Talk:Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 6

Should there be numbers for UKIP?
I notice that in Politico's "poll of polls" UKIP is currently polling at 3%. Of course this may simply be a flash in the pan, and they may head straight back down to 1% territory soon; but if they don't, should UKIP be given a column in the grid and a line on the chart? 80.7.186.35 (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should consider Ukip or other parties based on their prominence in pollsters' reporting of their results primarily, but as a secondary guide whether they regularly surpass an included party would be a good indicator. Relatively few pollsters include them at all and their numbers have never looked like they would rival the SNP's, so I don't think there's a case to include them at the moment. Ralbegen (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Reform UK was polling well below the SNP for much of the period covered in this article, but they do appear. UKIP now is polling higher than Reform UK was in 2020.

If pollsters don't actually have numbers for UKIP then that's clearly a good reason not to include them!

I don't feel very strongly about it, just wondered what other people thought. Shasarak (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

De facto referendum
We've recently added a "de-facto referendum" on Scottish independence section. There is an issue with this. The way it has been displayed is to put a "lead" for SNP minus the next largest party, but this is ignoring the reality that there are two pro-independence parties and three pro-union parties and was therefore highly misleading. I have made an edit (showing as anonymous, as I didn't realise I was logged out) to the true values of all independence vs all union. But, this now leaves it looking needlessly confusing to a casual reader. I suggest we just remove the section entirely. The Scottish polling on it's own is enough without calling it referendum polling.Cactuslunch (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The question asked was: "As you may know, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Parliament cannot hold another independence referendum without the UK Government's agreement. In this case, Nicola Sturgeon has said that the SNP will treat the next UK General Electionas a ‘de facto’ referendum, campaigning on the single issue of independence. In this scenario, how would you vote in a General Election?". It's a general election poll on the hypothetical that the SNP run on the single issue of independence, in addition to the standard VI question. I don't especially care whether or not we include it in the article—there are hypothetical VI questions we don't—but it is about general election voting intention and adding up party vote shares to calculate a lead for independence does not make sense. It presupposes that every other party would also be running on a single constitutional issue in a way that the question does not ask. We should calculate party leads in the normal way. Ralbegen (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that no one, including the SNP, see the way we are displaying the poll lead as a valid way of measuring the outcome. If they choose to go ahead and treat the next election as a de-facto referendum the outcome will be decided by whether or not they, combined with the other pro-independence parties, reach 50% or more of the vote. The way we are currently displaying the data indicates massive leads which simply don't exist. We should have an eye to how our choices impact the typical reader who doesn't follow politics, statistics, or psephology closely.
 * The poll itself presupposed that the entire election was being treated as a referendum. Therefore, we have to presuppose that the outcome is being treated as a referendum (regardless of whether or not the participants are actually voting along those lines). This is an inherent flaw in the methodology of such hypothetical polling.
 * I don't see anyway to have the section without making bad choices. So I suggest we just bin it. Cactuslunch (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I quoted the polling question in full: it's a hypothetical based on the SNP platform being the single issue of independence. It's up to respondents as to how they deal with that as it would be up to voters in Scotland were the hypothetical situation to arise in the election. It's still a general election poll with a normal party lead. We shouldn't adopt the framing preferred by any political party in how we cover opinion polls. Ralbegen (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the idea of a de facto referendum should be on this page. Yes, bin it. If editors want to put it somewhere, I think it should be on the page for Opinion polling on Scottish independence. --Wavehunter (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed it for now, as nobody has objected to its removal here. I think in general we should be very cautious about including any hypothetical polls (if party X had Y platform or Z leader) in the page. Ralbegen (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hypothetical polling has a very poor track record and is too often a part of the latest political fist fight. Cactuslunch (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed it for now, as nobody has objected to its removal here. I think in general we should be very cautious about including any hypothetical polls (if party X had Y platform or Z leader) in the page. Ralbegen (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hypothetical polling has a very poor track record and is too often a part of the latest political fist fight. Cactuslunch (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The Scottish Election Study Scoop Monitor https://scottishelections.ac.uk/scoop-monitor/ has actually been running since December 2021 at four-monthly intervals. If someone wants to dig out the old results they are available on their Github. One feature which makes them not quite comparable with other pollsters, including YouGov's regular polls, is that they don't ask for likelihood to vote (LTV), while headline VI is usually after removal of Won't vote, won't say and don't know and multiplied by LTV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.142.190 (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

graphical summary
the graphical summary figure that the link embedded in the graphical summary on the page isn't a live version of the current figure. it's stuck at a specific date 31.124.70.228 (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it might be your browser's cache! Ralbegen (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The charts -- a suggestion
I'd like to suggest swapping the coloured names of the parties on the right of the chart with the %ge figures on the axis on the left. I think that would make reading the latest values of the smoothed lines a bit easier. [//] A way of making the scrunch of under-10%-supported parties, the values of their support, I mean, easier to read would be good; I don't think making the axis logarithmic would do, but some more lines, like the little black ticks outside the chart at each date label and each 10% point, might. I'd suggest extra ticks (without a label) every %ge point between 0 and 10 (ie, nine extra, as 0 and 10 have them already). Nick Barnett (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

% symbol on leads
Just noticed they've been removed, just feels odd? EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Using % symbols would be mathematically incorrect, since the lead is in percentage points. Gbuvn (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, just so used to it have the percentage symbol - its more aesthetically pleasing. Its still a lead of 0.xx though so its not persay mathematically incorrect as e.g. 50% - 30% is still 20%. The lead isnt designated as Percentage points in the table either. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Another (belated) Opinium
Opinium posted two new polls this weekend. The other one, not previously reported, was conducted 8–10 March. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
It is appalling that the Northern Ireland region is not included in your regional stats. They are U.K. citizens and should be represented 2A00:23C5:FA98:6D01:C91:4892:C205:5FC (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Has there been any Northern Ireland-specific polling since the last general election? Previously this was carried out by the company Lucid Talk. --Wavehunter (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve not see any NI general election polling. Details of LicidTalk’s polling is available here. I haven’t looked through all of these, but generally they’re asking how would people vote in the Next Northern Ireland Assembly election, but they’re not asking about general election preferences. Bondegezou (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Chart update.
Looks like the chart is not updating as the latest poll isn't shown. Please can someone do it as I do not know how. Bernard Naish (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Graph Methodology
Hi - at Opinion polling on Scottish independence I was prompted to include a section on graph methodology. In the end I put the text in as an option under the switcher button. I think that's quite nice in that it gives technical details without cluttering up the main text. Here the methods used for the Loess smoothing, dating the polls, weighting of polls etc would be interesting to me, but not to many. It might be worth some thought next time the grapher has a few minutes. RERTwiki (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

GB NEWS
What happened to the GB news polls? 82.43.251.254 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The most recent one is the 28th of March. https://peoplepolling.org/polls/ Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There's an Uxbridge constituency poll now
--Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Selby Labour Poll
Just for info this the polling labour claim has been done in Selby. Sorry for adding without a reliable source https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/254736394201595909/1125090664854601839/IMG_5221.png JamesVilla44 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Party leaflets are about as unreliable a source as you can get. We only use polling organizations which are - hopefully - impartial. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Opinium polling - again/
Once again the Westminster voting intents from Opium is completely out of line with others. Their change in method in Jan are clearly throwing their estimation of Labour support out by about 6 points as they said it would. Can we do ANYTHING about this! 92.18.121.190 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could start by not giving them a defamatory name? ChrisTheLemon (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

All YouGov results 2020 to March 2023
I've come across a YouGov file that gives all their Voting Intention results from 26/01/2020 to 30/03/2023 here (it omits Sample size), with a lot of dates we missed. I don't have the time to go thru this anytime soon, but if anyone thinks that is worthwhile feel free.

Another option would be to write a program, perhaps to use a new Template, to generate the text to paste in. I may find the time to do that, if there is a consensus this is worth the trouble. Rwendland (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Missing BMG Poll
The BMG poll 27-29 June suddenly went missing today. Was it removed for a reason or accident? Cutler (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any response I have reinstated the poll. I will happily stand corrected if I have done the wrong thing.Cutler (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent opdrts error messages - fixed
Some of you may have noticed recent error messages from the Scotland section onward, from the opdrts template: red "Error: Total length of format strings for #time exceeds 6000 bytes" and "Error: Invalid time" messages. This limit on the number of times the #time parser-function (which manipulates dates) can be used in an article is not given in the #time documentation! The article has recently grown to a size which hits this limit. To workaround, after some debugging, I added code for the common case to nearly halve the number of times #time is used, so allowing nearly double the Opdrts uses in an article. I think we should get to the next GE before we hit this limit again, and restart a fresh article! Should you want a bit more detail, see Template:Opdrts. Rwendland (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Btljs (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Seat predictions and Northern Ireland
The Seat predictions section includes various seat predictions that appear to exclude the Northern Irish seats (because they predict Others on less than 18). A few of these have notes explaining this, but others don't. Can we have a go at tidying this up? Bondegezou (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Show graphics of polls for each polling company
Each opinion polling company uses different questions to ask the population as to their voting preferences and then different techniques to analyse the resulting data. Therefore, it would be better and useful if like was compared to like. So, suggest showing separate graphics of the results of polling by each company, in addition to showing a single graphic combining the results from the polls of all companies. 2A02:C7C:B044:8100:D091:16B:D7B2:8519 (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * If it is helpful, I have been doing this already on a board over on proboards, using the raw data from here to create an Excel file: https://ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/11/polling-archive
 * UKPR2 was set up by one of the people who were commenters on the original Anthony Wells UK Polling Report site when he decided to stop running it. The original UK Polling Report site is now run by Callum Jones. LarryJayCee (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

We Think
We Think is a base for Omnisis stuff not their new name. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1348958052714384&set=a.115797586030443&__cft__%5B0%5D=AZUvicopU5k2J9QvAf_GWp4L3i2uh2aA1y_RVatAEspBoAxYbS1YYeA0-8aUI3maRivUrywIwOb79R59A8-ljtkV3l1D7vrU5kHPU1VPuOtH0APY1fyazJlBO_P0HDJ-6PnapXYxJbA4qrbOZseGFSNwcd6drAPInpxUimVr0WEencLtQe027Ckck4VfuI61Jstf8S2s68Gebq2Wip3rTJN_&__tn__=EH-y-R Bernard Naish (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, not sure if these should be listed as”Omnisis: We Think” or similar. Btljs (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep Omnisis - I seeno reason why we should confuse anyone. 92.18.121.190 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Now been confirmed that Omnisis polling is called We Think 92.18.121.190 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Deltapoll concerns
There is sufficient evidence to suggest, due to Deltapoll’s methodology and bias towards the Conservatives, that they should be excluded from the UK polling data because of how it affects the averages. They are relatively new and the differences with all parties, compared to the others, is more than noticeable. 2.98.89.5 (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Their last three polls have given Labour leads of 16, 25, 17 and 21%. That is in line with other polls. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between a 16 and 25% lead and they tend to be at the extreme of other polls. Statistical data collecting in a lot of cases can be very flawed. My Father taught A level mathematics and statistics when discussed at tertiary level education has always been regarded as unscientific in that the results can be adjusted to suit those conducting the poll based on the parameters applied. 2.98.89.5 (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What is it about their methodology that you think is problematic? Btljs (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If anything, Deltapoll have recently been predicting higher Labour leads than other pollsters. For the last 9 polls (July & August 2023) they have been averaging a 20.9% lead, behind only Omnisis (a.k.a. We Think). A more reasonable question is should defunct pollsters like PeoplePolling be excluded as they were outliers predicting very low Conservative polling thus artificially increasing the Labour lead during the time they were polling (August 2022-March 2023). Is the average lead intended to be a simple average of all pollsters at the current time, or a like-for-like time series. I wouldn't change the present system from the former to the latter. LarryJayCee (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with "how it affects the averages" arguments is that, come the general election, the actual result might not be all that close to the polling average. In the 2017 election Survation's final poll was a substantial outlier from the field: it was also the one which turned out to be closest to correct and the "polling average" wrong. This doesn't mean that Deltapoll (or Opinium, as suggested two months back) are right this time, of course.
 * Following the general election there are likely to be sufficient reliable sources assessing the quality of the polls and specific polling companies, including discussions of which methodological decisions might have made them more right or wrong, and at that point this article could definitely include a section on that and perhaps - knowing which polls were accurate - include a few different graphs. 2A02:C7C:DAE1:FC00:5318:B898:6CF1:4BDC (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP editor writes, There is sufficient evidence to suggest. Are there reliable secondary sources outlining this evidence? I don't see any mentioned. If there is no RS support for this contention, we can close this discussion promptly. Bondegezou (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet they have “all of a sudden” fallen into line with the other polling companies. Polling companies are notorious for applying a +/- dependant on their own views.  The best model was put into practice by Lord Ashcroft which led to Cameron appealing to those who departed to UKIP and Curtis of the BBC even backed up these polls on the night of the election. When he stated that Cameron’s speech recaptured the Conservative vote he said that otherwise UKIP could have picked up about 80 seats.  The actual figure was 81 and this was highlighted by the leaked polls.  Curtis is a master at statistical data and knew the accuracy of these polls because nobody outside the Conservative Party were meant to see them. 80.43.217.117 (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In answer, then, there's no RS suggesting anything unusual about Deltapoll and we can close this discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Polls with partial organisation as client
Are we including polls whose client is a party or affiliated organisation? For example, a poll by Opinion, paid for by Greenpeace or a poll by Survation, paid for by Labour Together, a poll by FocalData paid for by BestForBritain (a pro-EU campaign group)? I'm in favour of including these polls, but I've just seen on deleted because it's "not impartial." 84.9.36.187 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

By-election polling
This article is entitled "Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election", but it includes some constituency polling that is for upcoming by-elections. Upcoming by-elections are not the next general election. I suggest we should not include by-election polling. At least, it should be clearly signposted as being different to the other polling described. Bondegezou (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think deleting them would be too purist. People who are interested in general election polling will mostly also be interested in by-election polling. But I agree that such polls should be in a separate clearly labelled section, not mixed up with constituency polls asking people how they would vote in a general election, which they are now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is a value in seeing by election polling and it doesn’t bother if it in a different section. If we delete those, we also need to delete other non UK wide polling --FantinoFalco (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Lots of things have value, but we don't include them. We don't include polling for Scottish or Welsh parliament elections, or London assembly elections. We also don't include prime minister approval polling. We specifically include polling for voting intention in the next UK general election because that's when people vote for the next UK government; that's why this article exists. People's voting intention for mid-term by-elections, local government elections, devolved assemblies and other elections is often very different from their voting intention for the next UK general election. 80.42.151.214 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * if so, shouldn't the entire section of constituency polling be deleted? FantinoFalco (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, because constituency polling isn't always by-election polling. We should include any polls on voter intention in the next UK general election. Whether they are national polls, GB-only polls, or polls on certain regions or selected seats, like Red Wall or Blue Wall, or even polls on individual constituencies. As long as the question is about VI in the next GE (not a by-election or other kind of election) we should include the poll. 84.9.36.187 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think they should be removed, yes, when they are explicitly by-election polls. However, I do think it would be nice to have a paragraph at the top of the constituency polling section to the effect of "Opinion polling was also conducted for by-elections in 2023 Uxbrige and South Ruislip by-election#Polling, ...". I do think we lose a quite simple and useful resource when there's no clear place to look to find by-elections that polls were taken for in a given parliament. Ralbegen (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Having links to every single by-election would be clumsy. The UK Parlimaent site has a page By-elections in the 2019 Parliament and it would be useful for us to have an article By-elections in the United Kingdom 2019 Parliament, covering opinion polls and results, with a hatnote at the top of the constituency section of this article pointing to it, but that would require someone being willing to take on a fair amount of work creating the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Redfield & W wrong data
The data for R&W on 1st Oct is incorrect Labour shown on 43 when it should be 48. (1 October)

Labour Gov't: 48% (–) Conservative Gov't: 29% (-2)

Changes +/- 24 September Bernard Naish (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * DSorry my mistake. Bernard Naish (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing "People polling" polls
Although People polling stopped publishing official GB voting intention polls from 31st March 2023, two of their three polls since then: ULEZ on 13th September and British Motorists on 18th September also included GB voting intention questions. The archive of their polls is here. LarryJayCee (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Defections
Should the defection of an MP feature as an event in the opinion poll table?

I would say yes. AlloDoon (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The opinion poll table is for opinion polls, not events in politics. Other opinion poll tables don’t include defections, and nor should we here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Polling for elections other than Westminster
It seems a bad idea to include polling for elections other than for Westminster seats in this article, certainly without highlighting the fact. For example, the headline linked from the latest London poll is 'Sadiq Khan leads Susan Hall by 50% to 25% among Londoners in race for City Hall'. Polling for such elections are likely to be different from the totals for Westminster elections in the same area, depending on specific candidates and issues. Cavrdg (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the headline, but the article includes Westminster VI figures as well. Now that the tables have been released we can populate the rest of the parties and include a direct link to the pollsters' source. Ralbegen (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Link to Client in tables
In the table of polls, GB News is linked, but the various newspaper clients (Mirror, Observer, Times, etc), all of which have Wikipedia pages and so could be linked, are not linked.

It would be nice to pick on and have the table look consistent, but I'm not sure which is better, which is why I'm not being bold. Thoughts? Richard Gadsden (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * GB News is a Generally Unreliable source per WP:RSP and the discussion leading to it - Wikipedia should not be adding GUNREL sources just because they exist - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * GB News is not the source, People polling is the source. They are a member of the British polling Council. 208.56.45.100 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then the link should be to the data tables and not to the opinion, having said that it is common for the link initially and temporarily to be to any source until tables become available. Soosider3 (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Links should be to data tables, although there can be a delay between opinion piece and publishing of data tables. As long as its just a stop gap then fine by me. Soosider3 (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

"Jeremy Hunt's Autumn Statement"
Previous agreement here has been that only election-related events deserve a separator in the main table. Whether that's the right policy or not, the presence of the autumn statement line in the current statement is incongruous due to the inconsistency, imo. I think it should be removed. 51.9.46.59 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election article
There is a fork from this article at Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election and a dispute about the value of that as a separate article. Please input to the AfD at Articles for deletion/Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election. Bondegezou (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Editors who say TBC but never follow up
Don't be one. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Scottish Election Study poll
keeps removing this Scottish poll on the grounds that YouGov says it's not comparable with their other polling. However, our inclusion criterion is not for polls to be comparable with other YouGov polls. We have lots of polls from other pollsters that are also not directly comparable to other YouGov polls, but we include them all.

Does this poll meet our inclusion criteria? I believe so. So we should include it. But happy to hear others' views. Bondegezou (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I am of the view that this poll should not be included, because the pollster them selves have stated categorically that this poll is not comparable with their usual polling. It is part of a series commissioned by the Scottish Election Study called Scottish Political Monitoring or SCOOP. Yougov go on to state that these polls should only be compared to other SCOOP polls. Reason is different wording and methodology.
 * Interesting the latest link for this poll is to a site called Ballotbox Scotland, which quotes Yougov and follows there view of only comparing to other SCOOP polls.https://ballotbox.scot/scoop-october-2023
 * Including such a different poll in this table runs the danger of misleading readers and giving a false impression.
 * The Scoop polls are a series of polls going back to 2021, there have been 7 of them, perhaps they deserve a section to themselves. Soosider3 (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So, it's polling different than other YouGov polls, but polling nonetheless. Strictly speaking, polls conducted by different pollsters (with different methodologies as well) are not fully comparable to each other either, yet we don't separate them into different sections. It's stated in the tables that these YouGov polls are commissioned by the Scottish Election Study, so these are already shown distinct to other YouGov polls. Not seeing any issue here, frankly.  Impru 20 talk 09:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * YouGov saying that their SCOOP polls have some differences to their normal polls means that people shouldn't measure swing from a non-SCOOP YouGov poll to a SCOOP YouGov poll, such as saying that one has the Conservatives on 16% (-4% compared to 2–6 October); instead they should say 16% (-1% compared to 9–13 June). We don't do that in this table and we give tools to users to sort by pollster and client. There's a wide range of question wordings and behind-the-scenes methodologies used by different pollsters. They also use different panels and ways of reaching respondents. Some pollsters are very swingy, some have outlying results for one or more of the smaller parties, some have house effects for the larger parties, and they all exist in the same table. There's nothing uniquely different about SCOOP polls that makes it make any sense to exclude them either here or on the unnecessary fork at Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election. Ralbegen (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This article only uses polls from members of the British Polling Council and does so because BPC impart rules that ensure that polls are broadly comparable, including methodology, wording etc, it is for that reason that YouGov having identified that its SCOOP polls do not fall within these rules have identified it should not be compared with other BPC polls that do fall with in these rules.
 * It is not for any of use to second guess or try to interpret this position from BPC and YouGov.
 * Earlier consensus was mentioned, while as this is a worthy thing on wikipedia it is far from the most important things like facts, evidence and consistency take precedence
 * The correct place for SCOOP polls is in a section of their own
 * I intend to revert teh scoop polls and ask that anyone wanting to include them in main table presents there rationale here in teh talk page and explains why they think they know better than BPC or yougov. Soosider3 (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that you've misinterpretted YouGov saying that the polls have a different methodology as meaning something much more dramatic than it does. The BPC provides rules about disclosure, not methodology, and you can click around any of the polls listed on this page to see a much wider variety in questions and question order than between the two YouGov series. The SCOOP polls also abide by BPC rules. There is no reason that YouGov, or anybody else, has given that suggests these polls have any nebulous quality that makes them inappropriate to include in a table of all of the publicly-available polls for the next general election. Only that if you have a list of YouGov polls, they should be treated as separate series—in exactly the same way you can't say that a YouGov poll demonstrates a meaningful swing from a Redfield and Wilton poll or an Opinium poll. The BBS blogpost about the latest SCOOP poll says exactly this. Ralbegen (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have had email discussions with Yougov and also with what Scotland thinks, they have the view the scoop polls are worthy of reporting but comparing them only with other scoop polls, as does Ballot Box Scotland. These are serious people and are worthy of being listened to. Its their views I reflect not my own. In particular although SCOOP polling in Independence is comparable the VI for Westminster and Holyrood are not.
 * The correct place for these is in a section of their own. Soosider3 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Email discussions with YouGov and What Scotland Thinks don't meet WP:RS.
 * Our polling tables compile polls from multiple pollsters, each using different methods. We already stick a YouGov poll next to an Opinium poll, etc. Therefore, we can stick a YouGov poll conducted by one method next to a YouGov poll conducted by another method. We link to full poll details, so people can go checks methods details themselves.
 * Three of us support including the poll. I will add it back in. Bondegezou (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so you don't regard communication from yougov as reliable or from WST a site maintained on behalf of Professor John Curtice as reliable. By the same token you don't accept an explicit statement from Yougov not to compare scoop polls as not comparable. Yes if you actually read some of the links this is not my view rather it is that stated by the pollster themselves. But hey you obviously know better than these folk
 * One last thing, go and look at the 2 Scoop polls in the article, they stick out like sore thumbs, wonder why that could be? perhaps yougov and others actually know there business.
 * But if you and others prefer to include polls that would be best viewed elsewhere, inclusion that clearly goes against pollsters express advice, then so be it. Soosider3 (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are free to go read WP:RS and see what it says. You are also free to read WP:EDITWAR and WP:OWN. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Soosider, you are basically interpreting YouGov's remarks on the SCOOP methodology in a very dramatic way. There is nothing wrong with polls using a particular methodology being shown in the table; different pollsters use different methodologies, and polls conducted by one pollster but commissioned by different clients may use different methodologies as well. There is nothing dramatic about that nor does that justify excluding any set of polls from the table.  Impru 20 talk 16:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the statement from YouGov? Suggest you do, it is clear and concise. It's not my interpretation it's YouGov statement Soosider3 (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It would make more sense to add a note to the Scottish Election Survey SCOOP polling to say why the methodology is different. You only have to look at the data tables from different pollsters to appreciate that they treat likelihood to vote (LTV) differently. There isn't any BPC diktat on how to treat LTV. LarryJayCee (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would think that the most reliable source on a poll would be that from the actual pollster. I merely sought clarification from source and other reliable sources in the polling world. But hey if you know better than YouGov then good for you Soosider3 (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (I see others have already added the poll back in., don't WP:EDITWAR.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a thoroughly mystifying argument. Methodological compatibility between polls has never been a criterion for inclusion. There is no point simply restating that the SCOOP polls are different to other YouGov polls. We already know that. You need to explain why this is grounds for exclusion. It is also incumbent on people seeking to exclude polls from BPC-compliant pollsters on methodological grounds to first explain which methodology is supposed to be the benchmark and why. At most, the SCOOP polls might warrant an explanatory footnote. (Addendum: This issue never arose when, for example, Survation used to alternate between online and telephone polls.) Utilisateur19911 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the statement from YouGov? It is not my argument it is the pollster themselves categorically and clearly stating that SCOOP polls should not be compared to their other polls, perhaps your clarification should be sought from yougov. Soosider3 (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the relevant part of the YouGov statement, unless anyone can provide a coherent rationale for ignoring it then I will follow there statement and remove from table as it directly compares it with other polls
 * “… the voting intention results used slightly different wording and did not include YouGov’s standard turnout weighting and so should not be directly tracked to other YouGov voting intention figures as they are not identical. Instead, they should be tracked to other SCOOP voting intention polls conducted by the Scottish Election Study…“ Soosider3 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the statement means what everybody else here has explained to you it means. Ralbegen (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me get this right, yougov say don't compare with other polls, but you wish to ignore that. The professional tell us not to compare but you choose to ignore.
 * I have also noticed the redirect you did on an other editors article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polling_in_Scotland_for_next_United_Kingdom_general_election that was not only spiteful it is vandalism and will be reported as such Soosider3 (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Missing Redfield and Wilton "Blue Wall" polls
Since the last "Blue Wall" poll shown here, R&W have published a further three "Blue Wall" polls on 7th October, 5th November, and 4th December 2023. All are available on their web site. LarryJayCee (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Missing December YouGov poll
The YouGov/Times poll on 19th-20th December is missing from the table. Here is the link to it on the YouGov web site: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_VI_231220_W.pdf LarryJayCee (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Big January YouGov MRP
Front page of the Telegraph today, but I suggest we take our topline figures from YouGov's own write up of the results. Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Lord Ashcroft poll January
This needs a much more explicit caveat than it has been given. Quoting from Lord Ashcroft's web site: ''Rather than ask them how they intended to vote, we asked how likely they currently thought they were to end up voting for each party on a 100-point scale. Looking at those who give one party a highest score of 50 or above out of 100, we find Labour on 44%, the Conservatives on 27%, Reform UK third on 10%, and the Lib Dems and Greens on 6% each.'' If we compare the proportion of Don't Knows & Won't Votes with another pollster: Ashcroft has 37% DK/WV compared with 24% (17% DK, 7% WV) for R&W, or 29% (17% DK, 12% WV) for YouGov. This makes simply correcting for DK/WV problematic. I suggest moving Ashcroft's polling to a separate series from other polling. LarryJayCee (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)