Talk:Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Opinion polling in the next United Kingdom general election → Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election — Move to the corect preposition. Opinion polling is for an election, not in an election. Compare this with correctly titled articles such as Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008, Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2011 and so forth. The Celestial City (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Opinion polling in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 → Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010

I must agree, I will have it moved, I dont think we need Oppose or that stuff for small grammar error do we? --Poohunter (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Predicted majority?

Hi, I was just wonndering if sometime could explain to me what the difference is between the "Predicted Seats Lead" and the "Predicted Majority". Aren't they the same? Thanks, The Celestial City (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you take the latest poll (YouGov/The Sun - 20-21 December) it gives the Conservatives 276 seats in the Commons and Labour 340 seats, making the oppositions lead over the government 64. However, to take control of the Commons a party needs to have more seats than any other party not just the other main party. So if Labour were to try to win an election they would need more seats than the Conservatives, Lib Dems, Nationalists etc. Basically, the predicted seats lead is the number of seats they would have over the Conservatives and predicted majority would be the number of seats they would have over all parties. I hope that's helped and I apologise if I have insulted your intelligence, I just didn't know how much you already knew about elections in the UK. Editor5807^speak 00:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the clear explanation. All makes complete sense now, I'd forgotten that the majority relates to the entire Commons, not just the two major parties. The Celestial City (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Content

Just looking over the table of polls, it is beginning to look very cluttered and cramped, and could do with a bit of a clean up. I wanted to ask people's opinion on whether all of the columns are really needed - is there really a need for the '% Lead' column and the 'Seats Lead' column for example - neither are actually directly relevant to the final result and the reader can work this out from the information in the individual party results. Would it perhaps be better just to have a table that has the main results, and then the predicted majority column - after all, that is ultimately what decides an election. I'm thinking of something like this:

Date(s) Conducted	Polling Organisation/Client	Sample Size	Conservative	Labour	Liberal Democrats	Other	Predicted Majority
21–22 Dec	YouGov/The Sun	1,695	41% (288)	42% (329)	8% (8)	10% (7)	4
15–16 Dec	YouGov/The Sun	1,922	41% (292)	41% (325)	9% (8)	10% (7)	Hung Parliament Lab short 1 seat

Does anyone else have any suggestions to make the tables look less cluttered/cramped? Spiritofsussex (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite. I stumbled across this page, and it's despairingly cluttered. The hung parliament box is particularly difficult to read.

On a side note, does anyone have any idea how those seat calculations (from the polls) were substantiated? I say this because the YouGov poll for 3-4 October in the table has an error (says "Lab short 9 seats" AND "Lab short 29 seats"), and I can't figure out from the PDF document how the seat numbers were figured out, as I can't see such figures in the document.

If anyone else is up for it, I'd be happy to work with someone else/other people on going over this page completely for an overhaul. —JeevanJones (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd certainly be happy to help on an overhaul of the page - it is certainly in need of one. There are a number of basic things that could be done - including removing some unnecessary information such as '% Lead' which people can easily work out for themselves. Also, I would be quite tempted to remove all of the seat projections for a couple of reasons:

1. They are only projections, based wholly on the assumption that every constituency seat will follow an identical swing - something that is never going to happen; and

2. The forthcoming boundary changes are going to reduce the total seats to 600, thus rendering all of these projections absolutely worthless.

The article for the last parliament (Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010) never gave any seat projections at all, and it only seems that a user started doing it on this page, and it became the norm.

In terms of wider, more intrinsic changes - a quick look at other opinion polling articles could provide a few ideas about better format for the results to be displayed in, but I think this would need to be thought about and discussed on this talk page for all users to have their say in before any big changes are made. Spiritofsussex (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, seat projections would be rendered fairly redundant pretty soon (not to mention they're highly debatable, as you say). What are your thoughts about different formats from previous articles? Looking at the article, I'd probably remove the predicted majority and seat prediction columns, and probably simply highlight the party with the highest % at each row. That being said, I suppose the background colour (ie on the lead/majority columns) can be useful for a quick glance at which party is ahead in the polls. I also wonder if it's worth taking the pollsters into account as there is a big discrepancy due to a number of reasons (weighting etc.) between say YouGov and ComRes which make them difficult to compare at times. —JeevanJones (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am free now, so I'm going to work on an overhaul of this page. If it's deemed inappropriate, feel free to revert any changes I make. —JeevanJones (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: overhaul: Okay, I've overhauled the results table, streamlining and vastly simplifying the display of the data. Any extra information sought can easily be found through clicking through to the source of each polling report. I have removed the projected majority/seats column for a number of reasons:

1. They are only projections, therefore quite suspect (anyone with experience in UK polling predictions will know well how imprecise they can be).
2. There is to be a major boundary change and reduction in seats (from 650 to 600), therefore rendering any seat allocation predictions fairly worthless for comparison.
3. Percentages of the vote are superior as a measure of polling. Indeed, very few media outlets use seat projections as a reliable measure of popular support of political parties, but rather the percentage of support.

Regretfully, I had to remove the visual graphic due to it no longer being applicable to the new table of results. If anyone could find the original image without notations, it would be much appreciated.

I'm open to recommendations for better ways of showing which party is in the lead in the polls, other than through making the figures bold, as in retrospect it may not be as clear as I would perhaps have liked.

As I've said before, feel free to bring back features I have taken out, my overriding intent was one of accessible simplicity, per WP:BOLD. —JeevanJones (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm profoundly unconvinced by the removal of the 'predicted majority' column. While theoretical, this information is useful and is not contained in the linked to polls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.18.20.253 (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason for removing the predicted majority column has been discussed at length above. I have today expanded the article a bit - the main changes I've made are:

1. Added a section on the methodology of each polling company - this will alleviate the worries expressed above about the questions over different companies' methods - people can judge for themselves by reading the brief summary of different companies' ways of working.

2. I've taken some inspiration from the United States polling articles and added shading to the boxes of the party in the lead, which will provide a clear picture of which party is in the lead with just a quick glance.

3. I've reinstated the listing of political events in the table, as I think these are often helpful to explaining movements in the polls - e.g. listing the election of a new party leader goes a long way to explaining why a party has a sudden spike in the polls.

The page is looking a lot better than it did a few weeks ago, and if anyone has anymore ideas about how to improve it further, please feel free to contribute. Spiritofsussex (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. I must say, excellent work, Spiritofsussex. I was thinking the article really needed some emphasis like that, and the background shading works well. I only wonder if there could be a good way of showing ties in the polls with further background shading (it may just be me looking at it oddly, though)? Your other two points make good sense. Nice job with the methodology. For the casual reader, the events could definitely help explain the change in trends. All in all, the page looks a lot better and easier to read. —JeevanJones (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Majority not the same as difference

Shouldn't the majority figures on these tables actually be 'lead in comparison to remainder of the House' figures? To be a majority party you need to have 50%(+1) of the seats therefore a majority figure should be however many seats of 325 the predicted lead party has.

The table as current has figures such as this:

Date(s) Conducted	Polling Organisation/Client	Sample Size	Conservative	Labour	Liberal Democrats	Other	% Lead	Predicted Majority
28 Feb - 1 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	2,126	34% (227)	43% (380)	11% (19)	12% (6)	9%	110

However Labour would only have a majority of 55 because they need to have more than 325 members in the House to do this. In Canada (which has the same Westminister system) the ruling party the Conservative Party of Canada have 143 of 308 seats, this means they are a minority government despite the fact they have more seats than anybody else this does not mean they have a majority.

The tables should therefore be altered to read (differently)***

• • • Deleted table which was not aligning with the rest of the page properly. As I cannot contact the user who posted this (it appears to be unsigned) I will ask here that, when revisiting the page, please amend your table to fit the rest of this page. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Lib Dems and UKIP.

at the moment Lib Dems are averaging around 2% above UKIP which is quite likely that UKIP could become the 3rd party in a while if that happens would UKIP be included on this table? C. 22468 Talk to me 15:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

... your premise is simply wrong. To take as an example, the poll immediately below as I write - LDs are 11%, UKIP 5%. Which makes the LDs 120% higher, 6% in raw terms being 3* your claim. LDs are on a historic low of 9-15% depending on the organisation, UKIP rarely exceed about 4%. LDs are a party of government, with nearly 10% of the Parliament, UKIP are nowhere near winning a single seat --Saalstin (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This week Lib Dems were just 2% ahead in the polls today they are 4%, at the election they were 20% realistically is could happen and the poll below was made nearly a year ago before the issues with Cameron and Europe.C. 22468 Talk to me 17:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

'at the moment' implies a current trend, 'this week' is at best a single snapshot from a single poll. To take an alternative, in mid-december, when the debate was at its height, http://www.icmresearch.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/12/2011_ST-Dec_poll.pdf ICM] found LDs at 11%, and UKIP at 3% - well under 1/3 of LD support. This might need to be discussed when there's any real evidence of it being an issue, but currently... no :) --Saalstin (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

OkC. 22468 Talk to me 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• UKIP are a minor party. They have little representation in UK governance. More specifically, they have none in the parliament to which these polls refer. The SNP and PC, by contrast, do have MP's and yet they are not included in this table. Thus unless and until the SNP, PC and other minor parties are included, UKIP ought not to be included either. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Article content

This article is about opinion polls and the inclusion of political events ought to be stopped. To include selected political events is i. not relevant to the article directly (even if they may have influenced polls how can anyone really tell that they have?) and ii. an obvious source of POV pushing. (I'm not saying anyone, thus far, has pushed a POV. But it is an obvious target for such: who is to decide what political events to include?) I don't want to delete them without comment but they ought to be deleted or, at least, reduced to mere footnotes/cross-referenced to other Wiki articles. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As someone who edits this page a lot, I am inclined to agree with you. There has been in the past, especially in the run up to previous elections, been quite a few POV pushing edits that keep needing to be removed/amended. I still think noting important political occasions are helpful - Budgets, Local Elections etc, Party Conferences. - perhaps through cross-referencing as you say. I would however agree with getting rid of the points about party politics - Conservative treasuer, Labour union links etc. Perhaps something like this as an example?:

Date(s) conducted	Polling organisation/client	Sample size	Conservatives	Labour	Liberal Democrats	Others
3–4 Apr	YouGov/The Sun	1,742	32%	42%	9%	17%
2–3 Apr	YouGov/The Sun	1,744	34%	42%	8%	15%
1–2 Apr	YouGov/The Sun	1,732	33%	43%	8%	16%
30–31 Mar	YouGov/The Sunday Times	1,567	33%	42%	8%	17%
29 Mar	Bradford West by-election, 2012
28–29 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,701	34%	44%	8%	14%
27–28 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,807	34%	44%	10%	12%
26–27 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,682	33%	43%	9%	15%
25–26 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,734	35%	42%	9%	14%
23–26 Mar	ComRes/The Independent	1,010	33%	43%	11%	13%
23–25 Mar	Populus/The Times	1,500	34%	38%	11%	16%
22–24 Mar	Survation/The Mail on Sunday	1,097	31%	39%	11%	19%
22–23 Mar	YouGov/The Sunday Times	1,721	35%	42%	10%	14%
22–23 Mar	ICM/Sunday Telegraph	1,000	37%	38%	13%	13%
21 Mar	Budget 2012
21–22 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,835	34%	42%	9%	15%
20–21 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,757	36%	41%	10%	13%
19–20 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,748	35%	43%	9%	13%

That way people might be able to judge for themselves, and this page will, as it should be, simply be about the polls. Spiritofsussex (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel that it is important to include political events that cause a big shift in the polls, such as the prosecution of Chris Huhne or the election of Ed Miliband. Spa-Franks (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm mixed on this issue. I complete recognise the question of what constitutes a relevant event, as it's quite difficult to ascertain the actual effect an event has on the polling figures. At the same time, looking at it, the inclusion of the UK budget etc does seem to help describe possible reasons for poll changes. I do wonder if following Spiritofsussex's suggestion may indeed be the best solution. —JeevanJones (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with JeevanJones - the article ought to follow the suggestion put forward by Spiritofsussex. News ought to be reduced to mere headings and people can follow up the leads themselves if they want to. If no-one else has any objection, this could be done ASAP. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Only just caught this. (It's been a terribly busy week in UK politics, eh?) I don't see a problem with this -- if someone is willing (and has the time!) to do this, then go ahead. —JeevanJones (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

UKIP

In tonight opinion poll UKIP are in 3rd place (http://labs.yougov.co.uk/news/2012/04/16/update-labour-lead-11/) should the table be changes to reflect this? C. 22468 Talk to me 21:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. Let's see if that trend continues, and then we'll discuss it further. Bkissin (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Polls for 17 April have UKIP on 9% compared to LD on 8% and polls for 18 April have UKIP on 8% and LD on 10%. I propose that a fifth column (titled UKIP) should be added to the polling "list" since the election, enabling people to see how support for Lib Dems declined, this "transitional period", then UKIP settling for 3rd place, which is what I predict will happen unless Brian Paddick does something incredible in the London election. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Date(s) conducted	Polling organisation/client	Sample size	Conservatives	Labour	Liberal Democrats	UK Independence Party	Others
16–17 Apr	YouGov/The Sun	1,799	32%	41%	8%	9%	19%

Is this the best chart to put it?, even if ukip aren't in 4th they are never more than 2 points behind the Liberal Democrats, it wouldn't be a good idea to Include SNP as they are Scotland only and therefore could never get above 9%.C. 22468 Talk to me 21:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should leave it for a slight while more. UKIP may indeed vie with the Lib Dems for third place in opinion polls on a consistent basis. Then I think it would be justifiable to introduce these four columns at the point where this began. Sir Richardson (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend giving it some time to see how things develop. Remember that we can only report what polling companies comment on, and since most polling reports only detail the three main parties (Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem) we normally are unable to read much into the "other" figure. That being said, should polling companies establish a consistent recording of Ukip's showing in the opinion polls, then there may very well be a case for permanent inclusion. Until then, should Ukip maintain its position, I would suggest footnoting the "other" figure as a makeshift solution in the meantime. What do other editors think? —JeevanJones (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In the event we do need to start listing UKIP, or any other constitently high polling party, the way to go might be some sort of collapsible cell for the 'others' column. The example table below is constructed using the NavFrame code, and gives an idea of what I mean. The problem with using this is I can't find a way of overriding the colour parameter, so it would always appear blue. I'll keep fiddling with it to try and find a way of doing this in white background, but the table below gives an idea of what I am talking about. I think this method would be good as we can add UKIP/SNP/other party high scoring polls without creating an overly cluttered table with too many columns.

If, by any chance, anyone knows a way of overriding the colour parameter coding, please let me know. Otherwise, what are people thoughts about the possible route?Spiritofsussex (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Date(s) conducted	Polling organisation/client	Sample size	Conservatives	Labour	Liberal Democrats	Others
16–17 Apr	YouGov/The Sun	1,799	32%	41%	8%	19% Including: UKIP: 9%

I like the idea of the collapsible box, I think it and maybe have the collapsible box with all the other parties as well in it, if UKIP are regularly the 3rd party and are getting 3 points or more above the lib dems regularly then they should be included proper.C. 22468 Talk to me 13:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I like that collapsible box. That should avoid it becoming too cluttered. As I've said, I think we should wait to see if Ukip's poll lead remains noteworthy before inclusion, and that's both in the collapsible box or as a new column. We have to be careful in not appearing to shape the direction of politics, and only archive it. —JeevanJones (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the collapsible box as per JeevanJones. See also comments below as to why UKIP (alone) cannot be added at this point in time. And the advice of Richard BB for people to stop pushing this issue when it is already being discussed here. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The YouGov poll published today has shown UKIP on their highest in any other YouGov poll of 10%, so please add a UKIP table.(97daviee (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

We're still in the process of deciding whether or not they should have their own table: if their popularity does not remain, we won't include one. Please stop adding these new sections when we have an active discussion here. – Richard BB 10:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

How long will that process in deciding to add a UK Independence Party Table last?(97daviee (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

No, UKIP ought not to be added separately. Why? Because until such times as UKIP break-through and have MP's elected, they remain little more than a protest party with regards to any general election. (Which is, after all, the subject of this article). However, if UKIP are to be added separately, then parties such as Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National Party, the Green party and even the likes of Respect - who do have an elected MP, unlike UKIP - must also be added. And anyone making the case for the inclusion of UKIP must also make the case for these others. To not do so smacks of POV pushing. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand how opinion polls work, opinion polls don't measure the parties by seats, they measure them by vote share. UKIP will overtake the Lib Dems permantly, and you will have to add UKIP soon before people start accusing wikipedia for being Anti-UKIP.(97daviee (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC))

"UKIP will overtake the Lib Dems permantly [sic]" -- is what you just said. You cannot possibly know this, and it seems by this statement -- not to mention your others -- that you are indeed PoV pushing UKIP. There is no rush in this debate. Consensus will be reached, but accusations such as calling Wikipedia anti-UKIP do not help. First we need to see if their popularity will remain (and I expect their fighting for third place has little to do with UKIP popularity, and more to do with Liberal Democrat unpopularity). Then we need to decide what OldSquiffyBat said: whether we should include a party that has no elected MPs. – Richard BB 11:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not defending UKIP, I just think this article should be corrected. I did not say Wikipedia was Anti-UKIP, I just mean that's what people will start thinking. If I was just a random person who just wanted to take a quick look at the latest opinion polls via Wikipedia, and found that UKIP was nearly close to being permantly ahead of the Lib Dems, I would in a state of confusion as to why a UKIP table has not been added. It just makes this article seem bias. Personally, I think Wikipedia is one of the most trustworthy and most accurate sources of information on the web, so to avoid it from being labeled bias they should add a UKIP table. I agree with you that until UKIP has retained their popularity permantly they should not be added just yet.(97daviee (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC))

For those who still believe that the UK Independence Party should not have their own table, you are damaging Wikipedia. UKIP has had their best result in any of the Local Elections ever. So please to avoid this from damaging Wikipedia add a UK Independence Party table now.(97daviee (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC))

This is getting a bit heated, so what we need is (before the serious point) a good politician's quote: "Calm down, dears!" Now, on to finer points. Whilst trying to keep my Conservative bias out of it, since YouGov think that UKIP is splitting the centre-right vote (as the Social Democrats did to the left in the 1980's) then I really think that they should be included seeing as all the interviewees on the BBC and Sky coverage of "Vote 2012" (aside from the Lib Dems, obviously) that this is "the beginning of the end of the Lib Dems" and/or that "minority parties are coming into their own." I do think UKIP should be included. One problem, some of the 2010 polls don't have a result for UKIP. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you. Most of the people on this talk page agree that UKIP should have it's own table, so why aren't they adding it.(97daviee (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC))

If UKIP is to be included, the table would need modification in order for it to don't look too cluttered. I propose doing a similar thing to what I did to Spanish opinion polls tables (in which there are four national parties with seat representation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_general_election,_2011#Opinion_polls

My proposal would be for the table to look like this.

Date(s) conducted	Polling organisation/client	Sample size	Cons	Lab	Lib Dem	UKIP	Others	Lead
2–3 May	YouGov/The Sun	1,745	32%	41%	9%	9%	9%	9%

Reduced the size of the table and the font in order to accomodate the new column. I also shortened the main party names for the same purpose. In my opinion, though, we should wait for UKIP to get representation before including them. After all, these are just surveys, which may change over time and may not translate into reality so accurately. If UKIP voting intention suddenly lowers again, we'd be adding them for nothing. I think we should draw a line about which parties should be included and in which circumstances. Impru20 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely, Impru20. The table needs to be drastically reduced in size, as the "lead" section is far too big. As for adding UKIP: again, I agree with you. Their current boom could be only temporary; and, as I've said, I think it's less to do with UKIP's support and more to do with the Lib Dems' lack of support. – Richard BB 10:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to what Impru20 & Richard BB said about UKIP's boom possibly only being temporary, to some extent they could be right, but you can't keep on using that as an excuse for not adding a UK Independence Party table. I will shut up if you can give me the period of time UKIP's boom has to last until we add the party an individual table.(97daviee (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC))

Richard BB, I agree with you on most of this, but do we know for a fact that UKIP is sucking support from the LD? You'd think that they would be taking Eurosceptic votes from the Tories. That being said, I'm not sure how we proceed here. I certainly don't approve of accusations of Wikipedia Fraud and damage from some users. There are plenty of minor parties that could have a deciding factor on the next election. If we want to add them to the table, that is fine. I'd prefer if they had representation in the Commons before we do it, but that's my personal opinion on the matter. However, I reject the accusation that Wikipedia is pro- or anti- any particular political party. That type of nonsense should not be tolerated here. Bkissin (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but people will start thinking that Wikipedia is Anti-UKIP, I don't think Wikipedia is bias or Anti- or Pro- anything. Again I will stop adding comments to the talk page if you can give me the period of time of the process in deciding to add a UK Independence Party table.(97daviee (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC))

I don't think most people will think that. Unless those, of course, which are strongly pro-UKIP. And that is mostly because they don't have representation in the House of Commons, despite how high opinion polls may place them. It's common sense, and something which is done for all countries' elections: if a party doesn't have representation, it's not considered important enough to be added alongside a country main parties in a table; mostly to avoid it being cluttered and full of minor parties, something which clearly wouldn't benefit clarity. If in the next general election it wins at least 1 seat, but scores high in the popular vote, I'd support its inclusion. At the moment, though, it doesn't have an high enough relevance to influence the country politics. Impru20 (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The only people who are going to suggest Wikipedia are anti-UKIP are those who are fervently pro-UKIP. Anything other than the recognition they deserve is bias against them in their eyes. If we are adding minor parties to the mix, why not add RESPECT, as they just won a Labour safe seat and have representation.

Anyway, if an MP crosses the floor to UKIP, and others follow him, then we can reconsider this topic, but for now, let's let sleeping dogs lie, shall we? Bkissin (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

UKIP again overtook the Lib Dems in the opinion poll published yesterday. Will everybody stop mentioning seats, opinion polls don't have any thing to do with the number of seats, they are done using percentages, and UKIP have a higher percentage than the Lib Dems. It's very scary how 25% of the people on this talk page who are opposed to a UKIP table don't understand how percantages work. Pleace can we add a UK Independence Party table.(97daviee (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

Tonight at 10:00PM YouGov Published their Opinion Poll, it showed UKIP again ahead of the Lib Dems, you can no longer avoid not to add a UK Indpendence Party table.(97daviee (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

This is the first time I have seen this article. I am shocked that UKIP does not have it's own table, the two latest opinion polls show UKIP in front of the Lib Dems. I normally find Wikipedia a reliable source of information, however, this article is shaping British politics as if there is never going to be a political change.(Politico100 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

Past March, Spanish opinion polls predicted a landslide victory of the current governing party, the PP, in the autonomous community of Andalusia. In the end, it ended winning by a rather small margin of difference, and far from being able to rule the region. In 1992, UK opinion polls predicted a landslide Labour victory; in the end, the Tories won. You know, you can't trust 100% in opinion polls. They're just advisory and a good compliment for an election article, but they are not the official election results. Impru20 (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point. Regardless of what the results end up being, the polling is part of the story of the election, and UKIP polling at higher than normal levels is a part of that story too. People should be able to see that the party is polling higher than the Lib Dems, as stated, but more important is that if people could actually see the real polling results, they could make more incisive observations about the state of play: for instance, including UKIP might allow one to better assess whether the right-wing vote is splintering and think about what that means in the broader European context given the first round of the French presidential election.

The point made earlier about MPs needing to join UKIP before adding the party doesn't make a whole lot of sense; there is no specific benefit to limiting coverage to parliamentary parties. Any party with significant polling, even just a point or so, should be reflected as is done at articles for elections virtually everywhere in the world. It is especially important where, as here, you have a substantial amount of support listed as "Other", and most of that support is going to one party.

Ultimately, the point of including polls is not to make predictions about who will win the election and which parties will win seats. It is about giving people information about the attitudes of the British voter using a crude but understandable metric. If voters are telling us they are more inclined to vote for UKIP than they have been before, why shouldn't we state it? Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is about sharing knowledge. What is gained by refusing to share this knowledge? -Rrius (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is, that even if an opinion poll says tat a party will end up getting 9-10% of the vote, it may end up getting just 1%. The point made about MPs needing to join UKIP before adding the party does in fact make a whole lot of sense: just guess we end up adding UKIP to the table as they currently are, with no representation. People would then come here complaining about why were they added while at the same time leaving parties with representation out. In UK politics, it matters not how much percentage of the vote you receive, but how many seats you win. Having seats gives a party much more relevance in the political stage than one that hasn't any, and that's what people will claim: Why UKIP was added and why the Green Party wasn't, for example. And we can't just add all of them. Should there be any people wanting to see all of the data for the opinion poll, just check the link for it. That's what it's meant for. The table is meant to provide a quick view of the political situation of the main parties, not to provide a sum up of the % evolution of all parties.

Also, about the splintering of the right. You know, I don't know how things in the UK are when it comes to the making of opinion polls. However, here in Spain some people tend to 'lie' in the surveys and refuse to show their support for a party when things are going bad, when in fact they will still end up voting for them anyway. That's what is called the "hidden" vote, and it's an usual phenomenon when elections are still far away in time. Surveys usually try to guess the amount of hidden vote for each party, but it raises the chance for errors appearing. If in the UK that's the same, there will be surely many people from the right who don't dare to show their support for the Tories in the survey and, instead, say they'd rather vote for UKIP. Elections are still a long way off from happening. Once the date gets close, many right-wing voters may return to the Tories' fold once again, making any gains made by UKIP during all these years pointless. Impru20 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In order to give balance views we have to add a "UK Independence Party" table. There is no better estimate than opinion polls, so you just have to follow what the opinion polls are saying.(97daviee (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

UKIP for first time ever is on a 2 point lead over the Lib Dems, so it's about time we add a UK Independence Party table now.(97daviee (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC))

There is a better estimate than opinion polls, and that is oficial election results. Do you want to see UKIP's performance in opinion polls? Just check the link. Give me a more reasonable reason than "it's what the opinion polls say" and I may be convinced of it. Opinion polls may fail. Read my above comment. Impru20 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

UKIP Britain's fastest growing politcal party, which achieved 14 per cent of the vote in the last local elections. UKIP is currently in a two point lead over the Lib Dems. Opinion polls aren't used as predictions for the next election, they are used as a way to measure how the British people's view about politics in the present time. You have to add a UKIP table because UKIP is currently more popular than the Lib Dems, I am suprised that some people aren't here to demand the removal of the Lib Dem table, and to add a UKIP table as it's replacement. Most of the people on this talk page are in favour of the introduction of a UKIP table. Every TV station in the UK has to give out balanced coverage of politics, and what makes Wikipedia justified to not give out unbalanced coverage. You should have added UKIP table months ago. So please on behalf of the people of this talk page add a UKIP table, and don't continue to make up arrogant excuses.(Politico100 (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC))

You're going too far here. You know, this article is a compliation of all opinion polls for the 2010-2015 period. Even if UKIP is experiencing a boost in support now in 2012, it was an insignificant party in 2010, when Lib Dem in opinion polls was around 20%. UKIP current boost could be temporary, and we can't just replace an historically important party as Lib Dem from the table just because UKIP is experiencing what could be a temporary rise in opinion polls. Just think what'd happen if UKIP gets down again and the Lib Dem rises in 2013 or 2014, before the elections; replacing them in the table would have been pointless.

Also, this article includes polls just for the general election, so, using the local elections as an argument for adding UKIP to this article is pointless, as these are two different kinds of elections. In Spain, regional and other minor parties tend to score much higher in local elections than in general elections; I suppose the same can happen in the UK. Impru20 (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree that UKIP should have their own table. The point regarding 'historically important parties' (despite that this itself is subjective) is entirely moot. The purpose of this article is to reflect opinion polling, not some ostensible historical merit. A party doing worse in the opinion polls should simply not have a table while another one doing better does not, especially when the percentage being excluded as a result is so significant. 過労死 (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, while the Lib Dems are doing bad now, they weren't so bad in 2010 or 2011. In fact, they have been surpassed by UKIP just recently, and sometimes UKIP still falls below the Lib Dems. I may agree to add UKIP if it continues to do so well, but never to replace the Lib Dems by them (we can't have Lib Dem on some tables while leaving them out in others. It's one way or the other). Impru20 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that logic then show bias towards a specific party, ie. the Lib Dems? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be about pure information and not bias? If the information show that UKIP is rated higher in opinion polls (what this article is about), it should be either included in the table or replace the Lib Dems with the UKIP. For consistency then, other similar such tables should also be updated and not be shied away from in the interest of either bein bias or lazy. Thank you. The joyous one (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

New format

As of recently, I've modified a bit the tables in order to make them more visually attractive. The party colours are now the party ones, not just 'blue', 'red' or 'yellow'. Since the table and font sizes have been reduced, new space for a % lead column was available. Impru20 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather have it as it was (but with colour changes, obviously) and I would quite like consistency on this article with the polling article for 2005-2010, preferably in this format. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As it was, but how exactly? Keep the lead column (to keep consistency with 2005-2010) and resize it back to its original size? Remove all of it altogether? Impru20 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got a idea for it. Resizing it back to its former size, while applying the colour changes to the 2005-2010 article. Impru20 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Forget the appearance, that's the least of this article's worries. UKIP now has to have it's own table before Wikipedia is labeled Anti-UKIP.(97daviee (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC))

You know, this is not an anti-UKIP wikipedia, but it isn't 97daviee's wikipedia either. Thus, stop giving orders and to keep editing UKIP in, because first of all, a consensus must be reached. Then, enough data must be gathered for it to be a viable option. So please, patience. Impru20 (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making myself clear. I would quite like no lead column. Sorry for making you confused!! Spa-Franks (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

But why should it be removed? Other countries' election opinion polls have it, so does the 2005-2010 UK opinion polling article, and in my opinion it's a more visually and quick way to see the advantage of the first party over the second. Of course, you could argue that a reader could just do the math by himself, but if there are too many dates and too many percentages this could get confusing. Impru20 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is decided to be done, please reduce the size of the lead section drastically. At the moment, it's way too big, and looks a bit ugly (in my opinion). I think the size that you have in the above example is just perfect. – Richard BB 23:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I applied the same formula I used for the Spanish election article. The box and the font are reduced in size, thus making them more visually appealing. It also has the advantage of the table occupying less space in the article, and thus being quicker to read. For the moment I'll leave it like that until I see your opinions. Impru20 (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You have decided to change the lead table, just for appearence reasons, but knowing full well that adding a UKIP table is more important.(97daviee (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

Is it just my browser, or is the "lead" section being stretched out (width-wise) to the end of the page? It seems to be different to the above example, which has a "lead" section only as big as the number within it. Oh, and Daviee, not everyone agrees that it is more important. – Richard BB 13:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This was happening on my browser too (Firefox). I've added a width parameter into the cell which should have fixed the problem. It has with my browser, so hopefully that's fixed it universally, and tidied the table up. On a similar note, does anyone else think the 'Polling organisation/client' column could also be reduced slightly - it takes up a lot of the table, but most of it seems to be white space.Spiritofsussex (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming outrageous. You are talking about the appearance, but you aren't actually addressing the real issue of adding a UK Independence Party table.(97daviee (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC))

I believe the widening of the "lead" section is also due to someone replacing the 0% lead for the word "Tied". That said, the word takes more width to fit into the table. Before the change, it looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=492671439. And Daviee, the issue has been already assessed. Once the UKIP wins a seat in the Commons, its inclusion into the table will be discussed. Again, they have no relevance as of now, no matter what the opinion polls say. They are opinion polls after all, not the actual election results. By the same reason, someone could also argue why the Green Party is not there, or why the BNP or the SNP aren't neither. We can't have all of them in, so there must be some requirements for a party to be added. Impru20 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No wonder you haven't added a UKIP table, you don't even know how opinion polls work, they don't use seats as a measurement, they use percentages, and UKIP is ahead of the Lib Dems.(97daviee (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC))

I have perfect knowledge about how opinion polls work. That's why I know they may fail, and in fact they are not an accurate representation of what the society actually thinks. There are just too many factors out there: which polling institute did the survey (the question here would be more tied to "which ideology it has"), how large the sample size is, the kind of % they use as reference, etc. Percentages which aren't converted into seats mean little. By the way, your statement about opinion polls not using seats as a measurement is false. Just check the 2015 Spanish general election article to see some opinion polls which also include seat projections. Impru20 (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well you obvisouly don't know how opinion polls work. If you really believe opinion polls are that unaccurate, there would be no point of having this article, so you just have to put down the results of the opinion polls, and to be correct you have to add a UKIP table as UKIP is ahead of the Lib Dems.(Politico100 (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC))

It is you who don't seem to know how opinion polls work. They aren't meant to predict the future, but rather to measure the present (that's why most opinion poll-based news tend to state if general elections were held today, these would (in contrast to will) be the results. Opinion polls say what could happen, not what will happen. If you have the certainty (that is, 100% sure) that UKIP will replace Lib Dem from now on as the third political force in the UK up until the next general election, then give me a consistent source and proof for it and I will consider adding them to the table. As WP:CRYSTAL states, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; neither are opinion polls. Impru20 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Politico100, you seem to talk and behave exactly as 97daviee, and both of your user pages have a similar description. I don't know what to think about it. Impru20 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that does seem to be an interesting coincidence... I will keep my eye on it. Bkissin (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

Some links to polls for yougov in October 2011 are now dead. Should these be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.47.241 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)