Along with hundreds of thousands of other people I very much respect and appreciate the excellent service you provide.
I would however like to alert you to what I feel would be a noteworthy improvement in the presentation of your data.
You provide your own written analysis of your data and include links to your full data set and to a data summary (the bit most interested readers refer to and media analysts cite in their own work).
In your data summary you include discrete party data for Labour, Conservative, the United Kingdom Independence Party and the Liberal Democrats. The sum of all other parties results are added under the label 'other'
By definition this is a data 'summary' so brevity is a requirement and you have to decide what is worthy of inclusion and exclusion.
It is the exclusion of the Green Party as a discrete item in your summary that I would like to draw your attention to.
You declare you personally are not impartial (I'm a Tory, and always will be). Likewise I am not impartial. I am a member of the Green Party of England and Wales. I personally don't believe in blind allegiance, but remain critically supportive of the Greens and I certainly hope that I too will always be a member of the party.
I think if we were to have a difference of opinion about why the Greens should be included in the way that I suggest, I imagine we could both write convincingly to back our contrasting points of view. It would be very much 'tit for tat' (UKIP have no MPs and no complete or partial control over any councils, the Greens do, Greens poll much lower than UKIP, but in your last two polls Greens are neck and neck with the Liberal Democrats who are in coalition government and the greens had more votes on May 22nd than the Liberal Democrats etc.)
I would like to refer you to your own 'about' section on your website.
The value of this work lies in its objectivity. Though I myself am not impartial – I’m a Tory, and always will be – commentators from across the political spectrum have noted that the research is professionally conducted and reliable. Some of the research yields encouraging conclusions for the Conservatives, and some of it does not.
Most important of all, the reports do not convey my views, but those of the voters.
Why do I do it? Several reasons. The interaction between politicians and voters is fascinating in itself. I like to offer new evidence as to how voters see things, and to provoke discussion and debate.
And if it doesn’t sound too pompous, there is an element of public service in keeping politicians on their toes. If my research has a unifying theme, it is to remind politicians and parties what matters and what their priorities should be – the voters and the things they care about.
It is because I think it is hard to argue comprehensively against this proposal and because I am convinced that anyone that was impartial would feel there is at the least 'a very reasonable doubt', that it is very worthy of your consideration.
I know I would be personally grateful if you would consider this and also if you would write a response to this open letter. The green party has had an influx of new members over the past months and I'm sure they would also appreciate it. Furthermore I imagine the 40000+ people that recently signed a 38 degree petition to protest media neglect of the Greens would also appreciate it.
Finally I would like you to have the opportunity to not only continue representing the views of voters and keeping politicians on their toes, but I would also like you to have the opportunity to keep the other polling services on their toes too.