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

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

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:

  {{opdrts|14|15|Oct|2020}}     -> data-sort-value="2020-10–15"|14–15 Oct
  {{opdrts|30|2|10|2020}}       -> data-sort-value="2020-10–02"|30 Sep – 2 Oct
  {{opdrts||24|Aug|2020}}       -> data-sort-value="2020-08-24"|24 Aug
  {{opdrts||12|12|2019|year}}   -> data-sort-value="2019-12-12"|12 Dec 2019
  {{opdrts|27|2|Jan|2020|year}} -> 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 {{opdrts|14|15 Oct 2020}} or {{opdrts|30 Sep 2020|1 Oct 2020}} 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 Rwendland! 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 Rwendland, 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 Rwendland 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#Column review 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)

Onetwothreeip 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)

Onetwothreeip 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)

Onetwothreeip - 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, JDuggan 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)

BrexitZZZ 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)

@EnglishPoliticalPerson: At the moment the code for the line is geom_smooth(method = loess, formula = y~x, se = FALSE, span = 0.5). 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)

@Ralbegen: 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)

@EnglishPoliticalPerson: 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 PinkPanda272 and Gbuvn 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). Impru20^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)