A survey by YouGov, commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust ,  provides a brilliant example of how a less than totally neutral survey and poor reporting deliver quite a story.

 First, praise where praise is due. The OPT did well to commission a reputable company to conduct a survey and they should be congratulated for publishing the full survey results, which came out last month. Few organisations are so open. 
 
But not everything is perfect. The survey is, in part, leading. It starts by saying: “The current UK human population is 61 million and rising. The current world population is 6.8 billion and rising. Thinking about this …….”
 
It then asks a question about how much damage the world’s population is causing to the environment. Surely the phraseology of the introduction pushes up the proportion of respondents who said that the growth is causing an adverse environmental impact? Could the OPT, which believes that global and UK population needs to be cut drastically to be sustainable, have been keen on a survey with such a leading into?
 
The OPT press release also stretches the data a bit. The second sentence says: “A majority of those questioned would welcome a significantly smaller UK population than at present”. The survey shows that 51 per cent would welcome a population of 60 million or lower. Well, yes, it is a majority (just), but is it “significant” cut from the current 61 million?
 
Yet, the OPT is arguably not the main offender in the manipulation of these less than perfect figures. The Daily Mail’s opening line is “One in four Britons would like to see the population reduced by up to a third to ease overcrowding.” That is just an odd way of putting it – and the figure seems to be wrong in any case! A cut of up to one-third means anything from a very small cut up to a cut of one-third – the survey suggests that proportion is around 39 per cent. Those that want a cut of at least one-third – a much more impressive claim – is just 12 per cent. The one-quarter figure quoted is probably the 24 per cent who say that they want a cut in the population to between 40 and 50 million.
 
The Daily Express and the Daily Star shamelessly took the single mention of immigration in the survey (that 69 per cent of people would welcome a reduction in it) and proceeded to equate all population growth with immigration, thereby coming to false conclusions. The Star opened its article with: “Immigration is wrecking the quality of life in the UK, half of all Brits reckon”, yet it is not clear where the “half” comes from – high population might be causing concerns to a half of respondents but not all of that reflects immigration.
 
                                  
 
The Express headline (above) took a similar line, and its story opened with: “Two in three Britons want tougher immigration controls to halt our out-of-control population growth”, which at least had the merit of being a figure from the survey if not exactly representative of the results. The 69 per cent figure for immigration was an answer to the question: “Which of the following changes would you support for the UK?” Over 60 per cent also supported better family planning advice to reduce teenage pregnancies and giving people full rights to work when they are over the retirement age.
 
Most of the statistics from the poll were rather unremarkable. Seven multiple choice questions were used to discover the public's opinion on the level of the population in the world, the UK and their local area before asking what impact this had on the environment and their quality of life and lastly, which measures they supported.
 
While 72 per cent did think that the world population was 'too high and causing serious environmental problems' and 70 per cent took the same view of the UK, other results generally demonstrated a degree of confusion, with practically halfway splits between those who did and did not believe that population growth causes issues with climate change (47 per cent believed), food  supply (50 per cent), energy supply (48 per cent), water supply (48 per cent) and poorer quality of life (53 per cent).
 
For Roger Martin, chair of the Optimum Population Trust, these findings are “unequivocal”. He said: “The poll clearly demonstrates widespread concern about the environmental damage caused by population growth and widespread support for measures to limit it.”  How did he reach this conclusion? Probably from the fact that only 4 per cent of respondents believed continuing population growth had no effect, and only 1 per cent did not support any of the 12 measures listed to improve the situation in the UK. The reason for such low numbers probably reflected the great choice of issues and measures on offer so that there was something for everyone.
 
The Optimum Population Trust goes on to claim that  “nearly half the public believes couples should limit themselves to two children or fewer”. This is a misrepresentation , as the question actually asked whether couples “should think about” limiting themselves to a certain number of children, not that all couples should actually do it.  But he who pays the pollster can write his own tune.