may recall I do not normally post here but I will make an exception because I want this misapprehension about my role and how I see it to cease.
Kim Peart describes me as a “claimed unbiased political observer”. I make no such claim, and I am not obliged to behave in any way because of how others may describe me.
The disclaimer on my main guide page reads “Note that these are my own guides and I reserve the right to inject flippant and subjective comments whenever I feel like it; if you do not like this, write your own.” Likewise my Twitter bio describes me as “Tasmanian pseph, poll analyst, political observer/meddler. No party loyalties.”
I have long expressed my political views, at the same time as also providing the most objective analysis I can of polls, elections, electoral prospects and so on. I do the great bulk of this for free (bar the odd donation) and I think anyone who presumes (as many do) that I should self-muzzle at all times in order to conform to their misconceived notion of how analytical neutrality works is being extremely presumptive.
In my 2014 guide I called Guy Barnett an “anti-gay political godbotherer” (with a historical link for this claim) which did not prevent me correctly predicting that the party he was running for would win the election easily. He didn’t like it, but he couldn’t do a damn thing about it. (I’ve laid off him this time, though his stablemate Hidding cops a ribbing instead.)
I am not seeking to influence Peart’s chances because with my analyst hat on I can say that those chances are zero point a line of zeroes running all the way to Jupiter and back. My comments will have no impact on those chances.Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 15/02/18 at 12:55 AM