Talk:Opinion polling in United Kingdom constituencies (2010–2015)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

East Dunbartonshire poll[edit]

A Survation poll commissioned by the LibDems (like the Hornsey & Wood Green we've included before). Sorry, don't have time to add myself right now. Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think polls commissioned by the parties themselves would fail as a reliable source. The party can use any wording for the question to get the answer they want - the polling company simply asks the questions that they have been told to. If you do want to add this, it should be added as a LibDem poll rather than a Survation Poll as it wasn't done independently by the polling company. Survation have actually publically reproached the libdems for leaking privately-commissioned poll data, and emphasised that " These polls should therefore not properly be described as “Survation polls” http://survation.com/in-reference-to-recent-liberal-democrat-polling-shared-privately-with-the-media/ Little Professor (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way Hornsey & Wood Green is done is problematic. Fair enough, it's been labelled as a LibDem poll with fieldwork by Survation, but how do you decide which set of figures from the poll to use? The report has raw normal weighted figures of 38.1% for Labour and 35.4% for LibDem once don't know/refused are excluded. But then the next table has the undecideds and unknowns excluded and replaced by a 0.3 factor of the 2010 vote. This leads to the 37.3% Lab/36.1% LD figures that are in the table, making the race look closer than it is. Other survation polls either don't have this methodology (taking a factor of the 2010 vote), or if they do, the table on wiki still uses the non-factored figures. Little Professor (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sample size[edit]

For the Ashcroft polls, some of the tables are using the total number of people surveyed (i.e. either 1000 or 500) as the sample size. Others are using only the "Certain to Vote" subset, which is generally any number between 500 and 700. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other as to which figure we should be using, but we should at least have consistency Little Professor (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New (but which I mean old) poll[edit]

Should we add this? Bondegezou (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Sutton & Devonport[edit]

The poll here seems to have an error as the lead is give as 8% over Con, but it look like the Lab Con gap reported was 13% (39-26 - or are the figures wrong?) Dunarc (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]