Talk:2014 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Opinion Polling

I have added the box for the opinion polling for this election using the format consistent with that of Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010 and European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom). I have also added the first opinion poll specifically for this election that I have found, undertaken by Survation. I only found this poll by chance when looking through the data when I was adding a poll to Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, it was lower down within the article.

Could others that up date opinion polls please keep their eyes peeled for these Euro polls? It is important that we include as many polls as possible, from a variety of polling companies that are registered with the British Polling Council, a full list of these pollsters can be found on the 2015 polling page

Also, I'm wondering if later down the line we should look at adding methodology to this page or simply put in a link? I would favour a link, there is no point in endlessly repeating ourselves on multiple pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we please include polling figures for Green, SNP, BNP? All of these parties have MEPs and thus it is useful to track their polling performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.200.19 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

They only have a very small number of MEPs, it's a bit like arguing to include Respect in Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election on the basis that George Galloway has a seat. There is a clear cliff edge effect here and non of the parties you mention come close to being worthy of their own column for polling. I'm sorry but we can't include everyone, hope you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's absolute rubbish. It is not equal to including Respect. FPTP means that even with 6% they would still likely have one MP, but this is a PR election and parties on 5%+ do have potential to win more MEPs relatively easily. Do you want to deliberately make this article less useful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.200.19 (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom) for full explanation of this decision. I accept that my Respect example was not the best but it was merely to highlight the point. As I have said in my explanation for 2009, there is a cliff edge effect, we can't include everyone! Nick Also makes the point that the Green Party column that was in place was insufficient and inaccurate because it was for more then one party! You know what I will just copy that section over. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you don't understand the voting system or more specifically how seats are allocated! You seem to imply that 6% is sufficient for a party to win a seat, this is not so! Have a look through all of the constituencies and you will find that the MEP with the smallest mandate is Peter Skinner of Labour in The South East with 8.2% of the regional vote! Interestingly,this is actually higher than the actual result achieved by the Green Party at a national level! The percentage needed to achieve a seat is not fixed for every constituency, please see D'Hondt method! The more seats a constituency has, the lower the percentage needed for a party to achieve a seat! Notice the Greens and BNP only achieve representation in those constituencies with the largest number of seats, i.e. London(8), South East(10) and North West(7) (apart from the BNP in Yorkshire(6) but Yorkshire had the lowest turnout in the country!). I'm sorry but based on evidence we can't really justify their inclusion. I'm sorry! Sheffno1gunner (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

---

Copied from 2009 - "Reformatted Opinion Poll table"

I have reformatted the opinion poll table because it was completely inconsistent with the format of any other opinion polling table on Wikipedia. Also it does not work to group the Scottish Green Party and the Green Party of England and Wales as if it were one party in one column, this is statistically inaccurate, you can't simply add two percentages together from different parts of the country to give a national percentage, besides the fact they are not the same party. I am all to aware that merging the columns for the 2Greens, BNP, SNP and Plaid into the others column has made the Others % rather large in a number of the polls. The thing is, that is the nature of proportional representation, people are more willing to look at smaller parties. The point is that no individual party within the "Others" column has polled within the margin of error of the Lib Dems, there is a cliff edge effect, this is more apparent when we look at the results and seat allocation. While the others column seems to be over represented and has a high %, it is not due to any one party being to big to be included, it is due to many parties gaining moderately small percentages of around 3-7% each! This format is now consistent with that of Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010 and Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. It is also the format we will be using for opinion polling for the European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom). The new format is more user friendly, tidier, colourful, statistically accurate and of course consistent with that used on other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Very good, it's about time this was done! I realize that both the Green Parties are under the same whip in the EP and are both part of the same federal party but that is reflected on the page for the overall European elections including all 27 member states. The 2 parties are registered separately with the electoral commission and were not officially on a joint ticket (just the same pan-EU party - not the same thing). I'm not concerned about the others column being too big, if it was one party or even 2 that didn't quite fit, I'd say give them a column but you rightly point out that it is many parties with small percentages! Very good work! Nick Nick Dancer 15:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk)

---

copied from top of 2009 page

For an election with 8 parties having members why reduce the polling down to just the top 4? This is less informative than the old layout. Why not accommodate the remaining parties into the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.200.19 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the bottom of this talk page and you will find your answer there. It is explained in great detail under the heading "Reformatted Opinion Poll table". For future reference when opening a new section on the talk page, could you do it at the bottom of the page so that we have discussions kept in chronological order. Please do not respond in this section, go to the bottom of this talk page (section 21). Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

---

ĩ===Resume original thread titled "Opinion Polling"===

I am in agreement with User:81.133.12.45 and Nick, this was the right thing to do. This page is now consistent with that of every other with opinion polls on it. Also if you look at the old table it was a complete mess: The way the SNP and Plaid had their results displayed was maddeningly unhelpful and quite messy. The Greens column was simply inaccurate, I mean 2parties in one column? Also it effected the Maths, creating factual inaccuracies. Besides the fact that non of these parties achieved representation of national (UK wide) significance! By no stretch of the imagination is 2 seats in any way nationally significant!Furthermore on average (depending on your constituency) you need 9/10% to qualify for a seat, notice that the Greens and BNP only gained seats in constituencies that have more seats, therefore a lower percentage is required to qualify for seat allocation! Sheffno1gunner (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the reduction in the number of parties reported in the opinion polling. We should report what the polls say, not editorialise. Other articles do fine with larger numbers of parties (see Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2013 and Israeli_legislative_election,_2013#By_party as examples). If the polls report them, we should report them. There is no need for consistency with other UK elections: the European elections are under a different system and attract a different pattern of voting. Bondegezou (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The cliff edge effect is very clear! I realize that these are different sort of election and we have discussed in great length the reasoning for this decision.

You give the example of the Italian Elections, you should know that their elections are very different to both the UK elections and the EU elections, this is not a suitable comparison. The reason it is necessary to include so many parties for the Italian elections is because they have parties of parties so to speak. For example most people in the UK seem to think that The People of Freedom are in coalition in the same sense that we have in the UK but in actual fact Italian parties organize themselves into formal blocks. It is the collective size of these blocks which is what makes the smaller parties that they comprise of relevant in polling. Currently there are 3 blocks, within those blocks there are parties that poll as low as 1% (sometimes lower then that), this has made it necessary to include all parties above that level of polling. The party system is completely different to ours, I can not believe you actually think this is a reasonable comparison!

Again with Israel, completely ludicrous comparison. The first point to make is that Israel has 2 different "peoples" and that they vote along religious lines, might I suggest one of the reasons for including all parties is in recognition of this, Israel is a predominantly Jewish state and therefore the Palestinians recieve less representation. I don't want to get too much into the politics of Israel, it's too easy to say something which could offend someone and I would really like to avoid that! The second point to make is that they are also a country that has multiple parties within Government, the point isn't as stark as it is with Italy but it's still pretty clear!

You are comparing these EU elections to elections that result in the formation of a government and and appointment of a Prime Minister, the EU elections don't! The EU Government is not elected, the European Parliament is merely a legislative chamber with the power to amend legislation! I don't want to go over all the reasoning again for only including the 4 main UK/EU parties and not those below the cliff edge but. Look at the mess of the SNP & PC column, polls that were published often published these results together, sometimes apart, that's messy and impractical for a table, also the percentages were very small and not of national significance. The Green Parties had a similar problem, 2 parties in 1 column, the BNP also polled barely enough to gain 2 seats nationally.

Also if you look at the member parties of The Greens–European Free Alliance, they only achieved 5 seats between them. So even if you try to use their grouping to justify their presence it doesn't stack up because the Lib dems came 4th achieving 11 seats all by them selves. Remember for the purposes of within the UK (i.e. party registration, voting, domestic opinion polling companies registered with the British Polling Council) these parties are all separate, individual parties, it is only at European level (after they have been elected) that their grouping becomes significant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the IP's comments! We have got treat this election on it's own merrits and this is what we have done in this debate throughout. The only thing that we have drawn upon from other pages is the formatting/appearance of the table. The old table on the 2009 page was not the right sort of appearance.

If we were doing the polls for European Grouping (which were not) I could see the argument for having a column combining SNP, Plaid and both Green Parties all into one column but that is not the case! Even in the Italian example we don't just group individual parties together within one column as if they were one party such as was done with the Greens in the past. They separated the individual parties polling out within the party block. Also grouping SNP and Plaid together is more than clutching at straws for national significance. Non of the 2Greens, BNP, SNP or Plaid as individual parties achieved poll ratings of national significance in the last election campaign, nor did any of them in their own right win a significant number of seats. The cliff edge effect is clear no matter which way you try and look at it! Sheffno1gunner (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I am in agreement with (the IP user) and Sheffno1gunner, their arguments are sound. Other articles are helpful some times but it is always important to look at an article on its own merits and not try and draw parallels between completely different situations! Also if you go to the top of this section and look at the 2 tables and then think about it the visual appearance and the practicalities of it all I fail to see how the original is favorable! Importantly the 2nd one is more concise (takes up less space) and is much clearer! Also if polling companies don't always bother to collect individual figures for political parties, I fail to see how we can be expected to try! I hope that, that is an end to it, there is rather a lot of detail in the argument above, it be a shame if we went round in circles raking over old coals! Nick Nick Dancer 23:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I continue to disagree. Other articles demonstrate that it is entirely possible to have readable, easy-to-use tables with sufficient numbers of columns to display results for all the parties under discussion. They also show techniques to deal with parties sometimes being reported and sometimes not, and sometimes being reported together. There is no need for the opinion polling table to be so abbreviated. Thus, we should reflect what the citations say. If polls are released that lump everyone other than the four biggest parties as "other", that's fine -- we report "other". If polls are released that give results for the Greens, BNP etc., then we should report those. We should be doing our best to avoid a situation where we are in danger of original research: I understand the 'cliff edge' argument, but that approach should be a last resort. We should take our lead from reliable sources, as always.

The above IP user's further comments about the Israeli and Italian elections are erroneous on multiple accounts, but largely tangential to the discussion here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how my argument about specifically the Italian polling at least is in any way irrelevant! More to the point others seem to understand the argument! Also I don't know if you've noticed but virtually all the polls for national elections actually include a specific figure for these parties and yet we do not include a column on that page for either Green party, the BNP, SNP or PC, see below:

• YouGov example: http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/80fs8wn2cw/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-171212.pdf
• See page 26 for ComRes example: http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/Ios_SM_Political_Poll_16_December2012.pdf

It seems your whole argument rests on how the polls are published and well virtually all polls publish some form of figure for the 1st 10parties. That doesn't warrant their inclusion on the 2015 polling page, so why should it here. You seem to rest on one particular argument as the be all and end all, it's not! We have to look at this page for it's own merits and this is what we have done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This election (like the Italian and Israeli ones I mentioned) are conducted under PR, so even smaller parties win seats. The UK general election under first-past-the-post has an effective electoral threshold that means smaller parties don't win seats (or are massively underrepresented compared to their vote share). So I see that as an important difference with Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. That said, I would be happy to replicate this discussion on that article.

You are right that polls give huge amounts of detail and I agree we do not need to reflect all of that. We should, however, reflect how reliable sources report polls. If they're generally not giving results for the smaller parties, fair enough, we should omit them too. I'm not saying any immediate change is needed; it's not an issue now with the elections so far away and not much polling yet. But if reliable sources typically flag up results for the Greens, BNP etc., then so should we.

What I am saying is that we need to follow WP:policy and what I don't see is much consideration of policy in your arguments above. When you say we should "look at this page for it's own merits", what policy are you following? (I direct that question at Nick and Sheffno too.)

As to Italy, while there are blocks containing smaller parties, the Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2013 article also covers smaller parties that are not in larger blocks. And while the party system is different to ours, the electoral system is quite close to that for UK MEPs. Bondegezou (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We are going round in circles here, your raising points that have already been addressed quite satisfactorily. I'll address your new and repeated points in turn:

1. "This election (like the Italian and Israeli ones I mentioned) are conducted under PR, so even smaller parties win seats." Yes this is true, we acknowledged that this is different from UK general elections and we fully accept this but by the same token this is not the other elections you have referred to in other ways. Which is why we can't rely too heavily on anyone comparison! I accept that generally speaking under PR smaller parties are more represented but by just how much? Is there a cliff edge effect? The Green Party of England and Wales won a seat in the 2010 general election, they also have 2 seats in the European Parliament. The difference of just one seat is by no stretch of the imagination a significant difference! And once again 2 seats across the entire country is not significant enough and falls way below the cliff edge! I would suggest it is not appropriate to consider altering the opinion polling columns for the next general election. We set a clear precedent with the inclusion of UKIP, a party has to earn it's column by consistently polling high enough. By that same token if say the Green Party or BNP poll high enough consistently then yes they would earn their own column on polling for this page. it's got to be consistent polling though, over a long period of time! The inclusion of UKIP debate took 6-9months before a decision was made!

2.Once again poling companies always publish results for these smaller parties, whether they put them on the front page or the back page is really neither here nor there, at the end of the day they are always publishing these percentages in some shape or form. Therefore once again this argument can not be the be all and end all! We have to look at the whole picture! Like I say if any of these parties are polling consistently high enough then good for them, they can be included, the pollsters will probably make a bigger thing of them as well.

3. As far as Italy goes I hate to repeat things that have already been said but clearly their situation is different. It would be quite wrong not to give a column to a party that is polling higher than another party. The nature of the block party system means that some of the very smallest parties with polling percentages of only 1% need to be included because it is their share of the vote that helps to give the block party it's lead! To include a party consistently polling 1% it's own column and deny that of a party scoring say 3% consistently would be quite wrong! But like I say I am repeating things that have already been said!

Of course if the situation changes and say for example the Green party make a consistent statistical polling tie with the Lib Dem's for a significant period of time or even overtake them then I would of course support them having their own column! But for now at least, I see no consistent credible argument that warrants any of the other parties getting their own column in this table and that applies to 2009 as well. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of the Italian article, it now has two tables, one just on the four big blocks and one with details for all the parties. So, again, we see another approach available. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, your missing the point! With regard to the Italian elections: I see what your saying in that they are being included but why can we justify including them? How is this different to the UK part of the EP elections? At the risk of repeating what's already been said I will explain! The small Italian parties are justifiably included because many of them make up the alliances that actually make it to Government/official opposition/poll at a substantially significant level. Those small parties that aren't in an alliance are included because they are either polling above or equal to that of small parties that are in an alliance. I really don't see how that is a difficult thing to get your head round. This is a completely different kind of election. These circumstances do not apply to the Greens or the BNP, they are just small parties that on their own achieve a tiny number of seats and poll below an obvious cliff edge! If we were to group polls by alliance then there might be a case for grouping both Greens, SNP and Plaid all into one column(Green-Free Alliance) but we're not grouping by alliance because the polling companies who conduct the polls do not group by alliance! These shouldn't be difficult arguments to understand! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I think that last comment says all that needs to be said about the Italian elections, Italy is not a relevent or sufficient comparison, so lets move on and stop going round in circles! The only argument that almost stands up is that we're to report polls as they are reported. The thing is though, as clearly demonstrated by the old table, not all the polling companies report their polls in the same manner, some group together, some don't, some don't even include a figure for these parties! To be able to create a table that is reader friendly and consistent we need to have a single format for all of the polls in the table, the old table changed format for every other poll! Even if that argument fully stood up there would still be the issue that in other polling for other elections (such as UK general elections - and yes I do realize they have different voting systems) figures are also collected for all these parties but we do not report them because they are not sufficiently large enough to be significant! The Italian election has got to be an exception to this for obvious reasons and to be honest I really think your clutching at some very thin straws to try and use the Italian election in your argument here! I consider this an end to this discussion, it is very unhelpful to waste peoples time by going round in circles. Obviously if the situation changes I will remain open minded with regard to adding other columns for other parties. That is if a party polls consistently high enough for a significant period of time, significantly high enough would most likely be a statistical tie with the Lib Dems but obviously we have no crystal ball, so we're going to have to be open minded! Hopefully that's this discussion over! Thank you Sheffno1gunner (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

---

copied from: http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/Sunday_People_European_Political_Poll_13th_January_2013.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>

---

ComRes Published European Voting Intention Figures for The People - 13th January

Conservative 22%

Labour 35%

Liberal Democrat 8%

UKIP 23%

Other 12%

---

---

---

It seems the pollsters even agree on this format. Yes lets leave this discussion be. The argument is well and truly exhausted and so am I!

Lead Column

I have decided to add whom is leading over whom in the "1st Party Lead" column. I think it is clear that we are going to have various different parties leading in this poll and the positions of 1st, 2nd and 3rd are likely to change frequently between the 3main UK/EU parties (CON, UKIP, Lab). Call this speculation if you must but what I am trying to do is get the formatting sorted now, while we've only got one poll to worry about, instead of having to fix a massive data filled table later down the line.

I think this is the best format because a 3rd party lead column would not solve our problem, if we were to go down the route of multiple lead columns, I suspect we would need 3, which would not be helpful as it would only create confusion! Notice this solution has been used towards the end of Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010 as the Lib Dems had actually topped some polls and were frequently coming second in others, 1st 2nd and 3rd place were frequently changing, it seems way may encounter a similar situation with this election, therefore I have implemented the same solution. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason for objection as it is consistent with that of opinion polling for 2009, where this was also necessary as 2nd place was interchangeable between UKIP and Labour. Nick Nick Dancer 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibility of TV Debates

This is the first European Election since the 2010 election where we saw the first TV debates and it is not unlikely that we will see similar debates between the 4 party leaders this time round. I think it is worth at least making note of this on this page. All the papers are building this up to be the biggest European Election ever! It's difficult to see how there is not going to be a TV debate to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As ever, we should be guided by policy. Let's find some reliable sources on the matter and take our lead from what they say. Bondegezou (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a ist of sources that in some way imply that there will be a TV debate in 2014. Yes a lot of them refer to the General Election for 2015. I have tried to gather sources that show that: a) A debate is likely to take place in 2014 b) The debate could well include all 4 main UK EP parties c) There could even be a pan-EU TV debate (euobserver) between the federal parties

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9771841/TV-debates-could-take-place-a-year-before-election-day.html
• http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/after-rotherham-ukip-aims-to-top-the-2014-euro-poll/2031
• http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/68906/sir_menzies_campbell_leaders_tv_debates_should_start_in_2014.html
• http://euobserver.com/political/117517
• http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/09/will-ukip-make-the-transition-from-pressure-group-to-serious-political-party/
• http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/12/01/should-the-party-without-a-single-mp-be-given-a-place-in-the-tv-debates/

Some of those refer to the possibility of TV debates in 2014 about the 2015 General Election (and they may warrant coverage on the article for that election). None of them say anything about a TV debate connected to the UK 2014 European Parliament elections. I see nothing to warrant any coverage in this article. Bondegezou (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, lets not include anything on TV debates on here, unless we actually hear that there are going to be some debates. We don't know either way, what you say is unverifiable at this stage for this election at least. However I think we should include something about the TV debates for the Next United Kingdom general election and I think some of these sources are indeed valid for that page. I have created a section on that page. Can we move this discussion to that page instead. Thankyou.sheffno1gunner (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinion Polling Chart

I think this is something we should be thinking about so I have copied this over from Talk:European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom), obviously we should see to 2009 first because we haven't any data to work with for 2014 yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 opinion polling chart for the next United Kingdom general election

---

---

---

Copied over from bottom of Talk:European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom)

Is anyone good with making graphs? We could do with a graph for the opinion polls, there aren't that many so it shouldn't take too long. You'd need to include a line each for the 4main parties and one for "others". Using the data from the table on the main page, be sure to include the 2004 result at the beginning and the 2009 result at the end. Ideally it would be good if you could create the same type of graph as were using for the next general election. Hope someone can help, thanks. Nick Nick Dancer 07:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also be in favour of a graph as described, using the same format/design as the example Nick has given. One suggested change though, the key at the bottom should not use unnecessary abbreviations. The names in the key should appear as: Conservative, UKIP, Labour, Lib Dem. There is space for them, they will fit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

---

Resume Discussion

UKIP's column highlighter colour

I noticed that a very dark colour had been used to highlight UKIP for its first polling lead in the polling box at the bottom of the page. I have spent some time to find a more appropriate colour so that it doesn't stand out too much or clash with the other colours. I have selected plum as it doesnt look too much like Labour or the Conservative's colours. Use: #DDA0DD to get the colour as demonstrated in the polling box. obviously we keep to party colours for the lead column, this is only for highlighting. ConsciousKipper (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Might be worth reading WP:COLOUR. Picking a colour is important for accessibility reasons. --JetBlast (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Greens

Would you like to stop discriminating against the Greens now. 12% in latest poll and ahead of the Lib Dems. It's not so difficult to add a column guys. (Comment by IP editor, moved to new section by me to make it clearer. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC))

One swallow does not a spring make. The Greens have polled considerably lower in other polls. I would suggest no move is necessary until we saw more evidence that the Greens are a significant presence in polling. We also need to follow how reliable sources present results. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I would add that we can not give a party it's own column based on one good poll for any party. We must also consider past electoral performance: The Greens only got 2 seats last time, same as the BNP and SNP. If the Greens were to consistently poll equal to or above the Liberal Democrats there could be a case for adding them, as things stand no case exists. Owl In The House (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Godfrey Bloom not reselected by UKIP

UKIP has today announced the order of their lists for 2014 and it seems as if Godfrey Bloom has been officially removed from the list, meaning if he still wants to be an MEP after 2014 he would now have to run as an Independent or with another party, should something be mentioned here Guyb123321 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the retirement section using the BBC source and source from the Mirror. The Mirror quotes Bloom as saying :

"I shall sit out my term as an independent and give my wholehearted support to Jane Collins who is almost certainly going to be the next Ukip MEP and probably a second seat yet to be decided. I shall of course retain my membership."

This shows that Bloom will not stand again because he can't retain membership of a political party and contest an election under a different banner. He also shows support to his replacement. The section has been amended, hope this helps.CardBoardBoxLiving (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

YouGov Poll 14th-15th Jan 14

Have changed the source of this poll from a Newspaper article to the polls actual raw data and discovered that the Newspaper in question had been selective over the polling figures. Have amended the poll accordingly, YouGov themselves say there are 2 points between the two parties as does Mike Smithson (respected non-partisan polling blogger). In future can people use data tables from polling companies as opposed to journalistic articles for publishing figures, many thanks Owl In The House (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the figures back. If you look at the YouGov PDF you linked to, at the top of page 3 are the "headline voting intention" figures, those in the first column of numbers in bold. Those are YouGov's main answer and the figures we and newspapers use. The alternate figures you used (and Mike Smithson quoted) are also given in the PDF, the next column, but those are only for those who say they will definitely vote. Those are interesting and informative figures, but they're not the polls' main conclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, after having taken a closer look, I agree with your edit. In future such confusion must be avoided by using polling companies primary sources (data tables) as opposed to Newspaper reports. Given all the data available it seems strange and a tad inconsistent that YouGov have chosen to use these numbers as their headline figures. Non the less it is YouGov's poll, they are BPC recognised and we are not here to interpret the polls, merely report the headline figure. Owl In The House (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is preferable to use the polling companies' data tables where possible, but I would point out that the newspaper report was correct in this place and I have no a priori objection to using a newspaper as a source.

YouGov are using a weighting by voting intention. This is standard and in line with other pollsters. One can argue about precisely what that weighting should be and whether it should be different in the case of European Parliament polling (as Mike Smithson does), but I would describe their actions here as neither "strange" nor "inconsistent".

However, I concur that the details of polling are important. Bondegezou (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Welsh Only Poll?

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2014-02-17/ukip-leap-to-second-place/ Guyb123321 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for finding that. Would it perhaps be best added to Wales (European Parliament constituency)? Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I personally think it should be added here, in a separate column, just like how for the UK general election, Northern Ireland polling is given a separate column, adding it to the Welsh constituency page seems a little iffy considering that its never been done before and it just doesn't feel right, I feel like all the polling should be in one place. Guyb123321 (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added constituency-specific polls to Westminster constituencies before. It's not done often but then constituency-specific polls aren't done often. But I'm easy, no strong feelings on this. Bondegezou (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those polls, to be honest I'm still kinda against them as I dont believe its what a constituency page should be for, its what election pages and opinion polling pages are there for. How would you feel about moving those to the "Opinion Polling for next UK general election" page with the kinda formating that exists (i.e. A table) and adding the Welsh poll here? :) Guyb123321 (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain what the best approach is. I do think this is probably a question better discussed somewhere more visible than this Talk page: maybe on some sort of project page? I'm open to suggestions.

I think a poll for a constituency is about that constituency and, so, that seems an obvious place to put it. If I wanted to inform myself about my constituency and see if there are any polls, I think I'd go to the constituency article. That's my reasoning.

I thought I'd look at US elections to see what they do. So, when it comes to the Senate elections this year, individual polling for each state is under each state's election article (e.g. United States Senate election in Montana, 2014), but overall predictions are under the overall article (United States Senate elections, 2014). Which doesn't entirely help as we don't have articles for each constituency in an election, but sort of seems a bit more like my suggested placement than yours. Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

My opposition to that was partly based on formatting (i.e. It was put as a sentence which is really messy as opposed to a table) and the fact that unlike in the USA, there will not be a poll in every seat, meaning that a few will, a few wont. Also there is no precedent for this meaning 2015 would be the first elections that this happened in. Finally on the individual constituency page, where do you put it? Right at the bottom seems a little bit obscure and out of the way for something which is quite important information.

In my view a constituency page is almost a "historical" page - hence why results go back all the why into the 1950's for some pages of constituencies that haven't changes a lot, such as the Isle of Wight.

How about a compromise. Get rid of the sentences on individual seats and instead have a dedicated page for polling in the individual constituencies. A page like this Opinion polling for the 2012 United States Senate elections but for the individual constituencies obviously.

I hope I don't come across as too confrontational, I just really think that these individual seat polls need to be recognised in my opinion. But anyway I've kinda got off topic as this isn't even to do with the Welsh poll haha, let me know what you think? :) Guyb123321 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I take your point. OK, let's say we have a Constituency opinion polling for the next United Kingdom General Election page and it lists the various polls done, and then there's a link on individual constituency articles to it as appropriate? I can go with that. In which case, it would make sense to stick the Welsh Euro poll at the bottom of this article, yes. Bondegezou (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean and that you're trying to find a solution but creating a new page doesn't seem to be answer. That is unless we move all polling for these elections to a new page. Since the national polls don't have their own page, it would seem odd to create a page for constituency polls. Could we not just add a separate subsection within the polling section for constituency polls within this article. We don't really need to put it in table format at this stage with there only being one poll so far.

Although that gives me an idea: What we could do is have a separate page for polling and take the constituency results from the national polls and create individual tables for the 11/12 constituencies, as well as having a table for the nation wide polling results. That way readers are in a better position to see who is likely to gain seats in their constituency. Just a thought :) Owl In The House (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. Guyb and I have moved on to discussing General Election polling rather than the European Parliament elections and the Welsh poll first described. For the General Election, there is a separate article: Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election.

As far as this article and the Euro-elections go, I think Guyb and I are both now happy for this Welsh poll simply to be appended at the end of the current polling section. If lots more polls emerge, then a separate article could work. Bondegezou (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Added Welsh Section :) Guyb123321 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Polling

There are also Scottish only polls to be included, shall we do this on the same basis as Wales:

Date(s) conducted	Polling organisation/client	Sample size	SNP	Lab	Con	Lib Dem	UKIP	<span	style="color:White;">Others]]	Lead
17-21 Mar 2014	ICM/Scotsman	1,010	40% (3)	30% (2)	13% (1)	5%	6%	6%	10% over Labour
4 Jun 2009	European Parliament election, 2009 (Scotland) Results	1,104,512	29.1% (2)	20.8% (2)	16.8% (1)	11.5% (1)	5.2%	16.6%	8.2% over Lab

Also does anyone knowwhere we might find a list of other Scotland only EU polls, theres bound to be more then just one. Owl In The House (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, there might only be this one at this point so early into the campaign considering that even Wales only has two, but considering that this poll is coming out so early in the campaign I think its likely more will follow so It should definitely be added to the main page in my opinion, right above or below the Welsh polls section Guyb123321 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

11-22 YouGov

YouGov have published the tables for the 11-22 April 2014 YouGov poll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.12.245 (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, I have made the edit. If you have any other/new edit requests/suggestions can you make them at the bottom of the talk page. Thanks again for letting us know. Owl In The House (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Greens

I notice someone had added a column for The Scottish Green Party to the opinion poll table. May I point out that this was done without consensus, the above discussion says nothing about the Scottish Green Party and indeed provides a template for such a polling table which was unchallenged. The reasons for the inclusion and disclusion of parties in an opinion polling table are as follows:

1. All parties currently with representation in the constituency are included regardless: This covers the SNP, Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems in the Scotland table.

2. Parties that are deemed of national significance, or catergorised for these elections by OfCom, the Electoral Commission and the BBC for the purpose of these elections are included: This covers the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and UKIP. Notice that the Lib Dems do not have and have never had a Welsh MEP but we give them a polling column as they are deemed to be a nationally significant party for these elections. The case for UKIP in the Scotland table is exactly the same as the case for the Lib Dems in the Wales table.

The Greens however, do not have and never have had an MEP. The Greens have not been deemed to be nationally significant by any of our main reliable sources.

The addition of the Greens was a bold edit, without consensus. In order to avoid edit warring and clarify what the baseline of consensus for edits is, the above discussion shows undisputed consensus to add a table including 5 parties not 6. Not only is there no reasoning for including the Greens but there is also no consensus. I have therefore removed them from the Scotland polling table. Owl In The House (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ofcom ruled that in UK wide coverage UKIP should be treated as a major party, but in Scotland it should not count.MikeJamesShaw (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Seat estimates

This seat calculator should clear up any confusion: http://www.dhondt.eu/php/?vote0=11&vote1=28&vote2=7&vote3=37&vote4=&vote5=&vote6=10&seats=6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.194.147 (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not the official seat calculator used for these elections, besides the fact that d'hondt isn't calculated on the basis of percentages, it's calculated on the basis of actual votes. There is a difference there, especially when you're using rounded percentages in a headline poll. You will notice in the raw data of respondents that there is only one vote in the polling sample separating UKIP and the Conservatives. Yes that's right, one vote. The key point here is that Dhond't calculations are not based on headline percentages, seats are allocated on the basis of actual votes. You are misunderstanding the voting system. Your edit has been reverted, do not undo the edit. Also could you please stop editing from multiple IP addresses, I can tell from your edits that you are the same person. Kind Regards Owl In The House (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Basic Wikipedia policy is clear that we editors should not be calculating seat estimates. That would constitute original research. It is safest to stick to what is reported in the sources cited. Only if the calculation is completely trivial should it be being included, and if it is completely trivial, there shouldn't be any debate here about its application! Bondegezou (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Then all the seat estimates should be removed, because the calculation is not 'trivial'. For what it's worth, using the numbers in the original source, I get the same result: http://www.dhondt.eu/php/?vote0=71&vote1=201&vote2=48&vote3=242&vote4=40&vote5=0&vote6=70&seats=6

www.euroelection.co.uk

I have a made a website for this election. Would anyone object if I linked to it in the article? -- Cabalamat (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you might need to check how many days till the election lol Guyb123321 (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted, it's sorted now -- 13:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia policy on what external links to include is at WP:EL. You may wish to make a case with respect to that policy if you want your website to be included. Bondegezou (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper Endorsements

The United Kingdom general election, 2010 had a section on Newspaper endorsements. Should we have a similar table for this article to add more detail? Owl In The House (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Something like this (2010 eg):

Dailies				Sundays
Newspaper	Endorsement			Newspaper	Endorsement
The Times		Conservative		Sunday Times		Conservative
The Guardian		Liberal Democrats		The Observer		Liberal Democrats
Daily Telegraph		Conservative		The Sunday Telegraph		Conservative
Financial Times		Conservative
The Independent		Undeclared		The Independent on Sunday		Undeclared
Evening Standard		Conservative
Daily Mail		Conservative		The Mail on Sunday		Conservative
Daily Express		Conservative		Sunday Express		Conservative
Daily Mirror		Labour		Sunday Mirror		Labour
				The People		Any coalition
The Sun		Conservative		News of the World		Conservative
The Daily Star		Undeclared		Daily Star Sunday		Undeclared

It is possible for these elections in particular that different writers and editors within individual Newspapers will support different parties. This might be difficult for us to categorise properly, so we'd need to decide which sources are more reliable, this could be complicated. For example, writers and editors within the Telegraph might be split between the Conservatives and UKIP, whereas the Guardian might be split between Labour, the Lib Dems and even the Greens. Anyonegot any thoughts? Owl In The House (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Something along these lines would be good. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Unlike General elections, these european elections in the UK are seen (rightly or wrongly) as not having much effect on domestic policy and as such most newspapers barring one or two are likely not to endorse a particular party. If I'm proved wrong and newspapers do decide to make endorsements then a section could be added but until then I think newspaper endorsements are pretty much just for the general elections Guyb123321 (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. If there aren't enough endorsements, I agree there's no point in a table. And if there are, let's go for it. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Bondegezou, although my position is quite clear above, ie, not a definite yes, not a definite no, it depends on the sources. To be as dismissive as Guyb123321 to the idea is quite unhelpful to improving the article. To say that Newspaper endorsement is "just for the general elections" strikes me as a bit odd. So what if EU elections are seen to "not having much effect on domestic policy"...how is that in anyway relevant to whether a paper has made an endorsement or not, or whether they are in anyway backing a party or not? Surely they either are, or they're not. I'd say a good measure would be that if half the papers back a party, then we include a table. Owl In The House (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree, If half the newspapers or more say were endorsing "X" party then an endorsement section should be included. However historically newspapers have refrained from endorsing for these elections and have only ever endorsed uniformly at the general elections, Its not being dismissive, its a fact. Of course I want to improve the article, buts its a simple fact that most newspapers do not tend to endorse at these elections. If that changes then by all means include a section on it. Again, I wasn't being dismissive and the fact that you think that me saying newspaper endorsements are "just for the general elections" is odd, is odd in itself because simple historical context suggests that most newspapers tend to avoid endorsing one party in european elections. Guyb123321 (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Do Newspapers not endorse party's in Scottish Parliament elections? The Scottish Sun endorsed the SNP in the Scottish Parliament election, 2011. Your claim that Newspaper endorsements are "just for the general elections" is utterly false. The 2011 Parliament election was perceived to be the most significant to date, there were far more polls, much more media attention and even TV debates for the first time.

Something similar is clearly happening with these EU elections: For starters, polling is more frequent, there are already more BPC polls for this election then there were the previous election and we havent even entered April yet. Bearing in mind the main campaign officially gets under way in the middle of April and during the last election all but one of the polls were actually conducted in May, I think its safe to say that there will be a very significant increase in the number of polls conducted. It follows that there will be much more media attention will be on these elections, then previous EU elections, especially when we consider that it is Newspapers who pay for most of these polls.

Similar to the Scottish elections, this is the first time that a TV (and Radio) debate would take place before an EU election in the UK. All in all, when you look at the bigger picture, the "historical evidence" suggests the opposite of what you suggest Guy. So yes your comments were dismissive as they were only based on part of the evidence and you were indeed dismissing the suggestion out right. I am pleased to see you change your tune and accept that if there are Newspaper endorsements, we cover them in a table as suggested. Kind Regards Owl In The House (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh Yes, some newspapers definitely do endorse for other elections such as parliamentary elections to national parliaments, although again it is only the general elections that see a really high percentage 80%+ making endorsements.

The historical evidence I said was saying, look at the '09 european elections, look at the '04 european elections, look at the '99 european elections, look at the '94 european elections. For the most part, newspapers with a few exceptions didn't make a clear endorsement of one political party.

My comments were as follows: If newspapers decide that for this european election to ignore what has happened previously, then by all means include a section, if not, then obviously it would be unnecessary to include a section with just one of two endorsements Guyb123321 (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

new polls

Hello Mr Owl. New Survation/Evening Standard poll of London voters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.12.245 (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank's for letting us know, I'll get on that now. In future could you sign your comments on talk pages by tapping ~ 4times consecutively at the end of your comments before saving the edit. The ~ key is usually the same button as the # key, you just hold the shift key down at the same time. I have signed the comment for you this time. Thanks again for the new poll. Owl In The House (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Interview about the EU elections

Hello, I'm doing a massive coverage on the elections for my website CNTimes. I would like to know if anyone here would like to record a small video of him/herself giving some thoughts on the EU and the elections. @ Please email me at johao.enquiries@gmail.com

Sorry if this is not the right place. Kind regards, Joao

This is not a place for you to advertise. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this talk page is for the sole purpose of discussing changes and potential changes to this article. It is not a politics discussion forum (or any other forum for that matter). Owl In The House (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Map

I almost forgot, the article needs a map. For now should we use the map from the previous election article or merely a blank map of the European Parliamentary Constituencies of the UK? Owl In The House (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I added the London Map for now, if anyone can find/think of a better alternative then please suggest.

Have also added Largest party, with Leader to the bottom of every UK European Parliament election summary box.Owl In The House (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2