Talk:Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 4

New template for easier/reliable date ranges
I've created a template opdrts (short for "Opinion Poll Date Range Table Sorting") for generating date ranges in the tables, to avoid having to maintain both the data-sort-value and text and avoid our occasional mistakes doing that. It also forces the correct en-dash use (eg my very recent fix of wrong en-dash use in data-sort-value). The template link opdrts has adequate initial documentation, and for here I think these example expansions are good enough to explain it - the subtlety is it generates the preceding month name itself if day1 > day2 for polls straddling month end: -> data-sort-value="2020-10–15"|14–15 Oct -> data-sort-value="2020-10–02"|30 Sep – 2 Oct -> data-sort-value="2020-08-24"|24 Aug -> data-sort-value="2019-12-12"|12 Dec 2019 -> data-sort-value="2020-01-02"|27 Dec – 2 Jan 2020 I would like any views on if this is obvious enough for people adding table rows. The default format is suitable to single year tables, with the "year" format suitable for multi-year tables. Another possible interface would have been  or   but this does not seem greatly better, is less consistent, and could make implementing it harder so I wouldn't be enthusiastic to do this unless there are strong views for this. For now I'll use it in a few places in tables as a temp demo, but I have the technology to convert entire tables if there are no objections to this. NB this is the first Template I've written so review by any Template expert here would be useful - non-Lua Template code is horrible to write or read! Rwendland (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this ! I think it's a clear improvement and I'd support its extension to the page. The existing syntax is pretty unwieldy. Ralbegen (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This looks great, I'd be happy to help roll this out to the table if there is agreement. Very impressive for your first template, especially with all of the parser functions! PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 15:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. I've just applied it fully to this article, and I think I'll wait a couple of weeks to see if any odd problems crop up - eg the problem on Template talk:Opdrts page by someone who scrapes the web page HTML for data!  But then we need to decide what other pages it is worth applying opdrts to - does anyone know of a page/project where opinion poll data is discussed?  Eventually I'll offer to write a variant for U.S. editors outputting U.S. order dates, as going by the current Presidential election opinion poll article they don't have any clever technology for this either.  Rwendland (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Within the UK, WP:WikiProject UK Politics would be your best bet. Internationally you could try WP:WikiProject Politics, WP:WikiProject Elections and Referendums or even WP:WikiProject Statistics. The table looks a lot neater now with the template, thanks for implementing it. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to for this. I have already discussed with him/ her that I have had trouble scraping as what appears to be a space is in fact a nbsp or something else. Rwenland then fixed it for me for which I am very grateful. However, I accept that this is my problem and isn't the determinant of the best solution.Cutler (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Savanta ComRes 16-18 Oct
This doesn't look right to me. My view is that the SNP and Green columns should be hyphens and the 14% all in the "Others" column.Cutler (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think either is suitable, but it'll only have to stay that way a few days. SavantaComRes seem to be pretty slow at getting their tables up, but they always get there in the end. The current "tables" linked appear to be a placeholder or a mistake, I think? Ralbegen (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Re-adding Brexit Party (Reform) to the columns
Given there recent rebranding and higher polling they should be reinstated on the graph and table. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the discussion above at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election the consensus was in favour of including parties with their own columns in the table based on the amount of reliable source coverage, referring specifically to pollsters' write-ups of results. I don't think anything has changed on that front, and in particular I don't think any pollsters who weren't including the party at the time are including it in their polling now. Ralbegen (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They've had one good polling result recently -- 6% in the 4-5 Nov YouGov -- but everything else has been in the 0-3% range, as per usual. I see no reason to make a change based on one good poll. If the band starts to consistently poll around 6% or higher, I expect we will see a change in how they are reported and I would support including them in the table. Bondegezou (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "They've had one good polling result recently" - They got their first 4% since right after the election two months ago, their first 5% since the election less than a month ago, and as mentioned achieved a 6% today. I think it's pretty clear they're on the up, even if slightly. I'd say leave it how it is now, but would suggest adding them to the 2021 table as a fresh start. The past 10 results give the BXP 3.2% (which compares to the Greens on 4.2%). Even if you choose not to look at the raw data, the media attention, rebranding and increased political relevance (becoming less of a single issue behind an obsolete objective), demonstrated by the brexit/reform party would allow for the assumption that the party isn't going to simmer down as most assumed earlier in the year, and as such the data should be presented as of 2021. BrexitZZZ (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They can be added to the 2021 table if their polling is largely on or above 5% in my opinion. Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At that stage why not exclude the Greens or SNP? Averaging 3-4% isn't a negligible amount. BrexitZZZ (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Both have representation in parliament and the SNP getting 3-5% (national share) in Scotland only is significant. I believe the same logic for PC. It is quite common on UK opinion polling articles for parties to be added one year and not appear the next (such as Brexit & CUK the previous article) Jonjonjohny (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm once again going to restate my support for adding them to the tables again. Every pollster but 1 releases numbers for them, I'm not too sure about the prompting however I think that classifies reasonable justification for including them. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

these constituency polls need to be added
https://www.jlpartners.co.uk/red-wall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.52.72 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The individual constituencies' results are based on a uniform swing across all 45 seats. This is why the nine with the highest Conservative majority are projected to stay Tory, while the rest are calculated to swing back to Labour. This isn't very accurate as these seats are spread out over the whole of the North and Midlands, meaning that particular areas of local support are ignored. I suggest that we put the poll as a whole into the Nations and Regions section, it is obviously useful and conducted for a reliable source (Channel 4). PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. YttriumShrew (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now added a table with these results to the Nations and Regions section. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

MRP Polls
Foculdata has conducted a MRP poll and I have added that to the main table as a temporary measure. Personally I would be supportive of creating a new section (as the date template bugs out as a two row width) which was the case for the Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election. JDuggan (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no issue with having a seat projection section as per previous articles. BrexitZZZ (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The poll should be in the polls section, the seats projection should be in a seats projection section, right? Ralbegen (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We should have a separate table for MRP analyses which represent a different methodology from a poll simpliciter.Cutler (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Archiving this page
In the little more than a year since the election 27 discussions have taken place on this page though some of these were to do with getting aspects of the article set up, this has slightly overwhelmed the page already and likely will make it completely unworkable long before 2024. I therefore think it would make sense to add an automatic archiving system to this page including a limit of 100 days since last response and minimum of 4 discussions left on page prior to archiving should insure discussion have plenty of time to be responded to. Any thoughts? Llewee (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can afford to have a longer archiving period, like six months. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, we can change it later if it's necessary. Llewee (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

National/regional polling
Any objections to using "regional polling" as the headline for the section with polls for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London? This isn't a veiled insult to Scotland and Wales, it's simply what is meant by regional: a geographic part. We can't have a section called national polling and another called national and regional polling. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind changing it but it is the sort of thing which might cause a bit of edit warring at some stage. Llewee (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Would you support "Sub-national polling" as a compromise? I do think "Regional polling" strikes the wrong tone as there is a huge difference between the four home nations and the nine English regions. However it is preferable to the current "Polling in the nations and regions", which is confusing and doesn't take into account polls that don't take place in a specific nation or region (like the one Channel 4 did in red-wall constituencies, instead of a specific region). This could be remedied by renaming the first section to "UK-wide polling" (or words to that effect), but I think my first suggestion is better as it is more inclusive and less wordy. Thoughts? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 09:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Sub-national" is contrived and there is a word for sub-national - regional. It's certainly better than "Polling in the nations and regions", as almost anything would be, but it could just as well be seen as calling Scotland a "sub-nation". The four countries of the United Kingdom are regions in the sense of the word itself. If we had polling results for England there couldn't be such an objection, as we would be treating Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the same as England, as we ought to. Multi-constituency polls should be treated as constituency polls, like those for individual constituencies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Nationas and regions" is a standard formulation used by the TV industry, professional bodies, politicians, official bodies. So "Polling in the nations and regions" (which I think I introduced here, for full disclosure) is a recognisable form of words, and the most suitable one. Nothing else usefully includes the home nations as well as geographical divisions of them. The name "National polls" for the first section has to be preserved because there are a mix of GB and UK geographies within it. If separating off non-continuous geographies like the Channel 4 poll would make it more acceptable then I am happy for that to happen. Ralbegen (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the nation of Scotland being polled though, it's the people who reside in the geographic area. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's an ambiguity that exists at all, and if it does then "Polling in the nations and regions" is the phrasing that avoids it... Ralbegen (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The ambiguity is that the United Kingdom, like any sovereign state, is referred as a nation, and matters relating to it referred as national. We don't need to be catering to peculiar sentiments in Britain about the status of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you prefer, "Polling in constituent countries and regions" would also work but I think nations and regions is snappier. I agree that national is more appropriate for UK/GB polling, which is currently the case. "The nations" in a UK polling context is unambiguous. Ralbegen (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Something like that could be appropriate as a sub-heading, to separate polling of the four constituent countries from polling of other regions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments in the polling tables
The 2020 table has a comment for 13 Mar reading, "2020 local elections delayed to 2021 due to the coronavirus pandemic". I removed this, has restored it, saying in the EC, "local elections are routinely listed as an event in UK opinion polling articles."

JDuggan, I concur that local elections are routinely listed in polling tables. But this isn't a local election! Decisions about the timings of elections are not routinely listed as events. Prior consensus has tended to err on the side of having a limited number of these comment lines in polling tables. Most polling articles don't have any when you look internationally. I don't see any need to include this item: it had no impact on polling, it doesn't provide any figures that polling can be compared against.

This is a table of polling figures. It is not a timeline of any events related to elections. I suggest we remove it. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and would also support removal of the EU-UK relationship lines. Ralbegen (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think anything that couldn't directly have an effect on polling figures should be omitted. Therefore a major party electing a new leader should be included, but the government changing the dates of the local elections shouldn't. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 13:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, I think, we should exclude comments. Everybody will have their own views on what is important, relevant or interesting. There are excellent pages with detailed chronologies of events.Cutler (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I take this as sufficient consensus to act. I will re-remove the note about the local election delay. I will also remove the Brexit comments, but I see there's more debate there, so revert me if you like. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic Minority voting intention
We're in the middle of a series of NCP polls that poll BAME voters. Would a section for these polls be appropriate or would it be considered too niche? BrexitZZZ (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As the article has polls focused on different parts of the UK and groups of selected constituencies a section on polling by demographic would make sense to me. Llewee (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

New polling graph?
I belief it might be time to change the current polling graph given how highly smoothed it is. It leaves out many major spikes in support which would other be noted on other graphs. I've been making my own replacement in R which also use's a loess smoother but has a lower window meaning it takes into account major spikes in support which last only a month or so which this one leaves out. It should be noted i have only had time to do 2021 because of the dates however i will get on to doing the last year as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's consensus for changes that would improve the graph, I'm happy to change it? You don't need to make a different graph, you can just talk about it. I altered it to better place labels in response to feedback earlier this year. Ralbegen (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, in all honesty making the graph just gave me something to do, ill likely just do one for each leaders approval rating instead. Though i do belief the graph does need to be improved just so it doesnt end up neglecting major changes in opinion due to the nature of its smoothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At the moment the code for the line is . What do you think I should use instead? Ralbegen (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they want the graph to show smaller trends in the data, so I assume decreasing the span to (for example) 0.3 would achieve that. I think the graph looks good as it is, but I don't really mind either way. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 13:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no visible change for any value of span! I think a tighter LOESS fit would be nice—I think the discrepancy between where the line looks like it should be and where it is from Jan-Oct 2020 is quite bad—but my R skills are pretty ad hoc so I'm not sure where I should be looking. Ralbegen (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I use geom_smooth to create polling graphs too, changing "span" really should change how the trend line appears. Have you tried decreasing it more drastically? If it still doesn't work, I wouldn't mind taking a look at your code if that's ok for you. --Gbuvn (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah changing the span works for me, i changed the span on my kier starmer approval rating graph and it made it much more accountable for smaller trends in the data. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have attached an example of what it would look like with a 0.15 span. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC) UKPolling.svg
 * You haven't put Loess in quote marks, i dont know if it would make a difference however i'd assume it does. (correction: it does make a difference)EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that's got it, thanks so much! I've gone with a span of 0.3 which keeps the line pretty smooth. I've said before I'll share the code and haven't got round to it—I wanted to make it easier to adapt first, but I've not managed to as of yet. With that proviso, I've put it up on User:Ralbegen/Opinion poll code for anyone who wants to see it or adapt it for their own purposes. Ralbegen (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And thanks to and  too! Ralbegen (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Death of Prince Philip
Edit warring appears to be ongoing as to whether this is notable or not. Suspensions of campaigning were included in the 2017 page, and the death of Philip is arguably THE most notable event to have occurred, so it's a no-brainer, surely? Wasn't going to revert because of 3RR but I think the argument against its inclusion appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a no-brainer, surely? Spa-Franks (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am normally rather conservative when it comes to including events in polling tables, but I agree that this is major enough to warrant a mention. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I thought this was the Scottish polling article. Seeing as nobody is campaigning for the general election, there is no need to include this. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 09:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to why it should be included, what relevance does it have to the article? This is "Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election", the suspensions in 2017 were at least in the campaign period of the general election. There may be an argument for marking a significant event when it is of a political nature, where it might directly affect polling; this is not a political event. This is a list of polling results, not a news feed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * However important his death is I do not think it has much effect on the UK political polling. The previous Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election article had links to articles that cover major notable events during each year, that page had links to 2017 in the United Kingdom, 2018 in the United Kingdom and 2019 in the United Kingdom respectively. It might be useful if this page also had similar links to 2020 in the United Kingdom and 2021 in the United Kingdom. ~ BOD ~ TALK 02:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How would the death of a member of the ostensibly apolitical royal family be relevant to polls? --FantinoFalco (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an important event, but not relevant to this page. Perhaps relevant to pages about the various elections on 6 May, as campaigning has been suspended, but not relevant here. --Wavehunter (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Determining which events are meritable of inclusion because of we ourselves considering on our own that they have an impact in opinion polling is the perfect case of WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed; whereas including some specific events and not others based on our own interpretation of their impact may also constitute a WP:NPOV breach with respect to those events that are not highlighted. As said in numerous times in the past, opinion polling tables are not timelines of events. WP:CONSENSUS so far for UK opinion polling articles is to only include events relating to other nationwide elections and leadership changes, and campaign events such as debates or campaign suspensions (which must relate to the election at hand, though). This is, only events whose inclusion provides a clear informative scope to the article, that are directly related to the election at hand and whose relevancy is beyond dispute. As you see, there are at least three strong policy-based reasons against inclusion, none of which constitutes WP:IDONTLIKEIT (factually, the inverse could be argued as well: that the push for the event's inclusion is a case of WP:ILIKEIT).  Impru 20 talk 09:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, do not include. Look across all the polling tables on Wikipedia. Most don't have any events at all. It's WP:SYNTH to presume this will have a direct effect on polling. Talk about it in campaign sections of relevant election articles; as per WP:PROSE, we should write prose rather than forcing everything into tables. Bondegezou (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Much like the others, I think that suspension of campaigning for an election which isn't the one being covered by the article isn't a useful thing to highlight in the table. I apologise if my edit summary looked like an I don't like it argument, but I don't think it was: event inclusion in tables for this article series is something which has been discussed quite a bit before. I'm happy to go back and dig out links to the previous discussions, please feel free ping me if you would like to read them! Ralbegen (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a very similar comparison can be made for the death of Jo Cox, which also caused a pause in campaigning and is featured as an event in Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Adding it here would be consistent. BrexitZZZ (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Jo cox was a serving MP, her murder occurred during the EU referendum campaign and her death caused a by-election for her seat in the national parliament, thus it was relevant. I comparison the death of the husband of the monarch is not a directly political event. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-adding Brexit Party (Reform) to the columns
Given there recent rebranding and higher polling they should be reinstated on the graph and table. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the discussion above at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election the consensus was in favour of including parties with their own columns in the table based on the amount of reliable source coverage, referring specifically to pollsters' write-ups of results. I don't think anything has changed on that front, and in particular I don't think any pollsters who weren't including the party at the time are including it in their polling now. Ralbegen (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They've had one good polling result recently -- 6% in the 4-5 Nov YouGov -- but everything else has been in the 0-3% range, as per usual. I see no reason to make a change based on one good poll. If the band starts to consistently poll around 6% or higher, I expect we will see a change in how they are reported and I would support including them in the table. Bondegezou (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "They've had one good polling result recently" - They got their first 4% since right after the election two months ago, their first 5% since the election less than a month ago, and as mentioned achieved a 6% today. I think it's pretty clear they're on the up, even if slightly. I'd say leave it how it is now, but would suggest adding them to the 2021 table as a fresh start. The past 10 results give the BXP 3.2% (which compares to the Greens on 4.2%). Even if you choose not to look at the raw data, the media attention, rebranding and increased political relevance (becoming less of a single issue behind an obsolete objective), demonstrated by the brexit/reform party would allow for the assumption that the party isn't going to simmer down as most assumed earlier in the year, and as such the data should be presented as of 2021. BrexitZZZ (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They can be added to the 2021 table if their polling is largely on or above 5% in my opinion. Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At that stage why not exclude the Greens or SNP? Averaging 3-4% isn't a negligible amount. BrexitZZZ (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Both have representation in parliament and the SNP getting 3-5% (national share) in Scotland only is significant. I believe the same logic for PC. It is quite common on UK opinion polling articles for parties to be added one year and not appear the next (such as Brexit & CUK the previous article) Jonjonjohny (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm once again going to restate my support for adding them to the tables again. Every pollster but 1 releases numbers for them, I'm not too sure about the prompting however I think that classifies reasonable justification for including them. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Graph stuck?
Hi everyone; please let me know if the graph looks up-to-date to you on the article page. I've been updating it as usual but the .png image that appears in the article hasn't changed for me since 26 July, on any device or on any browser, clean cache or not... The same is true of the preview image at the top of the Commons page. Both, however, link when clicked to the up-to-date .svg. I've asked for help at the Commons help desk but haven't been able to fix it, so if anybody here can confirm that I'm not mad or offer any advice on how I could remedy the situation it'd be gratefully received! Ralbegen (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I can confirm you are quite mad, as the latest version with data points in August is showing fine for me. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's both releiving and concerning! Not entirely sure what's going on, then. This is the version that appears in this article on my desktop and mobile... Ralbegen (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, now you mention it I just tried on my mobile and it's only showing the July version as you describe. Looks like we're both for headed for Bedlam. Fine on my laptop. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed the size of the graph in the article, and that's fixed it everywhere on my end. Still nothing on Commons and I'm not entirely sure why it's worked but I guess it's good enough for now! Ralbegen (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Resignation of Owen Patterson as MP
Would it not be reasonable to add Owen Patterson's resignation on the polling table. It's rather clear it's had a considerable effect, additionally it's a rather major thing to occur. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a misconception on what this table is for. Its purpose is to list opinion polls, not to turn it into a comprehensive listing of events: that's what the "For events during the year, see 2021 in the United Kingdom" template right above the table is meant for.
 * This is already problematic because the current local consensus in place for event inclusion in UK opinion polling tables (that limits events to be included to elections and leadership changes) was already achieved with much controversy and as a compromise between two opposing positions (i.e. including events or not including them at all). Now that time has passed, I have frequently met users unilaterally adding all sorts of events into their countries' own opinion polling tables (some times turning them into horrendous things with more events than polls) using this page as an excuse. Event inclusion meets the following issues, among others:
 * 1) Which events should be included in the table? People often argue that these should be those that "have an effect/impact" in opinion polling. However, the definition of which is presumed to have an effect in opinion polling is very open to interpretation. It is a single event? It is a chain of events leading to a new event? This brings us dangerously into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH territory. Plus, the inclusion of some events will inevitable lead to questioning on why other events are not included, leading to WP:NPOV clashing. As an example: The resignation of Owen Patterson was a consequence of other events that already may have had an impact in opinion polling. What should we list? The resignation itself? The unveiling of the report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that led to the scandal? The UK government's shifting positions on the issue? All of them?
 * 2) What should be understood as an "impact in opinion polling"? A variation of 1 point caused by a minor event is, arguably, an event-caused impact, but surely not one we think about when thinking of an event that shifts polling trends. But how do we measure this? Sometimes, the true impact of an event in opinion polling cannot be wholly measured until several weeks/months after such event, and by then intermediate events may have caused further shifts in opinion polling that either increase or nullify the impact of the first event.
 * And this to mention only two of the most worrying issues on this matter. Opinion polling tables are not meant nor designed to be comprehensive listing of events. We should present information so as to allow readers reach their own conclusions, rather than directing them to a pre-determined conclusion. Events in the table should either be severely limited to a minimum or just removed altogether: we already have the "[Year] in the United Kingdom" pages for that, and those can be truly comprehensive listing of events.  Impru 20 talk 13:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with : this is a table of polling results, not a timeline of events. Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree generally with Impru20 and Bondegezou, though I think the current consensus is about right. Any changes to event inclusion should be based on classes that apply generally: I think where we are roughly at the moment is leadership changes among parties that have a column, by-elections to the relevant body and local elections at a relevant geography. If we were to revisit it in a general discussion I think we could probably pare it back a little bit further. I don't think adding MPs' resignations in addition to the consequent by-elections would be terribly helpful. Ralbegen (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Small Link Error
The latest YouGov poll (17-18 November) has the wrong PDF survey report linked to it (that from 10-11 November) 134.219.226.53 (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Reform UK
Hi everyone, I've been wondering recently about the wisdom of including Reform UK in the tables and graph. It's been a year since the last discussion and about fifteen months since we agreed the current columns. I've previously not been keen on their inclusion with an individual column. However, they have continued to bubble away at a level not far beneath the SNP (and if I add them to the graph at the moment, their trendline would be above the SNP's, though that's partly because they tend to poll higher with YouGov who conducted the most recent poll). There hasn't been a huge spike but they have continued to be relevant and the change in their polling results is a part of the polling picture that is currently untold on this page. They also often account for half or more of the "others" column, and I'm not keen on an others column that frequently hits 8-10% of the vote when that could be avoided by splitting out Reform UK into its own column.

In previous discussions, editors have been inclined to follow the balance of pollster's summaries, which I think have been shifting towards more prominently include Reform UK than was the case during our previous discussion. My inclination at this point would be to separate Reform UK into their own column for 2021, and under the Brexit Party name in 2020. Given that they figure in so many polls I'm not sure that there's any point to not include them in 2020 if we choose to include them in 2021 or 2022. If we go ahead with their inclusion, I will include a line for them in the main graph too, for consistency's sake. I'm keen to hear others' views! Ralbegen (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * In favour of adding Reform UK and Brexit Party with their own columm. The others colum has too much information and almost all the pollsters have started to include Reform UK. Moreover, in the last days it has started to have more % than the SNP. In favour also of including it in the graph.--Basque mapping (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

agree with including Reform UK. Personally I think there is little point plotting the SNP line on the chart as it tells you very little about their level of support in Scotland which is what matters. All it does is clutter up the bottom of the chart so it is hard to read the LD, Green, (and maybe now Reform UK) lines.2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:1A5:900C:F92C:9A7A (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the SNP values aren't very informative, they only should the long-term stability of the SNP voteshare, as their electorate is about a tenth of the UK's. But I am keen for the graph to match the main table and the last time removing the SNP from the main table was discussed it, it was decided that they should stay. Ralbegen (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that SNP should continue appearing in the graph. It is true that SNP has been in a very long stability period but tomorrow it could start to decline and be in the 2% which is something important. The fact of SNP being a regional party should not make it less apropiate to appear in the graph as it can have also evolution.--Basque mapping (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions, guys: I've added columns for the Brexit Party and Reform UK to the article and a line on the graph. The graph is fairly easily changed back and forth, but changing the tables was a pretty big undertaking so I'd prefer that if anyone is opposed to the change they engage here rather than reverting the change straight away! Ralbegen (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Reform - Others Combined column
Hi everyone, recently, for 2021, Reform and Others have been merged into one cell where Reform did not have it's own result. This is different from previous years where "–" would indicate that party wasn't separated out in the poll and they would just be included in Others. I feel this change in approach is more confusing as it looks like the result is entirely for Reform, especially as it hasn't been applied to the Brexit party within the same article. In previous year's articles this would be impossible where there were multiple parties throughout a year sometimes being included or not. Do we have consensus to keep this approach and presumably change earlier years, or revert to "–"? 109.148.227.219 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't entirely new: something similar is done with Green Party figures in Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election and the SNP and PC used to be next to each other to account for polls which included them as a single option. I can get the logic, which I think might be "where Reform weren't prompted, respondents who support Reform would choose "other". It does pose issues, though, with the column sorting and with exporting the data off-wiki. I think my preference would be to return to the previous way of doing things on this page: — for missing results. Sometimes users have used ? as well: I think — for results that aren't included in the tables or aren't expected to be reported (like Reform in Opinium) and ? for results which we expect to get from the tables but aren't included in the initial summaries might be a good way to do it. I'd rather we avoided merging cells on this page. Ralbegen (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ralbegen I think long accretive (?!?) data tables need to have a regular number of columns. What would happen if somebody suddenly stops prompting Green? Cutler (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Section on hypothetical polling dependent on Conservative leader
As editors to the page will likely have noticed, over Christmas hypothetical polling was published by Opinium, which asked voting intention for the Conservatives and Labour dependent on who the leader of the former was. I was wondering whether this would be something that could be added to the page, given similar polling was done regarding Labour VI in the run up to their 2020 leadership election and that was added to the page (by me, but that's by the by).

I thought of this design, but I think something better could be designed, maybe to better emphasise changes in the extent of the Labour lead over time (Opinium did say they'd do more) and to showcase which Tory leadership candidate is best somehow (in terms of noting under which does the party performs best):

What do people think? I do have another design that better emphasises leads but it's not as compact and won't display changes over time for each candidate as effectively, but might be what the table could revert to if there's no further polling before a potential leadership election (which is possible, but given the political environment we're in I'd suspect there would be some). --Phinbart (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There are quite a lot of one-off polling questions that could conceivably be within the scope of this article. I think it might be prudent to wait to see if we get more comparable polls before we establish a table. Even then, I suspect these polls might be more suitable in a (notional) 202X Conservative Party leadership election article when it comes round. Either way my suggestion would be to hold off for now! In terms of design, I think the one you've inlcuded here is better for the reasons you suggest than the alternatives in your sandbox. The changes I'd make would be to include the lead in-line, so under each scenario include [ Con | Lab | Lead ], and to modernise the formatting to match the rest of the article: Party name with a colour bar below instead of shaded cells in the heading, colour highlighted leading parties and a white-on-dark colour scheme for the lead cell. But again: probably best to hold off until and unless it appears we'll be getting more of these! Ralbegen (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should not become a repository for every political poll ever done. Polling like this is irregular. There is considerable debate about the accuracy of such hypothetical polling. I would suggest we just don't include it. Bondegezou (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Parenthetically, what do you think about the inclusion of the England and Wales poll in the article? There's only been one of those polls, possibly ever, and given that it's a nonstandard geography it would be unusual to see more in the future. Ralbegen (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We have polls for other geographies, so I think we should include this one, even if there’s never another! But it doesn’t need a table with multiple rows about by-elections. Just have a 2-row table with the general election result and this poll. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the above comments that we should wait and see if this sort of polling occurs on a regular basis, and by more than one pollster. If this turns out to be the case then I can see an argument for inclusion either in this article or a future Conservative leadership election one as suggests above. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs)
 * The polling is interesting, but with it being hypothetical I'm not sure there's a place for it in an encylopedia. We might think we can guess, but we don't yet know who will stand in a future Conservative leadership election. And while this might happen very soon, it may also be many moons away. When it starts, I would support adding polling of those actually standing, but not on this page. For the 2020 Labour leadership election, the polls on Wikipedia only include the incumbent and declared candidates. Or am I looking in the wrong place? --Wavehunter (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea of including such polling in a future Conservative leadership election article was 's, not mine. That said, if we are to include it anywhere, that would be the place... but even there, I don't think it's needed. A future Conservative leadership election article should concentrate on polling done of Conservative Party members, who get to vote in such a contest, or at least Conservative voters. Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The last Labour leadership election article did include something like this at 2020_Labour_Party_leadership_election_(UK). Bondegezou (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

. Thanks for the feedback,. Based on your comments, I've slightly redesigned the above to make it more in line with the general design of the other tables in the article. I imagine we probably won't need to use it unless we get quite a bit more polling like this, and while I think it looks a bit uglier, at present I can't think of any other design that would effectively show changes over time other than the third design I have in my sandbox (which would accommodate polling for other leadership contenders better; otherwise, who knows how wide this table would need to be!).

We'll likely end up in a situation where this'll go on a prospective leadership election page with any section on general polling (not just that of Conservative members/voters), in a sub-section that distinguishes it as polling done prior to the calling of such leadership election to that done after/during it. --Phinbart (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Greens
In a similar move to the above I think we should include the Scottish Greens in the Scotland table and graph and the Greens in the Wales table and graph. Both seem to be consistently included in opinion polls. Helper201 (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think reporting prominence rather than inclusion is the more relevant criterion, which I haven't looked at much since I removed them from both tables a few months ago. At that point I felt that a combination of poor 2019 performance, low polling figures, and a lower prominence in poll reporting meant that they were better placed in the Others column. In Wales, the Greens have only reached 5% once and are usually at 3%, and in Scotland they've never reached higher than 4% and frequently poll 1-2%, and the Others line, which includes the Greens, in the graph is always below the Lib Dems in Scotland. I don't think there's quite the case for those parties as there was for Reform UK. Happy to change the graphs to match consensus if others disagree though! Ralbegen (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reform UK in most of the polls that include it are between 1–4%. The Greens seem to be the only ones that are consistently specifically named and polling at similar numbers that are not included outside of the others section and have a place on the national opinion polling table and graph but not in Scotland or Wales. What other parties are consistently named and polling around the same as Reform UK but not included? The Greens in Wales from the polls given are now consistently polling between 3–5% in every poll from 29 May – 1 June 2020 to the present. In regards to Scotland, the Scottish Greens have the prominence of being a party in government in the Scottish Parliament and holding multiple elected representatives in that devolved administration. In my view if Reform UK get a place, then so should the Greens in these two tables and graphs, judging by consistently being specifically named, similar polling numbers and similar or greater prominence in the respective regions. Helper201 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I could have made my first reply clearer. By reporting prominence, I mean whether a party's figure is included in headline results reported by the polling company. In the last big discussion that was something people thought was the right metric to follow. My motivation for reassessing whether to include Reform UK was a combination of seeing more pollsters report them more prominently and seeing their LOESS line cross the SNP's. As I said, I don't think the cases really compare. I don't think there's any rush, though: I'll be happy to support the Greens' discrete inclusion in the Scotland and Wales tables if the circumstances change in the future. Ralbegen (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would err on the side of inclusion -- as we see in non-UK polling articles -- and include the Greens in both. Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In my view, the fact that they're currently a fairly important party in Scotland due to their ongoing power-sharing agreement with the SNP merits their inclusion for the Scottish table at least (and I'd say the Welsh one too). Rema goxer  (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems we have a general consensus. as someone that regularly edits this page would you be happy to add the Greens to these tables and graphs? I would do so myself but I'm not experienced with adding polls or altering graphs, so would be more confident if someone experienced such as yourself could do so. Helper201 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All done! Ralbegen (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * RfC tag removed as consensus has been established and implemented (thanks to all for the cordial approach to dispute resolution). — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Southend West by-election
Do we really need this? It wasn’t contested so doesn’t show anything about trends. Btljs (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd rather keep event inclusion criteria as simple as possible: caveating out some by-elections is less preferable to just including (or excluding) all of them. Ralbegen (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Normally I’d agree about consistency, but this to me is sticking to a rule for its own sake. An uncontested (by all the main parties) by-election is so irrelevant to trends in opinion polling that I don’t think it adds any value. Btljs (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, opinion polling tables for some country sites get way out of hand with events ot really relevant. There are no rules and I find it annoying when some editors claim that there are --FantinoFalco (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * A recent RfC supports trimming commentary rows like this: Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Australian_federal_election. Bondegezou (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I say keep it in. It's not a rule, but it's become customary on the UK opinion polling articles to include bye-elections, local elections and changes of leaders. If we include some but not others then it becomes a matter of judgement, which will doubtless be contested. While there was little prospect of the Conservatives losing Southend West, the low turnout was interesting and perhaps relevant. I wouldn't read too much into it, but Anna Firth (Con) won in 2022 with fewer votes than the second-placed Aston Line (Lab) in 2019. --Wavehunter (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

poll averaging being done wrongly
As I understand it all the polls are treated as a data series and a best fit line plotted.

It would be better to treat the polls by each pollster as separate series. A best fit calculated for each pollster. And then an average of these best fit lines taken. this would produce a much smoother line as the difference between different pollsters would not cause short-term movement of the best fit line. 2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:1A5:900C:F92C:9A7A (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:BDB9:3635:404C:EB67 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, we have to stick within WP:CALC. Any complex analysis runs the risk of violating WP:SYNTH; WP:CALC supports only a straightforward approach. Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of those guidelines but they are relevant. "Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." Each polling organisation has its own methodology, so treating them all as one data series and fitting a line to that series breaches this guideline. The fitted line will move according to differences in methodologies rather than shifts in public opinion. Strictly speaking the graph should perhaps show each poll as separate lines and not even have an average line. 2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:1A5:900C:F92C:9A7A (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:40D2:89F5:4565:450A (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The graph isn't being distorted by different methodologies so much as the margin of error on the ends is higher, so the first and last results have a bigger impact on the curve than those in the middle. For the most recent polls, which I think most people would be more concerned about, that means that the smoother knows where the average has come from, but not where it's going; and in the case of the first polls in a new period, it has incomplete information about the present. That would be a problem with a moving average too, which is the other type of curve commonly fitted to opinion polling graphs. It would be easy for me to let R plot a confidence interval around the lines which would illustrate the point, but I don't because each poll is the result of a sample which has its own confidence interval. My stats aren't good enough to figure out what the confidence interval on the curve should be given that. It would also increase unnecessary visual clutter which I've tried to eliminate in the chart design. A chart with separate smoothers for every pollster would be unreadable and several graphs, one for each pollster, would be overwhelming and less informative. The value in graphs like the ones on this page is precisely that they include all the polls.
 * House effects are interesting and definitely real; and it's nice to see the plots pollsters produce of their own results over time; but this page collects together polls from different pollsters and the graph plots them. I don't think the passage from WP:CALC you've quoted prohibits opinion polling pages and conventional opinion polling graphs. Ralbegen (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . The idea of combining multiple pollsters to create an averaged "poll of polls" is a well established methodology. I think the spirit of the guideline on comparing statistics is to prevent abuses where we could compare apples to oranges and in doing so draw faulty inference. The idea of combining polls is to reduce the artifacts caused by house effects (under the assumption that those effects are randomly distributed, i.e. there isn't a strong prevailing bias held by the industry as a whole). There are interesting debates to be had around how to model the "poll of polls" but like all modelling there's no single correct answer. Local regression has its pros and cons. Cactuslunch (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I share the concerns about adding clutter to the graph. local regression is biased by which pollsters are included in the calculation for each point on the graph. this is because the errors in data from different pollsters is not random. there is systematic bias one way or the other for different pollsters. the effect is to make the graph more volatile by adding noise from pollster bias. also some pollsters release polls more frequently which means the graph will tend toward any bias implicit in their polling. More frequent polls do not necessarily mean more accuracy. Perhaps a different way to approach this problem would be to include a maximum of one poll from each pollster in the local regression calculation. Perhaps also, because we know the margin of error at the ends of the best fit line is higher, the best-fit line should stop short of the most recent data points.2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:85D0:741C:11FF:6179 (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Why use LOESS local regression at all? there are several downsides to LOESS including the danger of overfitting to fluctuations in data. wouldn't a weighted moving average be more suitable for this sort of data and much easier computationally?2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:85D0:741C:11FF:6179 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Producing a bespoke graph methodology for this page would be editorialising - something interesting, but more suitable outside the encyclopedia. LOESS and moving averages are both used for this kind of graph on Wikipedia and they each have advantages. Moving averages are lagging indicators and are often noisier. Overfitting with LOESS is something that can be dealt with by adjusting the span, which I do as the number of polls increases (it's .115 for the main plot at the moment and .750-.850 for the others). There are algorithmic ways of determining a suitable span for the data but I haven't yet had the right combination of skill and time to dedicate to the problem! I appreciate your concern for computation complexity but with modern technology I can produce a graph in seconds and the LOESS calculation takes a tiny amount of code: it's built into ggplot2's geom_smooth. Ralbegen (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

What date is used for the data points on the chart? some polls have a single date in the table, others have a range. Is there a hidden column of the table with a single date for each poll?2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:C5C1:4D91:6BE3:7501 (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

is it possible for the code for the chart to be put into html in the article so that the chart is generated from the data table, rather than being an uploaded image?2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:C5C1:4D91:6BE3:7501 (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As is standard, the date plotted is the last date of fieldwork. There are ways to do graphs inline, but they are much less flexible that producing graphs off-wiki. I've shared a previous version of the code on User:Ralbegen/Opinion poll code which includes the data format and I'm planning to share the current (much better and more flexible) version with automatic date scaling and the labels outside the chart area shortly. As I almost always update the chart within a day of new polls and make the resources available for others to take it over if I ever stop, I don't see what problems there could be from using an .svg? Ralbegen (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

great, thanks for answering my questions and all your work on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:C5C1:4D91:6BE3:7501 (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If the main issue is the smoothness of the line (which i agree is quite jagged). If the variable n was changed then that will smooth the line more without removing detail. The function just needs to add n = 1000 so for example geom_smooth(aes(x, y),method="loess", size=2, se=FALSE, n=1000, span = 0.15). it will just make those jagged edge smooth and make the graph look cleaner EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That does make a difference, thanks! Ralbegen (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)