Talk:Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election

Alter colour for ReformUK on the graphical summary

Right now the colour of the Conservatives and Reform on the graphical summary looks too similar. Seeing how they are so close in the polls now, it's confusing as to which poll belongs to which party, it all blends together. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That is unfortunately their colour. Could the Conservatives maybe be made a darker shade of blue than at present, it looks paler than Tory Blue to me. Something more like the LR colour on the French Opinion Polls page might fix it. 81.109.118.237 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Though if we can randomly assign colours I agree that UKIP Purple is available again :D 81.109.118.237 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

How about each dot square, but with different orientations of the dots?

con& lab: top horizontal

lib: top +30 degrees

ReformUK: top -30 degrees

others: top horizontal RERTwiki (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Labour Together? Really???

Get this poll off this site forthwith. We should not be including internal polls or party-sponsored polls in any form. 2603:7000:603A:342B:4964:A243:AFC1:71EF (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The name makes clear its origin. Readers can decide how much weight to give their results, which are in line with others. The layout of their tables is almost exactly like YouGov. I wouldn't be surprised if it was contracted out to them. Speaking of YouGov, their founders were Conservatives, Nadhim Zahawi and Stephan Shakespeare, an owner of ConservativeHome. I doubt we can ever exclude all political bias in polls, especially given the ownership of the UK press. --Cavrdg (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not an internal poll; it was done using standard polling methodology. It is not a party-sponsored poll; Labour Together are a think tank and not part of the Labour Party (although they are Labour supporting). We include all polls done by pollsters who are members of the British Polling Council. Bondegezou (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Labour Together are not a member of the BPC. 38.96.180.251 (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Who does the polling is the important criteria, not who they are doing it for. 108.211.140.60 (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 elections

My personal preference is to include the following as the line for last Thursday's elections:

United Kingdom local elections, Police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales and the Blackpool South by-election

This shows: local elections in England, the PCC elections and the Blackpool by-election.

I must object to the phrase 'Local elections in England and Wales' there were no local elections in Wales and I can't see how huge police area elections can be classed as anything remotely local. We have a specific results page complete with the usual info box and breakdown for the PCC elections. Kalamikid (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Our article at 2024 United Kingdom local elections includes the PCC elections. The BBC page on the local elections covers the PCC elections. They are elections for local areas, albeit relatively large ones. I think it is unnecessarily nitpicky to separate them out in a note on a polling table. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You and I are clearly going to disagree given the edits we've both made. How about a compromise of "2024 United Kingdom local elections" given that's what the wiki page is called? Kalamikid (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the form as it is currently (as edited by Bondegezou). It is descriptive and succinct. --LukeSurl ^t c 12:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey

@Ralbegen and Unionofpeopleni: Just to say, you were right the NILT survey was general election polling - it just wasn't clear from the link posted (it looked like a party ID question, as opposed to a voting intention question). I've added a note including the question asked and a link to the questionnaire for clarity.

More generally: what's the policy on removing undecided voters (the 'none of these' or 'I don't know' responses)? Most polls only include people giving a voting intention in the headline figures, so removing them would make improve the ability to compare with other polls. The figures appear to be APNI 28; SF 24; DUP 19; UUP 13; SDLP 9; Grn 5; Oth 4 without them. Clyde1998 (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

We normally present numbers excluding undecided voters. However, normally those numbers are provided by the pollster. We can, as per WP:CALC, calculate our own numbers excluding undecided voters. I tried that here, but I got confused as to which of their categories should count as undecided and which as other party. Bondegezou (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've modified it using {{#expr:x/80 * 100 round 0}}%, on the basis 'None of these'; 'Other answer'; 'I don't know' should be removed; the other options are all clearly relate to voting intentions (only 'Other answer' is ambiguous to me - as that could mean a VI for an independent). Makes it a bit easier to calculate, can be adjusted easily should we need to and makes it a bit clearer where the figures are coming from. Clyde1998 (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not certain 'Other answer' should be excluded. I'm not even certain what's best with 'None of these'. Bondegezou (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Graph correction

The 16 May People Polling poll has released corrected figures after an error was found in their original figures. This has been corrected in the table, but it also needs correcting in the graph please. Bondegezou (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is maintained by Ralbegen LukeSurl ^t c 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging, it should be fixed now :-) Ralbegen (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Polling aggregation graph.

Hi! @Ralbegen

I made a graph visualizing the distribution of opinion polling between the beginning of the year and the calling of the election. I sourced it from the main table of nation-level voting intention.

The intention is to capture the political environment, which has been by and large stable, immediately before the campaign period. Pre-election campaigns tend to shift political attitudes, which is the rationale behind this piece of visualization. The different intensity of colours shows the range distribution/variation of each party’s support level since January.

The idea of this graph is similar to a histogram: the more polls having a party’s support level at a given percentage, the more solid the shade of colour.

Do you think this is a meaningful/informative piece of visualization? If so which part of the article it belongs to? Thanks for sharing your thoughts. 沁水湾 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @沁水湾:, thanks for pinging me! It's a neat visualisation :) I think something like this could be interesting to include, though I am concerned that most of the text isn't readable without zooming in. I wonder whether it might be clearer if you removed the high/low value text and the 50% bar, and used vertical gridlines with a conventional x-axis? If it were going to fit somewhere on the page I think it would be most comfortable at/near the top of the 2024 national polling section. Ralbegen (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! The high/low numbers are indeed secondary information. It’s nice to include(as it shows off the extent of the range) but not strictly necessary. The font size for the average/2019 result numbers are also quite small. However, they are somewhat more essential. Do you think we should size them up or just ditch them?

I’m sorry but I didn't quite get what exactly you were referring to with “ vertical gridlines with a conventional x-axis.” Can you link me to an example? Thank again!

I also noticed several mistakes in the graph. I’m not with my computer. I’ll be correcting them later. 沁水湾 (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It's up to you but I would suggest removing the high/low numbers while either sizing up or removing the last election/polling average labels.

By vertical gridlines I mean vertical lines in the background at (eg) 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and by a conventional x-axis I mean with axis labels at the top or bottom saying "10%", "20%", etc. That would let users have a sense of what the values are without needing to use so much text and could also make it a little easier to see differences between parties. Ralbegen (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! @Ralbegen

I've just uploaded a newer version of the graph. I've omitted the high/low numbers, increased the font size of the remaining text slightly, and adopted a layout akin to my byelection diagrams: grey dash lines of 5% intervals. What are your thoughts? 沁水湾 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I cannot understand that graph at all & I guess that most people will not either. Its also positioned belo the tracker graph nd about the data tables. This is very inconvenient as its now not easy to switch from one to the other. If I had my way I would delete it altogether. 2.103.106.203 (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I tried to place it in the article in the least distruptive way (for both desktop and mobile). However I'm not convinced it is necessary as it doesn't actually convey any information that isn't already in the tracker plot. I lean on the side of removing it. LukeSurl ^t c 07:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's time to remove this. Although well-presented there is no information here that isn't on the main plot (with more temporal detail). Jan-May 2024 is a somewhat arbitrary time period to highlight, and its relevance declines as it drifts further into the past. LukeSurl ^t c 10:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Very large collection of data points

This is the largest article on Wikipedia right now.[1] It may be too detailed. I counted 1877 links with "https". I don't know who would read this top-down. It has value as a database, but Wikipedia is not a database.

Problem is, the raw data points seem to be almost all of the article. Has anyone besides WP done any coverage on the polling trends themselves? What form should this article take? Not to mention others like it.[2][3][4] Wizmut (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS uses a polling article being split from a main election article as an example of good practice. Almost every poll receives secondary reliable source coverage and poll trends receive dedicated coverage from most large media organisations, including with full tables of results. For previous UK elections when the article has got very large, there have been splits. US American elections often have multiple dedicated polling articles split by subject (national vs statewide, etc). Ralbegen (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

A split is probably in order for load-time considerations. Easiest to implement would be to create Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election in Scotland and Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election in Wales, and, potentially Constituency opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election. LukeSurl ^t c 18:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

In 2015 the article had two splits-out: sub-national opinion polling and constituency opinion polling. This time we have many fewer constituency polls and more other geographical splits. If there's a view to split the article I think a single sub-national opinion polling page including all non-UK/GB polls in the same format they are on this page would make most sense. Splitting out individual short sections would not make much difference to the page and would create a nebula of very short polling articles. Ralbegen (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think you're right. Probably best to just wait till July 5 and there are no more additions and reconsider then. LukeSurl ^t c 09:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible addition to the article

Hi @Ralbegen

I am considering whether adding the change between polls of the same poller (i.e. whether the lead has widened or narrowed) after the lead is a good idea or not, and I just wanted to get your opinion (and the opinion of anyone else) on whether this is a good idea or not.

I think this is a good idea because then people can then easily compare polls, but I do realise that this probably will increase the page size a lot and thus negatively impact load times.

Feel free to ask for clarification if any of this doesn't make sense, I have the feeling that I haven't really explained it that well but I hope you get the general gist of what I mean. SuperGuy212 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

In practice this can already be done by sorting tables by pollster and inspecting the trends. I don't think adding commentry to specifically state this would be workable. It would complicate the tables, make these extremely long article even longer, make tables that are already difficult to view on mobile wider, and would be a huge amount of work to add and verify for all existing polls. LukeSurl ^t c 13:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

A new opinium poll

Sorry I have disability but want to help. There is new poll announced by sky news on the tv. Can be added to the article?

https://x.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1796980059829387317?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

thank you for reading the message and i hope to help again!! ☺️ 2A02:C7C:DE32:DF00:D80B:797E:CA79:CEE (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Another new one!!

https://news.sky.com/story/election-latest-news-uk-sunak-starmer-tories-labour-live-12593360?postid=7772460#liveblog-body 2A02:C7C:DE32:DF00:945D:9FD1:71E:747F (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

New Poll for Article

2A02:C7C:DE32:DF00:E027:A9E1:5751:6A5D (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't say what you want to add. Nor does this require intervention by an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bbb23 and thank you very much for taking the time to respond to me.

I am sorry if I caused trouble, I didn’t mean it!

I would like to add the opinion pools! 2A0C:B381:5FA:2400:1429:5F72:5E70:D4C6 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

20–27 May 2024 seat prediction

Checked the link on this poll as it is a significant outlier, the previous editor has added the 'tactical voting' seat tally not the regular more reasonable tally? The methodologies are not well defined and the more extreme values have been used. Should this be kept, switched to the standard values or removed entirely? 2A02:C7C:9457:5200:7A55:943A:45B:7ABE (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The pollster is being a bit cheeky really, publishing both "with tactical voting" and "without tactical voting" numbers. They're the pollster, it's their job to predict how much tactical voting will happen! Anyway, it seems like both sets of figures have equal-ish priority so I'm making a version of the table that displays both but is clear that they are from the same underlying polling. LukeSurl ^t c 09:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

New YouGov method

The next YouGov poll will change methodology and result in a smaller Labour lead than the previous method.

This is going to lead to confusion when trying to compare change in movement.

They said the first poll they release under the new method will show both VI under old and new method. Should we put both in? 2603:7000:603A:342B:D551:F1FC:7F7D:8012 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Campaign period graph

CoaxAndBotany has added a new main graph (first image, white background) to the page which covers the period from the election being called on 22 May to election day on 4 July. I think a graph covering that period is a sensible thing to include. I've also given a lot of thought to how best to visualise data for this page. I'd like to offer something more like this one (second image, grey background) if editors are interested, using the same code I've used to maintain the main graph on this page for the last few years.

I think advantages include:

• No vertical text or repetition of the same year
• Direct labels, which are considered best accessibility practice
• Significantly less text overall, making it more to-the-point and possible to caption in multiple languages
• A single type of graph rather than compositing multiple types graphs that can't be separated
• LOESS span calculated with cross-validation (fairly recent addition to the code, which I can override if users would prefer more wiggling than the method thinks is justified)
• Consistency with the longstanding graph

I appreciate it's not perfect and am happy to take feeback. I can make changes if people agree with the principle of sticking with purposefully minimal, clean, data visualisation for this page in these weeks when the most eyes are on it. For example, I like having the election line without an in-graph label, which I think can live in a caption and therefore be more language-independent.

I also appreciate the time and effort that other editors put into producing graphs! Of course it's completely valid if editors prefer an alternative data visualisation. But I'm pleased with how my code has ended up and would like to offer this option for your consideration. Hope you like it too! Ralbegen (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If we could, it would be nice to make the graphical summary as similar as possible to the 2019/2017 pages? Personally I prefer leading with the 'big chart' (since last election) as those other pages do, then the 'campaign period' chart, then the aggregation. I think if they're more neatly formatted (similar sizes), and have titles, we don't really need the 'switcher' and can display all 3.

Appreciate this is personal preference but aids consistency between polling pages. 91.125.229.176 (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

CoaxAndBotany's graph is very nice, but I think I agree with Ralbegen's principles, so would prefer that chart. Bondegezou (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind the campaign graph but I don't think we should remove the 'overall' graph which begins in 2019. I think it's reasonable to have both. — Czello ^(music) 10:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a good addition. I do think that 3 days is too short for a rolling average - it will be subject to a lot of variation due to which pollsters (with differing house effects) published in this short period. 7 days seems more apposite. LukeSurl ^t c 14:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the rolling average has been put back to 7 days, or at any raste the graph has been made "smoother". I didslike this, i preferred it whenb the graph was more responsive to changes in the underlying data. For that reason I'd like to ask to make the graph less smooth and more "wiggly". Also is there any way to cut the data from the tables into a form I can easily load it into a spreadsheet? -- Cabalamat (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A small point on the two graphs showing more recent polling: they currently display UK-wide vote share for 2019 GE in comparison to current polling. Typically, the opinion polls only report GB vote share. For example, Conservative vote share is reported as 43.6%, the UK figure, whereas the more applicable GB vote share was 44.7%. Small difference, but I think it should be consistent between the two. CometCruiser (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Add "Events" to Seat Predictions data

Key events appear in the main national polling and regional polling data tables - there seem to be clear rules to limit what gets included e.g. Leader changes, election announced etc which all seems sensible. However, the same hasn't been included in the seat predictions which seems a significant oversight. Especially since Swinney and Farage came in very recently. Please can someone authorised add those key events in? It will really help to make the article consistent and more reader friendly. I don't have the authority to make the edit. Many Thanks WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Pollsters

What are the standards for deciding which pollsters to include in this list? Tompw (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Generally they're BPC members or conduct themselves in a similar way (scientific polls with published tables). Ralbegen (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Tompw (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable standard; on what planet does a poll that has TBC for the third largest party in the last parliament meet it? 2A01:4B00:E809:A00:493A:1E82:697F:2339 (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just wanted to give you a big thank you for your work on the Opinion Polling for 2024 article.

It’s one of my favourites and I will now donate to Wikipedia thanks to you!

Be proud! 2A0C:B381:5FA:2400:5859:8106:FC9:7FDB (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Blatant bias in the lead section

No mention of Reform UK's lead matching/even overtaking the Tories, and no mention of the fact that ever since Farage came back to leadership, Labour had a sharp decline (which indicates a decent chunk of people were only voting Labour for protest reasons against Sunak and due to a lack of other options, rather than because they actually believed the party could do anything)? 2A00:23C6:E791:BF01:695C:98A7:50D4:7FE5 (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead says nothing about any reason for any trend, not even the massive decrease in Tory voting intention in late 2021. It would be WP:UNDUE to highlight one poll, given that subsequent polls aren't showing the same thing. The return of Farage is rightly included in the chronology just like all other party leaders, so that readers can track trends and draw their own conclusions. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the content objected to has since been removed (see below talk section). LukeSurl ^t c 16:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Opening section should only discuss polling, not the election

I've removed teh folloing text from the opening section. It is a discussion of the policies and politics of the uk, but is only tangentially relating to polling and as such it is not relevant. The opening section should be short, and only discuss the polls (though I'd allow mention of the election date) Zeimusu | Talk page 21:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Discussion around the campaign has been focused on the prospect of a change in government. Under Rishi Sunak's leadership, the Conservatives performed poorly at the 2022 and 2023 local elections, where Labour and the Liberal Democrats made gains from Conservatives, often by very wide margins. The parties made further gains in the 2024 local elections.

Under Keir Starmer's leadership, the Labour Party suffered losses in the 2021 local elections but since the end of 2021, the party has consistently polled ahead of the Conservatives, often by very wide margins, including the highest poll lead of any party in over 20 years amid the government crisis during the Liz Truss premiership. During the 2022 local elections, Labour gained 108 seats (22 in England, 20 in Scotland, and 66 in Wales). During the 2023 local elections, the Labour Party gained more than 500 councillors and 22 councils, becoming the largest party in local government for the first time since 2002. Labour made further gains in the 2024 local elections and had a greater number of successful candidates than the Conservatives.

Under Ed Davey's leadership, the Liberal Democrats have made gains in local elections alongside Labour, with both parties making gains in the 2023 local elections and made further gains in the 2024 local elections, where the Liberal Democrats finished second for the first time in a local election cycle since 2009.

---

Zeimusu | Talk page 21:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

that's all information related to elections and relevant to polling, and provides useful context. by this logic surely we would have to remove the events in the tables? CipherRephic (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Zeimusu’s removal of this text was the correct decision. There is no need for a textual commentary, especially text like this that is not directly about polling. In practice, the graphical summary does all the work summarising the polling trends. —LukeSurl ^t c 22:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Deltapoll added on 6/17 shows lead of 26 but should show lead of 27

The Deltapoll that was just added shows Labour at 46 and the Conservatives at 19, but it says their lead is 26 points.

It should show a Labour lead of 27 points. The Jack Williams (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Just changed it, thanks for pointing it out Dingers5Days (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Anytime, thanks! 208.184.162.218 (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Savanta poll added today shows a lead of 21 but should show a lead of 19

The Savanta poll that was posted shows the wrong margin of Labour victory. 174.250.210.98 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed now. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Graph for Seat Projections?

I think a graph showing fluctuations/trends in seat projection polls would be really useful - is there any argument against including one? 95.138.200.182 (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

They have been a bit all-over-the-place in frequency, haven't been taken throughout major shifts, and use such different methodologies that putting them all together is very hard to usefully graph. There are also massive differences in scale between 518 seats (the most projected for Labour) and 1-2 seats which have been projected for Plaid/Greens/Reform/Others. It's possible to make a graph, but I don't think it's possible to make a good graph for this article! Ralbegen (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Handling the speaker

Can we standardize how the Speaker's seat is represented in the projection table? Some polls include his seat in Labour and others don't. Survation's 6/2 poll includes him (total 632 seats), for example, while its 6/13 poll does not (total 631 seats). GordonGlottal (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately the different polling comparies do not have a common standard for this. We can't make adjustments to the data, but we can add an explanationory note in the text. LukeSurl ^t c 14:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Well as I said, Survation seems to represent him differently in their two most recent polls. So it's not just a question of standards across the industry. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Add "Events" to Seat Predictions data (reposted as no reply)

Key events appear in the main national polling and regional polling data tables - there seem to be clear rules to limit what gets included e.g. Leader changes, election announced etc which all seems sensible. However, the same hasn't been included in the seat predictions which seems a significant oversight. Especially since Swinney and Farage came in very recently. Please can someone authorised add those key events in? It will really help to make the article consistent and more reader friendly. I don't have the authority to make the edit. Many Thanks WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Not wholly in favour of this. As MRPs are much less common than standard polls the table could be quite crowded with events. LukeSurl ^t c 14:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. CipherRephic (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies but this doesn't seem a reasonable conclusion - see table below. Personally, I don't think we need to include every single by-election but I do think it's helpful to see when there are key events e.g. election being called, changes of leader, and when there were significant election e.g. local and devolved elections. Please can you reconsider? I also welcome other views - we've only had 2. Thanks WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that looks OK actually. LukeSurl ^t c 14:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Dates conducted	Pollster	Client	Sample size	Area	Con	Lab	SNP	Lib Dems	Plaid Cymru	Green	Reform	Others	Majority
7–12 Jun 2024	Ipsos (MRP)	N/A	19,689	GB	115	453	19	38	4	3	3	0	Lab 256
31 May – 13 Jun 2024	Survation (MRP)	Best For Britain	42,269	GB	72	456	37	56	2	1	7	0	Lab 262
3 Jun	Nigel Farage becomes leader of Reform UK
22 May – 2 Jun 2024	Survation (MRP)	Best For Britain	30,044	GB	71	487	26	43	2	0	3	0	Lab 324
24 May – 1 Jun 2024	YouGov (MRP)	Sky News	58,875	GB	140	422	17	48	2	2	0	0	Lab 194
9 Apr – 29 May 2024	More in Common (MRP)	N/A	15,000	GB	180	382	35	30	3	1	0	0	Lab 114
20–27 May 2024	Find Out Now/Electoral Calculus (MRP - with tactical voting)	Daily Mail/GBNews	10,390	GB	66	476	26	59	3	2	0	0	Lab 302
	Find Out Now/Electoral Calculus (MRP - without tactical voting)				72	493	22	39	4	2	0	0	Lab 336
22 May	Rishi Sunak announces that a general election will be held on 4 July 2024
6–8 May	John Swinney is elected Leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland
2 May	Local elections in England and Wales and the Blackpool South by-election
7–27 Mar 2024	YouGov (MRP)	N/A	18,761	GB	155	403	19	49	4	1	0	0	Lab 156
8–22 Mar 2024	Survation (MRP)	Best For Britain	15,029	GB	98	468	41	22	2	0	0	0	Lab 286
29 Feb	Rochdale by-election
24 Jan – 12 Feb 2024	Find Out Now/Electoral Calculus (MRP)	The Mirror	18,151	GB	80	452	40	53	4	2	0	1	Lab 254
15 Feb	Kingswood by-election and Wellingborough by-election
12 Dec – 4 Jan 2024	YouGov (MRP)	Conservative Britain Alliance	14,110	GB	169	385	25	48	3	1	0	0	Lab 120
18 Aug – 1 Sep 2023	Survation (MRP)	Greenpeace	20,205	GB	142	426	36	25	2	1	2	3	Lab 202
29–31 Aug 2023	Stonehaven (MRP)	N/A	2,000	GB	196	372	25	36	–	1	0	5	Lab 90
31 Jul – 4 Aug 2023	Find Out Now/Electoral Calculus	Channel 4	11,000	GB	90	461	38	37	4	1	0	1	Lab 272
20 Apr – 9 May 2023	BestForBritain/Focaldata	N/A	10,102	GB	129	470	26	25					Lab 290
10–17 Feb 2023	Survation (MRP)	38 Degrees	6,434	GB	100	475	45	5	2	2	2	1	Lab 318
27 Jan – 5 Feb 2023	Find Out Now/Electoral Calculus (MRP)	The Daily Telegraph	28,000	GB	45	509	50	23	4	1	0	0	Lab 368
2–5 Dec 2022	Savanta/Electoral Calculus (MRP)	N/A	6,237	GB	69	482	55	21	4	1	0	0	Lab 314
20–30 Oct 2022	Focaldata/Best for Britain (MRP)	N/A	12,010	GB	64	518	38	12	0	0	0	0	Lab 404
19 Oct	By-elections in Mid Bedfordshire and Tamworth
26–30 Sep 2022	Opinium (MRP)	Trades Union Congress	10,495	GB	138	412	37	39	5	1	0	0	Lab 172
5 Oct	By-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton West
23–27 Sep 2022	FindOutNow/Electoral Calculus (MRP)	Channel 4 News	10,435	GB	174	381	51	21	4	1	0	0	Lab 112
15–16 Sep 2022	Savanta ComRes/Electoral Calculus (MRP)	LabourList	6,226	GB	211	353	48	15	3	1	0	0	Lab 56
6–14 Apr 2022	Focaldata (MRP)	Best for Britain	10,010	GB	230	336	53	8	4	1	0	18	Lab 22
14–22 Mar 2022	Survation (MRP)	38 Degrees	8,002	GB	273	293	54	7	3	1	0	1	Lab –64
14–18 Feb 2022	Find Out Now/Electoral Calculus (MRP)	N/A	12,700	GB	243	308	59	16	5	1	0	N/A	Lab –34
11–23 Jan 2022	JL Partners Polls (MRP)	Sunday Times	4,561	GB	201	352	58	16	4	1	0	N/A	Lab 54
20–22 Dec 2021	Find Out Now/Electoral Calculus (MRP)	The Daily Telegraph	10,994	GB	249	311	59	8	5	1	0	N/A	Lab –28
1–21 Dec 2021	Focaldata (MRP)	The Times	24,373	GB	237	338	48	11	1	1	0	N/A	Lab 26
29 Nov – 1 Dec 2021	Find Out Now/Electoral Calculus (MRP)	The Daily Telegraph	10,272	GB	288	271	59	8	5	1	0	N/A	Con –74
5–8 Nov 2021	Find Out Now/Electoral Calculus (MRP)	The Daily Telegraph	10,763	GB	301	257	58	10	5	1	0	N/A	Con –48
6–8 Sep 2021	Find Out Now/Electoral Calculus (MRP)	The Daily Telegraph	10,673	GB	311	244	59	12	5	1	0	N/A	Con –28
13–15 May 2021	Find Out Now/Electoral Calculus (MRP)	The Sunday Telegraph	14,715	GB	386	172	58	9	5	2	0	N/A	Con 122
4–29 Dec 2020	Focaldata (MRP)	Best for Britain	22,186	GB	284	282	57	2	25				Con –82
12 Dec 2019	2019 general election		–	UK	365	202	48	11	4	1	0	19	Con 80

Norstat Poll from today

https://aws.norstat.no/uk-political-polling/Gb%20Tables%20for%20publication%20190624.pdf

https://twitter.com/NorstatUKPolls/status/1803462647989334447 2A00:23C5:709A:8C01:141A:E429:F7A:8604 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Please can this be added to the national polling results 2A00:23C5:709A:8C01:141A:E429:F7A:8604 (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Dead link for latest PeoplePolling result (18th June)

Clicking the link doesn't seem to do anything, neither redirecting to their website or downloading a file with details of the poll. 81.104.135.178 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and that poll has results that make. . . not a lot of sense, and that's coming from someone who actually likes Reform. 12.117.195.74 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Update: I had a look on their website directly, apparently the download isn't secure(?)

As for why the numbers don't make sense, the result is based off a smaller sample size than is stated in this article. There were only 751 unweighted respondents to the question which those figures are sourced from, as opposed to the claimed sample size of 1,228. 81.104.135.178 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Still. . . holy cow. I actually did not believe those numbers for a bit, and it seems they didn't either, as they wrote a whole paragraph talking about how unexpected the size of that uptick was. 12.117.195.74 (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

They asked four rather leading Reform-friendly questions in the poll. It is vital at some point to determine whether those were asked before, or after, the voting intention question. If before, this is a push-poll and should be excluded from the series. Otherwise, it's just one of those things and is probably wrong but takes its place among many other probably wrong polls. 81.109.118.237 (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the poll seems to be of pretty poor quality, and it does happen to be from a pollster which seems to work exclusively for GBN and a crank terf group, and is the pet project of a quite notable right-populist guy, all of which might suggest a fudging of the methodology to favour reform and push a certain message - but! WP:NOTFORUM, peoplepolling is still to my knowledge a member of the BPC and that does appear to be what the criterion of inclusion is, for good or for ill. CipherRephic (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Short term Graph Colours

Just an opinion, but the color difference between Conservative and Reform data points in the charts is extremely unhelpful now they are so close together. Reform needs to be a different colour.

Black? Pink? Over to you guys... RERTwiki (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

There's another topic along these lines which appears to have inadvertently been placed at the top of the Talk page. I would be loathe to use colours other than official party colours—direct labels make the lines clearly differentiable. I could look at making the points for different parties different shapes but suspect that would be more distracting than useful. Ralbegen (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that official party colours is the only realistic choice. LukeSurl ^t c 22:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with various people that the Con and Ref points aren't sufficiently distinguishable. Looks like the issue is not the intended party colour but the (nice) fading of (lower sample size I presume) points. Specificially, the faded-to-grey Con points and the less-faded Ref points end up with little 'distance' apart in RGB space. I would push the 'base colour' for the points very slightly further apart (in hue) and stronger (in saturation where possible and light/dark value) such that more of the points (the large number of ~2000 sample size ones) are *closer* to the party colour and less grey. I would try shifting Con from #0087dc to #007ad1 and Ref from #12b6cf to #0eb7c9 for the (largest sample size) point colour, leave the trend lines untouched if possible. Subtle change but could be enough. --Cebderby (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Results from mayoral elections

With separate polling for these elections and the final results already known, shouldn't this be included for clarity? Mid Beds by-election is included, so it would make sense to me. Please take a look, I'm fairly new around here. (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

No. The polling reported here are questions about Westminster votes, not for the mayorality contests. In the case of Mid-Bedfordshire the by-election result is appropriate as that was an election for the Westminster seat. LukeSurl ^t c 17:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Latest JLP Poll - do we need a foot note?

The Latest JL Partner poll conducted for GB News needs to be included as per below but do we also needs a footnote?

Dates conducted	Pollster	Client	Area	Sample size	Con	Lab	Lib Dems	SNP	Green	Reform	Others	Lead
17–20 Jun	JL Partners	GB News	GB	520	24%	38%	8%	2%	3%	25%	0%	13

WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

JL Partners are a full member of the BPC and they have provided full methodology showing weighting etc in this poll - so it is entirely appropriate that this poll is included in the main table.

However, they have used GB News viewers as their data pool - I don't want to say anything about the legitimacy of this approach; they are entitled to do so, polling companies have a variety of ways of sourcing their dat pool and prompting etc. I am just wondering if it is worth including a footnote in this instance? WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

A footnote is not needed. If you add one you’ll have to do others e.g “Reform and Green not prompted”. It’s up to the regulated polling companies to demonstrate their findings and maintain their BPC membership - not wiki editors to police. Just add the poll as per above. Thank you 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:C8C9:9467:7D98:271A (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this poll be in the Other polling section, since the sample is not a national poll? Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

But it is a national poll 🤦‍♂️ Open the tables and see 👀

To say it’s not a national poll is just plain wrong 🚫

The only appropriate place for this poll to go is in the national table. That’s because it’s a national poll. JLP have just selected their sample in a different way. There is no uniform BPC way of selecting a sample.

Please just add it to the table and stop this original research and making wiki look biased. 143.58.156.108 (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Technically a poll of e.g Muslim voters is also a national poll. The twitter link clearly states it is a poll of GB News watchers, therefore not comparable to the other national polls, and should be shown separately. Also has a smaller sample size than the other polls. When Reform or Green aren't prompted they are shown with N/A. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What have I started? I am now more convinced that a footnote needs to be added. I just want to pick up on a few points arguments that have been raised though:

1. Who get's included in a polling 'prompt' is a methodological question - so no it makes no sense to add “Reform and Green not prompted” to any polls and creating this distinction could violate Wikipedia:No original research

2. To compare this poll to say a poll on the Muslim vote is not a reasonable comparison. The Muslim vote is polling of a particular demographic. Despite what assertions some make about GB News viewers, it is not reasonable to describe them as a particular demographic, or even a particular set of demographics, and to try to do this on wikipedia would again be a case of original research.

3. I agree with the others that the only table that this poll fits within is the National Polls. It is not a "Red Wall" or "Blue Wall" poll. It does not select a limited Geographical area, it does not single out any other demographic (age, race, religion etc), which is what the "other polls" do.

However, we must acknowlage that this poll is an outlier - not just by its figures but by its sample size and means of sourcing that sample. So it seems appropriate to qualify/flag this to readers who can then make up their own minds.

The point remains though that this is a national poll, with a full breakdown provided by a BPC registered company. Let's be consistent and not make up the criteria for inclusion as we go along.

Does anyone have any views on the wording of the foot note? Perhaps as JL Partners describle? "Polling GB News viewers on voting intention and political attitudes" WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not a poll of the whole electorate so it is grossly misleading to put it in the main table. It is a poll of a subset of people with particular political views, similar to polls of seats which swung from Conservatives to Labour in 2019, which are in the 'Other polling' section. It should also be in the 'Other polling' section as a survey of GB News viewers. Also, what about the previous poll for GB News on 18 June which is a similar outlier in favouring Reform UK? I cannot look at the source as my computer refuses to download it on the ground that it is a security risk. It should be deleted unless someone points to a better source. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

How can you say that when you admit you haven’t even opened the tables? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

It’s not right for you to go making assertions like that 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:683D:782B:F2F3:FCC5 (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It should not need pointing out that a table of polls weighted to be nationally-representative is an inappropriate place to include a poll that is filtered for media habits or anything else. This poll should not be in the table—there have been other polls by media consumption that we could include in new tables if editors really wanted to. But obviously this is inappropriate for the main table. Ralbegen (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ralbegen if you look at the tables you’ll see that’s what they’ve done 🙈 They’ve weighted them to make them nationally representative! Or do you actually believe that GB News attracts more Labour voters than any other party? 🤣

Open the tables and see for yourself! They’re a BPC member they have to be careful about their methodology.

Discluding this NATIONALLY WEIGHTED poll would be an act of prejudice 143.58.156.108 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we keep this respectful please? I'm not sure your emojis are helpful. I agree that @Ralbegen has come to an incorrect conclusion (assumably because they have not reviewed the data and seen that the weighting has been done)

If @Ralbegen has any views on the footnote to be included, that would be really helpful WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ralbegen It's also worth highlighting that John Curtice's average of the polls is different to yours in his summary this morning - Lab 40, Con 20, Ref 18. It appears he has included this JL Partners poll in his average but you haven't included it in your table, hence your trend line is incorrect. I hope this information is helpful. Thanks WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

different methods of producing an average will produce a different average, and the figures curtice cites in that clip are remarkably similar to those on the BBC's poll tracker, which, if you look at the "full polling data" table, does not include the GBN viewers poll. CipherRephic (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles please define a "poll of the whole electorate"? All polls are a sample and it is for registered pollsters to define how they arrive at that sample (as JL have).

For you to say "It is a poll of a subset of people with particular political views, similar to polls of seats which swung from Conservatives to Labour in 2019" is original research

It is not for Wikipedia editors to be sifting out outliers or somehow vetting the data. If we do, we will have to engage with the arguments above and start sifting out or correcting those that selectively prompt - let's not go down this route.

Let's just report what gets published and let the outliers be obvious - it is not for us to be protecting the credibility of the polling companies. If they want to keep publishing outliers (if that's what they prove to be), then it's their funeral. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this a serious discussion? Needs to be placed in “other” clearly - a poll of GB viewers should not be alongside national polls - really is a no-brainer guys! NewGuy2024 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Why they then apply weighting to a sub set of a set to get a National view is a very strange approach - not sure it should be in Other thinking about it now but happy to compromise with heavily caveat NewGuy2024 (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not for you to be saying what a BPC registered company should or should not be doing with their methodology and sampling. This is a GB wide poll, it has been weighted against all key demographics and locations. By JLPs own criteria, this will include people who are critical of GB News as an organisation, so your point does not stack up… in any case it’s original research. 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:683D:782B:F2F3:FCC5 (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s not GB wide poll - it’s a poll of GB viewers where they’ve try to extrapolate to get a weighted national view - baffling process and shouldn’t be here! NewGuy2024 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with @Ralbegen here. The poll obviously shouldn't be in the main table. If it's in the article, it needs to go in a siloed off section (==Polls based on media viewership==, ===GB News=== perhaps?) with other similar polls such as those conducted by Redfield and Wilton (which we didn't include in the table for these reasons). It's explicitly not a sample of the entire population, but instead a sample exclusively of GB News viewers. One of the IP editors has said that the numbers have been weighted to be nationally representative - this is incorrect. If you look at the tables you can see the poll has not been weighted to be nationally representative, rather, it has simply been broken down by demographic. This is clearest when looking at the NRS social grade: AB is way overrepresented while C1, C2, D and E are underrepresented, which would not be the case if the poll was nationally representative.

Additionally, even if the poll were to be weighted in such a way that it was demographically accurate, it still wouldn't be nationally representative because it only samples people who watch GB News! GBN viewers are a subset of the population rather than the population in and of themselves, and if non-GB news viewers are entirely excluded from the set then it is not a nationally representative one.

JLP are also very clear in the tables that this is not a nationally representative poll. You will see on the table headers that it is exclusively a "GB News viewers poll" and on the front that the sample size is "520 GB News Viewers" - compare with their polling on behalf of TRIP earlier this week, where the sample size is listed as "2083 GB adults". The TRIP front page also includes a note saying that the poll is "Quota-ed and weighted to be representative of Great Britain on age, gender, 2019 vote, education, political attention, and region" - this is not included in the GBN poll front page for reasons that should be obvious. CipherRephic (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

addendum: it could also go in the ==Other Polling== section along with young, muslim, private renters etc CipherRephic (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

To add to that. The recent consistency poll of Clacton by JLP states “Quota-ed on age and gender, weighted on age, gender, education and past vote to representative of Clacton”. The poll of GB News viewers doesn’t state any quotas or weights.

As an aside, I found polls of GB News viewers conducted by JLP between 29–31 May and 15–22 April, which include voting intention figures. These polls probably should be included in the same section as the most recent one. Clyde1998 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s irrational because those other polls are not polls of GB News viewers. You’re wrong. GB News is merely the “client” I.e. they have had nothing to do with this poll being conducted, other than sponsoring it… too many vexatious pseudoscientists on Wikipedia 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:59A8:3FC4:7D73:B6F2 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If you download the data tables (link above) you will see the sample size is “520 GB News viewers”. It is not comparable to the National polls listed.

This poll belongs in “Other”, it will need a new subsection. LukeSurl ^t c 18:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m talking about the other polls @Clyde1998 is trying to bring into scope of this discussion.

I accept I’m not going to be listened to on the JLP poll and I can see it has been included elsewhere - fine. But it’s not ok for @Clyde1998 to be bringing up indisputable polls just because of who the client is. @Clyde1998 makes it very hard to assume good faith with their approach 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:59A8:3FC4:7D73:B6F2 (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s not a question of the client - the polls conducted by People Polling for GB News are of the general population so are included in the main table.

Both of the additional polls I listed state “530 GB News viewers” and “518 GB News viewers” respectively. My point is the same polling organisation has conducted previously polls of the same nature and those two polls should be included in the “Other” section along with the most recent one. Clyde1998 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

JL Poll of 520 participants 17–20 Jun Is NOT an Opinion poll. It’s a survey of GB News viewers. Kindly remove it. Thanks. JL Partners GB News GB 520 24% 38% 8% 2% 3% 25% 0% 13 2A00:23C8:C10F:1001:1C91:8EC4:70CF:6E8B (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You clearly haven’t opened the tables 🙈 this is not just a survey of GBN people as you suggest. It has been nationally weighted and uses JLP’s approved methodology!

It has a margin of error of 4.5% (larger than most surveys) but it is a legitimate poll by a legitimate polling company that meets the criteria for inclusion. Please stop being prejudice 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:683D:782B:F2F3:FCC5 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The Polling People poll conducted 18th June 2024 clearly states that it uses past and present viewers of GB News only. It does not pretend to be, and cannot be treated as, a poll off the electorate accross Great Britain. It must be excluded from any list of national polls. Mensa Nabla (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, I meant the JL Partners poll conducted 17-20th June. The one with just 529 GB News viewers polled. Mensa Nabla (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

New Wales Westminster voting intention to be added

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-welsh-westminster-and-senedd-voting-intention-19-20-june-2024/

Please can the latest Redfield & Wilton Wales Westminster voting intention be added to Wales poll results. 2A00:23C5:709A:8C01:A022:C6AD:2BEF:D48 (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Done :) B1ack H0l3 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Poll of Jewish voters

There is a poll of Jewish voters at [5] and [6]. I cannot add this poll as my computer keeps freezing when I edit this article - although it is fine with other articles - so maybe someone else can. I think it should go directly below the poll of Muslim voters. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. The article is now too big to reliably edit with the visual editor - it is now effectively "edit source" only (some of us are old enough to remember when "edit source" was the only option Wikipedia wide! 😜). I'll see if I can add this. LukeSurl ^t c 12:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done LukeSurl ^t c 12:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks LukeSurl. So far as I know, I am using "edit source". Presumably I am also using something else which does not cope well with a template heavy article. The source has 2019 figures for comparison. Any chance of adding them, as with other tables? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't include them as they were from prior to the 2019 election, and thus belong in Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election. I have not put them as a baseline as is done for other tables as they are not estimates of how this group voted in the 2019 general election as the other baselines are. LukeSurl ^t c 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@LukeSurl Weirdly my computer can't even handle edit source for this article... — Czello ^(music) 13:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Should we create Constituency polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election, Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election in Scotland, Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election in Wales etc.? Hive off all the extra stuff? Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Redfield and Wilton lead error

The lead is given as 24 in the table. This is the Labour Conservatives gap but as Reform are 1% ahead of the Conservatives the lead should be 23% 2A00:23C4:AC84:6101:458D:4984:22AE:3216 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up. LukeSurl ^t c 16:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Focaldata MRP (3-20 June) seats missing

A Focaldata MRP has been added to the 'National poll results' table but not the 'Seat projections' table. Its the GB poll conducted 3rd to 20th June. 24,536 respondents. Labour 450 seats, Conservative 110, Liberal Democrats 50, SNP 16, PC 2, Greens 1, Reform UK 1, Others 19. That totals 649. Not sure about seat 650, though many MRPs exclude Speaker. I think the 'Other' 19 could be the NI18 + Galloway, judging by their map. Rochdale is close to Chorley though. Not seeing any evidence of a Corbyn or Zadrozny on their map. Mensa Nabla (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)