Talk:Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election/Archives/2014/June

Table query
I can't help but notice that everytime I check out the graph on this website that All the major parties are about 1-2% higher than what they average out at, even the Lib/Dems considering the very low polls over the last week of 1%, failed to drag the graph line from around 9% when it should have averaged at around 5%. And then UKIP's results which should average out to a 2% increase has flatlined. Anyone can see from the results of the opinion polls that there are discrepancies. Is there some bias towards the pro EU stance with the way the table is formulated I wonder? RobHandford, 21:54, 1 June 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhandford (talk • contribs)
 * The graph is updated in the same way as the article as a whole....by a volunteer, whenever they happen to do so. It's sometimes only updates ~monthly, the current version is from the 21st May, which is why you're not seeing stuff from after that. Iliekinfo (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been the case even before the 21st May so whoever is updating the graph is not giving a true representation of the averages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhandford (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at your comments more closely I can't work out what on earth you're talking about. "even the Lib/Dems considering the very low polls over the last week of 1%"....there haven't been any recent Lib-dem 1% polls. Check the list of Poll results just below, it's thought to be complete. "And then UKIP's results which should average out to a 2% increase has flatlined." UKIP clearly hasn't flatlined, they've been growing steadily this year, particularly rapidly from March until now. IIRC the graph is done via putting the results into Excel....it's simple mathematics done by standard software, "not giving a true representation of the averages." isn't a realistic claim, no matter the level of nefariousness prescribed. I would guess you've been getting info from bad sources about low lib-dems (true, but not 1%), and rising UKIP(true), for what it's worth a decent current average by a well respected pollster who uses a more advanced system than wiki (Anthony Wells) gives them as Con:31 Labour:35 Lib-Dem:8 UKIP:16 Green:5 Iliekinfo (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Experimental table changes.
I made a significant change to layout which has been reverted with comment "Indeed the changes you have made are less reflective of the sources.", I don't understand what's meant by that. I wasn't surprised to see it reverted, or get objections...but I can't understand that one.

Current layout

My fiddling

Iliekinfo (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Giving these numbers are really just reporting what the sources say, so I'm not sure how listing all the parties are less reflective. Though, it's a question of notability vs. neutrality I guess, given that the numbers for the greens (except in the last few weeks) and nationalists are often not covered in newspaper articles describing the polls. There seems to be different viewpoints on what too include in opinion poll listings, and not really a set standard. Listings for the UK seem to be more on the "only include the largest parties" side. Personally I think it would be more fair to include the smaller parties as well if they are reported. It doesn't really hog up that much extra space, and would be a more neutral as opposed to having more arbitrary cutoff points as many articles seem to have. There was a discussion over at the EP election article about poll inclusion, and judging by it, Owl In The House (which reverted this change) is more on the side of parties should be notable to be included side. Given that there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus or consistency on this I don't know what would be most fair answer here. (There is also the issue that the polls are grouping the Green parties in E&W and Scotland together, even though they are two separate entities.) Øln (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see nothing to be gained by lumping "others" all into one column, especially as different polls seem to itemise different minor parties.Saxmund (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

graph - add others to graph
Would it be possible to add a line for 'others' to the graph?

At the moment the LDs seem to be losing support to the Greens, but just looking at the graph suggests the LDs loss is to UKIP alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.12.245 (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Odd to assume that because the LD line goes down and the UKIP line goes up, it must be a movement from the LDs to the UKIP. It is more complex than that, people will be moving around between all 4/5 main parties. Adding a catch-all "others" will tell us nothing.Saxmund (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It will show that there are more than 4 options involved. As I recall the early part of this parliament showed UKIP gaining support from 'others' before they passed the LDs.86.2.12.245 (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "the early part of this parliament showed UKIP gaining support from 'others'" How can you claim to know this? They could have been taking voters from any or all of the other parties. In any case, I would be in favour of including the Greens as the "next major party" but not an "others" line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxmund (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A piece YouGov did early in the parliament included a graph offering both a UKIP line, and an 'Others' line. Memory tells me it showed a clear inverse relationship between the two, as UKIP became the popular 'Not Con/Lab/LD' choice. Including an 'others' line provides 100% coverage, adding a 'Green' line doesn't, you're left with the same failing of the current four lines. 86.2.12.245 (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Green figures in general and Lord Ashcroft in particular
I see people have been completing Green scores for the Lord Ashcroft polls. However I we should be careful what is published on the Wiki page. Until recently he was not giving a published score for them (I think 9 June is the first but in a comment above I note that he gave a comparison with the previous week, so in effect retrospectively publishing from the 2nd). I think it is a wrong to take the figures, as they have been, from a previous table clearly marked "THIS TABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE ADJUSTMENT FOR DON'T KNOW/REFUSERS". Where they are not included in his "published VI figures" table in the main data tables, or in the Summary, I don't think we should be including them. We just don't know how much the score may have changed following the "don't know/refuser" adjustment. I am not sure if a similar point can be made for other pollsters as I haven't yet had time to check.Saxmund (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The scores for the other parties do match up with the published scores from the tables, which is why they have been taken. Also, 'THIS TABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE     ADJUSTMENT FOR DON'T KNOW/REFUSERS' means people who are unsure / refused to vote have not been allowed to change their vote (like in the other polls), not that they haven't been removed from the statistics, because they have.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.59.56 (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's one example. http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ANP-140616-Full-tables.pdf. Table 3 has Con=28, LD=7, Green=7. Table 4. the published VI, has Con=29, LD=8, Green=6.  So the figures can and do change between the tables and the published VI and it is wrong to take Green figures from Table 3 if they haven't been itemised in the final VI table.Saxmund (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No Consensus for adding Greens - Removed forthwith
I notice that a column for the Green Party has been quietly added to the polls for 2014 with very little discussion in the absence of a lot of editors, this is not on. We have set a clear precedent that we do not add columns at a drop of a hat because of any falsely created arbitrary criteria. The fact that the Green Party are regularly scoring over 5% or whatever else is of total irrelevance, grounds for inclusion are based on more long term trends observations and indeed coverage in reliable sources. When newspapers report opinion polls does the Greens figure get reported in the headline figures all or most of the time/more often than not? No, it does not. Does the BBC's opinion polling table include a Green column for general election polling? No it does not. Have the Greens been scoring above or within the margin of error of a party that does have its own column for a substantive trend defying period of time (ie passed the flash in the pan test)? No it has not.

I am removing the Greens from this table, therefore reverting the tables format back to the last (and therefore current) established consensus and base line. This is not to be changed until the consensus changes via a much broader discussion and unless consensus is reached among a much broader selection of editors. Owl In The House (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have also added a note to the article just above the 2014 box stating that it would be a breach of consensus to try to re-add the Greens. There is no excuse for them being readded in mistake, pleading ignorance of the talk page or consensus is no longer an honest excuse. I'd like to say I am shocked by the bad practice I've seen on this issue but of course I am not as it has happened before on other articles fairly recently. Owl In The House (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The arbitrary criteria is the idea that a party should only be added if they overtake another, which is flawed on many levels. At what point would a party drop out and into the 'Other' section? If the Greens were to overtake Lib Dems in the polling, the Lib Dems would not be removed under these rules, nor would they be were they to significantly drop in percentage because no established, objective threshold exists.


 * As for coverage in 'reliable sources', the right-wing British news media, with over 50% owned by two men alone (Lord Rothermere and Rupert Murdoch), not to mention the BBC (who still lumped the Green party with 'Others' in the European Elections despite finishing above the Lib Dems) are hardly the epitome of impartiality. So much so that 50,000 people signed a petition to stop the BBC's media blackout of the Green party.


 * I, nor others who have contributed to the addition of the Green party to the table have pleaded 'ignorance to concensus'. In fact, what is ignorant is the insistence that the concensus is that the Greens shouldn't be added. The very fact we, and others prior, are having this debate evidently demonstrates that this isn't the concensus, however much you assert otherwise.


 * I am both shocked and disappointed by the inequitable underrepresentation of the Green party and the callousness these laborious edits have been treated with. The edits were made in order to create impartiality and remove arbitrariness, not to destroy it. The adamant and imperious way in which the edits have been dismissed and removed without appropriate consideration by a small group of self-appointed editors shows a complete lack of equity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.59.56 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't been very active on Wikipedia in the last couple of weeks, so I've missed much of this debate. I am concerned that Owl's strong feelings on this matter should not be seen as a consensus among other editors. I take his point that there isn't a consensus to include the Greens and so they should not be included for now, but nor do I see a consensus for the rationale he suggests. As I've said before, practice on other Wikipedia articles around polling is to include whatever information is available, to be inclusive. I am unconvinced that Owl's arguments here have a sound logic to them or are supported by basic Wikipedia policies and practices. Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have conducted some further research into Owl In The House, and have found s/he was actually pursuing a very similar cause less than a month ago to the one s/he is now rejecting - adding UKIP to the info box for the 2015 local elections. This was done despite the much-quoted 'consensus' not agreeing with the decision. One user quoted Owl In The House was 'trying to force UKIP in when clearly the concensus was against including them'. These conflicting opinions suggest that Owl In The House is using his/her own political views to manipulate the included content using a completely arbitrary viewpoint. I am also concerned that s/he is abusing his/her status as an editor to remove and completely dismiss time-consuming edits created by non-members. We cannot possibly allow content, which has taken much time and effort by members and non-members alike to create, to be removed and self-governed by an editor who is applying contrasting and politically motivated viewpoints, as that clearly defies Wikipedia's stance on impartiality and objectivity. However, I am pleased to see that these exclusive, partisan views are not shared by all the editors. 81.99.59.56 (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A warning to 81.99.59.56: You are on very shacky ground here and you are showing a total disregard to Wiki policy, especially Assuming Good Faith, you have made some false and eronious accusations about myself and this is completely unacceptable and therefore your above comments should be completely disregarded. You must apologise for and retract your above remarks. Why are your comments false? You have picked one example of a discussion regarding an info box and taken it completely out of context, you also ignore all my other involvements when it comes to info boxes and UKIP etc. Indeed, for many many months I was consistently (all be it hesitantly) against adding UKIP to United Kingdom local elections, 2014, that is until the final weeks when I thought the evidence had become compelling and I made an evidence based case. It is all there for anyone to see on the talk page, I was actually part of the consensus against adding UKIP to the info box of that article for most of that discussion. Fact. If we look at the 2015 general election, I am on the fence as to whether UKIP should be added to the info box there or not, it is not a discussion I have taken much interest in as I feel there have been more pressing discussions. I do not make "partisan edits" that favour UKIP and I am not abusing any position as an editor, you must retract that accusation forthwith, you can't go round saying things like that. If anyone is demonstrating a partisan agenda, it is those making a very shaky and inconsistent case for giving a party or parties their own column in a table.
 * With regard to the EU elections, Yes, I found myself having to police that article more then I otherwise would have liked to because we had a problem of pro-Green IP editors (such as yourself) coming on and making bold edits that breached consensus (that was on the talk page and archives). You will notice that the election results actually reflect the coverage in the article, (e.g. 3 seats is not nationally significant today, just as it wasn't when UKIP achieved it in 1999). You will also notice from the Edit History that it was Me who added the Green Party to the London only polling table for the EU elections, no one else, ME! I did this as it was a fair reflection of the current evidence and indeed the previous result. I am not going to go into detail on this page about the Greens inclusion in info boxes in other articles as all the detail is on the relevant talk pages already, it is not a discussion for this talk page, so please do not pursue it here, thank you. Aside from the deflamatory comments towards myself a lot of what has been said is conjecture and of total irrelevance e.g. you going on about the "right-wing media" and BBC, mentioning a totally irrelevant petition, so on and so forth. You need to familiarise yourself with Wiki policy and what reliable sources are.

I have closed this discussion because I want you to retract the comments, not delete them. If you could retract your comments below this section, we can consider that an end to the matter. You cannot go round assuming bad faith and making provably false allegations against established editors. I hope we don't have to escalate this. Owl In The House (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There was a clear precedent set when UKIP was added to the polls as a 'main party' in that it had to be polling for a considerable time at or within the margin of error of the lowest part on the table (which at the time was the lib dems and around 10% I believe). The fact that UKIP was rejected the first time it was proposed is similar to the position the Green party now faces. We do not know if this is just a 'flash in the pan', something that UKIP had to wait around a year to pass by consensus. This is not pro-UKIP, anti-Greens, it is treating them in the exact same way. They have not passed the benchmarks that UK had to passed yet. Possibly in around 6 months if they continue to rise in polls and poll around 10% I will support adding them, which is the same standard that UKIp had CH7i5 (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * CH7i5, I take your point, but you presume how UKIP was treated in that case was the right approach. I'm not convinced of that now having looked at polling articles for other countries. Ultimately, the decision should be made with reference to Wikipedia policy/guidelines, not a local precedent (as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). The most relevant policy here is WP:RS: we should be led by what reliable sources do. If they report the Greens, we should report the Greens. Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In regards to CH7i5's comment, I fail to see the logic in establishing a threshold as high as 10%, when the Lib Dems are polling 2% below that, yet their inclusion remains. Also, my previous post does highlight the unequal treatment given between UKIP and the Green Party by Owl In The House, so I would have to disagree that they are being treated in the same way.


 * WP:RS states that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in sources are covered, which to me seems to merit the inclusion of the Greens. 81.99.59.56 (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Following Bondegezou's comment, I have also looked at opinion polling pages for other European countries and I've discovered we are the only country operating in this extremely restrictive manner of only having four 'major' parties and 'other'.


 * Netherlands - 11 parties and 'other' (smallest party on 1-2%)
 * Sweden - 8 parties and 'other' (smallest party on 3-4%)
 * Germany - 6 parties and 'other' (smallest party on 3-4%)
 * Denmark - 9 parties (smallest party on less than 1%)


 * I fully agree with Bondegezou on the idea that we should include any information that is available and not operate in this arbitrary and confined manner, as that is what Wikipedia policy suggests and that is how every other country is operating - equally and objectively. After looking at other European countries' opinion poll pages, I think we now not only have a strong case for the Green Party's inclusion, but a case for any other party regularly scoring 1% or above, such as SNP and Plaid Cymru.


 * While I realise this would take considerable time to complete, I would be more than willing to help in the process. I also believe we should redesign the table to harmonise with those of other European countries and create a more sleek and aesthetically pleasing design. If you take a look at Sweden's table, you'll see what I'm talking about. 81.99.59.56 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The UK has a FPTP voting system, the other EU countries you cite use PR voting systems, with explicit vote share boundaries.86.2.12.245 (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If the voting system should bear any weight to the UK table, then wouldn't predicted seats be used instead of percentages? Also, the Green Party, the SNP and Plaid Cymru all have seats in parliament, so if we were to base the inclusion in the table on voting systems, their inclusion would still be warranted. 81.99.59.56 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well there's a good reason for not using projected seat totals, in that it either would constitute original research, or you would have to include a number of projections for each poll based on different models. Saxmund (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Opinion polling in the 42nd Canadian federal election page, which is also an FPTP election includes parties polling lower than the Greens are here, so there is at the very least least not a consensus on "excluding minor parties because the election is FPTP". I don't see a why there should be some arbitrary notability criteria warranting exclusion of some of the data included in the sources. The greens and SNP has seats in the House of Commons, so they are certainly notable. I would also mention that Owl In the House also insisted on not including the greens in the poll figures in the UK European parliament election this year, where the greens ended up higher than the libdems, as opposed to pages for other countries that were more inclusive. There was not a consensus for either option there either. Øln (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

My take on the argument is this. The page originally started including the "significant" parties in national UK politics, for which there would have been a fair consensus in 2010, as UKIP had only gained 3% of the vote in the recent General election. At that time there happened to be three parties of national significance. At some point UKIP's vote increased to where it was polling at or above the LibDems' vote so it was included. That seems reasonable to me: to quote three parties and "others" is a clear implication that the "other" parties are less significant than the three being quoted individually, so if one of the "others" grows to equal or superior to one of those three, it should be included. Some posters think we have a policy of quoting the "Top 4" and therefore if the Greens are included, then one has to drop out. Not so, note that when UKIP was included there was no movement to leave out the LDs. There are a few good reasons for this. One is that it would mean deleting their data back to at least the beginning of that year, and then you might have to add them back in again if they go past UKIP again (as still might happen). Another is that we are starting to make judgments about who should and shouldn't be in, rather than letting the numbers decide it. I think it is an iterative process: you start with X parties, you may have to occasionally add one if it catches up with one of the other parties, you never delete one until the GE. For the GE 2020 page we decide again how many parties should be shown initially, based on GE votes. FWIW I think that as the Greens have shown since the EP elections that they are polling around the same level as the LDs in some polls (not all, Populus still have them on 3%) they have just about shown enough significance to be added to the 2014 table. However they probably haven't done it for a significant period of time yet so I am reasonably content to either include them or leave them out at the moment. Maybe we should set fixed criteria: eg, we will add them to the table if they are scoring equal to the LDs in at least 2 pollster's results by the start of the party conference season? Saxmund (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Saxmund, with respect, you clearly haven't read what I proposed. I did not propose the removal of Lib Dems, nor did I propose an X number of parties. I proposed a more inclusive and equal system to honour Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and inclusion of both major and minor views.


 * 81.99.59.56 have I accused you of proposing the removal of the LDs? No, I have commented on anyone (such as Ilikeinfo on this page) who assumes that if we include a party because it goes above one of the "main" parties, we then have to remove the lowest-polling "main" party. I propose we can add parties during the course of a parliament, but not remove them. And it might make it easier to remember who you are and what arguments you made if you got yourself an account and a handle, it's a bit difficult remembering a string of numbers. It's a bit difficult regarding you as "an editor" if you haven't even got yourself an account.Saxmund (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Saxmund, it's just that you added it to my comment, so I thought you were addressing me directly. Also, I am considering signing up today. 81.99.59.56 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And Owl In The House, this is exactly what I am talking about. You are going against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia in order to try and silence my views and accuse me of making 'defamatory' statements. Clearly, I couldn't 'close a discussion' as I am not a member. And as for your comment on the below subsection, do you really think 'errr duuuuuhhh' is an appropriate and courteous way to respond to one of your fellow editors? This is what I am talking about. The whole ethos Wikipedia was founded on was a community project, which can be edited by anyone. That means every editor is equal and on the same level, there is no hierarchy. Showing a complete lack of respect for me is not equality, as I have no doubt you would not say the same thing to a member, and I also have no doubt this would result in a ban or formal warning. I will be the one escalating this, and I am amazed you think it should be the other way around. I am shocked by the arrogant dismissal of others' views on these subjects and will not stand for it. It goes against what I believe and more importantly, what Wikipedia believes. 81.99.59.56 (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please read this: Assume good faith, your comments about me are a very clear breach of Wikipedia policy and what you have said about me is completely false, this can be verified by going to the discussions I refer to on the relevant talk pages. You can not go round making such accusations.
 * As far as this being "exactly what I am talking about" goes, you have once again demonstrated a lack of knowledge about what Wikipedia is and how it works. Firstly, it is pretty simple to close a discussion in the way that I just have...it's a template. I merely put it in place to preserve and highlight the comments and prevent them from being deleted so that they couldn't be quietly removed. When a discussion descends into personal attack, it is wise to end that part of the discussion and ask for the personal attack to be withdrawn before said discussion should continue, this is what I have done. I am adhering to Wikipedia policy, you are not. I don't see how you can deny making defamatory statements and accusations about myself it's all in black and white above. You need to apologise for this. I notice Øln has thought twice about what they said about me and has removed their comments. Since were not actually meant to remove things from talk pages, I will be putting it back with a line through it.
 * Re you whining about not having an account....there's nothing to stop you getting one, it takes seconds. If you do get an account though, be sure to make it clear on both User pages that your IP address and your account are the same person as that would be yet another breach of Wikipedia's rules. Yes, Wikipedia is a community project with clear guidelines, you seem not to understand or to deliberately not want to understand what those guidelines are. I point you in the direction of Wikipedia policy, showing you to be in breach of it but you ignore it. You seem to be showing symptoms of Cognitive dissonance.
 * As for you trying to make out that I have been rude or whatever else it is frankly a bit rich and a bit of a stretch. My comment "...errr duuuuh" was not directed at anyone, it was in relation to a hypothetical argument that I referred to that no one had actually made in this thread. According to your logic I was being rude to a figment of my imagination, mildly so as well, you on the other hand have leveled some very clear accusations which you need to withdraw as you have put yourself in breach of Wiki policy by continuing to refuse to apologise you are making the matter worse for yourself.
 * One thing I will concede on, is that I was perhaps a bit firm when it came to making the edits etc. The reason being is because we have had just so many cyber-Greens coming on and making edits against consensus, edit warring and even resorting to sockpuppetry via multiple IPs, so they can get Wikipedia to be how they want it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is here to reflect what policy states are reliable sources in a fair and non partisan manner. There was once a time when Wikipedia had a problem with proUKIP editors being forceful with their agenda, its now the Greens turn and Green IP editors are behaving in much the same way and in some instances are even more unpleasant towards other editors, you are not a great advert for your cause. Please retract those allegations or I will have to take this further. I am not here to make partisan edits and I am not a pro-UKIP editor or an anti-Green editor as you suggest, indeed I have provided evidence that shows otherwise. I don't see how its any of your business but I am not a member of any political party and I hold no loyalties or affiliation with any party, indeed I have voted for candidates of numerous different parties/non parties over the last few years. Your accusations and manner are unacceptable and have no place on Wikipedia, please retract your accusations and comments, as Øln has done. Owl In The House (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been advised by Wikipedia to take this to the |Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. 81.99.59.56 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realise I can see your edit history and talk page? "Wikipedia" hasn't "Advised" you to do anything but yes I am happy to follow this procedure before reporting your IP address. Owl In The House (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about my talk page? I emailed them directly, so yes, "Wikipedia" has "advised" me, no need to be so incredulous. 81.99.59.56 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My goodness me, you do realise you took that to the wrong place, this is yet another reason why it is important you familiarise your self with Wikipedia policy. I really haven't time to chase this up properly but if this continues I will report it properly myself. Owl In The House (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)