" 

 ===3rd party lead: OR concerns=== 

 A bit of an arbitrary break here for clarity... Anyway, as I was saying, I remain concerned that the ""3rd party lead"" is original research. That is, I understand why some editors feel it is helpful, as has been stated above, but Wikipedia articles cannot simply reflect editors' interests. We must follow reliable sources. I have not seen any reliable source present a table with 3rd party leads and, indeed, a Google search of ""third party lead"" does not show anyone else using the phrase (in this context). This must be a huge warning sign. This is basic Wikipedia policy and the discussion above has far too little reference to policy. If there are reliable source examples, that's fine: just show them to me. If not, I feel a re-think is appropriate.    
 :OK, I've sought additional opinions at WP:NORN; see my comments there.    
 :What to include in a table of opinion poll results is difficult. We have ended up with is 6 columns, the parties down to UKIP (but notthe SNP/Plaid or the Greens, who have MPs unlike UKIP!), a column for who is in the lead, and a ""3rd party lead"" column, the last something of interest mainly to those who want to argue that UKIP is now the 3rd party of British politics. This seems to me WP:UNDUE focus on UKIP. 
 :Compare other articles: Opinion polling for the Israeli legislative election, 2013 has columns for 16 parties, but no 'lead' columns. Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2013 similarly lists numerous parties, but no 'lead' columns. Ditto Icelandic_parliamentary_election,_2013#Polls. Ditto Opinion polling for the next German federal election. Ditto Next_Irish_general_election#Opinion_polls. Ditto Next_Danish_parliamentary_election#Opinion_polls. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 has the two main US parties and a 'lead' column, but also a separate table including multiple additional minor party candidates. Indian_general_election,_2009#Opinion_polling has a somewhat different approach, but no lead. 
 :Most opinion polling articles don't even have a first party lead column, but they do include many smaller parties. No-one else has a ""3rd party lead"" column. As I said, reliable sources don't give ""3rd party lead"". So why does this article do things so differently and in a manner that highlights one particular party (UKIP)? Why does this article find space for a ""3rd party lead"", but not to report SNP/PC or Green?    
 ::Looking at everything (there has been a hell of a lot of reading), I am inclined to say keep the 3rd party lead column. I don't see how the 3rd party lead column is original research when the 1st party lead column isn't. Comparisons only work up to a certain point, an apple is not an orange and when you put the 2 together you don't make banana cake. I have tried to look at this on it's merrits and it seems that the press, including the reliable sources are making a bigger thing of 3rd place than 1st. I don't think it is original research to simply state the difference in the 2 numbers. Ordinarily I'd say if something is so obvious it doesn't need stating but in this case because the changes are so frequent it does make it more reader friendly to keep the column. On the other hand I am inclined to agree that the coloured highlighting of the 3rd place in the parties columns is a bit OTT. I'd vote for removing the highlighting but I do think the column is of value and I don't think it breaches policy. However I can see the argument that the highlighting draws undue attention to 3rd place. The column is a good readers aid but I can see why highlighting should just be a 1st place thing. So I'm against removing the column and agree that, that discussion has been exhausted and remain closed. However I am open to discussing the highlighting and the highlighting only.  '''''   
 :Thought this was over! When one editor disagrees with a decision that has been discussed at length, that editor must accept the decission and Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass!   
 :::There has been a modicum of reliable source interest in the question of whether UKIP are overtaking the LibDems in the polls. However, there hasn't been very much (I