Talk:Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1

Justification
I'd suggest that this article would be justified if any such polls actually existed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There's one there. More will come, on a regular basis.  DrArsenal (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And if it was less than 4 years and 360 days until the next one... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It does make you wonder with all the effort on the previous article to what appears to be regarded in the press as a flawed system we need to detail every poll for the next five years in such detail if at all? MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The only poll that turned out to be accurate was the exit poll published on the night of the election itself. Don't you think there's a lesson there? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a lesson here, but perhaps not one relevant to Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Reliable sources go on printing polling results. These go on attracting extensive interest from political parties, commentators, academics, journalists and the public at large. Ergo, it makes sense for Wikipedia to capture and record the results of such polls, and as long as there are editors happy to do that task, I don't see how it's bothering anyone else!
 * What we should make of such polls is another matter, but one that falls foul of WP:OR and WP:NOTAFORUM. Bondegezou (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's true that the polls for the last General Election were not as good at predicting the outcome as they had hoped. The polls had Conservatives about 3% too low and Labour about 3% too high compared with the result - in each case, at the outer edge of the margin of error.  The BPC is holding an inquiry, and we can expect changes in methodology that will attempt to reduce the gap.  But that doesn't make polling worthless.  The polls did correctly predict that LibDem support had dropped dramatically from 5 years ago, that UKIP support had increased, that SNP support had increased to such an extent that they would win a large majority of seats in Scotland and that Green support would increase - the polling record of the last 5 years even shows us when that happened.  ...and I came to the page to see whether there is any evidence _yet_ for my hunch that the abysmal showing of the LibDems will lead to a further fall in support for them.  There is more to be looked at than a prediction of who will win the next election.  DrArsenal (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
Won't there be any polls for Northern Ireland, or why isn't there a column for them? --Maxl (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Polling in Northern Ireland is infrequent. Something can be added when we actually get our first NI poll. Bondegezou (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ipsos Mori sample sizes
Re: the edit by 92.17.196.117 on 26 July, should we be only listing the headline figure sub-sample when reporting voting intention? I think for other polling companies we're reporting the full base sample sizes every time. Returningofficer (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we usually list the full base sample size. Bondegezou (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

SNP Polling Figures
As some pollsters regard the SNP and Plaid Cymru as one bloc, would it make sense to have either a column for Plaid Cymru (so joint figures can have merged columns) or a joint "Nationalist" column (as opposed to an SNP column)? This would avoid having to have a note saying " combines support for the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru in its headline voting intention figures."
 * Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I too agree. (Except for Scottish or Welsh polls, of course.) But is it possible to aggregate these figures in all cases? --Wavehunter (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with a Plaid column is that in GB wide polls their share is likely to remain static in the *% to 2% range due to the relatively small Welsh portion of most sample sizes, making the usefulness of including such a column questionable. It should be possible to obtain a pure Ipsos Mori SNP figure from examining the tables rather than the headline figures - I don't know if that would be a more preferable option? Returningofficer (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That would probably be better.
 * I've edited the table so that the Ipsos Mori figures now link to the data tables rather than the headline figures, giving a specific SNP figure. For future reference the relevant data table (at present) seems to be Table 4. Returningofficer (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Graphical summary and the SNP
Shouldn't the SNP be on the graph? They are polling of the same order as the Greens and sometimes ahead of them. Saxmund (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I just came here with the same question! The graph was uploaded by User:Pi - I'll prompt him/her!--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason I didn't put the SNP in is because they are nationally on 5% of the vote or so, which isn't all that indicative of how well they do, when in reality they're polling 40-50% but in Scotland only. I'm open to change it though if most people think that's best. Pi        (Talk to me!  ) 06:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can see the point - though it's not like the vote of the other parties is spread evenly across the country either. While the SNP are consistently polling at >2-3% I think they're worth having there. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with including the SNP on the graph. Understand that we're unlikely to see much movement in their polling figures, however I feel that as we're including them in the GB-wide tables it makes sense to display them as well. It's also what seems to happen on the Canadian opinion polling pages with the Bloc Québécois. Returningofficer (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While the SNP seem to be polling as high as, or even slightly higher than, the Greens, it seems appropriate to include them (permanently), even if there is unlikely to be much movement in GB-wide terms. The argument for adding UKIP and latterly the Greens in the previous page was that they were polling as well as, or better than, the LibDems. Thanks to Pi for updating the graph. Saxmund (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Saxmund has, I think, been over-simplifying the history of criteria for inclusion in the previous page - certainly polling as well as, or higher than, a party already listed was ONE argument, but I don't think it was ever taken to be conclusive: it was only when other arguments were relevant too, that there was inclusion.
 * As it is, the only problem I see in including SNP in this graph is that some pollsters don't report SNP figures separately from a combined SNP/Plaid Cymru figure, but if we can get reliable data without O.R., I don't see any problem. DrArsenal (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Time to remove the greens from graph?
No longer beating the lib-dems. 78.144.221.190 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The decision was never as simple as just whether Greens were ahead of LDs or not. What we should be doing is following Wikipedia policy and following reliable sources.  So, 78.144.221.190, can you point to reliable sources that do give all of Lab/Con/UKIP/LD/SNP but NOT Greens current polling?  DrArsenal (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus, as far as I remember it, was to include every party individually listed by the pollster in their detailed table, i.e. an inclusive approach. If the Greens are still recorded by the pollsters, and I believe they are, we should report them. Bondegezou (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Consensus changes. When it was UKIP the standard was emphatically 'not until they pass the lib-dems', obviously this is out of date. So when're the BNP & respect being added to the graph? 78.144.26.65 (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Greens are still consistently polling above the margin of error, unlike BNP or Respect which, when included in tabs at all, only very rarely get anything other than an asterisk. Additionally, as much as Green support may have fallen, the figure itself remains significant in terms of highlighting a decline in support since the election. If at the start of the 2016 polling table the party's support has drifted into consistently insignificant territory, there may be a case for rethinking the party's inclusion in the new table, but for now I see no reason for removing them. Returningofficer (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I was refering to Bondegezous recollection of consensus, but seriously wiki should reflect reliable sources: pollsters give headline figures only for the big 4, all newspapers & the BBC follow, and ofcom list the same 4 as significant. I can't see any justification for the current state of the graph. The argument for including the Greens was made ad nauseum on the basis that they were level with the lib-dems, which (IMO self evidently) is an argument without merit. wiki should either follow RS, or have a precise unbiased qualifying standard. The current system is A: there used to be 3 clear parties, B:when a 4th clear party emerged in RS people argued against its inclusion (raising the bar as needed) until it overtook the smallest of the old 3, C:the smallest of the old 3 shrank to briefly the level of a small 5th party, which spawned an incessant argument for the 5th parties inclusion on an obviously fallacial 'fairness' point. 6th small local party grew to the level of 5th small party, and was added on the basis of 'doesn't make sense, but what's the harm?'. Changing the listed parties at year end makes sense, to stop them keep flashing in and out....but only if there's clarity on how a party qualifies. 78.144.26.65 (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I just checked & IDRC, some polls lump GB nationalists in together, meaning the 'SNP' figure listed in the table is often just plain wrong, being both not given & contradicted by the source. I don't know if the current grapher is aware of which polls to ignore, but either way the table is wrong. 78.144.26.65 (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not the case at all that polling companies only give the 'big 4' headline figures: see for example YouGov Ipsos MORI and ComRes. The issue of SNP polling figures has already been discussed on this page - see discussions above. Where a headline figure gives a combined nationalist score, the practice has been to extract the SNP figure from the detailed polling tables. On the more general point of inclusion, I think we need to be careful not to drift too much into questions of fairness or whether party x/y deserves inclusion - it's ultimately more a question of whether the inclusion of a party adds or subtracts from the article. If I had to suggest criteria for inclusions, I would argue that a party should be included in any given year's table if the following criteria are met: 1) the party is regarded as significant by substantial elements of the media/political world (for 2015, inclusion in debates would meet this criteria) and 2) the party is polling at a meaningful level for at least a portion of the year in question. Returningofficer(talk) 07:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

78.144.26.65 is going back to arguments I thought long since settled. More recent consensus embraced the idea that we report whatever the pollsters report, reflecting practice on non-UK polling articles. Take a look at polling articles for forthcoming elections in Germany and Spain, or the recent election in Greece. Bondegezou (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 78.144.26.65 "pollsters give headline figures only for the big 4, all newspapers & the BBC follow". Which pollsters, when?  Which articles in newspapers, please?  Can you provide links?  Which BBC stories - are they on the website?  Returningofficer indicates in the opposite direction with real evidence, while so far all we have had from 78.144.26.65 is unverifiable generalities which cannot possibly amount to evidence for a change in what Reliable Sources do. DrArsenal (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Survation - UK-wide poll
I've just added a new poll from Survation to the GB table. While it looks very much like a standard poll (and appears to have been treated as such by general media sources), upon close inspection of the polling tables it unusually appears to include a small number of respondents from Northern Ireland. As a stop-gap measure I've added a footnote to make it clear that it's not a standard GB-wide poll, but I wonder what the general consensus was on this? Should it be moved to a new UK-wide section? Returningofficer (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably this was done because the main aim of the poll was the EU referendum. For now, I think your approach is sensible of including a footnote. If more like this crop up, then we can re-think. Bondegezou (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

problem with graph
the graph doesn't seem to include the latest poll figures and those it does include don't seem to be plotted properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.73.109 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Missed one or two?
ComRes Daily Mail Political Poll November 2015. 217.38.99.110 (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also on the Opinion Bee list but missing here: 22-Sep-15 Survation / Huffington Post. 217.38.99.110 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And just while I'm in OCD mode, the fieldwork for the September Ipsos MORI / Evening Standard poll was done from the 19th to the 22nd, not the 19th to the 23rd. 217.38.99.110 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the Survation and ComRes polls. Saxmund (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not just missed. Several polls have previously been included which are now missing! I recall there being survation polls in which Labour trailed by double-figure percentages, but these have all now been removed. Difficult to identify the specific point at which this was done because a flurry of edits hides the change, but could do with someone taking the time to go over and fix this so everything's includedWikiditm (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the results from some of the polls are now wrong. Table now needs significant review.Wikiditm (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I just came here to look something up and noticed this. The most recent poll (Ipsos-MORI 12-14 Dec), for example, should be Con 37 Lab 33, but has been edited to Con 34 Lab 36. Why the anon editor in question decided to make this huge slew of incorrect adjustments changes I don't know, but whatever the cause, they were (thankfully) so blatant about it that said changes jumped out at once. Loganberry (Talk) 17:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've tried to correct the errors introduced today, but am not sure I've got them all. --Wavehunter (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving average
How many results are being averaged? How can you calculate a moving average from the first result? 217.38.103.51 (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in knowing the algorithm being used to average polls, just to be transparent really. Saxmund (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ? --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, at the moment it is the last 10 polls, I was intending to make it last 30 days but at the beginning there just weren't enough polls being made. Pi        (Talk to me!  ) 16:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up, Pi. Agree with Saxmund that this should be spelled out in the article. 217.38.99.110 (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes definitely, there have been comments below from people saying it is incorrect so would be good to have the methodology available so it can be checked. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Pi if it is ok with you I will add into the graph caption: includes polls up to 20th November. Moving average calculated from last ten polls (I think thats the last poll!) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Absolutelypuremilk. That would help.  DrArsenal (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Panelbase 8-14 Jan
I have added the Panelbase poll which has been reported by ukpollingreport, Opinion Bee and Britain Elects. However I can't find figures for the SNP or Greens, or work out how to derive them from the tables. Can anyone help? Saxmund (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why the Westminster voting intentions have been left off. Perhaps email them and ask? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I did email them and had a swift reply from Ivor Knox (MD), the tables have now been updated so I have been able to put the figures in the usual format. Saxmund (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Saxmund. Now I'm glad I didn't get round to emailing them!  DrArsenal (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

England Polls
I've noticed that the England polls listed in the sub-national polling section is including sub-samples (from GB-wide polls) from ComRes. There are about 1,500 respondents from England in these polls, but they're not weighted to England's demographic - they're weighted to the demographic of Great Britain as a whole. I'm wondering: should this sub-sample data should be included in that list? The Survation poll listed is an England-only poll, so it's weighted for England's demographic. If yes, a Survation poll (derived from a Scotland-only poll) has a Scotland sub-sample where over 1,000 people were asked (weighted down to count for 180 respondents, however) - should this be included in the list?
 * I've got no firm opinion either way, but it's worth noting that this approach was taken to derive England-only results for the 2015 page with no objections. The argument is presumably that England makes up such a large proportion of the electorate that any error is very small, and probably within the margin of error. Saxmund (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wales only chart
Is there a similar Wales only chart being created? I see we have the data, but not the chart? A similar one for Scotland only would also be appreciated. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There are only four polls for Wales so far and two for Scotland. When there are a few more then I will make a chart. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There would be far more point in having one at National_Assembly_for_Wales_election,_2016#Regional_Vote_.28AMS.29, based on the polling there (to parallel the one that already exists for polling for the Scottish Parliament election). DrArsenal (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the offer!
 * Both need doing, but as this is the UK GE, I stuck to that. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

ICM Poll
Today ICM released a poll with Tory 36.4, Labour 35.6, which rounds to Con 36, Lab 36 as shown. However the Tory lead was 0.8%, which rounds to 1%. Should we have for the lead either: Tory lead of 1%, Tory lead of 0% or Tied (clearly we can have explanatory notes for all of these scenarios). I put it in as tied originally to avoid confusion but now think that Tory lead of 1% is best way to go, as a note can be put in to explain why this is the case even though the headline figure is that the two parties are tied. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

How often is the graph updated?
I'm just asking, since the updates seem to be rather infrequent at the moment. Also, I am curious as to how the graph is created? What software is being used? FloppyCatfish96 (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)FloppyCatfish96


 * It is done by Pi (see the "Moving Average" section above. Perhaps post on their talk page? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * can the graph not be made to auto-update when data are added to the table?


 * The graph is done on Excel/Numbers (for Mac). I have made a new version as I don't think Pi is active on Wikipedia any more. I am working in Numbers and I have not been able to extend the moving average line to the most recent polls (it works off the last five polls and appears to place the line at the start of the five rather than at the end) so if anyone knows how to to do it properly then it would be much appreciated. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks Absolutelypuremilk: it is really good to have the graph updated. Can I ask, though, that it returns to a ten-poll basis?  The five-poll basis gives too much noise.  Thanks.  DrArsenal (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately as I wrote above, I can only get the line to extend to the first of the points it is taking the moving average from. If I make it ten points, then the line stops significantly before the points end and it looks very strange. When the next poll comes in then I will upload a ten-poll graph (and then revert) so you can see what I mean. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

could the average of the last ten polls be included as an additional column in the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.247.113 (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

New Polling Graph Proposal
Hello everyone,

I've created a new proposal for the polling graph, just to clean it up and make it more clear and informative. I can't upload the image directly as I haven't signed up here yet, so I've uploaded it online (link below).

2020 Poll Graph

I'll now outline how the graph is composed and why I have chosen the methods I have.

The graph is made up of a moving average of the aggregate percentages of each polling company (rather than each poll) that release a new poll at least once per month. Those companies are YouGov, Ipsos Mori, ComRes, ICM, Survation, Panelbase and Opinium. I have chosen to use polling companies rather than individual polls because each company posts new polls at different rates, meaning under the current method, a pollster that may generally overstate a party's support, but posts a new poll every day, could skew the moving average of individual polls. However, under the new system, a polling company which may only post a new poll every two weeks will be given equal weighting to one that posts a daily poll.

As you can also see, there is a semi-transparent line behind each of the aggregate lines. This is a long-term trendline, which allows one to see whether a party is performing above or below their long-term trendline at any point.

I have also used two sets of gridlines, one for each axis, with the x-axis gridlines highlighting a period of 3 months. Again, this allows one to quickly access more information without cluttering the graph.

This is only a suggestion, but feel free to use this current version and get back in touch for the new graph as I update it.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:385:151:0:0:1:1BB (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion, I agree it would be helpful to see a long-term trend line but I think it is also helpful to see the individual polling points and I think it looks a bit cluttered with both of these. This is probably going to be down to personal preference as to whether we stick with the current one (possibly with gridlines on the x-axis and/or with a white background), move to your suggestion or to have both of them, but this may cause confusion, especially if they are not updated at the same time. Comments from other editors would be much appreciated. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:2A01:388:385:151:0:0:1:1BB. I can see multiple advantages to your version.  I like the fact that the line is thinner, and I think there is merit in the idea of compensating for differing frequency of polls by different pollsters.  I also think the trend lines may be valuable, but we must have clarity about how they are calculated, and we need some way for them to take account of trends changing direction.  If you look at [[File:UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png]] you will see that the Conservatives clearly had declining support 2010-May 2013, but that decline stopped in May 2013, while Labour had increasing support May-Dec 2010 and declining support after mid 2012.  In either case, no meaningful trend line could be drawn for the entire period from May 2010 to May 2015.
 * Between User:2A01:388:385:151:0:0:1:1BB's, the current graph and the graph at File:UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png, it is the 2010-15 graph which I prefer - it has the individual polling points, but they are feint/small enough to not obscure the graph in the way that the current graph allows them to. If a way can be found to include a longer-term trend line, in the way proposed, that works, that would be good.  DrArsenal (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback Absolutelypuremilk and DrArsenal. I've made an amendment to the graph, based on your suggestions. I've removed the 'long-term' trendline and replaced it with the individual polling results. I think this works a lot better than my previous one. Link is below:


 * UK 2020 Poll Graph (New) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.170.197 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My feeling is this is an improvement on the graph currently presented, but is too jagged. It needs to be taking rolling means over a longer period for each pollster, I think.  DrArsenal (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've taken the feedback on board, and I have to say I agree it is a little too jagged. I have modified it so it is now a 2-polls-per-pollster rolling average (for the pollsters who conduct a new poll at least once a month). For the earlier parts, where a pollster hadn't yet conducted 2, I inputed the GE results as a placeholder where relevant, preventing the graph from getting really jagged at the beginning.


 * UK 2020 Polls (2 Poll Rolling) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:385:151:0:0:1:125 (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Undent - I reckon that looks a lot better, muchly thanks to the thinner line. Is it just me, or does the current graph have some proper weirdnesses? eg, around september it looks as though the UKIP line is temporarily travelling back in time. 80.42.16.12 (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * On my graph (the one that is currently being used) I have increased the number of polls that the moving average uses (to remove some of the weirdness) and decreased the thickness of the line. I will upload the new version when the next poll comes out. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've updated my graph so it's now up to date; the consensus seems to be that this should be used, so feel free to use it, and I will update it frequently.
 * 2020 Poll Graph 5.151.170.197 (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

19–22 Mar Ipsos MORI
Not sure what the rationale is for adding Plaid to SNP here when the pollster reports the figures separately. SNP 5% and Others 2% would be more useful. 217.38.116.87 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Someone tidied up the table without fixing this, so I did it myself. The Plaid vote is counted under Other rather than under SNP in the earlier Ipsos MORI results. 217.38.116.87 (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Budget and EU referendum dates
The Budget and date that the PM announced the EU referendum have been included in here as notable dates, I don't think that they are notable in relation to Westminster polling and don't think they should be included in the table, what do others think? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Take out both: I thought we'd already agreed to remove things like that! I'll do it now. Bondegezou (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed both. An IP put both back, arguing we've had budgets/autumn statements before. I've re-removed the referendum announcement (as it's not a budget/autumn statement).
 * I can't remember what the previous consensus decision was on budgets...? Opinion poll tables for other countries never include any sort of equivalent. I see no reason to include them: it's editorialising/OR. I'd take everything except actual election results out of the tables, but what do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd personally include the budget, but keep the referendum date announcement out of the general election polling. I'd include: Elections/Important By-Elections, Changes in Party Leadership, Budgets/Other important statements, TV Debates and Other events that have a substantial impact on party support. The Events should purely say what the event was - such as "United Kingdom Budget 2016" rather than including any additional information.
 * I would agree with including the budget, considering the very noticeable effect it has had on the opinion polls. Tidus mi2 (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you know that it has had a "very noticeable effect ... on the opinion polls." User:Tidus mi2? Certainly recent opinion polls have a dramatically lower Conservative lead than those prior to early March.  But is that really caused by the budget?  The 11–13 Mar ICM/The Guardian poll was the first to show something different from what had been happening before, and that was before the budget.  So, perhaps the cause was something else?  It might be it really was the budget (in large part), but we don't know this, and to include the budget row on the grounds that the budget has had a "very noticeable effect ... on the opinion polls" appears to me to be commentary and editorialising, not encyclopedic reporting.  By the very nature of decisions about what to include, there is an implicit "this is more important than other events" just in the inclusion of the event.  DrArsenal (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Navigation template
I think it would be useful to have a navigation template for this and the other General Election opinion poll articles. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done this now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Events in opinion poll tables
I'm wondering whether we should have specific criteria for including important events in the opinion poll tables? It just strikes me that we now have Jeremy Corbyn's election listed separately in the GB, Scotland & Wales tables, but the summer budget and Tim Farron's election appear only in the GB table. Conversely, there's no mention of Kezia Dugdale's election as Labour's leader in Scotland. Should all important 'GB-wide' events be reproduced in the Scotland & Wales sections, or is it worth only listing specific Scotland & Wales related events? Or indeed, given the rarity of Scottish and Welsh polls at this stage in the cycle, is it worth including events at all in those sections? Returningofficer (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am strongly against most "events" in these tables. They become far too subjective, in terms of what to include and what not to include. Opinion poll tables for other countries usually don't have any events at all: e.g. Next Australian federal election. Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would remove Corbyn's election from the Scottish and Welsh tables, and add Kezia Dugdale's election to the Scottish table. You're quite right, though, that the inclusion criteria are fairly subjective; we could try to draw up a list of what to include and what to exclude, but it could easily be overtaken by events. --Wavehunter (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at equivalent polling tables for Australia, Poland, Italy, India, Germany, Greece, Canada and Spain. None of them showed any events in their polling tables (other than election results). I say we should do the same. Anything else is editorialising/WP:OR. If there are marked shifts in polling, that reliable sources describe as being causative, then those can be described in accompanying text. But let's stop adding in "events" into polling tables at the whims of individual editors. Bondegezou (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Requiring events to have been identified as signalling a shift in support would keep the focus on polling and prevent the tables from simply degenerating into timelines of political events. Returningofficer (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would we then have to define what constitutes 'a marked shift in polling'? I think it will be fairly easy to find text in broadsheet newspapers saying this policy or that gaffe led to a fall or rise in support for party X. --Wavehunter (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's as common as you think, but if we can find reliable source discussion of polling shifts, I'm all for including that in some accompanying text separate to the table. We should be trying to define as little as possible and let ourselves be guided by what reliable sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced that tables should NEVER have more "events" than polls, and as such would say there is currently a problem with Scotland and Wales.
 * I can see the merit of the suggestion that events should have been identified by RS as causing a shift in support. I don't think there is any problem in this only being possible retrospectively, because until that data is available, any event that is sufficiently important will be fresh enough in the memory/news sites for those interested to know of it well enough anyway.
 * However I see a problem. Often apparently similar events don't cause a shift in the polls - for example most budgets don't, but the "omnishambles" budget was widely reported as having done so.  Only including the events that are reported in RS as causing a shift in support itself gives a misleading impression as to how likely it is that events will cause a shift (indeed, I suspect that in fact "reliable sources" when written by journalists rather then political scientists tend themselves to over-report likelihood, reporting things to have been caused by a single "obvious" event at about the right time, when in fact the causation was more complex or not/mis-understood).  DrArsenal (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The solution then, I suggest, is to remove events from the polling tables and to have a section of text discussing, based on good quality RS, shifts in the polling over time. That is, the focus should not be on the events: the focus should be on the polling, and if polling shifts, we can discuss any issues (be they specific events or longer term issues, like a recovering economy) that are thought to be related. Bondegezou (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternatively we can continue to include a small number of major political events that may cause cause a shift in polling (or, in the case of elections, signify that one is taking place). Then we are not editorialising. The effect on the GB table where historically there have been a lot of polls is to punctuate the table and help the reader to look for trends. It is a shame that there are more events than polls in the Scottish and Welsh tables but I don't see it as too much of a problem. Saxmund (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, Saxmund, you don't see it as too much of a problem. But this page is here to compile a list of the headline results of opinion polls.  The Scotland/Wales sections just don't meet that spec.  At the moment they are a list of GB political events punctuated with the odd opinion poll.  And most of those events are repeats of events mentioned at other places on the same page.  I would advocate changing Scot/Wales to only list events not listed in the GB wide table, unless it is an event in Scot/Wales with wider impact, such as a parliamentary by-election.  DrArsenal (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with that as well, there are so few non-GB polls at the moment that it is looking a little silly. Saxmund (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Panama Papers scandal seems to me exactly the sort of event that should be included in the table given that it involves the Prime Minister and his family. 193.113.37.9 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. Opinion poll articles for other countries do not include such notes: even the Icelandic parliamentary election, 2016 doesn't and the Panama Papers have been much more significant there! It is editorialising and original research for us to presume what does and does not influence polling and to insert such notes. Bondegezou (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see how that might be true if it's always done on an adhoc basis. Which is why a good set of criteria should be established. As as frequent user of such pages for polls I actually find the event punctuation on the UK page to be very helpful and I think a robust set of tests for inclusion would be better than a blanket ban on event inclusion.213.1.8.24 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you like to suggest some? I feel any such tests need to abide by WP:V/WP:RS/WP:DUE, which probably means citations demonstrating a link to subsequent polling...? Bondegezou (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Elections and by-elections seem reasonable and not controversial. What about any major scandal (i.e. multiple major news sources all citing it as a scandal) involving either the Prime Minister (and other major cabinet positions?) or the leader of the opposition - we could define who is "in" and "out" in terms of inclusion. Major national events, e.g. terrorist attacks, the Queen dies, Thatcher rises from her grave in zombie form... 213.1.8.24 (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to enter the conversation so late, but I'd love to add my "two pence", so to speak. :)
 * I'm certainly on the fence regarding adding events to the table. If they are to be added, I think it should be used for leadership elections and by-elections, and events that drastically change poll numbers. Think about the last election: if you looked at the opinion polls for the last election, you'd wonder what happened to the LibDems between the two elections. I am fine with any decisions made, however.Bkissin (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is what does drastically change poll numbers? The explanation for the LD's decline was simply them entering Govt with the Conservatives, and the coalition deal they struck.  One event row in 2010.  Yet every year, dozens of event rows were/are proposed.  They can't all have a drastic effect on the poll numbers.  And we can only try guessing what has caused a drastic shift in polling numbers after several months (when it has become clear that such a shift has been sufficiently substantial and lasting).  And even then, there is a danger that co-incident events may be attributed as the cause for a shift in polling numbers, when they weren't the cause.  DrArsenal (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Very good point, though I was also considering them turning back on the tuition hike to be a pivotal point in their support as well, though that's neither here nor there. I think that in many respects (though this sounds like I'm contradicting myself) is that us choosing what events warrant inclusion or analysing which events drastically changed poll numbers is close to both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. Perhaps the key events can be added after the election, once the punditry have decided what the definitive events were. If anything, leadership changes should be on there. Bkissin (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Retrospectively assessing what "drastically changes" poll numbers would constitute research. It seems much more objective to define a set of relevant events regardless of whether they are deemed import to polling numbers in hindsight. After all important political events that don't effect polling is just as interesting in some circumstances as those that do. The point is to provide a bit of context to the table. 193.113.37.9 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

New graph
Mirashhh added the following graph to replace the current one, but it was reverted. As far as I can tell, the main differences are that it uses vertical gridlines, and that it only runs to shortly after the final poll. What do other editors think about these two differences? I made the current graph and I think it works better, but am open to change if others disagree.



Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I like your graph and prefer it over the current one. What's your method? Would it be possible to have a bit more smoothing? Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I made the graph which is currently shown in the article, using Numbers (Mac's version of Excel). Mirashhh made the one I have added to the talk page above (Presumably using Excel or Numbers). For either graph it is possible to smooth it, but for my graph it is slightly more complicated. If you want the running average of ten polls, then Mirashhh's graph appears to start plotting the running average before there have been ten polls, i.e. when there have been four polls it takes the average of those four polls, but for my graph it waits until there have been ten polls before it starts to calculate the running average, and then plots the running average starting at the first of those ten polls, meaning there is a gap at the end. You can't really tell in the graph currently shown, but if you reduce the dates shown as I have done below, you can really see it.

Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I like both graphs about equally, so I think Absolutelypuremilk's should remain (should he want to continue to keep updating it!) as a recognition of the work he has put in so far. As a side note - thank you! I find this to be one of the most useful UK politics resources available, and I regularly check it. Atshal (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more statistical sense to show the running average up to and including the most recent result? I.e. so the average would only start at the tenth data point, leaving a gap at the start, but no gap at the end. Showing the average on (Date 1) that takes account of data up to and including (Date 10) seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. But since you're putting all the hard work in, i guess i'm ultimately happy with whatever you choose. I'd also like to thank you for the effort you put in, i find it a very useful and helpful resource. Julianhall (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just adding my post from above into here, as it's probably more relevant in this section. I've updated my graph (which includes the most recent results in the moving average). Again, feel free to use this; I think it is clearer and more reliable (two polls per pollster running average, reducing any particular pollster bias) than the current graph being used, but ultimately that's up to everyone else to decide.
 * Poll Graph (5 April 2016) 5.151.170.197 (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Julianhall I agree that would make more sense but I don't know how to get Excel or Numbers to do that! talk can I ask what you use to produce this graph? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty confident i could get Excel to do it, but i don't know Numbers at all.Julianhall (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you manage to, let me know! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

the mirashhh graph is much better and should be added to the main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:882:F00:CC6F:66E4:23EA:E9CB (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am completely convinced that the trend line should be to the right, as in the mirashhh graph: otherwise, we have a trend line that appears to reflect events in the future, which is illogical. The vertical (y axis) location of the trend line should be determined by the poll reported at the same position on the x axis, and previous polls included to smooth the line (the number and selection of those polls to be as agreed by the consensus of editors here, so long as that consensus is in conformity with wp policies).  It should not be determined by the poll reported at the same position on the x axis, and polls that were in the future at that date on the y axis.  DrArsenal (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a consensus that Mirashhh's graph is better, so when Mirashhh produces a new graph then that can replace the current one. DrArsenal we have already agreed that this is a problem, if you could find a way on either Excel or Numbers to correct this then it would be helpful. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly biased switching of column order?
It looks like User:David.jovanovikj changed the order of the columns in the tables. Previously, they were ordered by vote share in the 2015 election (Conservatives on the left because they had the highest vote share, followed by Lab, UKIP, LD, SNP, and finally Green). I originally ordered the tables this way, and thought this was the most unbiased way of presenting the data. Recently, this ordering has been changed without explanation: the Green column has been placed to the left of the SNP column. Similarly, the tables in the Wales section have been reordered, with the Plaid Cymru column being moved to the left of the UKIP column, despite the latter receiving a higher vote share in 2015. Does anyone know why the column order was changed, and should we revert those changes? Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 21:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As User:David.jovanovikj provided no rationale at all, I have reverted for now. It might be there is a good rationale, but until we are given some indication what it is, we have no reason to accept the change.  DrArsenal (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Wales is still wrong. 92.25.59.150 (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wales has now been corrected.

London polling
Unless I'm mistaken, the polling included for London appears to be polling specific for the mayoral election, rather than a London-only poll of voting intentions for parliament. Seeing as this is a page for polling for the next general election, shouldn't other kinds of polls be excluded? I think it could be misleading, as we can't assume people will vote the same way in two different types of elections. SteveIkura (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the tables only describe the figures we've listed as "Headline Voting Intention" so it's hard to tell initially. However, YouGov only use that phrase to refer to Westminster elections in the Scotland and Wales tables - this would suggest that the figures listed are for a UK election, not for the London Assembly. Additionally, if it was for the London Assembly, I'd expect there to be two voting intention questions, as there is a constituency vote and a top-up vote - as with Scottish and Welsh elections. There is a question relating to the mayoral election in one of the polls, although this question asks voting intention with the names of the candidate, rather than purely using the name of the party. I'm fairly certain that the figure's we've listed are for the future UK election.

Important Events
I'm trying to reach a consensus on this issue. I'm proposing that we should have listed in the tables for events: I've put a note in at the top of the 2016 section regarding this for the time being, in an attempt to stop people adding things such as IDS's resignation.
 * National or sub-national elections or referenda, such as the EU Membership Referendum, the Scottish Parliament election and UK local elections.
 * By-elections.
 * Changes in party leadership for the six parties tracked, both when the outgoing leader resigns (or announces their resignation) and when the new leader is appointed.
 * Budgets and any other important statements
 * TV debates for this election.


 * Thanks, User:Clyde1998. By and large a reasonable list.  However, I would differ on some detail - should not include both "when the outgoing leader resigns (or announces their resignation) and when the new leader is appointed." (and certainly not any interim leaders, either).  One line is sufficient - a party that doesn't have the outgoing stay on until the incoming is selected doesn't deserve extra publicity just because of that fact.
 * I can also see problems - "Budgets and other important statements" allows loads of scope for arguing about which other statements.
 * By-elections - is that just Parliamentary by-elections to the parliament in question? Needs to be clearer.  I can remember a dispute about a PCC by-election.
 * "National or sub-national elections or referenda". How "sub"?  Presumably you intend a Wales-wide one to be included.  But what about (if it happened) a West Mercia Police force-wide one (in the same way as there was a Bedfordshire-wide one last year)?  Or do you mean "National or sub-national elections.  National referenda, either UK-wide or across a whole devolved assembly area"?  DrArsenal (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The way I'm interpreting User:Clyde1998's "sub-national elections or referenda" in the case of another Scotland Referendum. Whether sub-national elections in Wales, NI, or Scotland warrant inclusion is certainly up for discussion, but I don't know if it is as relevant to the national political race.
 * I'm also happy with the list. I'm glad that we've pared it down to the basics. I remember one recent election where even the Party Conferences were added to the list, which, while interesting to see the spike in support for a party following their conference, was tedious.Bkissin (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * By sub-national, I'm referring to the list that DrArsenal listed - as in a devolved Parliament/Assembly area. The Parliamentary/Assembly elections in London, Scotland, Wales and NI take place on the same day as the English local elections - so it would probably make sense to include all of those elections, as every voter in the UK is able to vote in an election on that date. Although, as Bkissin says, they'll probably have little impact on the UK-wide race - and as they'll be included under the sections for the devolved area polls anyway, they could be excluded. A potential West Mercia Police force-wide election could be included in the England section and I would only include Parliamentary by-elections. The list of elections/referenda that I think could work is:


 * 🇬🇧 United Kingdom wide
 * European Parliament election (if the UK remains a member of the EU)
 * European Union membership referendum, Any other UK-wide referendum, Any sub-national constitutional referenda (such as another Scottish independence referendum).
 * Parliamentary by-elections.
 * United Kingdom general election (shown as party vote shares)
 * United Kingdom local elections (including Police & Crime Commissioner elections)
 * Where multiple elections/referenda occur in different parts of the UK on the same day.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 England
 * Any England or UK-wide Referenda
 * UK Parliamentary by-elections, involving an English seat.
 * United Kingdom general election (shown as party vote shares)
 * United Kingdom local elections (including Police & Crime Commissioner elections)
 * London
 * Any London, England or UK-wide Referenda
 * London Assembly election
 * London Mayoral election
 * UK Parliamentary by-elections, involving a London seat.
 * United Kingdom general election (shown as party vote shares)
 * United Kingdom local elections (including Police & Crime Commissioner elections)
 * Northern Ireland
 * Any Northern Ireland or UK-wide Referenda
 * Northern Irish Assembly election
 * UK Parliamentary by-elections, involving a Northern Irish seat.
 * United Kingdom general election (shown as party vote shares)
 * United Kingdom local elections
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Scotland
 * Any Scotland or UK-wide Referenda
 * Scottish Parliamentary election
 * UK Parliamentary by-elections, involving a Scottish seat.
 * United Kingdom general election (shown as party vote shares)
 * United Kingdom local elections
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Wales
 * Any Wales or UK-wide Referenda
 * Welsh Assembly election
 * UK Parliamentary by-elections, involving a Welsh seat.
 * United Kingdom general election (shown as party vote shares)
 * United Kingdom local elections (including Police & Crime Commissioner elections)


 * In addition, I'm happy with DrArsenal's view to only list when new party leaders are appointed - rather than both when the previous leader resigns and the new leader is appointed - and I'm also opposed to having appointments for interim leaders listed. "Other Important Statements" does need clarifying, although this would need to be debated - possibly things like the Queen's Speech could be included. Other things, for example, the invasion of Iraq (to give an historical example), should be included - although things like that should probably be decided on a case by case basis.
 * I think I would want a bit more detail on the list of elections.
 * UK
 * United Kingdom local elections (including Police & Crime Commissioner elections)
 * But NOT by-elections
 * Where multiple elections/referenda occur in different parts of the UK on the same day.
 * I don't think this line should be included. All of the relevant elections should be covered anyway.  Adding it adds confusion and scope for argument.  What if there is a mayoral by-election simultaneous with a PCC by-election somewhere else, simultaneous with a referendum on changing mayoral status in a third place and some council by-elections?  None of them individually are worth having an event row for, and neither is the co-incidence of them on the same day.
 * England
 * United Kingdom local elections (including Police & Crime Commissioner elections)
 * But NOT by-elections
 * London
 * London Assembly election
 * including any London Assembly by-election
 * London Mayoral election
 * including any London Mayoral by-elections
 * United Kingdom local elections (including Police & Crime Commissioner elections)
 * Don't think these should be included unless they are LONDON elections (and not by-elections).
 * Northern Ireland
 * Northern Irish Assembly election
 * including Northern Irish Assembly by-elections
 * United Kingdom local elections
 * Don't think these should be included unless they are NORTHERN IRELAND elections (and not by-elections).
 * Scotland
 * Scottish Parliamentary election
 * including by-elections
 * United Kingdom local elections
 * Don't think these should be included unless they are SCOTTISH local elections (and not by-elections).
 * Wales
 * Welsh Assembly election
 * including by-elections
 * United Kingdom local elections (including Police & Crime Commissioner elections)
 * Don't think these should be included unless they are WELSH elections (and not by-elections).
 * Hope those thoughts help. DrArsenal (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Polling tables for every other country have the last national election results and that's it. Other articles aren't including anything: not local election results, not leadership changes, not budgets, not by-elections. That still seems to me the safest approach with respect to WP:OR and other policies. I still favour putting nothing in.
 * However, if I can't persuade you all of that(!), I thank Clyde1998/DrArsenal for putting forward/amending a list, but seek some clarification. I don't think the UK opinion polling table (which is really a GB opinion polling table) needs to cover any Northern Irish events. I don't think it needs to cover Scottish Parliamentary or Welsh Assembly by-elections. However, a Scottish Parliamentary by-election makes more sense for a Scotland-only opinion polls table.
 * I would be happiest with just other national elections (so UK local election equivalent vote shares for the May elections being shown in the UK opinion poll table, or Scottish Parliament results shown in the Scotland Westminster opinion poll table) + new party leaders. That's close to what we have now.
 * I don't think individual by-elections are helpful: they generally represent specific circumstances and tell you little about the national situation, and they rarely explain any shifts in the polls.
 * I don't think we should include Budgets. They normally make no difference to the polls (although the omnishambles budget was an exception).
 * Very few things shift the polls and those that do, tend to do so slowly. What I support and we do too little of is using good old-fashioned prose text in the article. By all means, let's have some text, supported by reliable citations, after the table, discussing the key movements in the polls and what seemed to drive them. That's the better way of doing this than by adding lots of 'events' into the table. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding DrArsenal's list, I've made some changes to the list I posted earlier based on what Dr Arsenal said (see below). The main changes are listing whether by-elections should and shouldn't be included. The only by-elections that I feel should be relevant for the lists are UK Parliamentary by-elections and a London Mayoral by-election (as it's a London-wide election shown only in the London polling list). I feel that having the devolved legislature by-elections isn't needed for opinion polls about the UK general election. I've removed the note about multiple elections, as well. Just to clarify for Bondegezou, any Northern Ireland-only election would only be included in the Northern Ireland polls list - as with Scottish and Welsh elections under this proposal - not the GB list. I would be interested in having the vote shares for other elections (I believe this happens in Spain) included, although this may be difficult to have (the extrapolated) local election results in the GB table - as all the Scottish council take place at the same time, unlike in England - not having the SNP would skew the data somewhat. This could be put in the English table though.
 * Regarding DrArsenal's list, I've made some changes to the list I posted earlier based on what Dr Arsenal said (see below). The main changes are listing whether by-elections should and shouldn't be included. The only by-elections that I feel should be relevant for the lists are UK Parliamentary by-elections and a London Mayoral by-election (as it's a London-wide election shown only in the London polling list). I feel that having the devolved legislature by-elections isn't needed for opinion polls about the UK general election. I've removed the note about multiple elections, as well. Just to clarify for Bondegezou, any Northern Ireland-only election would only be included in the Northern Ireland polls list - as with Scottish and Welsh elections under this proposal - not the GB list. I would be interested in having the vote shares for other elections (I believe this happens in Spain) included, although this may be difficult to have (the extrapolated) local election results in the GB table - as all the Scottish council take place at the same time, unlike in England - not having the SNP would skew the data somewhat. This could be put in the English table though.


 * 🇬🇧 United Kingdom wide
 * European Parliament election (if the UK remains a member of the EU)
 * European Union membership referendum, Any other UK-wide referendum, Any sub-national constitutional referenda (such as another Scottish independence referendum).
 * Parliamentary by-elections.
 * United Kingdom general election (shown as party vote shares)
 * United Kingdom local elections (including Police & Crime Commissioner elections)
 * Not including by-elections
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 England
 * Any England or UK-wide Referenda
 * UK Parliamentary by-elections, involving an English seat.
 * United Kingdom general election (shown as party vote shares)
 * United Kingdom local elections, involving an English council area (including Police & Crime Commissioner elections)
 * Not including by-elections
 * London
 * Any London, England or UK-wide Referenda
 * London Assembly election
 * Not including by-elections
 * London Mayoral election
 * Including Mayoral by-elections
 * UK Parliamentary by-elections, involving a London seat.
 * United Kingdom general election (shown as party vote shares)
 * United Kingdom local elections, involving a London council area (including Police & Crime Commissioner elections)
 * Northern Ireland
 * Any Northern Ireland or UK-wide Referenda
 * Northern Irish Assembly election
 * Not including by-elections
 * UK Parliamentary by-elections, involving a Northern Irish seat.
 * United Kingdom general election (shown as party vote shares)
 * United Kingdom local elections, involving a Northern Irish council area
 * Not including by-elections
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Scotland
 * Any Scotland or UK-wide Referenda
 * Scottish Parliamentary election
 * Not including by-elections
 * UK Parliamentary by-elections, involving a Scottish seat.
 * United Kingdom general election (shown as party vote shares)
 * United Kingdom local elections, involving a Scottish council area
 * Not including by-elections
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Wales
 * Any Wales or UK-wide Referenda
 * Welsh Assembly election
 * Not including by-elections
 * UK Parliamentary by-elections, involving a Welsh seat.
 * United Kingdom general election (shown as party vote shares)
 * United Kingdom local elections, involving a Welsh council area (including Police & Crime Commissioner elections)
 * Not including by-elections

briefly published ICM poll
ICM referendum tracker published on 26th had GE VI figures (Con 33 Lab 32 UKIP 17 LD 7 Others 11), but the published version has had them cut out as far as I can see...perhaps something to do with nobody paying for them, don't want to risk the guardian thinking they can get the figures for free maybe, I dunno. Point is, do we use them? Every poll is sourced to the original pollster, and these figures were put up, same as any other ICM poll....on the other hand, they (appear) to now have been taken down, if anyone argues....supposedly not all sources have to be online, but in reality non-online sources are likely to be challenged. 80.42.24.219 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Without knowing why it was taken down, I would err on the side of not including the poll. It may have been taken down because of errors. But let's see if it comes back up. Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

5 May elections
For the 5 May elections, I will add the line

UK local elections take place, as well as the London mayoral elections, London assembly elections, Scottish Parliament elections, Welsh Assembly elections and Northern Ireland Assembly elections.

Is that ok with everyone? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but it seems a little too wordy. I would say that UK local elections take place would be fine, but that page doesn't really disambiguate to the other elections you mentioned. Perhaps something along the lines of Elections in London, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and local councils, but that is still way too wordy.
 * Alternatively, you could put the UK and London elections in the main poll list, and put the regional elections (Wales, NI, Scotland) in their regional sections?
 * Thanks for taking on the project! Bkissin (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the sentiment but also agree that it is wordy. The local elections are all in England. The London election is important, but it is still a local election. I believe everyone in the UK has a vote on Thursday, as there are also police and crime commissioner elections everywhere except London. Plus, I think, there are two bye-elections. It's hard to keep it short! --Wavehunter (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We had a debate above about this. The agreement we've appeared to reach is that we would have the line about elections in the sub-national polling tables - for example a line in the Scotland table saying Scottish Parliament elections and in the Wales tables saying Welsh Assembly elections, etc - but not in the national table. I believe we came to the agreement that the local elections would be listed in the main table, however. Additionally, there are a couple parliamentary by-elections taking place - these will be listed in the national table. If you put something in any of the tables, one of the regular editors to the page will correct any issues with it.

Polls with samples under 1,500
Having looked at this very useful and informative tool for having a good idea about the direction of the public when it comes to their voting habits, the one thing I have done that has usually given me a more accurate picture is removed all polls with less than 1500 members of the public. If one looks at the polls where 1500 or more are questioned, at the time an election takes place, they are far more accurate. Using the polls below the magic 1500 figure has a tendency to offset the average by as much as 5-6% for a number of parties and the inclusion of these makes any poll tracker a pointless exercise. The figures may as well be made up. I would, therefore, streamline what is essentially a very good program showing ongoing polling and you might actually get lauded for providing the most accurate and up-to-date chart of polling intentions! (commented by RobertHandford1967 at 14.47 on 9/5/2015)


 * Thanks for your suggestions, do you have any reliable sources that confirm this? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel that we should keep those polls in the table. From what I can work out, all of the polls that ask less than 1,500 people are telephone polls - so the variation may be due to the way the poll is conducted rather than asking less than 1,500 people. We could always, should there be a reliable source for this, have some information at the top of the page stating something along these lines.
 * Yes, there is a good statistical reason to think that polls with a larger sample are more reliable, but there isn't really much difference between polls with samples above and below 1,500. Typically smaller polls have a sample of about 1,000, where if the sampling is representative and other standard assumptions are made, the margin of error is 3.1%.  A sample of 1,500 only reduces that margin of error to 2.5% and a sample of 2,000 reduces it to 2.2%.  It takes a sample of less than about 385 before the margin of error gets above 5%. (see.
 * It would take a sample with a margin of error above 5% before I would be very wary of including it in the listing, myself.

DrArsenal (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Added 11–12 May, 14–16 May, 17–19 May
I've never added a poll before, so I'd be grateful if someone would double-check. 217.38.85.115 (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've now added the Ipsos MORI as well. The sample size is correct. Where is everyone? 217.38.85.115 (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And 17–19 May Opinium. Team? 217.38.85.115 (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, off on holiday! Just catching up now, those all look fine to me. Updated graph to follow shortly. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

TNS 7–13 June
Opinion Bee is reporting this poll, but the tables it links to do not include Westminster VI figures and I can't find them on the TNS website. Should it be included? 217.38.82.252 (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw that as well - I don't think we can include it unless we have the tables or a report in a newspaper. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely the question is whether Opinion Bee is itself a reliable source. If it is, the poll should be included.  If not, then no. DrArsenal (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Leadership events
Should the following events be added to the table? -Rrius (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * David Cameron announces he will stand down (24 June)
 * Natalie Bennett announces she will stand down (15 May)
 * Angela Eagle challenges leadership of Jeremy Corbyn (11 July)
 * Previous consensus has been to be very limited in what events are marked on the opinion polling table. It is not some general timeline of political events. (Indeed, most Wikipedia articles of polling results include no events at all, which would be my preferred option.) Here, we have tended to include when a new party leader has assumed office, so let's continue with that. None of your three events fit that, so I'd suggest excluding them all. If people want a general timeline, then that can be created in a "Timeline of..." article. Bondegezou (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Theresa May line
I don't think we need a line about Theresa May becoming Conservative leader and one about her becoming PM, which do people think is more important? I think PM is more important to this page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The events are so close together to be simultaneous for the purpose of this reporting.Ordinary Person (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ipsos July 9-11 report
I've reverted the figures for the Ipsos July 9-11 report to match the primary information given in the Ipsos report, showing Labour 38 Cons 33. The secondary report is an interim projection based on recalled previous voting, which Ipsos themselves mark as "interim pending an internal review" of their methodologies. Using the first presented report gives a data stream more consistent with previous values in this table. Ordinary Person (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As other editors have said, we normally use the headline figures given by the pollsters, which in this case was 36-35, not 33-38. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well, then. Ordinary Person (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

YouGov poll of 27th - 1st August
The YouGov poll figures were not weighted by turnout so are not comparable to other figures. The poll seems to have been done to see the effect of a Labour split, rather than to provide a voting intention figure. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This was not a voting intention poll, nor is it comparible to other YouGov polls. It should be removed. Andy mmu talk 18:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Unreleased YouGov poll?
The YouGov poll I added covering the 04-05th September refers to what appears to be another unreleased poll from 30-31st August. This 'ghost poll' appears to have headline voting intentions but no sample size. I shall leave it to better minds to decide if we should to add this unreleased poll to the table or wait until the full details are known. Elbbiw (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Found it, and added the missing detail. Saxmund (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

On Plaid Cymru and SNP
Shouldn't Plaid Cymru be within the Others category? I understand the logic behind putting them with SNP (Both are nationalist parties), but is it fair to say that people who support Plaid Cymru will support SNP? Perhaps we could move it into Others, but make a note that the pollsters listed them as an option for voters. UpperJeans (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They are usually in Others, but YouGov reports in such a way they are included with SNP, and can't be split from them. Saxmund (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is precisely why we should never have removed the SNP and Greens from the Others column, they are not national/GB wide parties and the pollsters do not treat them as such. I think it is entirely proper to include these parties in specific tables for local polls but not in this national table. The pollsters make it clear which the 4 national/GB wide parties are for polling purposes but because we have a consensus to ignore reality, based around "being inclusive" and report this data in a very unencyclopedic fashion, that is what happens.
 * These polls from YouGov show just how absurd the decision was to give the SNP and Greens their own column in this table: Unless people bother to check the note (many will not know too), they will see that the SNP have 7% of the GB wide voting intention which is factually inaccurate. It is simply wrong for the Plaid vote to be included in the SNP column, regardless of whatever note you include. And people wonder why Wikipedia does'nt get taken seriously :S 118.93.211.181 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The original decision was based on being "encyclopaedic" we shouldn't exclude parties without good reason. UKIP were added when they went past the LibDems in vote share, and then the SNP and Greens were added when they started to record similar figures, in a couple of instances going past them. It was pointed out that similar articles for other countries tend to list all parties. The SNP and Greens are still recording polling figures of a similar size to the LibDems. Combining PC and the SNP may be "wrong" but it is YouGov who are doing it, not us, and there is a footnote explaining it. The SNP may not be a national party, in that they only contest seats in one country of the UK, but they still poll a national vote equivalent that is more than the Green parties and close to the LibDems. I can see no reason for suddenly going back and excluding them. Saxmund (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, all the pollsters on here have listed SNP as an option; very few haven't included the Greens. I believe the consensus is to include the parties that the pollsters are reporting. And, at the moment, they are reporting SNP and Green. To my knowledge, it was never about being inclusive. Yes, the pollsters make it clear who the top 4 parties are, but they also make it clear who the top 6 are. And why is including all the information possible, unencyclopedic? Let's also try to stick to the topic at hand, your opinion on why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously isn't exactly relevant. UpperJeans (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ergo, the problem is YouGov not giving a separate number and this possibly causing confusion. Can we make the note around the YouGov figure more prominent to avoid the confusion that 118.93.211.181 is worried about? Bondegezou (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could state it in the introduction similar to the "Most opinion polls cover only Great Britain." sentence? Maybe something like "Most YouGov polls include SNP and Plaid Cymru as a single option." UpperJeans (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Bondegezou (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * None of these solutions change the fact that Plaid's figure is included in a column marked SNP. Whether you put a note in the introduction, at the bottom, on an icon you click on/drag your cursor or wherever you fancy; it doesn't actually change the fact that Plaid's figure is included in the SNP column when it should not be. Either the name of the column needs to change to SNP/Plaid (similar justification for the Green parties shared column) or the figure needs to be included in the "Others" column. We can't simply blame YouGov for how they report the polls; they are BPC pollsters.
 * Also may I reiterate the point that this a nationwide/GB table. Is it not? The pollsters themselves make it clear in their reporting who the main UK wide parties are. I've just looked at the tables of several of the most recent pollsters and they reinforce my point.
 * Yougov 8th/9th Aug16 - Headline voting intention: Con, Lab, Lib Dem, UKIP, Other. Followed by Other parties: SNP/PCY, Green, BNP, Respect, Other
 * TNS most recent poll 5-8Aug16 first table lists 4 parties plus SNP in Scotland. However, I repeat the point that this is a GB wide table.
 * ICM 22-24July16 If you look at the columns in the tables, the parties are listed as Con, Lab, Lib Dem, UKIP, Other. Other parties have not got separate columns for weighting the voting intention. YouGov, Survation, BMG and Ipsos Mori also do this if you look at their voting intention weighting tables.
 * ComRes report a bit differently but even looking at their tables its clear to see who their methodology recognises as the GB wide parties. Opinium are the only ones who seem to report as the Wikipedia page does. This table does not reflect what the pollsters are actually doing! The fact that we have data in a column that it shouldn't be in should tell us something. The data isn't the problem and a Wikipedia editor has no right to say it is; the problem is how Wikipedia is reporting it. 118.92.147.38 (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with either of those options if the main editors of this page are okay with it (Absolutelypuremilk in particular as they maintain the graph, and removing SNP and/or Greens would presumably take a while). UpperJeans (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Having SNP/PC as one column would be my preferred option, but would like more consensus before making the change. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Greens contested around 580 seats at GE2015 and can reasonably claim to be a national party, whatever their vote. Expressing the SNP vote as a share of the GB total, on the other hand, has always seemed to me at best meaningless and at worst misleading. My first preference would be to include the SNP in the Others column on the national table (leaving the Greens with their own column). My second preference would be Absolutelypuremilk's suggestion of creating a Nationalist column that combines the SNP and PC vote consistently (and not just when YouGov forces us to), although this of course would require careful revision of all the results to date. DarrenNilsson (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

SNP
Has there been any poll taken of SNP support in Scotland since last autumn? They had a crushing lead and as Scotland's very important to the overall vote, fresher polling would be nice. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There was something recently. Last month? ... But can't find details right now. Anyone remember? Bondegezou (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One was published this month, after a year-long gap. It appears it was this one. This website here has a compilation and also lists a Panelbase poll from this month, except the figures are different. Is there a contradiction here? Anywikiuser (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming by-elections
I notice that the Witney and Batley & Spen by-elections have been added to the table even though they are 18 days away. It seems unnecessary to include them in the table as they have not happened yet - there are numerous upcoming political events that could be considered important to the polls, I'm not sure why these by-elections in particular should be included? FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the by-elections are included because they generally give a good insight on how a general election would go. As for why they are added before they occur, I imagine it's just simpler to do it now rather than later. UpperJeans (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be adding them ahead of time, but whatevs, we might as well leave them now. Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest not adding them until they happen. When they're displayed in the table, it inadvertently suggests they've already happened. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems fair enough. UpperJeans (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of New Polls
There's been a couple of removals of polls recently based on tables not yet being published. This seems to me to be a wholly unacceptable way to determine if a new poll should be included. Often the pollster involved will either release headline numbers themselves, or their client (who have paid for the poll after all) will publish them, a few days before tables are available. If we have a good source (regular poll in newspaper, pollster's Twitter account) then shouldn't we include the numbers, adding the tables when they're published? Andy mmu talk 11:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think we should add polls as they come out, presuming they look to be normal polls following BPC rules where we can expect full details in due course. Where there are particular doubts about a poll for some reason or another, then it may be more appropriate to wait for further details to emerge. Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Observer/Opinium Poll
The poll below "Diane James resigns as the leader of UKIP" by "Observer/Opinium" is undated, without sample size, and the percentages add to 90%.

I consider myself new and don't want to change anything in case I'm not editing appropriately, but it seems to me that this is an odd and inconsistent data point to have in the table. 86.0.123.122 (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a good point, unfortunately Opinium haven't published full details of the poll yet so we can't add them. However the Observer reported the poll (in the link in the same row) so we can be pretty sure that it is a real poll. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is actually upto you to prove that the poll really exists (for first action), not anyone else to prove that is does not exist. Simply don't add it until all the percentages and the document are available: and yes, the Guardian is a non-verifiable source since no other paper has mentioned the poll. 49.200.119.125 (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Opinium Polling Page does not mention any polls since the last (19 July) one either, so they are not helping. I think it would be appropriate to wait until the poll is published for it to be added here, because if it is not published we wouldn't know when to remove it because of lack of verifiability. 49.200.119.125 (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weird one this. Guardian reporter mentions the "latest opinium observer poll"...but neither the guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/series/observer-opinium-politics-polls) nor opinium have a recent poll published. Don't think it should be sourced unless opinium post the tables, newspapers are infamous for dodgy poll reporting & twisting. Aren't all polls sourced to the pollsters posting for this reason? 79.74.4.64 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It no longer seems to be referenced on the Guardian website. The most obvious answer is that the "latest opinion poll" was a reference to the July one, however the figures are slightly different. I have emailed Opinium to ask if the data tables are available. Saxmund (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment Polls should not be included unless/until they can be sourced accurately. We shouldn't include unpublished polls. 79.74.4.64 (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment There are two additional sources for this poll, making it a total of three the sources reporting it: two are Guardian articles (one of them includes SNP results) and another one from a page that reports British opinion polls. Check them here and here (aside from the already published one). The Guardian articles are from 1 October whereas the other source dates the poll on 30 September. However, The Guardian shows data for the SNP which the opinionbee website doesn't offer, so it can be concluded both sources are independent from each other and got the data from somewhere else. It can be discussed why it can't be found within Opinium webpage, but the data seems legit and indeed, from late September (not July). Impru20 (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that's good enough. Politicians & their friendly papers often refer to unpublished polls (which is the "discussion" for why it "can't be found"...it hasn't been published.), they can't be relied upon. In this case, the table currently has it being carried out on the 30th, this can't be true, Opinium online polls are carried out over a few days. The figures seem fine, I assume this is an actual poll (perhaps they're not publishing due to imminent methodology changes) but if we allow newspaper mentions to be RS for polls, there could be a lot of bullshit ending up here. 79.74.4.64 (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the 30th is the publication date, not the fieldwork date, obviously. I'd agree with you if this was only some wild data shown in a single paper article, but we have it in two of them (so we can be sure that, for The Guardian at least, the data is consistent) and a third source shows the same data attributing it to the same pollster.
 * I think that, in case were there are doubts about the poll's authenticity, its addition (or removal) can be discussed here. For this poll, at least, data seems consistent enough through sources to give it veracity, unless Opinium workers themselves came out in their webpage denying this poll is theirs or something like that. Impru20 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that if Opinium do not publish the full data tables -- as is standard practice -- then we can conclude this was not a standard poll and thus we should not include it. We exclude polls with non-standard methodologies however many RS citations demonstrate they exist. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't the publication date: it hasn't been published. It's currently in the table as the fieldwork date, which is incorrect. This poll cannot (currently) be properly sourced, and as a result displays what we know to be false information. One day 'fieldwork', numbers that don't add up. Inclusion of this poll goes against long standing consensus. 79.74.4.64 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, if a poll's high level results have been published, we should be able to request the data tables, according to BPC rules. I emailed Opinium on 16 Oct and to date have not had a response. maybe some other people would like to try as well? Saxmund (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The poll hasn't been published though. Unless Opinium publish it, it's not a published poll, reference in newspaper or no. 79.74.4.64 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If the headline figures have been published, then it has been published. See BPC Rules, 2.4
 * "2.4. In addition to the information outlined above, the public opinion polling organisation responsible for conducting the survey that has entered the public domain will place the following information on its own web site within 2 working days of the data being published... [snip] Computer tables showing the exact questions asked in the order they were asked, all response codes and the weighted and unweighted bases for all demographics and other data that has been published" Saxmund (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We generally only include here polls that meet BPC rules. Details of this poll have not been published, ergo it does not meet BPC rules, ergo we should not include it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see Opinium conducting a poll that doesn't meet BPC rules. Having said that, the tables still aren't available and I think the reference to it on the Guardian website has been removed, so it seems to be something of a ghost poll. I certainly agree we shouldn't include "polls" where the data isn't available otherwise we will be including all sorts of voodoo polling. Saxmund (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)