Talk:Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election/Archives/2012/July

Article content

This article is about opinion polls and the inclusion of political events ought to be stopped. To include selected political events is i. not relevant to the article directly (even if they may have influenced polls how can anyone really tell that they have?) and ii. an obvious source of POV pushing. (I'm not saying anyone, thus far, has pushed a POV. But it is an obvious target for such: who is to decide what political events to include?) I don't want to delete them without comment but they ought to be deleted or, at least, reduced to mere footnotes/cross-referenced to other Wiki articles. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As someone who edits this page a lot, I am inclined to agree with you. There has been in the past, especially in the run up to previous elections, been quite a few POV pushing edits that keep needing to be removed/amended. I still think noting important political occasions are helpful - Budgets, Local Elections etc, Party Conferences. - perhaps through cross-referencing as you say. I would however agree with getting rid of the points about party politics - Conservative treasuer, Labour union links etc. Perhaps something like this as an example?:

Date(s) conducted	Polling organisation/client	Sample size	Conservatives	Labour	Liberal Democrats	Others
3–4 Apr	YouGov/The Sun	1,742	32%	42%	9%	17%
2–3 Apr	YouGov/The Sun	1,744	34%	42%	8%	15%
1–2 Apr	YouGov/The Sun	1,732	33%	43%	8%	16%
30–31 Mar	YouGov/The Sunday Times	1,567	33%	42%	8%	17%
29 Mar	Bradford West by-election, 2012
28–29 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,701	34%	44%	8%	14%
27–28 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,807	34%	44%	10%	12%
26–27 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,682	33%	43%	9%	15%
25–26 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,734	35%	42%	9%	14%
23–26 Mar	ComRes/The Independent	1,010	33%	43%	11%	13%
23–25 Mar	Populus/The Times	1,500	34%	38%	11%	16%
22–24 Mar	Survation/The Mail on Sunday	1,097	31%	39%	11%	19%
22–23 Mar	YouGov/The Sunday Times	1,721	35%	42%	10%	14%
22–23 Mar	ICM/Sunday Telegraph	1,000	37%	38%	13%	13%
21 Mar	Budget 2012
21–22 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,835	34%	42%	9%	15%
20–21 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,757	36%	41%	10%	13%
19–20 Mar	YouGov/The Sun	1,748	35%	43%	9%	13%

That way people might be able to judge for themselves, and this page will, as it should be, simply be about the polls. Spiritofsussex (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel that it is important to include political events that cause a big shift in the polls, such as the prosecution of Chris Huhne or the election of Ed Miliband. Spa-Franks (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm mixed on this issue. I complete recognise the question of what constitutes a relevant event, as it's quite difficult to ascertain the actual effect an event has on the polling figures. At the same time, looking at it, the inclusion of the UK budget etc does seem to help describe possible reasons for poll changes. I do wonder if following Spiritofsussex's suggestion may indeed be the best solution. —JeevanJones (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with JeevanJones - the article ought to follow the suggestion put forward by Spiritofsussex. News ought to be reduced to mere headings and people can follow up the leads themselves if they want to. If no-one else has any objection, this could be done ASAP. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Only just caught this. (It's been a terribly busy week in UK politics, eh?) I don't see a problem with this -- if someone is willing (and has the time!) to do this, then go ahead. —JeevanJones (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Finally found time to do it. News is now headings only and people can follow it up or not if they want to. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)