Talk:Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election/Archives/2014/March

20-21 February and 12 March

I suggest that the announcement of a debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage, and the EU referendum policy declaration by Ed Miliband, are not events of sufficient significance to be included in the calendar. The first relates to a debate that has not yet happened, to be held between two minor parties in the run-up to the 2014 Euro Elections. The second is a policy announcement that is of little valence to most voters; if we are to include this, then policy announcements on defence, the economy, education, health and law and order will also need to be included. That's my opinion. What do others think? --Wavehunter (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. It seems to me to come perilously close to original research to pick and choose what policy/news items are included in the table. Take them out. See also discussion at Talk:European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#Polling_Notes. Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I take your point re the EU elections page Bondegezou but not on this page. Cameron's policy announcement on this issue made it on to the page and has been on it for well over a year. It is only right that Ed Miliband's position is also included. It's not the same as defence, unless were talking about a strategic defence review which has been included in the notes. If in time (say after the EU elections), this is proven to be a total non-event (e.g. Labour winning the EU elections), then yes it is insignificant but we don't know that yet, so I would say include for now on the grounds that Cameron's position is also covered.

As far as Clegg V Farage goes, I take your point in a way but I think that when the debates actually happen they should be included as it is impossible to argue that they wont have an effect on public opinion. So I concede the point about the challenge being a non significant event (for polling purposes) but the debates themselves are certainly note worthy. Owl In The House (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the Clegg-Farage debate. I would suggest taking out both the EU referendum announcements (Miliband and Cameron) as I've seen no evidence that they have much effect on voting intention. The results of the Euro elections are not relevant here: turnout is lower in these elections; they are run on a different system (not first past the post); and people choose which party to support on different grounds. Hope to see some other opinions here. Best --Wavehunter (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't buy your argument. The Police and Crime Commissioner elections, the Scottish and Welsh elections are based on totally different electoral systems and they are included in the notes. This is same old argument that gets pulled out all the timeand its never even applied consistently, only ever to dismissing the EU elections as an irrelevance, while every other election in the country (regardless of voting system) is always relevant. Also what on earth does turnout have to do with it? The police and Crime Commissioner elections had the lowest turnout of ANY election in British history, so that puts that argument in to perspective.

It is undeniable that the EU has been a major feature of debate and indeed journalists were watching polling figures very closely to see how Cameron's speech affected affected his standing in the polls. Our reliable sources point out thats why he made the speech. Cameron changed his position several times, 2 years ago, he three line whipped his MEPs not to vote for an EU referendum but he changed his position, our reliable sources point out why that was. It is original research for you to say that the speech had no affect on the polls, when our reliable sources have shown that this speeches effect or non effect on the polls is of relevance.

Furthermore, as leader of HM Official Opposition, Ed Miliband's position should be given equal weight as the PM. It is original research for you to say whether his words do or do not have an effect on voting intention.

As far as the Clegg/Farage debates go, I note you have removed the note, my consensus was clearly given on condition that the debates themselves are actually included as notes, so by removing that note, I am pleased you agree with that position. Owl In The House (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Election results, debates, policy announcements, these are all important information that should be covered in relevant articles. That's a given. But I don't see the need to insert these events into a list of opinion poll results. Why not just take everything out and leave the list of opinion poll results as a list of opinion poll results?

If you think a particular policy announcement, debate or other election had a significant impact on the polling, then find some reliable sources saying that and discuss that in accompanying text or in the relevant article. There can be text saying, "Party X's figure notably fell in year Y after event Z.(citation)(citation)" Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What you are proposing is a fundamental change to the polling tables to suit the argument that these events not being included, we have included notes in opinion poll tables for years and to decide to no longer do this and retrospectively remove all notes on this basis would be quite wrong. In turn removing relevant information, such as significant events such as local elections, parliamentary byelections, budgets, autumn statements, coalition mid-term review, TV debates and significant events such as the London Riots would reduce the quality of the article significantly, it would be less informative to the reader. These dates help provide useful breaks in the data to make it more user friendly, they also have the benefit of showing what (if any) effect significant effects had on the national polls. It is well observed in the media that Cameron's speech is electorally highly significant, particularly to polling. Indeed the source already used in the article states "The referendum pledge should help the Tories combat the growing threat from UKIP and many Tory MPs hope it will be a turning point in the battle to win power in 2015.". There are absolutelly no grounds from removing this from the article, if you want I can provide dozens more sources that show this was an electorally significant event, though I scarcely see the point. To not include Miliband's position on the debate would also be wrong. Owl In The House (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

By way of full disclosure, I'd like to report that I have invited recent contributors Hiimgeo, Impru20, Retraité and Saxmund to join this discussion. Comments from others would of course be equally welcome! --Wavehunter (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Most list of poll results do not have any interweaved notes: see Opinion polling for the German federal election, 2013, Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2013, Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections, Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012, Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016, Opinion polling for the French Presidential election, 2017, Opinion polling for the Indian general election, 2014, Opinion polling in the Polish parliamentary election, 2011, Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 1997, Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2005 and many other examples. Ergo, contrary to Owl, I would say the use of such notes is not an established standard approach. Rather, it is this practice in some UK articles that is aberrant. I remain of the view that this approach is far too close to original research and prone to agenda-pushing. I favour minimal or no use of such interweaved notes. Bondegezou (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I question whether a citation saying that the "referendum pledge should help the Tories combat the growing threat from UKIP" suffices as evidence that the pledge did change the Conservatives' polling. Journalists say these things all the time, but the polling figures move much less. Very few things affect the polls (outside of an election campaign). Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As I've been invited to comment I will. I think that both the recent notes alluded to (Milliband's policy announcement and the announcement of the Clegg/Farage debate) are too trivial to include. The debate itself may well be worthy of mentioning and certainly the leaders' debates were included as notes in Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010. My personal opinion is that the notes are useful, but should be kept to bona fide political events such as elections, budgets and the like. So would be happy to lose the one on Cameron's announcement of a referendum as well. In the UK I would argue that local and European elections, and Parliamentary by-elections, are relevant because to a large extent they are viewed as a sort of opinion poll on the Government. Saxmund (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Saxmund. I think I've allowed enough time for comments and despite a lack of consensus I'm going to be bold and edit based on my view and the majority view. I take your points, Owl-in-the-House, but I broadly agree with Bondegezou and Saxmund. To avoid bias or original research, I reckon we should limit notes to the following: leaders' debates; Queen's speech; Budgets; change of leader (Harman-Milliband, Pearson-Titford-Farage). We should also include elections (by-elections, local elections, Euro-elections, referenda, etc), and since these can give some indiciation as to the state of the parties we ought to give the result: who won, who did best, or perhaps the swing. Including policy announcements allows for agenda pushing: we shouldn't get into the debate here on whether the election will be about Britain's role in Europe, immigration, the economy, the NHS, welfare, global warming, Trident or any other issue. Thanks all for contributing. --Wavehunter (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I can get on board with that. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Me too, I particularly agree that policy announcements would be taking it too far (we could have more notes than poll results!)Saxmund (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, However I have reformatted one of the notes so that change of Leader notes follow the same template and have the same links. That said I still feel these notes should be incorporated in the Opinion polling table for European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom). We are talking about up to 4 notes that are of absolute relevance to those elections: 1. Cameron's pledge and EU policy speech, 2. Milibands terms of potential referendum and EU position speech, 3. The Clegg/Farage radio debate, 4. The Clegg/Farage TV debate. 4 notes, all of which are highly significant to polling for those particular elections and yet people on that talk page are against any notes in the table. Owl In The House (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest Saxmund's and Wavehunter's summaries should apply to European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom) as well. As I interpret what they say, that would mean only notes on the 2 debates and those notes should only come when the debates happen (not notes saying a debate has been announced/planned). Bondegezou (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement about not including the announcement of there being debates but I feel we should include the date of the debates themselves, so were all in agreement there. However with specific regard to the EU elections page, I still think the Cameron and Miliband notes should stay as I have already demonstrated they are of polling relevance and they are aimed at the EU elections. It would be quite wrong for us to exclude the Cameron and Miliband positions, when the Clegg/Farage debates have been highlighted. OfCom says the EU elections are a 4 party election, even if the media says it is a 2 party election ("party of in, party of out")

Can we take this debate about the EU elections to the relevant talk page. Cheers Owl In The House (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)