Talk:Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election

Alter colour for ReformUK on the graphical summary
Right now the colour of the Conservatives and Reform on the graphical summary looks too similar. Seeing how they are so close in the polls now, it's confusing as to which poll belongs to which party, it all blends together. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That is unfortunately their colour. Could the Conservatives maybe be made a darker shade of blue than at present, it looks paler than Tory Blue to me. Something more like the LR colour on the French Opinion Polls page might fix it. 81.109.118.237 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Though if we can randomly assign colours I agree that UKIP Purple is available again :D 81.109.118.237 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How about each dot square, but with different orientations of the dots?
 * con& lab: top horizontal
 * lib: top +30 degrees
 * ReformUK: top -30 degrees
 * others: top horizontal RERTwiki (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Campaign period graph
has added a new main graph (first image, white background) to the page which covers the period from the election being called on 22 May to election day on 4 July. I think a graph covering that period is a sensible thing to include. I've also given a lot of thought to how best to visualise data for this page. I'd like to offer something more like this one (second image, grey background) if editors are interested, using the same code I've used to maintain the main graph on this page for the last few years.

I think advantages include:


 * No vertical text or repetition of the same year
 * Direct labels, which are considered best accessibility practice
 * Significantly less text overall, making it more to-the-point and possible to caption in multiple languages
 * A single type of graph rather than compositing multiple types graphs that can't be separated
 * LOESS span calculated with cross-validation (fairly recent addition to the code, which I can override if users would prefer more wiggling than the method thinks is justified)
 * Consistency with the longstanding graph

I appreciate it's not perfect and am happy to take feeback. I can make changes if people agree with the principle of sticking with purposefully minimal, clean, data visualisation for this page in these weeks when the most eyes are on it. For example, I like having the election line without an in-graph label, which I think can live in a caption and therefore be more language-independent.

I also appreciate the time and effort that other editors put into producing graphs! Of course it's completely valid if editors prefer an alternative data visualisation. But I'm pleased with how my code has ended up and would like to offer this option for your consideration. Hope you like it too! Ralbegen (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If we could, it would be nice to make the graphical summary as similar as possible to the 2019/2017 pages? Personally I prefer leading with the 'big chart' (since last election) as those other pages do, then the 'campaign period' chart, then the aggregation. I think if they're more neatly formatted (similar sizes), and have titles, we don't really need the 'switcher' and can display all 3.
 * Appreciate this is personal preference but aids consistency between polling pages. 91.125.229.176 (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 's graph is very nice, but I think I agree with 's principles, so would prefer that chart. Bondegezou (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the campaign graph but I don't think we should remove the 'overall' graph which begins in 2019. I think it's reasonable to have both. — Czello (music) 10:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a good addition. I do think that 3 days is too short for a rolling average - it will be subject to a lot of variation due to which pollsters (with differing house effects) published in this short period. 7 days seems more apposite. LukeSurlt c 14:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like the rolling average has been put back to 7 days, or at any raste the graph has been made "smoother". I didslike this, i preferred it whenb the graph was more responsive to changes in the underlying data. For that reason I'd like to ask to make the graph less smooth and more "wiggly". Also is there any way to cut the data from the tables into a form I can easily load it into a spreadsheet? -- Cabalamat (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A small point on the two graphs showing more recent polling: they currently display UK-wide vote share for 2019 GE in comparison to current polling. Typically, the opinion polls only report GB vote share. For example, Conservative vote share is reported as 43.6%, the UK figure, whereas the more applicable GB vote share was 44.7%. Small difference, but I think it should be consistent between the two. CometCruiser (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Savanta poll added today shows a lead of 21 but should show a lead of 19
The Savanta poll that was posted shows the wrong margin of Labour victory. 174.250.210.98 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed now. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Graph for Seat Projections?
I think a graph showing fluctuations/trends in seat projection polls would be really useful - is there any argument against including one? 95.138.200.182 (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * They have been a bit all-over-the-place in frequency, haven't been taken throughout major shifts, and use such different methodologies that putting them all together is very hard to usefully graph. There are also massive differences in scale between 518 seats (the most projected for Labour) and 1-2 seats which have been projected for Plaid/Greens/Reform/Others. It's possible to make a graph, but I don't think it's possible to make a good graph for this article! Ralbegen (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Handling the speaker
Can we standardize how the Speaker's seat is represented in the projection table? Some polls include his seat in Labour and others don't. Survation's 6/2 poll includes him (total 632 seats), for example, while its 6/13 poll does not (total 631 seats). GordonGlottal (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the different polling comparies do not have a common standard for this. We can't make adjustments to the data, but we can add an explanationory note in the text. LukeSurlt c 14:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well as I said, Survation seems to represent him differently in their two most recent polls. So it's not just a question of standards across the industry. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Add "Events" to Seat Predictions data (reposted as no reply)
Key events appear in the main national polling and regional polling data tables - there seem to be clear rules to limit what gets included e.g. Leader changes, election announced etc which all seems sensible. However, the same hasn't been included in the seat predictions which seems a significant oversight. Especially since Swinney and Farage came in very recently. Please can someone authorised add those key events in? It will really help to make the article consistent and more reader friendly. I don't have the authority to make the edit. Many Thanks WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not wholly in favour of this. As MRPs are much less common than standard polls the table could be quite crowded with events. LukeSurlt c 14:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconded. CipherRephic (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies but this doesn't seem a reasonable conclusion - see table below. Personally, I don't think we need to include every single by-election but I do think it's helpful to see when there are key events e.g. election being called, changes of leader, and when there were significant election e.g. local and devolved elections. Please can you reconsider? I also welcome other views - we've only had 2. Thanks WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah that looks OK actually. LukeSurlt c 14:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Norstat Poll from today
https://aws.norstat.no/uk-political-polling/Gb%20Tables%20for%20publication%20190624.pdf

https://twitter.com/NorstatUKPolls/status/1803462647989334447 2A00:23C5:709A:8C01:141A:E429:F7A:8604 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please can this be added to the national polling results 2A00:23C5:709A:8C01:141A:E429:F7A:8604 (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Dead link for latest PeoplePolling result (18th June)
Clicking the link doesn't seem to do anything, neither redirecting to their website or downloading a file with details of the poll. 81.104.135.178 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and that poll has results that make. . . not a lot of sense, and that's coming from someone who actually likes Reform. 12.117.195.74 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: I had a look on their website directly, apparently the download isn't secure(?)
 * As for why the numbers don't make sense, the result is based off a smaller sample size than is stated in this article. There were only 751 unweighted respondents to the question which those figures are sourced from, as opposed to the claimed sample size of 1,228. 81.104.135.178 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Still. . . holy cow. I actually did not believe those numbers for a bit, and it seems they didn't either, as they wrote a whole paragraph talking about how unexpected the size of that uptick was. 12.117.195.74 (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They asked four rather leading Reform-friendly questions in the poll. It is vital at some point to determine whether those were asked before, or after, the voting intention question. If before, this is a push-poll and should be excluded from the series. Otherwise, it's just one of those things and is probably wrong but takes its place among many other probably wrong polls. 81.109.118.237 (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the poll seems to be of pretty poor quality, and it does happen to be from a pollster which seems to work exclusively for GBN and a crank terf group, and is the pet project of a quite notable right-populist guy, all of which might suggest a fudging of the methodology to favour reform and push a certain message - but! WP:NOTFORUM, peoplepolling is still to my knowledge a member of the BPC and that does appear to be what the criterion of inclusion is, for good or for ill. CipherRephic (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Short term Graph Colours
Just an opinion, but the color difference between Conservative and Reform data points in the charts is extremely unhelpful now they are so close together. Reform needs to be a different colour.

Black? Pink? Over to you guys... RERTwiki (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There's another topic along these lines which appears to have inadvertently been placed at the top of the Talk page. I would be loathe to use colours other than official party colours—direct labels make the lines clearly differentiable. I could look at making the points for different parties different shapes but suspect that would be more distracting than useful. Ralbegen (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that official party colours is the only realistic choice. LukeSurlt c 22:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with various people that the Con and Ref points aren't sufficiently distinguishable. Looks like the issue is not the intended party colour but the (nice) fading of (lower sample size I presume) points. Specificially, the faded-to-grey Con points and the less-faded Ref points end up with little 'distance' apart in RGB space. I would push the 'base colour' for the points very slightly further apart (in hue) and stronger (in saturation where possible and light/dark value) such that more of the points (the large number of ~2000 sample size ones) are *closer* to the party colour and less grey. I would try shifting Con from #0087dc to #007ad1 and Ref from #12b6cf to #0eb7c9 for the (largest sample size) point colour, leave the trend lines untouched if possible. Subtle change but could be enough. --Cebderby (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Every dot is for the same party is the same colour, but they are slightly transparent. That means they appear darker when there are multiple polls with fieldwork ending on the same day that have the same result for them and both parties are visible in some way when they coincide. This also has the useful effect of helping the trend lines stand out better. There are potentially ways to reduce the transparency while making overlaps still visible - like wiggling points around a small amount (or even, definitely not for Wikipedia, calculating poll results to more significant figures) but I'm not sure they'd be improvements. Ralbegen (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Results from mayoral elections
With separate polling for these elections and the final results already known, shouldn't this be included for clarity? Mid Beds by-election is included, so it would make sense to me. Please take a look, I&#39;m fairly new around here. (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No. The polling reported here are questions about Westminster votes, not for the mayorality contests. In the case of Mid-Bedfordshire the by-election result is appropriate as that was an election for the Westminster seat. LukeSurlt c 17:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Latest JLP Poll - do we need a foot note?
The Latest JL Partner poll conducted for GB News needs to be included as per below but do we also needs a footnote?

WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * JL Partners are a full member of the BPC and they have provided full methodology showing weighting etc in this poll - so it is entirely appropriate that this poll is included in the main table.
 * However, they have used GB News viewers as their data pool - I don't want to say anything about the legitimacy of this approach; they are entitled to do so, polling companies have a variety of ways of sourcing their dat pool and prompting etc. I am just wondering if it is worth including a footnote in this instance? WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A footnote is not needed. If you add one you’ll have to do others e.g “Reform and Green not prompted”. It’s up to the regulated polling companies to demonstrate their findings and maintain their BPC membership - not wiki editors to police. Just add the poll as per above. Thank you 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:C8C9:9467:7D98:271A (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this poll be in the Other polling section, since the sample is not a national poll? Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But it is a national poll 🤦‍♂️ Open the tables and see 👀
 * To say it’s not a national poll is just plain wrong 🚫
 * The only appropriate place for this poll to go is in the national table. That’s because it’s a national poll. JLP have just selected their sample in a different way. There is no uniform BPC way of selecting a sample.
 * Please just add it to the table and stop this original research and making wiki look biased. 143.58.156.108 (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically a poll of e.g Muslim voters is also a national poll. The twitter link clearly states it is a poll of GB News watchers, therefore not comparable to the other national polls, and should be shown separately. Also has a smaller sample size than the other polls. When Reform or Green aren't prompted they are shown with N/A. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What have I started? I am now more convinced that a footnote needs to be added. I just want to pick up on a few points arguments that have been raised though:
 * 1. Who get's included in a polling 'prompt' is a methodological question - so no it makes no sense to add “Reform and Green not prompted” to any polls and creating this distinction could violate No original research
 * 2. To compare this poll to say a poll on the Muslim vote is not a reasonable comparison. The Muslim vote is polling of a particular demographic. Despite what assertions some make about GB News viewers, it is not reasonable to describe them as a particular demographic, or even a particular set of demographics, and to try to do this on wikipedia would again be a case of original research.
 * 3. I agree with the others that the only table that this poll fits within is the National Polls. It is not a "Red Wall" or "Blue Wall" poll. It does not select a limited Geographical area, it does not single out any other demographic (age, race, religion etc), which is what the "other polls" do.
 * However, we must acknowlage that this poll is an outlier - not just by its figures but by its sample size and means of sourcing that sample. So it seems appropriate to qualify/flag this to readers who can then make up their own minds.
 * The point remains though that this is a national poll, with a full breakdown provided by a BPC registered company. Let's be consistent and not make up the criteria for inclusion as we go along.
 * Does anyone have any views on the wording of the foot note? Perhaps as JL Partners describle? "Polling GB News viewers on voting intention and political attitudes" WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not a poll of the whole electorate so it is grossly misleading to put it in the main table. It is a poll of a subset of people with particular political views, similar to polls of seats which swung from Conservatives to Labour in 2019, which are in the 'Other polling' section. It should also be in the 'Other polling' section as a survey of GB News viewers. Also, what about the previous poll for GB News on 18 June which is a similar outlier in favouring Reform UK? I cannot look at the source as my computer refuses to download it on the ground that it is a security risk. It should be deleted unless someone points to a better source. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How can you say that when you admit you haven’t even opened the tables? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
 * It’s not right for you to go making assertions like that 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:683D:782B:F2F3:FCC5 (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It should not need pointing out that a table of polls weighted to be nationally-representative is an inappropriate place to include a poll that is filtered for media habits or anything else. This poll should not be in the table—there have been other polls by media consumption that we could include in new tables if editors really wanted to. But obviously this is inappropriate for the main table. Ralbegen (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ralbegen if you look at the tables you’ll see that’s what they’ve done 🙈 They’ve weighted them to make them nationally representative! Or do you actually believe that GB News attracts more Labour voters than any other party? 🤣
 * Open the tables and see for yourself! They’re a BPC member they have to be careful about their methodology.
 * Discluding this NATIONALLY WEIGHTED poll would be an act of prejudice 143.58.156.108 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we keep this respectful please? I'm not sure your emojis are helpful. I agree that @Ralbegen has come to an incorrect conclusion (assumably because they have not reviewed the data and seen that the weighting has been done)
 * If @Ralbegen has any views on the footnote to be included, that would be really helpful WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ralbegen It's also worth highlighting that John Curtice's average of the polls is different to yours in his summary this morning - Lab 40, Con 20, Ref 18. It appears he has included this JL Partners poll in his average but you haven't included it in your table, hence your trend line is incorrect. I hope this information is helpful. Thanks WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * different methods of producing an average will produce a different average, and the figures curtice cites in that clip are remarkably similar to those on the BBC's poll tracker, which, if you look at the "full polling data" table, does not include the GBN viewers poll. CipherRephic (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dudley Miles please define a "poll of the whole electorate"? All polls are a sample and it is for registered pollsters to define how they arrive at that sample (as JL have).
 * For you to say "It is a poll of a subset of people with particular political views, similar to polls of seats which swung from Conservatives to Labour in 2019" is original research
 * It is not for Wikipedia editors to be sifting out outliers or somehow vetting the data. If we do, we will have to engage with the arguments above and start sifting out or correcting those that selectively prompt - let's not go down this route.
 * Let's just report what gets published and let the outliers be obvious - it is not for us to be protecting the credibility of the polling companies. If they want to keep publishing outliers (if that's what they prove to be), then it's their funeral. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this a serious discussion? Needs to be placed in “other” clearly - a poll of GB viewers should not be alongside national polls - really is a no-brainer guys! NewGuy2024 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why they then apply weighting to a sub set of a set to get a National view is a very strange approach - not sure it should be in Other thinking about it now but happy to compromise with heavily caveat NewGuy2024 (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not for you to be saying what a BPC registered company should or should not be doing with their methodology and sampling. This is a GB wide poll, it has been weighted against all key demographics and locations. By JLPs own criteria, this will include people who are critical of GB News as an organisation, so your point does not stack up… in any case it’s original research. 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:683D:782B:F2F3:FCC5 (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not GB wide poll - it’s a poll of GB viewers where they’ve try to extrapolate to get a weighted national view - baffling process and shouldn’t be here! NewGuy2024 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly with @Ralbegen here. The poll obviously shouldn't be in the main table. If it's in the article, it needs to go in a siloed off section (==Polls based on media viewership==, ===GB News=== perhaps?) with other similar polls such as those conducted by Redfield and Wilton (which we didn't include in the table for these reasons). It's explicitly not a sample of the entire population, but instead a sample exclusively of GB News viewers. One of the IP editors has said that the numbers have been weighted to be nationally representative - this is incorrect. If you look at the tables you can see the poll has not been weighted to be nationally representative, rather, it has simply been broken down by demographic. This is clearest when looking at the NRS social grade: AB is way overrepresented while C1, C2, D and E are underrepresented, which would not be the case if the poll was nationally representative.
 * Additionally, even if the poll were to be weighted in such a way that it was demographically accurate, it still wouldn't be nationally representative because it only samples people who watch GB News! GBN viewers are a subset of the population rather than the population in and of themselves, and if non-GB news viewers are entirely excluded from the set then it is not a nationally representative one.
 * JLP are also very clear in the tables that this is not a nationally representative poll. You will see on the table headers that it is exclusively a "GB News viewers poll" and on the front that the sample size is "520 GB News Viewers" - compare with their polling on behalf of TRIP earlier this week, where the sample size is listed as "2083 GB adults". The TRIP front page also includes a note saying that the poll is "Quota-ed and weighted to be representative of Great Britain on age, gender, 2019 vote, education, political attention, and region" - this is not included in the GBN poll front page for reasons that should be obvious. CipherRephic (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * addendum: it could also go in the ==Other Polling== section along with young, muslim, private renters etc CipherRephic (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To add to that. The recent consistency poll of Clacton by JLP states “Quota-ed on age and gender, weighted on age, gender, education and past vote to representative of Clacton”. The poll of GB News viewers doesn’t state any quotas or weights.


 * As an aside, I found polls of GB News viewers conducted by JLP between 29–31 May and 15–22 April, which include voting intention figures. These polls probably should be included in the same section as the most recent one. Clyde1998 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s irrational because those other polls are not polls of GB News viewers. You’re wrong. GB News is merely the “client” I.e. they have had nothing to do with this poll being conducted, other than sponsoring it… too many vexatious pseudoscientists on Wikipedia 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:59A8:3FC4:7D73:B6F2 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you download the data tables (link above) you will see the sample size is “520 GB News viewers”. It is not comparable to the National polls listed.
 * This poll belongs in “Other”, it will need a new subsection. LukeSurlt c 18:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m talking about the other polls @Clyde1998 is trying to bring into scope of this discussion.
 * I accept I’m not going to be listened to on the JLP poll and I can see it has been included elsewhere - fine. But it’s not ok for @Clyde1998 to be bringing up indisputable polls just because of who the client is. @Clyde1998 makes it very hard to assume good faith with their approach 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:59A8:3FC4:7D73:B6F2 (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not a question of the client - the polls conducted by People Polling for GB News are of the general population so are included in the main table.
 * Both of the additional polls I listed state “530 GB News viewers” and “518 GB News viewers” respectively. My point is the same polling organisation has conducted previously polls of the same nature and those two polls should be included in the “Other” section along with the most recent one. Clyde1998 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024
JL Poll of 520 participants 17–20 Jun Is NOT an Opinion poll. It’s a survey of GB News viewers. Kindly remove it. Thanks. JL Partners	GB News	GB	520	24%	38%	8%	2%	3%	25%	0%	13 2A00:23C8:C10F:1001:1C91:8EC4:70CF:6E8B (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You clearly haven’t opened the tables 🙈 this is not just a survey of GBN people as you suggest. It has been nationally weighted and uses JLP’s approved methodology!
 * It has a margin of error of 4.5% (larger than most surveys) but it is a legitimate poll by a legitimate polling company that meets the criteria for inclusion. Please stop being prejudice 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:683D:782B:F2F3:FCC5 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Polling People poll conducted 18th June 2024 clearly states that it uses past and present viewers of GB News only. It does not pretend to be, and cannot be treated as, a poll off the electorate accross Great Britain. It must be excluded from any list of national polls. Mensa Nabla (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I meant the JL Partners poll conducted 17-20th June. The one with just 529 GB News viewers polled. Mensa Nabla (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

New Wales Westminster voting intention to be added
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-welsh-westminster-and-senedd-voting-intention-19-20-june-2024/

Please can the latest Redfield & Wilton Wales Westminster voting intention be added to Wales poll results. 2A00:23C5:709A:8C01:A022:C6AD:2BEF:D48 (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Done :) B1ack H0l3 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Poll of Jewish voters
There is a poll of Jewish voters at and. I cannot add this poll as my computer keeps freezing when I edit this article - although it is fine with other articles - so maybe someone else can. I think it should go directly below the poll of Muslim voters. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello. The article is now too big to reliably edit with the visual editor - it is now effectively "edit source" only (some of us are old enough to remember when "edit source" was the only option Wikipedia wide! 😜). I'll see if I can add this. LukeSurlt c 12:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ LukeSurlt c 12:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks . So far as I know, I am using "edit source". Presumably I am also using something else which does not cope well with a template heavy article. The source has 2019 figures for comparison. Any chance of adding them, as with other tables? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't include them as they were from prior to the 2019 election, and thus belong in Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election. I have not put them as a baseline as is done for other tables as they are not estimates of how this group voted in the 2019 general election as the other baselines are. LukeSurlt c 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeSurl Weirdly my computer can't even handle edit source for this article... — Czello (music) 13:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Should we create Constituency polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election, Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election in Scotland, Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election in Wales etc.? Hive off all the extra stuff? Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * those wouldn't do much compared to the absolutely massive nationwide tables though. I think it might just be like this by necessity CipherRephic (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Frankly I think this is a problem for post-July 4th. Changing the page's structure while it is high-traffic and frequently-edited is a recipe for trouble. While the page is very long now, it is not going to become significantly longer in the next week. After the election the page will be be (strong and) stable, with no additional polls coming in. We can then better assess if there is a better way of organising the information. LukeSurlt c 12:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2015 ended up splitting off everything except the national polls to Sub-national opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election, which could work here too, potentially after the election. Ralbegen (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Redfield and Wilton lead error
The lead is given as 24 in the table. This is the Labour Conservatives gap but as Reform are 1% ahead of the Conservatives the lead should be 23% 2A00:23C4:AC84:6101:458D:4984:22AE:3216 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * . Thanks for the heads-up. LukeSurlt c 16:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Focaldata MRP (3-20 June) seats missing
A Focaldata MRP has been added to the 'National poll results' table but not the 'Seat projections' table. Its the GB poll conducted 3rd to 20th June. 24,536 respondents. Labour 450 seats, Conservative 110, Liberal Democrats 50, SNP 16, PC 2, Greens 1, Reform UK 1, Others 19. That totals 649. Not sure about seat 650, though many MRPs exclude Speaker. I think the 'Other' 19 could be the NI18 + Galloway, judging by their map. Rochdale is close to Chorley though. Not seeing any evidence of a Corbyn or Zadrozny on their map. Mensa Nabla (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

New Survation Poll 6/26 Labour Leads by 23
I was going to add the new Survation poll that dropped 20 minutes ago.

https://www.survation.com/conservatives-sink-to-18/

NEW Survation Telephone Tracker for @GMB - Poll 3/4

LAB 41% (-) CON 18% (-2) REF 14% (-1) LD 12% (-) GRE 5% (-1) SNP 2% (nc) OTH 7% (+2)

Fieldwork 21st - 25th June

Changes vs. 19th June 2024. The Jack Williams (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Irltoad (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add more info
You know where it says under national poll results like “Rishi runak started a general election”

can someone please add more of these for big events like major debates tv debates, the betting scandal, etc to make it easier to follow

thank you all so much it is appreciated 2A0C:B381:5FA:2400:3890:9FC3:394E:C286 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there, there's a specific set of criteria for what does, does not get added to polling tables - it's important as not to crowd the tables, maintain consistency and not to duplicate the chronology of events in the main election article. So in these polling tables, we only include things like; change in party leaders, elections (local, devolved, parliamentary by-elections), and the date the election was called. I hope this explanation helps and makes sense. :) WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)



2A0C:B381:5FA:2400:3890:9FC3:394E:C286 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 00:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Scotland Opinium Poll
The Scotland-only poll conducted by Opinium between June 5th and 10th is currently appearing twice in the Scottish polls table. Could someone with edit access please remove the duplicate? ScotPollster1974 (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅. Also removed a similarly-duplicated Norstat poll. LukeSurlt c 08:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

New poll of Jewish voters
There is a new poll by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research at. It looks like a reliable source but I do not know whether it meets the rules for inclusion in this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's eligable. The "poll" is results from the Jewish Current Affairs Survey. Participation in this panel seems to be self-selecting/open to all which is not really comparable to other polls. LukeSurlt c 13:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Polling Schedule Update from Survation
In case helpful, here is an update on what to expect and when from Surtvation. Key points:
 * 1. New MRP seats model update, likely tomorrow (28/06)
 * 2. Final MRP poll update expected Tuesday before polling day (July 2nd)
 * 3. Final telephone polling for ITV's Good Morning Britain will be live on the programme the day before polling (July 3rd)
 * 4. Nothing has been said about an "exit poll" - this is interesting because they were extremely accurate in 2015, 2017 and 2019 - maybe they're too nervous to commit? WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2024
Hi, just a minor one - the Norstat poll in Scotland dated 11-14 June has N/A for client but was in fact for the Sunday Times. Here's a link to the main article. Many thanks. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/tory-voters-switching-to-reform-add-to-pressure-on-douglas-ross-mk962nlf5 NorstatUKPolling (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

✅ CipherRephic (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Add new People Polling poll
Please add new people polling poll

http://www.matthewjgoodwin.org/uploads/6/4/0/2/64026337/june2526poll.xlsx

https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1777286106611863737 92.40.200.9 (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The “Majority” on the latest Survation MRP Seat Projection is wrong
It shows a Labour Majority of 145. That’s not correct. The Jack Williams (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove page entirely.
Perhaps this whole page is inappropriate for Wikipedia at the current moment at least ? Wikipedia seems to be a place to document settled facts not opinion polls that can change daily. Maybe only put this up after the election as it could be taken as election interference, political advertising by Wikipedia or the author.

just a thought. 92.5.111.166 (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Polling is a long established feature of election campaigns. Wikipedia provides a unique and thorough log of ALL national polls - there is no narrative it’s just data. Wikipedia has done this for over 20years and it’s great. I’m completely against this suggestion2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:CD98:C410:E54C:B7AE (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The data provided by each poll is settled fact - that new polls are released does not change the data of previous polls. Accordingly, this page conforms to your understanding of Wikipedia very well, and should remain. 92.40.214.208 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Opinium poll to be added
Please can you add the new Opinium poll released today, thanks

https://x.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1807127231413518407 92.40.201.101 (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Labour are not averaging below 40.
Graph needs checked. 92.12.161.209 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * They are slightly. But if you round the average to the nearest % it is 40% (which is what John Curtice does). The Graph works on a moving average across all the polls - populated by the data tables - the graph is correct, it gets updated every day - sometimes multiple times a day. There appears to be a slight (almost miniscule) narrowing of the polls. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2024
Update Graphical summaries for campaign period (since 22 May) with latest polling 212.229.87.157 (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This has already been done I believe. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2024 (2)
Change Friederichs Advisory Partners to Friderichs Advisory Partners 86.9.146.84 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ --LukeSurlt c 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Location of 16-17 year old poll
I've noticed the JL Partners poll of sixteen and seventeen year olds has been added to the table of young voters. I'm thinking it should go into a separate table, given sixteen and seventeen year olds cannot vote in the election and it looks like the same group being polled at first glance (when it's two completely discrete groups). Perhaps we could have two tables and call the sections something along the lines of People aged between 18 and 25 and People aged 16 and 17? Clyde1998 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree with this. Should also have a note attached noting that 16-17s can't vote in this election. Really kind of a hypothetical poll, but should still be included somewhere in my opinion. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the poll - personally I don't think it should be on the page at all (since 16-17s can't vote) but if it's going anywhere it should be in a different table. CipherRephic (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It should not be on the page. It is, expressly, not opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election as these persons will not be able to vote in this election. LukeSurlt c 18:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a poll conducted by a BPC member using proper methodology. I take your point about the ineligability of those polled to vote and I think it is appropriate that strong emphasis is put on that but it simply is not right to say that this poll, for this election (and yes - that is what this is) is excluded from the page. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why have you deleted without consensus?WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD. If you want the poll back, put it back (though ideally do so in its own table!) CipherRephic (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. This is now done. I have added a sentence (with a bunch of sources) to highlight the relevance of the poll/why it was conducted. Thanks, WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * no problem! CipherRephic (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good to see this was put back 143.58.156.54 (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As well as being out of scope, the sample size here is 201, below any other poll on this page. It is not to the standards of other JL polls because it is not intended to be considered as such. It is a novelty poll, not a proper voter intention poll. I remain strongly opposed to its inclusion on this page. LukeSurlt c 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it’s right for you to decide what the scope is. It’s better that the pollsters do that.
 * There’s a very wide variety of different types of polls included in this page, making it a uniquely comprehensive resource… a bit like an encyclopaedia 🤔 oh yea, that’s what wiki is. 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:3143:5B1D:C398:FC30 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The scope of this article is Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election. The page contains a wide variety of polls of electors who will be able to vote in the 2024 United Kingdom general election: national polls and various geographical and non-geographical samples. This tiny poll is unlike any of those. If anything, it is a poll for the next United Kingdom general election when these persons could theoreticaly vote for the first time. LukeSurlt c 07:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, I'm not sure what value this poll has when the extraordinarily small sample size cannot vote and will have no impact on the outcome of the election. To be honest, I think the onus is on those advocating inclusion to explain why it should remain. — Czello (music) 07:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Lowering the voting age is being debated in the campaign (assumably this is why the poll was conducted). It’s not appropriate to include it in the next article for chronological reasons but also for the basic fact they are being asked how they would vote in THIS election, not in the next election.
 * The only possible reason I can see for the strength of your objections is that you don’t like the result of the poll? Let’s not discuss deleting a well sourced poll that relates to a subject discussed in the campaign - works well where it is. 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:3143:5B1D:C398:FC30 (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But they're not voting in this election, so what purpose does this serve? It seems that including it because it might relate to a policy would be a WP:POV inclusion. Using this line of reasoning to demonstrate its importance is also WP:OR.
 * The only possible reason I can see for the strength of your objections is that you don’t like the result of the poll? Assume good faith, please. — Czello (music) 08:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we have an article on the voting age debate in the UK? Such an article would probably be a good addition to the wiki and this poll would be an interesting inclusion on such a page. There is Voting_age and Youth suffrage but neither is UK-specific. Votes at 16 exists but this is an article about a particular organisation rather than the overall debate. LukeSurlt c 08:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The poll is fine where it is. I am however open to suggestions on how we better frame it. Things to consider.
 * 1. This patenetly is an Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election - and I quote "if they could vote on Thursday". It is not a poll for any other election as seems to have been suggested.
 * 2. @LukeSurl's comments about; sample size, the polsters intentions and branding it a "novelty poll" appear to be WP:OR. It is not for us to determine what is or is not acceptable methodology or sampling - the BPC do that. Our role is to make sense of where this fits into the article.
 * 3. I accept - and have made the article reflect - that no one in this poll has the legal right to vote. However, that in itself is not grounds for exclusion because there is a live discussion about giving 16-17s the right to vote in the future - this is well documented and explains relevance. It is not like we are setting some kind of questionable precedent here, including this does not open the door to including polling on the voting intentions of Geese.
 * 4. Should debate/polling on the voting age continue (regardless of whether there is a change), this poll will be a relevant thing to refer back to. Lets remember WP:Not News and we need to compile this with that in mind - flipantly deciding what evidence is or is not not relevant in the middle of a general election campaign ignores its future relevance.
 * @CipherRephic has been helpful in making positive suggestions as to how we best include this poll. A poll which was formally commissioned. I have done my best to take on that feedback and reflect it. Does anyone have any other helpful suggestions? Deletion is not justifiable.WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Survation MRP released today should show a Labour majority of 318, not 420
Needs a correction for the Labour majority number in the latest Survation MRP 173.47.125.44 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Need new Lord Ashcroft poll
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13594031/LORD-ASHCROFT-Tories-not-false-comfort-findings.html The Jack Williams (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2024
Please add Yougov Scottish poll published June 29 which is missing from the Wiki page, see below. Thanks

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49880-general-election-2024-labour-leads-snp-in-scotland-by-six-points Knowall65 (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This is already included. The fieldwork dates were 20-25 June. --LukeSurlt c 12:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2024 (2)
Update 2nd July 2024 Techne Survey to reflect sample size (5503) and original source (https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/dl.getforma.com/.directUploadAttachment/3e8b602d06fa72585e1266fafa193ae9/5fbfa6bf/R122-UK2024-7-2DATA.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAR7KB7OYSNJDXQF4S%2F20240703%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240703T112929Z&X-Amz-Expires=900&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjENT%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQDtBw3XyS9RBCESp0bgrx41izr4K2X08lZU%2B9JSZMP%2FaAIhAO3S%2BVuUfYtCn3DRA0biamqFtAQpQkjEzsHz7lfGZDelKssCCI3%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEQABoMMTM1OTY2NzE3NDc2IgxgH8SLHjbrcPTOlTkqnwJhvW1ZkMUxBCQf2E6%2BQs8ZqICLxF4hqzLzE7JJMBgQDZbVVqmCb1lnRTIsjk5lhCBRWEFFRFbDpEAm%2FaJk1Nv8eYAjVuMDewpAgxOwGNM%2FswzD6hXKIt5AjeLv%2BCI4zDOW4mF81DnqfcCz7R%2Bn3e1y7lOCPYe%2FjCE8wvrOAsq4uYpRqGgkpdiv0QbeLHjBkN99Pq%2FrIBm15ksuL3rCSuaQtS9FksQPmilPmuKaKxX5LWXsySibZB%2BDbdaF%2BhFNRGJiJ4b1KW9Aum%2Fatt6TkTsyRxQ5PQkapk6MA91u%2B3wdtiMlQwS6eDNFPlAMTvrzw0T7E%2F5SVK7B%2BBTEMufTDGYmIWq4My9V3NmXbK5K1kU2Sqz9ibygorDrzQ%2BkSa0QAjDx65S0BjqcAUuuH93lA%2FrqtjEU4G1aAVvaw4jSI3U%2F5MtyDgKje9VR4K97ENbmHdf34TfYuFSwe5Zk05R74msNdMFGF3M2fHNOETe0H1Qld%2BXiLMNym%2BlisQUnmRpbmGE7tMBEymUEltbXzt6Hj0cQL1EhbI7TZC7iZNxR7A6JBDkOxKG%2B6lbGHArS0iNaSPUzC%2BJ7BDe73LKMjYmS9%2BJPZfKe%2Bg%3D%3D&X-Amz-Signature=fc27f8a2024343ecd330b077fd0b024aaf6b71ff42d7255cec0ed9cdac2c7110&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&response-content-disposition=attachment%3Bfilename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27R122-UK%2520%282024-7-2%29%2520DATA.pdf&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&x-id=GetObject) Vakaxef475 (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ LukeSurlt c 12:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate poll
Why is the latest Ipsos MRP poll listed twice? It makes no sense.
 * . Mea culpa. --LukeSurlt c 14:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

2 new polls to be added
Norstat poll July 1-3 https://x.com/NorstatUKPolls/status/1808591618099810719

JL Partners 2-3 July https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1808606786481512805 2A00:23C5:709A:8C01:8BC:5976:8CA0:12E (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Final Survation poll: their website entry for it says they updated their MRP
..meaning they have updated their last MRP seat projection to include the data of their final poll. I noticed on their website that the figures include a substantial upward movement in the seat forecast for Reform UK. Should this be included somehow? Boscaswell  talk  06:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Final JL Partners SLP
Needs adding, report here. Can anyone figure out the field date range from that? LukeSurlt c 09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems to be an adjustment of the 7-25 June SRP with them making a more solid hedge on what to do with the undecided. I see this as a duplicate - let’s leave it out.2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:71E6:3CE5:B204:5A8A (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2024
Change the numbers from the latest More in Common MRP poll on 24 Jun – 1 Jul to the correct numbers, as on the website cited.

So change: 24 Jun – 1 Jul	More in Common (MRP)	The News Agents	GB	13,556	23%	39%	14%	2%	6%	13%	3%	16

To: 24 Jun – 1 Jul	More in Common (MRP)	The News Agents	GB	13,556	24%	40%	11%	2%	6%	14%	3%	16 Egghodgs (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ --LukeSurlt c 15:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2024 (2)
Change the leading paragraph's last sentence from "The date of the election is Thursday, 4 July 2024." to "The date of the election was Thursday, 4 July 2024." since the election has concluded. 96dot (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ —-LukeSurlt c 01:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good job. 2A0C:B381:5FA:2400:294C:C8CC:5731:89CC (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Should the exit poll be in the MRP/SRP section?
I understand the value in its inclusion as a seat prediction but I think it's an apples-to-oranges comparison with other MRPs considering the differing nature of their data: I've copied the exit poll section from the main GE2024 article and removed the exit poll from the MRP/SRP table per WP:BOLD but would be interested to hear your thoughts on this. CipherRephic (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, an exit poll is different to an MRP. However, it might be helpful to show the (small) difference between the exit poll and the actual result in one table. --Wavehunter (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good call. I'll get on that. CipherRephic (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ CipherRephic (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing this article after the election - split needed?
With the election is now in the past, and no further polls to be added, it's probably time that we considered what the best form that this article takes permanently.

The article was tagged as being long, which is a fair assessment. There's about a MB of text here (though few pictures, which means actual page load is not too bad). We could potentially split off some of the smaller sections into articles such as Constituency polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election, though the majority of the bytes (~600k) are the national polls which is not so easy to split.

If we're honest this article is a clear (though popular) violation of WP:NOTDATABASE. Having a similar length on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election is pretty much inevitable if the next parliment lasts 4 or 5 years. The long-term solution would be somehow have the data hosted elsewhere (Wikidata?) and just summarised here.

One thing we don't have here at the moment is any prose discussion on poll performance, and how polling influenced the campaign.

Anyhow, no need to rush to any changes now - plenty of time to discuss. LukeSurlt c 14:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I recommend collapsing all the tables and seeing how it loads after that. CNC (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It's worth a try to collapse all and see if rendering improves.
 * Some other options may be to split the 2023 opinion polls off, or to split each constituent country's polls off.
 * — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 03:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the longest page on Wikipedia at the moment.  C F A   💬  23:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, crazy. Splitting off the constituency polling makes sense; we already host national and statewide polling for US Presidential elections on separate pages. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)