4.54 score from hupso.pl for:
noiseofthecrowd.com



HTML Content


Titlenoise of the crowd noise of the crowd - interesting things about public opinion - interesting things about public opinion

Length: 123, Words: 20
Description interesting things about public opinion

Length: 39, Words: 5
Keywords pusty
Robots noodp
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 6395
Text/HTML 45.41 %
Headings H1 1
H2 17
H3 0
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
noise of the crowd
H2
jeremy corbyn is the uk’s most popular politician – polling matters
do the public think corbyn is ready to be prime minister? polling matters
why corbyn was crucial for labour’s election result
how did that happen? why the election shows tony blair was right (about one thing) and other thoughts
is the labour surge real?
projection of tory victory narrows to 13-16pts as corbyn’s ratings improve
leadership satisfaction polls suggest the tories will win by 15-18pts
uk worries about climate are at a 5-year high – new analysis of climate polling since 2005
are radical policies the answer to labour’s slump?
the lib dem fightback – how high can their support go as the party of remain? latest polling matters
info
categories
most read
archives
polling blogs
pollsters
some others i like
H3
H4
H5
H6
strong
1. the tories made some crucial (and terrible) decisions.
2. despite everything, may – as an individual – attracted a lot more voters than corbyn did…
3. … but corbyn was essential for labour’s balancing act (part 1, the eu).
4. … corbyn and labour’s balancing act (part 2, the economy)

the tory and labour manifestos were pivotal
but the swing in response to the manifestos wasn’t always in the obvious directions
it was people aged 30-44, rather than under-30s, that most helped labour
the choice between may and corbyn helped the tories
the division is increasingly cultural
tory victory of 15-18 points
current polls are mostly overstating the tories’ lead
b
i
em 1. the tories made some crucial (and terrible) decisions.
2. despite everything, may – as an individual – attracted a lot more voters than corbyn did…
3. … but corbyn was essential for labour’s balancing act (part 1, the eu).
4. … corbyn and labour’s balancing act (part 2, the economy)

the tory and labour manifestos were pivotal
but the swing in response to the manifestos wasn’t always in the obvious directions
it was people aged 30-44, rather than under-30s, that most helped labour
the choice between may and corbyn helped the tories
the division is increasingly cultural
tory victory of 15-18 points
current polls are mostly overstating the tories’ lead
Bolds strong 12
b 0
i 0
em 12
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title exist
twitter:description exist
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 13
Pliki CSS 3
Pliki javascript 10
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 252
Linki wewnętrzne 0
Linki zewnętrzne 252
Linki bez atrybutu Title 214
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

pusty

Linki zewnętrzne

noise of the crowd http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/
jeremy corbyn is the uk’s most popular politician – polling matters http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/jeremy-corbyn-uks-popular-politician-polling-matters/
politics http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/politics/
polling matters http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/polling-matters/
be the first to comment http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/jeremy-corbyn-uks-popular-politician-polling-matters/#respond
do the public think corbyn is ready to be prime minister? polling matters http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/public-think-corbyn-ready-prime-minister-polling-matters/
politics http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/politics/
polling matters http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/polling-matters/
be the first to comment http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/public-think-corbyn-ready-prime-minister-polling-matters/#respond
why corbyn was crucial for labour’s election result http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/corbyn-crucial-labours-election-result/
labour http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/labour/
politics http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/politics/
3 comments http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/corbyn-crucial-labours-election-result/#comments
more likely http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/06/result-happen-post-vote-survey/
exactly as regressive https://twitter.com/duncanweldon/status/868065069548130309
on course https://today.yougov.com/news/2017/06/09/the-day-after/
how did that happen? why the election shows tony blair was right (about one thing) and other thoughts http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/happen-post-election-thoughts/
politics http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/politics/
1 comment http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/happen-post-election-thoughts/#comments
fell https://today.yougov.com/news/2017/06/09/the-day-after/
sam freedman https://twitter.com/samfr
poll http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/06/result-happen-post-vote-survey/
benjamin lauderdale https://twitter.com/benlauderdale
lost support https://twitter.com/benlauderdale
paula surridge https://twitter.com/p_surridge
according to https://twitter.com/duncanweldon/status/868065069548130309
duncan weldon https://twitter.com/duncanweldon
plenty http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/05/16/what-the-hell-is-labour-s-brexit-policy-part-1-467
of http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-brexit-policy-eu-single-market-barry-gardiner-reformed-european-union-senior-mp-jeremy-corbyn-a7785506.html
articles http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39709403
trying https://leftfootforward.org/2016/12/can-anyone-work-out-labours-position-on-brexit/
to http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/what-labours-official-brexit-policy
understand https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=labour+brexit+policy&rlz=1c1chbf_en-gbgb726gb726&oq=labour+brexit+policy&aqs=chrome..69i57.2759j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=utf-8
it http://brexitcentral.com/analysis-key-points-keir-starmers-brexit-speech/
including corbyn http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-cannot-go-on-being-tory-lite-10436706.html
57% http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ge-post-vote-poll-full-tables.pdf
lost vote share https://pbs.twimg.com/media/dchz_mmxsae2q0m.jpg
paula surridge https://twitter.com/p_surridge
said http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/06/result-happen-post-vote-survey/
blair’s nomenclature https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/sep/12/tradeunions.speeches
in seats https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/new-electoral-map-for-britain-revenge-of-remainers-to-upending-class-politics
rob ford https://twitter.com/robfordmancs?lang=en
is the labour surge real? http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/labour-surge-real/
politics http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/politics/
polling matters http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/polling-matters/
1 comment http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/labour-surge-real/#comments
two http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/projection-tory-victory-narrows-13-16pts-corbyns-ratings-improve/
posts http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/leadership-satisfaction-polls-suggest-tories-will-win-15-18pts/
comprehensive study https://www.ft.com/content/8eb99046-3fb3-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2
further piece https://www.ft.com/content/13ad3e66-420b-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2
huffpost focus groups http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bury-south-huffpost-uk-edelman-focus-group-labour-voters-back-may-on-means-testing-school-meals-and-winter-fuel_uk_591f4931e4b034684b0c53e1
thinks http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/05/why-tories-falling-poll-lead-believable
paper http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/pols234/articles/zaller.pdf
some pointers https://twitter.com/election_data/status/868394854262484992
projection of tory victory narrows to 13-16pts as corbyn’s ratings improve http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/projection-tory-victory-narrows-13-16pts-corbyns-ratings-improve/
historical polls http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/historical-polls/
politics http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/politics/
analysis http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/leadership-satisfaction-polls-suggest-tories-will-win-15-18pts/
may poll https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-05/pm-may-2017-tables.pdf
spotted https://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/05/shy-tory-factor-2015.html/
- http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-prediction-1.png
- http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-prediction-2.png
leadership satisfaction polls suggest the tories will win by 15-18pts http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/leadership-satisfaction-polls-suggest-tories-will-win-15-18pts/
historical polls http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/historical-polls/
politics http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/politics/
correctly argued https://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/05/shy-tory-factor-2015.html/
data https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oitemid=88&view=wide
- http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-1-1.png
- http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-2-1.png
- http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-3-1.png
uk worries about climate are at a 5-year high – new analysis of climate polling since 2005 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/uk-worries-climate-5-year-high-new-analysis-climate-polling-since-2005/
climate sock http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/climate-sock/
recently http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/worries-climate-change-record-levels-new-chapter-public-opinion/
latest wave https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/public-attitudes-tracking-survey
- http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/concern.png
oct-nov 2005 https://www.ipsos-mori.com/assets/docs/polls/climate-change-still-high-on-publics-agenda-topline.pdf
may 2008 https://www.ipsos-mori.com/assets/docs/publications/sri_environment_climate%20clinic%20slides_2008.pdf
jan-mar 2010 https://www.ipsos-mori.com/assets/docs/polls/climate-change-still-high-on-publics-agenda-topline.pdf
mar 2011, aug 2012, mar 2013, aug-oct 2014 http://c3wales.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/urg-15-01-flood-climate-report-final2.pdf
jun-jul 2012, mar 2013, mar 2014, mar 2015, mar 2016, mar 2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/public-attitudes-tracking-survey
are radical policies the answer to labour’s slump? http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/radical-policies-answer-labours-slump/
labour http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/labour/
politics http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/politics/
polling matters http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/polling-matters/
political betting http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/23/are-radical-policies-the-answer-to-labours-slump/
website http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/home/
suggested https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/855177134318395392
promise http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13609421.corbyn__i_m_a_socialist_not_a_unionist/
floated http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/2455909/free-school-dinners-for-primary-pupils-in-1bn-election-pledge.html
2015 manifesto http://action.labour.org.uk/page/-/a4%20big%20_print_eng_labour%20manifesto_text%20layout.pdf
miliband pledge http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31761532
10 pledges http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/10-pledges
- http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/labour-policies.png
the lib dem fightback – how high can their support go as the party of remain? latest polling matters http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/lib-dem-fightback-high-can-support-go-party-remain-latest-polling-matters/
liberal democrats http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/liberal-democrats/
politics http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/politics/
polling matters http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/polling-matters/
political betting http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/16/polling-matters-on-the-lib-dem-fightback-how-high-can-their-support-go-as-the-party-of-remain/
« older entries http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/page/2/
entries http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/feed/
comments http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/comments/feed/
about http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/about/
contact http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/contact/
attitudes http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/attitudes/
bad polling http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/bad-polling/
china http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/china/
climate sock http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/climate-sock/
climategate http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/climategate/
communications http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/communications/
criminal justice http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/criminal-justice/
demographics http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/demographics/
energy sources http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/energy-sources/
europe http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/europe/
historical polls http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/historical-polls/
international http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/international/
labour http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/labour/
labour leadership http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/labour-leadership/
liberal democrats http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/liberal-democrats/
london http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/london/
media http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/media/
politics http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/politics/
polling matters http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/polling-matters/
protests http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/protests/
social http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/social/
solutions http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/solutions/
transport http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/transport/
u.s. http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/u-s/
uncategorized http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/category/uncategorized/
the climate debate has gone wrong – this year that can change http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/the-climate-debate-has-gone-wrong-this-year-that-can-change/
how decc is wasting money on its new opinion poll http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/how-decc-is-wasting-money-on-its-new-opinion-poll/
don’t just believe what you’re told about polls http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/don%e2%80%99t-just-believe-what-you%e2%80%99re-told-about-polls/
is euroscepticism collapsing, or is it just bad polling? http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/is-euroscepticism-collapsing-or-is-it-just-bad-polling/
‘belief’ in climate change is the wrong goal http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/%e2%80%98belief%e2%80%99-in-climate-change-is-the-wrong-goal/
climate change: the social attitudes survey is old news, but the lessons are important http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/the-social-attitudes-survey-is-old-news-but-the-lessons-are-important/
the limited impact of climategate http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/the-limited-impact-of-climategate/
fracking has hardly any public support – but opponents have a tough choice http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/fracking-has-hardly-any-public-support-but-opponents-have-a-tough-choice/
opponents of scottish independence shouldn’t be complacent about winning http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/opponents-of-scottish-independence-shouldnt-be-complacent-about-winning/
climate change opinion is now up to pre-climategate levels http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/climate-change-opinion-is-now-up-to-pre-climategate-levels/
july 2017 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2017/07/
june 2017 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2017/06/
may 2017 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2017/05/
april 2017 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2017/04/
march 2017 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2017/03/
february 2017 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2017/02/
december 2016 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2016/12/
november 2016 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2016/11/
october 2016 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2016/10/
september 2016 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2016/09/
august 2016 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2016/08/
july 2016 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2016/07/
june 2016 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2016/06/
may 2016 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2016/05/
april 2016 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2016/04/
march 2016 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2016/03/
february 2016 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2016/02/
january 2016 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2016/01/
december 2015 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2015/12/
november 2015 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2015/11/
october 2015 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2015/10/
september 2015 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2015/09/
august 2015 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2015/08/
july 2015 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2015/07/
june 2015 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2015/06/
may 2015 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2015/05/
april 2015 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2015/04/
march 2015 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2015/03/
february 2015 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2015/02/
january 2015 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2015/01/
december 2014 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2014/12/
november 2014 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2014/11/
october 2014 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2014/10/
september 2014 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2014/09/
august 2014 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2014/08/
may 2014 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2014/05/
april 2014 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2014/04/
march 2014 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2014/03/
february 2014 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2014/02/
january 2014 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2014/01/
december 2013 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2013/12/
november 2013 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2013/11/
october 2013 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2013/10/
september 2013 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2013/09/
august 2013 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2013/08/
july 2013 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2013/07/
june 2013 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2013/06/
may 2013 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2013/05/
april 2013 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2013/04/
march 2013 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2013/03/
february 2013 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2013/02/
january 2013 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2013/01/
december 2012 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2012/12/
november 2012 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2012/11/
october 2012 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2012/10/
september 2012 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2012/09/
august 2012 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2012/08/
july 2012 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2012/07/
june 2012 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2012/06/
may 2012 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2012/05/
april 2012 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2012/04/
march 2012 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2012/03/
february 2012 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2012/02/
january 2012 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2012/01/
december 2011 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2011/12/
november 2011 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2011/11/
october 2011 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2011/10/
september 2011 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2011/09/
august 2011 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2011/08/
july 2011 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2011/07/
june 2011 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2011/06/
may 2011 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2011/05/
april 2011 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2011/04/
march 2011 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2011/03/
february 2011 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2011/02/
january 2011 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2011/01/
december 2010 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2010/12/
november 2010 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2010/11/
october 2010 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2010/10/
september 2010 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2010/09/
august 2010 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2010/08/
july 2010 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2010/07/
june 2010 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2010/06/
may 2010 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2010/05/
april 2010 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2010/04/
march 2010 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2010/03/
february 2010 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2010/02/
january 2010 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2010/01/
december 2009 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2009/12/
november 2009 http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/2009/11/
ballots & bullets http://nottspolitics.org/
fivethirtyeight http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
lord ashcroft's polls http://www.lordashcroft.com/polling/researcharchive.html
political betting http://www6.politicalbetting.com/
polls and votes http://pollsandvotes.com/pav/
pollytics http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/
straight statistics http://www.straightstatistics.org/tag/polls
the political pulse http://www.politicshome.com/uk/the_political_pulse.html
the poll bludger http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/
uk polling report http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
comres http://comres.co.uk/default.aspx
icm http://www.icmresearch.com/category/media-centre
ipsos mori http://ipsos-mori.com
populus http://populus.co.uk
survation http://survation.com/surveyarchive/
yougov http://yougov.co.uk/corporate
carbon brief http://www.carbonbrief.org/
climate safety http://climatesafety.org/
duncan's economic blog http://duncanseconomicblog.wordpress.com/
max atkinson's blog http://maxatkinson.blogspot.com/
paul krugman http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
political climate http://politicalclimate.net/
used to be somebody http://usedtobesomebody.blogspot.com/
wordpress http://wordpress.org/

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 7
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 7
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 7
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-prediction-1.png
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-prediction-2.png
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-1-1.png
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-2-1.png
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-3-1.png
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/concern.png
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/labour-policies.png

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-prediction-1.png
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-prediction-2.png
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-1-1.png
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-2-1.png
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/leader-satisfaction-3-1.png
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/concern.png
http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/labour-policies.png

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

noise of the crowd interesting things about public opinion search for: jeremy corbyn is the uk’s most popular politician – polling matters posted in politics, polling matters on july 19th, 2017 by leo – be the first to comment on polling matters this week, keiran and i discussed an exclusive polling matters / opinium poll, which measured the favourability / unfavourability of a series of front-line politicians. the results were very interesting, including that corbyn was, comfortably, the uk’s most popular politician – but he was also polarising, with many people very unfavourable towards him. you can listen to us talking through the results here: do the public think corbyn is ready to be prime minister? polling matters posted in politics, polling matters on july 8th, 2017 by leo – be the first to comment i was on polling matters with keiran pedley and habib butt from political betting. among the topics we covered were: 1) what the polls tell us about the state of the parties 2) who the voters think would make the best prime minister and what those numbers mean 3) polling matters / opinium numbers on why people voted as they did in june and whether corbyn is ready to be pm or not 4) how remainers and brexiteers like their steak you can listen to the episode here: why corbyn was crucial for labour’s election result posted in labour, politics on june 25th, 2017 by leo – 3 comments i’ve been on paternity leave since the election so haven’t written much about it. but there are a few things i keep coming back to that i find interesting. first, why was i surprised? had i predicted the result on the day of the election, i would have said the tories would have a majority of 60 seats. my mistake was to think opinion wouldn’t shift much during the campaign. that meant i looked for reasons not to believe polls that showed the gap had narrowed. so i wasn’t open to the possibility that corbyn really could turn out so many young people or that the tories could alienate so many older people. looking at the results i think those two things happened for a few reasons: 1. the tories made some crucial (and terrible) decisions. the social care policy was predictably suicidal. the fox-hunting pledge was bizarre. but those seem to me to be the consequence of a small group of advisors being allowed to get individual policies into the manifesto. the thing that i’m most interested by is the strategic decision not to attack labour on the economy. in 2015 labour couldn’t get a hearing because most voters still thought the party had wrecked the economy in 2008. when ed miliband said he didn’t think labour had spent too much he was laughed at. when he forgot to talk about the economy in his leader’s speech he was mocked. i don’t believe that, had they been tried in 2015, labour’s 2017 spending plans would have overcome this problem. what i think changed is that the tories stopped putting much effort into claiming to be the only fiscally responsible party. in the past, the tories have won when they’ve been disliked but considered reliable. i don’t know why the tories made this decision. it surely wasn’t an oversight. one possibility is they tested out different attacks in polls and focus groups and found that the public no longer believed the tories’ economic message (even though they did so in 2015). or perhaps the tories genuinely thought they no longer needed to bind themselves to pointless deficit-reduction targets and could win without saying much about labour’s spending plans. whatever the rationale, i think this decision was crucial. 2. despite everything, may – as an individual – attracted a lot more voters than corbyn did… it runs totally counter to how the two leaders are now seen, but tory voters were much more likely to say they choose the party because of theresa may than labour voters were to say they did so because of jeremy corbyn. only 1 in 3 labour voters said they choose labour because they thought corbyn would be the best prime minister, compared with nearly 3 in 4 tory voters for may. even now, after more terrible headlines for may and good coverage for corbyn, the two are tied (within the margin of error) in polls of who would be the best prime minister. there’s a danger of reading passionate support for corbyn among a relatively small proportion of voters as widespread support for him as an individual. 3. … but corbyn was essential for labour’s balancing act (part 1, the eu). corbyn pushed the government to accelerate its article 50 timetable and the manifesto embraced brexit yet labour did particularly well among remainers who still want to stop brexit. corbyn said immigration should fall yet won the support of young socially liberal voters who like immigration. how? partly, this must have been about the tories’ relentless alienation of anyone who embraces internationalism and diversity – with may’s mantra of brexitmeansbrexit and disdain for citizens of nowhere. but it must also have been down to corbyn. any labour leader could have adopted the pro-brexit, anti-free movement policies that corbyn choose. they had the political advantage of stopping the tories/ukip attacking labour from the right. but if a liz kendall or an yvette cooper had triangulated in this way, they would have alienated pro-remain socially liberal voters. it needed corbyn, who could signal internationalist values in other ways, while adopting eu and immigration policies that did the opposite. this took genuine political skill and was crucial for labour’s result – i don’t believe another leader could have built the same electoral coalition (although other coalitions are available). 4. … corbyn and labour’s balancing act (part 2, the economy). i can see how scrapping tuition fees (which benefits graduates, who tend to be richer) and protecting benefits for all pensioners (many of whom are relatively well off) could be left-wing. universal public services is clearly a left-wing thing. but i don’t think it’s so clear cut that labour’s 2017 economic policy overall was all that left-wing – the effect of its tax and benefits policy on poorer people was almost exactly as regressive as the tories’ plan. under labour’s plans, you would benefit more (actually, lose less) the richer you are, up to people who earn more than 90% of the rest of the country. only the top 10% would lose more than people poorer than them. in this context, labour’s help to graduates and richer pensioners has to be seen as a choice – the party promised to protect them before it offered to protect much poorer people. this may have been politically smart. having made these pledges, it was much harder for the tories to attack labour from the right. and who was there to attack them from the left? since corbyn was labour leader: no-one. again, i don’t believe another labour leader could have pulled this off. it had to be corbyn. despite these regressive tax and benefit policies, corbyn was widely perceived to be offering a left-wing manifesto and so locked up the support of kind of people who were furious when labour, under harriet harman, abstained on the welfare bill. — right now the public mood is behind labour. it’s like the reverse of 2008-10, when everything brown did was seen in the worst possible light and everything cameron did was treated generously. if there was an election in the autumn i’m pretty sure labour would win it. assuming the next election is actually a few years away, i still think labour are likely to win (now the mud has stuck to the tories it will be hard to clean off) but there are a few reasons it could go wrong: 1. the tories can’t run a worse campaign next time. if it hadn’t been for their huge mistakes this time (point 1 above), the tories were on course for a comfortable majority. assuming the tories have a new leader and better campaign managers, labour will face a much tougher opponent next time. 2. an effect of that could be increased turnout about older people. while more young people voted this year than 2015, fewer older people voted. either of these might revert to the mean. an increase in turnout among older people (many of whom were presumably put off voting by the tories’ policies on social care) would probably help the tories. 3. the tensions between labour’s policies and many of its voters’ core beliefs (in points 3 & 4 above) could start to undo the coalition. no-one really attacked labour from the left during the election and this could be a risk to labour in the future if the tension isn’t resolved (cf the way trump used unbranded facebook ads to suppress turnout for clinton among young voters). — corbyn did a remarkable job. the more i think about it, the more impressive his achievement seems. the challenge for labour now is to win an election – and it’s likely they will have to do so against a tougher opponent, who will – unlike may – take labour seriously and will put more effort into understanding and attacking the party’s weaknesses. how did that happen? why the election shows tony blair was right (about one thing) and other thoughts posted in politics on june 12th, 2017 by leo – 1 comment this is series of observations about the election result, which i found interesting and seems to conflict with some solidifying interpretations of why labour did better than expected. it’s largely drawn from other people’s analysis, and i’ve attributed it wherever appropriate. the tory and labour manifestos were pivotal 1. the yougov mrp model, which predicted the results very well, found the tory lead fell from 9pts to 3pts in the week after their manifesto launch. it then stayed at that level for the rest of the campaign (h/t sam freedman) 2. ashcroft’s post-election poll shows 65% of labour voters said the party’s promises were one of the top reasons for their vote. only 20% of tory voters said the same. but the swing in response to the manifestos wasn’t always in the obvious directions 1. the tories got a kicking for their social care plan, while labour promised to keep the triple lock. but the tories retained 90%+ of their 2015 voters aged over 70 (analysis by benjamin lauderdale) 2. labour promised to increase taxes on the rich but lost support with working class voters while gaining them among those with degrees – suggesting many people weren’t switching on the basis of their own economic interest (analysis by paula surridge). that said, labour’s tax and benefit policies were barely any more progressive than the tories’, according to (h/t duncan weldon) the ifs, so this may not have been so surprising. 3. labour’s brexit policy felt like it was governed by an uncertainty principle: if you knew what it was one day you couldn’t know what it would be the next. there are plenty of articles trying to understand it but beyond a headline of “accept the vote but seek a softer brexit than the tories” it’s not clear what the party’s specific positions are. this sounds rather like the kind of “tory lite” position that many – including corbyn – mocked labour in 2015 for taking (the logic of that “tory lite” attack suggests remainers would shun labour for the lib dems while leavers would vote tory/ukip). yet, it seems to have worked – something like 57% of those who want to overturn the referendum voted labour, as did 42% of remainers who now accept the result. it was people aged 30-44, rather than under-30s, that most helped labour the tories particularly lost vote share in seats with a high proportion of 30-44 year olds – more so than those with a high proportion of under-30s. so despite the talk of a surge in turnout of students and other young people, it was those over 30 who seem to have made the most difference to the result (analysis by paula surridge). the choice between may and corbyn helped the tories corbyn’s personal rating certainly improved during the campaign, but we shouldn’t overstate how popular he became and how unpopular may became. 72% of tory voters said they voted for the party because the leader would make a better prime minister. only 35% of labour voters said the same. it may be that corbyn improved enough (and may did badly enough) to stop labour-inclined people defecting because of him – but by the time of the election he still wasn’t much of a draw. the division is increasingly cultural much of this is the manifestation of the growing division of the uk on cultural lines – open vs closed in blair’s nomenclature. despite labour’s pro-brexit position the party had most success in pro-remain areas and in seats with the most middle-class professionals and rich people (analysis by rob ford). i suspect may’s “citizens of nowhere” line was a factor here. only a small swing would now give labour a majority – or, in the other direction, would strengthen/stabilise the tories. it’s not hard to see where this might come from. the tories have enormous scope to detoxify their policy offer. equally, continued improvement in ratings for corbyn should help labour – although that could be negated by a better tory leader. but much of the change between 2015 and 2017 seems to have been driven by how the parties now increasingly tap into the open vs closed division. this realignment might still be reversed – or it could continue to sharpen, in which case values, rather than policy details, might be the most important factor at the next election. is the labour surge real? posted in politics, polling matters on may 27th, 2017 by leo – 1 comment the tories’ lead over labour has been slashed, from around 18pts to less than 10. the last two polls have put it at 5 and 8 points. surely the election wouldn’t now have been called if theresa may had foreseen this. but is the tightening a true reflection of public opinion, or are the polls wrong? let’s start with the argument that the polls are misleading. my last two posts have pointed towards that – showing that leadership rating is usually a better guide than voting intent to the gap between labour and the tories at the election. my analysis was drawn from matt singh’s work and he’s now published a more comprehensive study which came to pretty much the same conclusion i did (not surprisingly since mine was based on one aspect of his), that the tory margin of victory looks likely to be around 15pts. the polls could be wrong because they’re no longer being conducted among a representative sample. the labour manifesto launch might have motivated the more enthusiastic corbyn supporters to take part in polls, skewing the sample of those who voted labour in 2015 towards people who’ll vote labour again now. matt’s written a further piece that adds weight to this, suggesting that labour’s surge in the polls is dependent on people who didn’t vote in 2015 and on younger people. both are relatively unlikely to vote. this might suggest that the polls are indeed a bad guide to the election result. this isn’t just a matter of sifting through the polls. one part of matt’s analysis was from local election results, so was independent of opinion polls. and there’s another independent set of evidence to support this: reports of focus groups and doorstep conversations. if labour really had surged, by around 8pts, and the tories had dropped off by a couple of points, i would expect people who voted labour in 2010/2015 – but were recently wavering – to be saying more positive things about labour and corbyn than they had been over the last month. but i haven’t seen any sign of this, for example in the edelman huffpost focus groups and lord ashcroft’s groups. all of this feels like an application of one of the lessons from 2015: don’t just read the horserace numbers from the polls. pay attention to the other numbers and other evidence. but there was another lesson from 2015 (and the eu referendum) – don’t go with groupthink. so, while many poll analysts are sceptical about the size of the surge and think the true gap must be wider than the latest polls suggest, perhaps the lead really is now just single digits. it feels unlikely to me that public opinion would shift so much on the basis of two manifesto launches – it sounds like it’s relying on a much closer interest in politics among the public than is normally the case. that said, stephen bush – who’s usually right – thinks that opinion really has shifted this much as a result of the campaign. but perhaps public opinion hasn’t really changed so much and yet the polls are right. maybe the gap between the parties was always much closer than it seemed. an analogy is with opinion of bill clinton immediately after the lewinsky scandal broke. unexpectedly, clinton’s approval rating increased – a change explained by this paper by john zaller as the result of the public paying more attention to politics when the scandal broke, and remembering that they actually like clinton: “there is some “natural” level of support for candidates that is determined by political fundamentals  such as the strength of the economy, the candidates’ position on issues and other matters… in non-election periods, the public tunes out from politics… but, when, as in the early days of the lewinsky matter, clinton’s capacity to remain in office came into question, the public took stock and reached a conclusion that led to higher levels of support for the threatened leader.” it’s possible to imagine the same thing happening now in uk politics. for nearly two years most people haven’t been paying attention and polls have been picking up ill-considered responses. but now, many people are thinking seriously about who they would vote for, and, with ukip largely off the scene and the lib dems floundering, many are remembering that they like labour. this would mean the current polls really could be right. for what it’s worth i don’t really buy this. it’s not clear to me why this would happen now when it hasn’t in previous elections (the change in the polls now is unusually large). while it’s possible that the shortness of the parliament, the relative newness of both party leaders and theresa may’s poor performance in the campaign might mean that opinion is particularly volatile, i still find it more plausible that the polls are quite far off and the true gap is currently in the region of 12-14pts. but i’m far from certain. we will have a better idea from watching polls over the next week – when enthusiasm from the labour manifesto launch, leading to more poll-taking, could wear off (ian warren has some pointers about what to look for) – and focus group transcripts, perhaps showing a change in mood. i discussed all this on this week’s polling matters with keiran and matt singh. it’s one of our most interesting episodes to date and i think well worth a listen. projection of tory victory narrows to 13-16pts as corbyn’s ratings improve posted in historical polls, politics on may 18th, 2017 by leo – comments off on projection of tory victory narrows to 13-16pts as corbyn’s ratings improve i recently published analysis that showed leadership ratings are an excellent predictor of election results and used ipsos mori’s april poll to project a tory win of 15-18pts. their may poll has now been published and, with corbyn’s ratings having improved and may’s remaining unchanged, that projection has narrowed to 13-16pts. my analysis is based on a relationship that matt singh spotted in his celebrated 2015 pre-election article. as with my last article, this post doesn’t go into as much depth as matt did – if he repeats the analysis he did last time, as he’s suggested he will, his projection will be more thorough than mine. nevertheless, the comparative leadership ratings in mori’s last polls have a very strong relationship with the final gap between the parties at the election, so this is a useful guide. with the new data, i’m looking – as before – at both the difference in satisfaction with may and corbyn, and the difference in net satisfaction, ie also taking into account those who are dissatisfied. graphs are below, but the headline is: on the gap in satisfaction the tories are projected to win by 13pts, and on the gap in net satisfaction they’re projected to win by 15pts. with a linear regression (rather than polynomial) this increases to 14pts and 16pts, so the range is 13-16pts (this is great britain only, though that doesn’t make much difference to the gap). this means the tories are on course for a win that’s about as large as the one in 1983 – less than it seemed a few weeks ago, but still historically large. it seems surprising that the projected gap has narrowed by two points when the correlation was very good both for the previous analysis and for this one. i initially thought it might be that views of corbyn were relatively unsettled compared to past elections as he’d been leader for a fairly short time when the election was called – so the swing towards him might have been unusually large. but actually the change in his satisfaction over this period is only around median – he’s gained less in terms of relative satisfaction, since the last poll, than the swing towards howard in 2005, blair in 1997 and kinnock in 1992. the answer may just be that the ‘model’ is quite sensitive and is moved by a change of a few points in satisfaction, but still leaves an overlap around 15-16pts. so, regardless of the reason – and despite corbyn’s slightly improved satisfaction score – the projection still points to the largest win by any party for at least 34 years. leadership satisfaction polls suggest the tories will win by 15-18pts posted in historical polls, politics on may 9th, 2017 by leo – comments off on leadership satisfaction polls suggest the tories will win by 15-18pts quite long and data-y. key points: historical polls show the gap between satisfaction with labour and tory leaders, in polls close to elections, is an extremely good predictor of the gap between the parties at the election. it is actually a better predictor of the gap between the parties than voting intention data. the measure suggests the tories are on course for a 15-18pt win. this means current polls may be overstating the tories’ lead. two years ago this week, matt singh correctly argued, against the consensus, that the tories were on course for a clear win. this post recreates one of the analyses matt used to come to his conclusion. using it, i suggest the tories are on course for a 15-18pt victory. i’m using mori’s long-running data on satisfaction with the party leaders. this was one of several that matt used and is being widely talked about as an apparent sign that the tories will win (note, matt used several other measures as well – my analysis is less thorough than his and i’m not suggesting this is such a serious study as his was). some high-profile commentators treat this satisfaction data as if it’s a direct substitute for voting intent. so when, for example, 23% say they are satisfied with the job corbyn was doing, some people have interpreted that as meaning labour would get 23% of the vote. that is not borne out by the data. the following charts compare satisfaction with the leaders, from mori’s polls taken six weeks before the election (chosen so we can compare with the latest mori poll, from april 2017). the first shows the percentage satisfied with the prime minister minus the percentage satisfied with the leader of the opposition, compared with the governing party’s lead at the election. the second is essentially the same, but shows the difference in net satisfaction between the leaders, so also takes into account how many are dissatisfied. for each i’ve used a polynomial regression, as matt did. this points towards a tory victory of 15pts if we compare only those who are satisfied. if we compare net satisfaction the tory victory is 17pts. both have nearly equally good r-squared values.  the fit is almost exactly as good with a linear regression but in that case the tory victory is around 1pt greater. so i suggest this points to a tory victory of 15-18 points. (this is in gb only, but that shouldn’t make much difference to the gap between the parties expressed in terms of uk results.) this suggests the tories are likely to exceed their 1983 victory, but probably not 1931. it would mean current polls are mostly overstating the tories’ lead. the last five have given the tories a lead of 16-22pts, which appears a little high. that said, it may be that opinion has shifted since the latest mori poll. perhaps the unusually short period between elections means opinion is less settled than it normally is before an election, so the 6-week-out poll isn’t as accurate as it normally is. the next mori poll, out in a couple of weeks, will tell us whether satisfaction with the leaders is indeed still shifting. on a final note: i was wrong. i’ve said a few times that i think the suggestion that analysts should look beyond voting intention numbers, to underlying figures, was like astrology – you could always find something in the underlying numbers to, retrospectively, fit with what actually happened. but this analysis has changed my mind (perhaps it should have been changed by matt’s analysis two years ago). i’ve also run the same dependent variable – election results – against the voting intention data in the same mori polls that i took the leadership-satisfaction scores from. unexpectedly, to me at least, the correlation between voting intent (in terms of gap between the parties) and the election result was worse than the correlation between leadership satisfaction and the result (the same is still true of the final mori poll before the election, although the difference is smaller): in short, if you want to project the gap between the parties at the election, it’s better to look at the leadership satisfaction – and apply the regression formula – than it is to look at voting intent. unless perceptions of corbyn and may shift dramatically, the tories are heading for the biggest win since before the second world war. uk worries about climate are at a 5-year high – new analysis of climate polling since 2005 posted in climate sock on may 4th, 2017 by leo – comments off on uk worries about climate are at a 5-year high – new analysis of climate polling since 2005 uk worries about climate change are at their joint-highest level for five years according to new data published today. the government’s new poll found that 71% say they’re concerned about climate change – about the same as its poll last year and as high as any poll since 2012. in the us worries about climate recently went reached record levels. it might be that a trump effect has pushed up concern in the us: his dismissal of climate change may have perversely, drawn attention to the issue. or perhaps it reflects the accumulation of severe weather events in the us and the success of campaigners there in raising concern about it them. for whatever reason, worries in the uk haven’t seen such a dramatic increase, but have been gradually growing for the last few years. as far as i’m aware, this blog is the first place to have compiled this 12-year data series – which comes from the near-identical question asked in several different sources – to produce this long-running tracker of uk worries about the climate. the latest finding is from the uk government’s opinion survey, the latest wave of which is published today. see below for the data sources and why i’m not totally happy with comparing these results – but overall i think it’s ok to put them together and compare the trend over time. the data comes from various different surveys, some of which i don’t have the full data for: oct-nov 2005 – mori, age 15+ may 2008 – mori, age 15+ jan-mar 2010 – mori, age 15+ mar 2011, aug 2012, mar 2013, aug-oct 2014 – mori, age 16+ jun-jul 2012, mar 2013, mar 2014, mar 2015, mar 2016, mar 2017 – tns, age 16+ i doubt the small age variation makes much difference. my main concern is i haven’t seen some of the questionnaires/full data tables, so it’s not clear whether there were other questions that might have influenced respondents before they were asked about climate change. the main risk is obviously the 2005 data. since that’s the outlier in terms of worries, it would be useful to know if anything was done differently in the questionnaire (for example, did it follow other questions about the environment or severe weather events?). all i have is a reference to the 2005 results in a report from 2010. given it’s so unlike the other results it might be tempting to assume there’s something dubious about it – but as we saw in the us, worries about climate change were higher around 2005 so it does seem possible the data here is right. given that, i’m inclined to believe the results are ok. are radical policies the answer to labour’s slump? posted in labour, politics, polling matters on april 24th, 2017 by leo – comments off on are radical policies the answer to labour’s slump? this was originally published on political betting. despite using easter to announce several policies, labour is making little effort to pretend it knows what it would do with power. the party’s website still invites visitors to “help shape our next manifesto” and corbyn semi-loyalist dawn butler suggested on newsnight there might have to be a “rolling manifesto” while policies are developed. this isn’t just a lack of detailed policies. it’s also about what labour stands for and who it is trying to appeal to. corbyn ran for the leadership with the promise of a “radical economic strategy” yet the recent announcements have largely been repeats of earlier labour policies. free meals in primary schools was floated for the 2010 election. a plan to pressure big companies to pay suppliers on time was in the 2015 manifesto. the triple lock on pensions was another miliband pledge. you could argue that labour’s recent policies go further than previous ones. but no-one can seriously claim they would revolutionise the economy. as such, they seem designed for the same voters – progressive but not radical – that the 2015 manifesto aimed to win over. yet corbyn’s labour has also made some radical pledges that wouldn’t have made it into recent manifestos. among its current 10 pledges are rent controls and nationalisation of the railways. this week’s opinium poll for the pb/polling matters podcast tested public views of eight possible and actual labour policies. the policies that did best were a mix of the radical and the incremental. two of the top-scoring were 2015-style measures: a £10 minimum wage in 2020 (more radical than miliband, but hardly socialist) and requiring companies to pay suppliers on time. also among the top-scoring was “control rents so landlords cannot keep increasing the amount they charge”, which 47% of those considering labour strongly supported. surprisingly, that measure was most popular among the 55+ age group, and least popular among the ‘generation rent’ 18-34s. other radical policies were much less popular though. a citizens’ income of £6000 and railway nationalisation were strongly supported by only 29% and 32%, respectively, of people who would consider labour. so labour might find support for a mix of tangible incremental policies, and radical policies aimed at tackling a well-known problem. with 49% saying they would at least consider labour, these policies appear to win the strong support of around a quarter of the population – suggesting there is still a 25% strategy open to labour. but while this might suggest labour could avoid slipping further, there are two problems with this approach. first, such an incoherent mix of policies would leave voters struggling to know what labour stands for. one set of policies suggests labour would govern as social democrats. the second set suggests labour wants to revolutionise major parts of the economy. without a unifying argument, labour’s pledges would be easily forgotten. ed miliband didn’t lack popular policies but the failure to stake out a clear position, and stick to it, cost the party at the election. second, the poll also suggests even well-scoring policies may be less popular than they seem. over easter, labour’s policy that got the most coverage was the pledge for free school meals. yet this was the least popular of the policies tested. it’s hard to be sure why it did so badly, but free food for children doesn’t seem an inherently unpopular measure. its failure in the poll might be because it is now associated with labour. if that’s the case, more policy announcements might do little to stop labour’s vote sliding further, even if they were popular before they become linked with the party. listen to the latest episode of polling matters, where i talked about the state of the parties and the race ahead with conor pope of progress and laurence janta-lipinski, a political consultant: the lib dem fightback – how high can their support go as the party of remain? latest polling matters posted in liberal democrats, politics, polling matters on april 17th, 2017 by leo – comments off on the lib dem fightback – how high can their support go as the party of remain? latest polling matters this article was originally published on political betting. the snp lost a referendum and won a landslide. could the lib dems do something similar by becoming the party of remain voters? this week’s pb/polling matters opinium poll suggests the party could do well with a relentless focus on stopping brexit. but it also shows that a single-issue stop brexit party would be unlikely to win more than a quarter of voters. only around 11% currently say they’d vote lib dem, but the opinium poll found 41% of the public would definitely vote lib dem or would consider doing so, including 47% of current labour voters. winning over half of those considering the lib dems would put the party above even its record 2010 vote. so should the party try to gain these voters with a promise that they would keep the uk in the eu? in part the poll backs this up. among those who voted remain, 60% would at least consider the lib dems – around 29% of voters. but this overstates the opportunities for the lib dems in focusing on stopping brexit. most remainers don’t care enough about staying in the eu to put it above all other issues. in another question the poll found that only 22% agree with the statement “my top priority when deciding who to vote for is supporting a party that will try to stop brexit”. this 22% may be a more realistic limit for how far a stop brexit party could go. this still suggests the lib dems could double their vote share with an anti-brexit focus. even winning over just those who strongly agree with the statement, and aren’t already lib dem voters, would add 7pts to the lib dem vote. with labour now facilitating brexit, the field is clear for the lib dems to be the party of remain. the poll suggests this focus could serve the lib dems well, in comparison with their 2015 vote. but a single-issue stop brexit party is unlikely to win more than one in four voters. unless the uk’s exit goes so badly that public opinion changes, this focus can take a party from fourth to third, but it can’t take them from third to second. you can listen to the latest pb/polling matters podcast here: « older entries subscribe: entries | comments info about contact categories attitudes bad polling china climate sock climategate communications criminal justice demographics energy sources europe historical polls international labour labour leadership liberal democrats london media politics polling matters protests social solutions transport u.s. uncategorized most read the climate debate has gone wrong – this year that can change how decc is wasting money on its new opinion poll don’t just believe what you’re told about polls is euroscepticism collapsing, or is it just bad polling? ‘belief’ in climate change is the wrong goal climate change: the social attitudes survey is old news, but the lessons are important the limited impact of climategate fracking has hardly any public support – but opponents have a tough choice opponents of scottish independence shouldn’t be complacent about winning climate change opinion is now up to pre-climategate levels archives july 2017 june 2017 may 2017 april 2017 march 2017 february 2017 december 2016 november 2016 october 2016 september 2016 august 2016 july 2016 june 2016 may 2016 april 2016 march 2016 february 2016 january 2016 december 2015 november 2015 october 2015 september 2015 august 2015 july 2015 june 2015 may 2015 april 2015 march 2015 february 2015 january 2015 december 2014 november 2014 october 2014 september 2014 august 2014 may 2014 april 2014 march 2014 february 2014 january 2014 december 2013 november 2013 october 2013 september 2013 august 2013 july 2013 june 2013 may 2013 april 2013 march 2013 february 2013 january 2013 december 2012 november 2012 october 2012 september 2012 august 2012 july 2012 june 2012 may 2012 april 2012 march 2012 february 2012 january 2012 december 2011 november 2011 october 2011 september 2011 august 2011 july 2011 june 2011 may 2011 april 2011 march 2011 february 2011 january 2011 december 2010 november 2010 october 2010 september 2010 august 2010 july 2010 june 2010 may 2010 april 2010 march 2010 february 2010 january 2010 december 2009 november 2009 polling blogs ballots & bullets fivethirtyeight lord ashcroft's polls political betting polls and votes pollytics straight statistics the political pulse the poll bludger uk polling report pollsters comres icm ipsos mori populus survation yougov some others i like carbon brief climate safety duncan's economic blog max atkinson's blog paul krugman political climate used to be somebody © leo barasi 2017. all rights reserved. powered by wordpress.


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 6322

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 8.83% (558)
and - 1.88% (119)
our - 1.63% (103)
labour - 1.39% (88)
poll - 1.39% (88)
his - 1.33% (84)
for - 1.3% (82)
that - 1.23% (78)
- 1.19% (75)
this - 1.09% (69)
are - 1% (63)
all - 0.93% (59)
was - 0.9% (57)
but - 0.85% (54)
vote - 0.84% (53)
with - 0.79% (50)
out - 0.76% (48)
part - 0.76% (48)
have - 0.71% (45)
would - 0.66% (42)
tories - 0.66% (42)
corbyn - 0.63% (40)
may - 0.62% (39)
win - 0.6% (38)
polls - 0.59% (37)
lead - 0.59% (37)
act - 0.57% (36)
election - 0.55% (35)
matt - 0.54% (34)
about - 0.54% (34)
they - 0.51% (32)
than - 0.51% (32)
here - 0.47% (30)
2015 - 0.47% (30)
over - 0.47% (30)
who - 0.46% (29)
now - 0.44% (28)
leader - 0.44% (28)
one - 0.44% (28)
party - 0.44% (28)
tory - 0.44% (28)
voters - 0.43% (27)
people - 0.43% (27)
from - 0.43% (27)
could - 0.43% (27)
policies - 0.4% (25)
did - 0.4% (25)
polling - 0.4% (25)
like - 0.38% (24)
more - 0.38% (24)
how - 0.38% (24)
see - 0.38% (24)
were - 0.36% (23)
lib - 0.36% (23)
much - 0.36% (23)
suggest - 0.36% (23)
result - 0.36% (23)
not - 0.36% (23)
matter - 0.35% (22)
2017 - 0.35% (22)
other - 0.35% (22)
climate - 0.35% (22)
change - 0.33% (21)
mar - 0.33% (21)
any - 0.32% (20)
been - 0.32% (20)
satisfaction - 0.32% (20)
matters - 0.32% (20)
labour’s - 0.32% (20)
you - 0.3% (19)
can - 0.3% (19)
it’s - 0.3% (19)
dem - 0.3% (19)
exit - 0.28% (18)
there - 0.28% (18)
most - 0.28% (18)
less - 0.28% (18)
might - 0.27% (17)
leaders - 0.27% (17)
2010 - 0.27% (17)
age - 0.27% (17)
brexit - 0.27% (17)
top - 0.27% (17)
rent - 0.27% (17)
off - 0.27% (17)
think - 0.27% (17)
support - 0.27% (17)
public - 0.25% (16)
has - 0.25% (16)
analysis - 0.25% (16)
between - 0.25% (16)
thing - 0.25% (16)
main - 0.25% (16)
gap - 0.25% (16)
their - 0.24% (15)
opinion - 0.24% (15)
post - 0.24% (15)
some - 0.24% (15)
what - 0.24% (15)
led - 0.24% (15)
2012 - 0.24% (15)
data - 0.24% (15)
had - 0.22% (14)
into - 0.22% (14)
still - 0.22% (14)
manifesto - 0.22% (14)
year - 0.22% (14)
2013 - 0.22% (14)
politics - 0.22% (14)
those - 0.22% (14)
mori - 0.22% (14)
sam - 0.22% (14)
remain - 0.22% (14)
among - 0.21% (13)
seem - 0.21% (13)
when - 0.21% (13)
will - 0.21% (13)
2016 - 0.21% (13)
only - 0.21% (13)
2011 - 0.21% (13)
popular - 0.19% (12)
its - 0.19% (12)
high - 0.19% (12)
april - 0.19% (12)
many - 0.19% (12)
comment - 0.19% (12)
2014 - 0.19% (12)
results - 0.19% (12)
two - 0.19% (12)
said - 0.19% (12)
which - 0.17% (11)
week - 0.17% (11)
new - 0.17% (11)
sure - 0.17% (11)
same - 0.17% (11)
time - 0.17% (11)
political - 0.17% (11)
leo - 0.17% (11)
don’t - 0.17% (11)
mean - 0.17% (11)
stop - 0.17% (11)
though - 0.17% (11)
leadership - 0.16% (10)
last - 0.16% (10)
project - 0.16% (10)
show - 0.16% (10)
since - 0.16% (10)
posted - 0.16% (10)
also - 0.16% (10)
june - 0.16% (10)
rest - 0.16% (10)
points - 0.16% (10)
parties - 0.16% (10)
around - 0.16% (10)
line - 0.16% (10)
suggests - 0.14% (9)
under - 0.14% (9)
well - 0.14% (9)
way - 0.14% (9)
dems - 0.14% (9)
take - 0.14% (9)
rating - 0.14% (9)
focus - 0.14% (9)
victory - 0.14% (9)
likely - 0.14% (9)
radical - 0.14% (9)
while - 0.14% (9)
right - 0.14% (9)
just - 0.14% (9)
social - 0.14% (9)
july - 0.14% (9)
few - 0.14% (9)
latest - 0.14% (9)
why - 0.14% (9)
i’m - 0.14% (9)
very - 0.13% (8)
before - 0.13% (8)
consider - 0.13% (8)
should - 0.13% (8)
tories’ - 0.13% (8)
them - 0.13% (8)
look - 0.13% (8)
really - 0.13% (8)
group - 0.13% (8)
interest - 0.13% (8)
gain - 0.13% (8)
even - 0.13% (8)
say - 0.13% (8)
policy - 0.13% (8)
ran - 0.13% (8)
march - 0.13% (8)
next - 0.13% (8)
old - 0.13% (8)
campaign - 0.13% (8)
compare - 0.13% (8)
november - 0.13% (8)
february - 0.13% (8)
voted - 0.13% (8)
voting - 0.13% (8)
because - 0.13% (8)
large - 0.13% (8)
worries - 0.13% (8)
fit - 0.13% (8)
difference - 0.13% (8)
clear - 0.13% (8)
attack - 0.13% (8)
december - 0.13% (8)
better - 0.13% (8)
lose - 0.11% (7)
september - 0.11% (7)
published - 0.11% (7)
intent - 0.11% (7)
used - 0.11% (7)
current - 0.11% (7)
seen - 0.11% (7)
improve - 0.11% (7)
believe - 0.11% (7)
january - 0.11% (7)
october - 0.11% (7)
august - 0.11% (7)
yet - 0.11% (7)
question - 0.11% (7)
come - 0.11% (7)
perhaps - 0.11% (7)
2005 - 0.11% (7)
years - 0.11% (7)
actual - 0.11% (7)
economy - 0.11% (7)
read - 0.11% (7)
put - 0.11% (7)
pledge - 0.11% (7)
comments - 0.11% (7)
prime - 0.09% (6)
help - 0.09% (6)
numbers - 0.09% (6)
know - 0.09% (6)
another - 0.09% (6)
satisfied - 0.09% (6)
level - 0.09% (6)
found - 0.09% (6)
bad - 0.09% (6)
plan - 0.09% (6)
minister - 0.09% (6)
rob - 0.09% (6)
corbyn’s - 0.09% (6)
election. - 0.09% (6)
long - 0.09% (6)
benefit - 0.09% (6)
unlike - 0.09% (6)
increase - 0.09% (6)
measure - 0.09% (6)
shift - 0.09% (6)
least - 0.09% (6)
state - 0.09% (6)
15-18 - 0.09% (6)
towards - 0.09% (6)
vote. - 0.09% (6)
relative - 0.09% (6)
these - 0.09% (6)
hard - 0.09% (6)
first - 0.09% (6)
left - 0.09% (6)
govern - 0.09% (6)
ratings - 0.09% (6)
actually - 0.09% (6)
position - 0.09% (6)
young - 0.09% (6)
despite - 0.09% (6)
wrong - 0.09% (6)
recent - 0.09% (6)
promise - 0.09% (6)
reason - 0.09% (6)
made - 0.09% (6)
turn - 0.09% (6)
usually - 0.08% (5)
strong - 0.08% (5)
it. - 0.08% (5)
election, - 0.08% (5)
day - 0.08% (5)
labour. - 0.08% (5)
clinton - 0.08% (5)
such - 0.08% (5)
projection - 0.08% (5)
possible - 0.08% (5)
i’ve - 0.08% (5)
course - 0.08% (5)
run - 0.08% (5)
haven’t - 0.08% (5)
find - 0.08% (5)
where - 0.08% (5)
labour, - 0.08% (5)
remainers - 0.08% (5)
free - 0.08% (5)
it, - 0.08% (5)
try - 0.08% (5)
opinium - 0.08% (5)
- 0.08% (5)
15-18pt - 0.08% (5)
rich - 0.08% (5)
again - 0.08% (5)
interesting - 0.08% (5)
good - 0.08% (5)
early - 0.08% (5)
happen - 0.08% (5)
economic - 0.08% (5)
set - 0.08% (5)
get - 0.08% (5)
politics, - 0.08% (5)
both - 0.08% (5)
small - 0.08% (5)
second - 0.08% (5)
older - 0.08% (5)
article - 0.08% (5)
seems - 0.08% (5)
far - 0.08% (5)
came - 0.08% (5)
thought - 0.08% (5)
shows - 0.08% (5)
party’s - 0.08% (5)
surge - 0.08% (5)
make - 0.08% (5)
talk - 0.08% (5)
voters. - 0.08% (5)
historical - 0.08% (5)
pay - 0.08% (5)
changed - 0.08% (5)
right. - 0.08% (5)
close - 0.08% (5)
listen - 0.08% (5)
something - 0.06% (4)
does - 0.06% (4)
things - 0.06% (4)
betting - 0.06% (4)
improved - 0.06% (4)
poll, - 0.06% (4)
isn’t - 0.06% (4)
case - 0.06% (4)
singh - 0.06% (4)
best - 0.06% (4)
mori, - 0.06% (4)
give - 0.06% (4)
swing - 0.06% (4)
got - 0.06% (4)
(analysis - 0.06% (4)
rather - 0.06% (4)
pledges - 0.06% (4)
serious - 0.06% (4)
own - 0.06% (4)
13-16pts - 0.06% (4)
suggesting - 0.06% (4)
mori’s - 0.06% (4)
several - 0.06% (4)
want - 0.06% (4)
launch - 0.06% (4)
people. - 0.06% (4)
above - 0.06% (4)
further - 0.06% (4)
him - 0.06% (4)
surprising - 0.06% (4)
liberal - 0.06% (4)
wasn’t - 0.06% (4)
poor - 0.06% (4)
open - 0.06% (4)
turnout - 0.06% (4)
may’s - 0.06% (4)
relatively - 0.06% (4)
dependent - 0.06% (4)
expect - 0.06% (4)
different - 0.06% (4)
attention - 0.06% (4)
sign - 0.06% (4)
too - 0.06% (4)
decision - 0.06% (4)
groups - 0.06% (4)
unlikely - 0.06% (4)
short - 0.06% (4)
elections - 0.06% (4)
care - 0.06% (4)
terms - 0.06% (4)
reasons - 0.06% (4)
concern - 0.06% (4)
tax - 0.06% (4)
major - 0.06% (4)
back - 0.06% (4)
means - 0.06% (4)
left-wing - 0.06% (4)
using - 0.06% (4)
miliband - 0.06% (4)
keep - 0.06% (4)
blog - 0.06% (4)
true - 0.06% (4)
regression - 0.06% (4)
time. - 0.06% (4)
leave - 0.06% (4)
net - 0.06% (4)
opponent - 0.06% (4)
race - 0.06% (4)
crucial - 0.06% (4)
example - 0.05% (3)
lord - 0.05% (3)
correlation - 0.05% (3)
predictor - 0.05% (3)
although - 0.05% (3)
shouldn’t - 0.05% (3)
week’s - 0.05% (3)
and, - 0.05% (3)
recently - 0.05% (3)
date - 0.05% (3)
lesson - 0.05% (3)
previous - 0.05% (3)
sources - 0.05% (3)
polls. - 0.05% (3)
badly - 0.05% (3)
15+ - 0.05% (3)
little - 0.05% (3)
15pts - 0.05% (3)
normally - 0.05% (3)
mine - 0.05% (3)
satisfied. - 0.05% (3)
2008 - 0.05% (3)
quite - 0.05% (3)
conclusion - 0.05% (3)
in the - 0.05% (3)
he’s - 0.05% (3)
work - 0.05% (3)
levels - 0.05% (3)
enough - 0.05% (3)
single - 0.05% (3)
each - 0.05% (3)
division - 0.05% (3)
guide - 0.05% (3)
five - 0.05% (3)
polls, - 0.05% (3)
is. - 0.05% (3)
matt’s - 0.05% (3)
unusually - 0.05% (3)
benefits - 0.05% (3)
proportion - 0.05% (3)
there’s - 0.05% (3)
winning - 0.05% (3)
episode - 0.05% (3)
government - 0.05% (3)
corbyn, - 0.05% (3)
after - 0.05% (3)
corbyn. - 0.05% (3)
theresa - 0.05% (3)
compared - 0.05% (3)
nearly - 0.05% (3)
data. - 0.05% (3)
particularly - 0.05% (3)
brexit. - 0.05% (3)
values - 0.05% (3)
seats - 0.05% (3)
took - 0.05% (3)
coalition - 0.05% (3)
betting. - 0.05% (3)
whether - 0.05% (3)
weeks - 0.05% (3)
immigration - 0.05% (3)
must - 0.05% (3)
citizens - 0.05% (3)
stopping - 0.05% (3)
choose - 0.05% (3)
period - 0.05% (3)
media - 0.05% (3)
individual - 0.05% (3)
economy. - 0.05% (3)
democrats - 0.05% (3)
didn’t - 0.05% (3)
being - 0.05% (3)
(and - 0.05% (3)
during - 0.05% (3)
wouldn’t - 0.05% (3)
tough - 0.05% (3)
leaders, - 0.05% (3)
survey - 0.05% (3)
international - 0.05% (3)
climategate - 0.05% (3)
longer - 0.05% (3)
tested - 0.05% (3)
so, - 0.05% (3)
saying - 0.05% (3)
answer - 0.05% (3)
intention - 0.05% (3)
won - 0.05% (3)
2015, - 0.05% (3)
15-18pts - 0.05% (3)
plans - 0.05% (3)
effort - 0.05% (3)
progress - 0.05% (3)
that’s - 0.05% (3)
politician - 0.05% (3)
direct - 0.05% (3)
doesn’t - 0.05% (3)
always - 0.05% (3)
lost - 0.05% (3)
lock - 0.05% (3)
manifestos - 0.05% (3)
seriously - 0.05% (3)
against - 0.05% (3)
blair - 0.05% (3)
largely - 0.05% (3)
drawn - 0.05% (3)
to. - 0.05% (3)
uk’s - 0.05% (3)
referendum - 0.05% (3)
(the - 0.05% (3)
paul - 0.05% (3)
given - 0.05% (3)
report - 0.05% (3)
taking - 0.05% (3)
headline - 0.05% (3)
said, - 0.05% (3)
policies. - 0.05% (3)
narrowed - 0.05% (3)
announce - 0.05% (3)
keiran - 0.05% (3)
final - 0.05% (3)
promised - 0.05% (3)
choice - 0.05% (3)
here: - 0.05% (3)
protect - 0.05% (3)
policies, - 0.05% (3)
ready - 0.05% (3)
richer - 0.05% (3)
stake - 0.05% (3)
effect - 0.05% (3)
poorer - 0.05% (3)
ago - 0.05% (3)
including - 0.05% (3)
they’re - 0.05% (3)
eight - 0.05% (3)
mix - 0.05% (3)
pb/polling - 0.05% (3)
core - 0.05% (3)
no-one - 0.05% (3)
satisfaction, - 0.05% (3)
increasing - 0.05% (3)
strongly - 0.05% (3)
projected - 0.05% (3)
everything - 0.05% (3)
series - 0.05% (3)
majority - 0.05% (3)
lead. - 0.03% (2)
treat - 0.03% (2)
intent. - 0.03% (2)
example, - 0.03% (2)
23% - 0.03% (2)
measures - 0.03% (2)
talked - 0.03% (2)
overstating - 0.03% (2)
percentage - 0.03% (2)
long-running - 0.03% (2)
job - 0.03% (2)
win. - 0.03% (2)
railway - 0.03% (2)
strategy - 0.03% (2)
quarter - 0.03% (2)
appear - 0.03% (2)
further, - 0.03% (2)
failure - 0.03% (2)
fightback - 0.03% (2)
school - 0.03% (2)
position, - 0.03% (2)
incremental - 0.03% (2)
29% - 0.03% (2)
podcast - 0.03% (2)
nationalisation - 0.03% (2)
aimed - 0.03% (2)
top-scoring - 0.03% (2)
hardly - 0.03% (2)
supported - 0.03% (2)
considering - 0.03% (2)
47% - 0.03% (2)
remain? - 0.03% (2)
originally - 0.03% (2)
four - 0.03% (2)
serve - 0.03% (2)
brexit, - 0.03% (2)
third - 0.03% (2)
entries - 0.03% (2)
2009 - 0.03% (2)
opponents - 0.03% (2)
attitudes - 0.03% (2)
7pts - 0.03% (2)
add - 0.03% (2)
doing - 0.03% (2)
currently - 0.03% (2)
single-issue - 0.03% (2)
record - 0.03% (2)
22% - 0.03% (2)
limit - 0.03% (2)
statement - 0.03% (2)
agree - 0.03% (2)
revolutionise - 0.03% (2)
claim - 0.03% (2)
success - 0.03% (2)
events - 0.03% (2)
weather - 0.03% (2)
dramatic - 0.03% (2)
comes - 0.03% (2)
below - 0.03% (2)
wave - 0.03% (2)
asked - 0.03% (2)
severe - 0.03% (2)
government’s - 0.03% (2)
underlying - 0.03% (2)
settled - 0.03% (2)
polynomial - 0.03% (2)
unless - 0.03% (2)
5-year - 0.03% (2)
today. - 0.03% (2)
4th, - 0.03% (2)
sock - 0.03% (2)
full - 0.03% (2)
2013, - 0.03% (2)
announcements - 0.03% (2)
stands - 0.03% (2)
lack - 0.03% (2)
meals - 0.03% (2)
big - 0.03% (2)
argue - 0.03% (2)
suppliers - 0.03% (2)
companies - 0.03% (2)
manifesto” - 0.03% (2)
easter - 0.03% (2)
questions - 0.03% (2)
2012, - 0.03% (2)
16+ - 0.03% (2)
questionnaire - 0.03% (2)
follow - 0.03% (2)
slump? - 0.03% (2)
inclined - 0.03% (2)
us, - 0.03% (2)
takes - 0.03% (2)
trying - 0.03% (2)
kind - 0.03% (2)
widely - 0.03% (2)
having - 0.03% (2)
graduates - 0.03% (2)
- 0.03% (2)
mood - 0.03% (2)
assuming - 0.03% (2)
pretty - 0.03% (2)
light - 0.03% (2)
reverse - 0.03% (2)
them. - 0.03% (2)
90% - 0.03% (2)
whom - 0.03% (2)
(many - 0.03% (2)
pensioners - 0.03% (2)
tend - 0.03% (2)
off) - 0.03% (2)
overall - 0.03% (2)
are, - 0.03% (2)
regressive - 0.03% (2)
exactly - 0.03% (2)
almost - 0.03% (2)
can’t - 0.03% (2)
worse - 0.03% (2)
(h/t - 0.03% (2)
then - 0.03% (2)
3pts - 0.03% (2)
well, - 0.03% (2)
same. - 0.03% (2)
response - 0.03% (2)
class - 0.03% (2)
aged - 0.03% (2)
triple - 0.03% (2)
obvious - 0.03% (2)
yougov - 0.03% (2)
trump - 0.03% (2)
probably - 0.03% (2)
increased - 0.03% (2)
tougher - 0.03% (2)
face - 0.03% (2)
tories. - 0.03% (2)
(in - 0.03% (2)
tension - 0.03% (2)
risk - 0.03% (2)
start - 0.03% (2)
above) - 0.03% (2)
genuine - 0.03% (2)
pro-remain - 0.03% (2)
possibility - 0.03% (2)
showed - 0.03% (2)
campaign. - 0.03% (2)
mistake - 0.03% (2)
alienate - 0.03% (2)
looking - 0.03% (2)
forgot - 0.03% (2)
couldn’t - 0.03% (2)
manifesto. - 0.03% (2)
happened - 0.03% (2)
predicted - 0.03% (2)
first, - 0.03% (2)
discussed - 0.03% (2)
week, - 0.03% (2)
jeremy - 0.03% (2)
for: - 0.03% (2)
favourability - 0.03% (2)
through - 0.03% (2)
coming - 0.03% (2)
written - 0.03% (2)
tell - 0.03% (2)
8th, - 0.03% (2)
that, - 0.03% (2)
spending - 0.03% (2)
balancing - 0.03% (2)
essential - 0.03% (2)
minister. - 0.03% (2)
margin - 0.03% (2)
(part - 0.03% (2)
pushed - 0.03% (2)
way, - 0.03% (2)
attacking - 0.03% (2)
relentless - 0.03% (2)
socially - 0.03% (2)
coverage - 0.03% (2)
terrible - 0.03% (2)
surely - 0.03% (2)
considered - 0.03% (2)
party. - 0.03% (2)
problem. - 0.03% (2)
needed - 0.03% (2)
without - 0.03% (2)
now, - 0.03% (2)
totally - 0.03% (2)
lot - 0.03% (2)
whatever - 0.03% (2)
basis - 0.03% (2)
paula - 0.03% (2)
candidates - 0.03% (2)
remembering - 0.03% (2)
paying - 0.03% (2)
clinton’s - 0.03% (2)
strength - 0.03% (2)
issues - 0.03% (2)
worth - 0.03% (2)
higher - 0.03% (2)
reached - 0.03% (2)
when, - 0.03% (2)
unexpectedly, - 0.03% (2)
scandal - 0.03% (2)
to the - 0.03% (2)
lessons - 0.03% (2)
of the - 0.03% (2)
feels - 0.03% (2)
analysts - 0.03% (2)
closer - 0.03% (2)
lewinsky - 0.03% (2)
bill - 0.03% (2)
hasn’t - 0.03% (2)
shifted - 0.03% (2)
leading - 0.03% (2)
narrows - 0.03% (2)
large. - 0.03% (2)
seemed - 0.03% (2)
1983 - 0.03% (2)
only, - 0.03% (2)
one. - 0.03% (2)
views - 0.03% (2)
years. - 0.03% (2)
score - 0.03% (2)
called - 0.03% (2)
past - 0.03% (2)
great - 0.03% (2)
(this - 0.03% (2)
suggested - 0.03% (2)
repeats - 0.03% (2)
relationship - 0.03% (2)
ipsos - 0.03% (2)
thorough - 0.03% (2)
useful - 0.03% (2)
14pts - 0.03% (2)
linear - 0.03% (2)
dissatisfied. - 0.03% (2)
account - 0.03% (2)
ashcroft’s - 0.03% (2)
couple - 0.03% (2)
overstate - 0.03% (2)
surridge). - 0.03% (2)
30-44 - 0.03% (2)
share - 0.03% (2)
became - 0.03% (2)
unpopular - 0.03% (2)
lines - 0.03% (2)
growing - 0.03% (2)
cultural - 0.03% (2)
increasingly - 0.03% (2)
helped - 0.03% (2)
result. - 0.03% (2)
understand - 0.03% (2)
duncan - 0.03% (2)
according - 0.03% (2)
progressive - 0.03% (2)
beyond - 0.03% (2)
sounds - 0.03% (2)
accept - 0.03% (2)
“tory - 0.03% (2)
mocked - 0.03% (2)
lite” - 0.03% (2)
closed - 0.03% (2)
pro-brexit - 0.03% (2)
based - 0.03% (2)
surprisingly - 0.03% (2)
(not - 0.03% (2)
study - 0.03% (2)
15pts. - 0.03% (2)
sample - 0.03% (2)
evidence - 0.03% (2)
independent - 0.03% (2)
indeed - 0.03% (2)
this, - 0.03% (2)
showing - 0.03% (2)
argument - 0.03% (2)
from. - 0.03% (2)
or, - 0.03% (2)
here. - 0.03% (2)
factor - 0.03% (2)
leader. - 0.03% (2)
continue - 0.03% (2)
this. - 0.03% (2)
points. - 0.03% (2)
10. - 0.03% (2)
important - 0.03% (2)
9th, - 0.03% (2)
the tories - 0.66% (42)
of the - 0.57% (36)
at the - 0.43% (27)
in the - 0.4% (25)
the party - 0.3% (19)
polling matters - 0.3% (19)
the election - 0.28% (18)
for the - 0.28% (18)
with the - 0.27% (17)
to the - 0.27% (17)
the poll - 0.25% (16)
that the - 0.24% (15)
lib dem - 0.24% (15)
on the - 0.24% (15)
and the - 0.22% (14)
the lib - 0.19% (12)
the same - 0.17% (11)
the gap - 0.17% (11)
have been - 0.16% (10)
the polls - 0.16% (10)
leo – - 0.16% (10)
2017 by - 0.16% (10)
posted in - 0.16% (10)
be the - 0.16% (10)
as the - 0.16% (10)
the parties - 0.16% (10)
the result - 0.16% (10)
by leo - 0.16% (10)
gap between - 0.14% (9)
lib dems - 0.14% (9)
about the - 0.14% (9)
to win - 0.13% (8)
from the - 0.13% (8)
the public - 0.13% (8)
between the - 0.13% (8)
the tories’ - 0.13% (8)
climate change - 0.13% (8)
likely to - 0.13% (8)
this is - 0.13% (8)
than the - 0.13% (8)
have a - 0.11% (7)
would be - 0.11% (7)
the latest - 0.11% (7)
is the - 0.11% (7)
with a - 0.11% (7)
the uk - 0.11% (7)
the economy - 0.11% (7)
i think - 0.11% (7)
election result - 0.11% (7)
about climate - 0.11% (7)
but the - 0.11% (7)
– but - 0.09% (6)
people who - 0.09% (6)
those who - 0.09% (6)
prime minister - 0.09% (6)
in 2015 - 0.09% (6)
said the - 0.09% (6)
that i - 0.09% (6)
may be - 0.09% (6)
worries about - 0.09% (6)
corbyn was - 0.09% (6)
could be - 0.09% (6)
that a - 0.08% (5)
of remain - 0.08% (5)
one of - 0.08% (5)
they would - 0.08% (5)
the results - 0.08% (5)
support for - 0.08% (5)
the top - 0.08% (5)
the next - 0.08% (5)
the tory - 0.08% (5)
public opinion - 0.08% (5)
on course - 0.08% (5)
voters said - 0.08% (5)
might be - 0.08% (5)
tories are - 0.08% (5)
satisfaction with - 0.08% (5)
win by - 0.08% (5)
be that - 0.08% (5)
course for - 0.08% (5)
comments off - 0.08% (5)
off on - 0.08% (5)
– comments - 0.08% (5)
polls are - 0.08% (5)
among the - 0.08% (5)
before the - 0.08% (5)
matters on - 0.08% (5)
tory victory - 0.08% (5)
it was - 0.08% (5)
politics, polling - 0.08% (5)
in his - 0.08% (5)
labour voters - 0.08% (5)
say they - 0.08% (5)
what i - 0.08% (5)
and corbyn - 0.06% (4)
the most - 0.06% (4)
and other - 0.06% (4)
that corbyn - 0.06% (4)
it’s not - 0.06% (4)
about it - 0.06% (4)
on may - 0.06% (4)
of those - 0.06% (4)
what it - 0.06% (4)
older people - 0.06% (4)
party of - 0.06% (4)
1. the - 0.06% (4)
labour in - 0.06% (4)
of tory - 0.06% (4)
the election. - 0.06% (4)
listen to - 0.06% (4)
radical policies - 0.06% (4)
there are - 0.06% (4)
manifesto launch - 0.06% (4)
than it - 0.06% (4)
net satisfaction - 0.06% (4)
it would - 0.06% (4)
the difference - 0.06% (4)
when the - 0.06% (4)
might have - 0.06% (4)
would have - 0.06% (4)
leadership satisfaction - 0.06% (4)
at least - 0.06% (4)
terms of - 0.06% (4)
matt singh - 0.06% (4)
the state - 0.06% (4)
the us - 0.06% (4)
mori, age - 0.06% (4)
unlikely to - 0.06% (4)
– mori, - 0.06% (4)
the last - 0.06% (4)
politics on - 0.06% (4)
focus group - 0.06% (4)
– and - 0.06% (4)
a better - 0.06% (4)
opinium poll - 0.06% (4)
the party’s - 0.06% (4)
the eu - 0.06% (4)
in polls - 0.06% (4)
more than - 0.06% (4)
suggests the - 0.06% (4)
tory voters - 0.06% (4)
to stop - 0.06% (4)
the more - 0.05% (3)
to attack - 0.05% (3)
i have - 0.05% (3)
of climate - 0.05% (3)
my analysis - 0.05% (3)
voted labour - 0.05% (3)
the other - 0.05% (3)
policies that - 0.05% (3)
labour and - 0.05% (3)
the best - 0.05% (3)
who voted - 0.05% (3)
found that - 0.05% (3)
it might - 0.05% (3)
leader could - 0.05% (3)
corbyn is - 0.05% (3)
polls have - 0.05% (3)
of this - 0.05% (3)
don’t believe - 0.05% (3)
for corbyn - 0.05% (3)
much of - 0.05% (3)
because the - 0.05% (3)
that labour’s - 0.05% (3)
difference to - 0.05% (3)
could have - 0.05% (3)
the change - 0.05% (3)
tories’ lead - 0.05% (3)
are at - 0.05% (3)
the economy. - 0.05% (3)
did so - 0.05% (3)
in politics, - 0.05% (3)
political betting. - 0.05% (3)
this was - 0.05% (3)
labour from - 0.05% (3)
uk worries - 0.05% (3)
of who - 0.05% (3)
since the - 0.05% (3)
the answer - 0.05% (3)
the second - 0.05% (3)
satisfaction the - 0.05% (3)
in net - 0.05% (3)
of voters - 0.05% (3)
much difference - 0.05% (3)
polls suggest - 0.05% (3)
will win - 0.05% (3)
are on - 0.05% (3)
matt used - 0.05% (3)
were on - 0.05% (3)
voting intention - 0.05% (3)
predictor of - 0.05% (3)
satisfied with - 0.05% (3)
tories will - 0.05% (3)
for labour’s - 0.05% (3)
may and - 0.05% (3)
pb/polling matters - 0.05% (3)
because of - 0.05% (3)
a change - 0.05% (3)
want to - 0.05% (3)
the leadership - 0.05% (3)
proportion of - 0.05% (3)
and may - 0.05% (3)
the correlation - 0.05% (3)
corbyn’s ratings - 0.05% (3)
opinion is - 0.05% (3)
that said, - 0.05% (3)
difference in - 0.05% (3)
a tory - 0.05% (3)
election results - 0.05% (3)
results i - 0.05% (3)
was on - 0.05% (3)
support of - 0.05% (3)
the labour - 0.05% (3)
not clear - 0.05% (3)
the uk’s - 0.05% (3)
focus groups - 0.05% (3)
hard to - 0.05% (3)
during the - 0.05% (3)
they did - 0.05% (3)
but it - 0.05% (3)
is still - 0.05% (3)
and benefit - 0.05% (3)
for their - 0.05% (3)
by the - 0.05% (3)
he was - 0.05% (3)
that they - 0.05% (3)
young people - 0.05% (3)
seems to - 0.05% (3)
brexit party - 0.05% (3)
can listen - 0.05% (3)
you can - 0.05% (3)
no longer - 0.05% (3)
most popular - 0.05% (3)
tax and - 0.05% (3)
tories have - 0.05% (3)
was the - 0.05% (3)
if the - 0.05% (3)
was an - 0.05% (3)
– the - 0.05% (3)
social care - 0.05% (3)
you could - 0.05% (3)
predicted the - 0.03% (2)
remain? latest - 0.03% (2)
normally is - 0.03% (2)
would at - 0.03% (2)
tories’ lead. - 0.03% (2)
was originally - 0.03% (2)
it may - 0.03% (2)
opinion has - 0.03% (2)
published on - 0.03% (2)
polls that - 0.03% (2)
if you - 0.03% (2)
bad polling - 0.03% (2)
correlation between - 0.03% (2)
better to - 0.03% (2)
of voters. - 0.03% (2)
look at - 0.03% (2)
fightback – - 0.03% (2)
but there - 0.03% (2)
how high - 0.03% (2)
least consider - 0.03% (2)
think the - 0.03% (2)
support go - 0.03% (2)
can their - 0.03% (2)
ready to - 0.03% (2)
intention data - 0.03% (2)
the climate - 0.03% (2)
who are - 0.03% (2)
people have - 0.03% (2)
for example, - 0.03% (2)
voting intent. - 0.03% (2)
single-issue stop - 0.03% (2)
april 2017 - 0.03% (2)
mori poll, - 0.03% (2)
that is - 0.03% (2)
it’s a - 0.03% (2)
win more - 0.03% (2)
that matt - 0.03% (2)
a clear - 0.03% (2)
47% of - 0.03% (2)
is less - 0.03% (2)
quarter of - 0.03% (2)
i’m not - 0.03% (2)
used to - 0.03% (2)
stopping brexit. - 0.03% (2)
could do - 0.03% (2)
in that - 0.03% (2)
a linear - 0.03% (2)
opinion poll - 0.03% (2)
i suggest - 0.03% (2)
this points - 0.03% (2)
of 15-18 - 0.03% (2)
poll suggests - 0.03% (2)
victory of - 0.03% (2)
as matt - 0.03% (2)
the leaders, - 0.03% (2)
percentage satisfied - 0.03% (2)
the percentage - 0.03% (2)
would make - 0.03% (2)
a tough - 0.03% (2)
used a - 0.03% (2)
many are - 0.03% (2)
among those - 0.03% (2)
new analysis - 0.03% (2)
on april - 0.03% (2)
that did - 0.03% (2)
labour’s slump? - 0.03% (2)
to put - 0.03% (2)
the policies - 0.03% (2)
matters podcast - 0.03% (2)
views of - 0.03% (2)
agree with - 0.03% (2)
answer to - 0.03% (2)
policies the - 0.03% (2)
were much - 0.03% (2)
less popular - 0.03% (2)
other questions - 0.03% (2)
least popular - 0.03% (2)
winning over - 0.03% (2)
the top-scoring - 0.03% (2)
are radical - 0.03% (2)
to believe - 0.03% (2)
against the - 0.03% (2)
their vote - 0.03% (2)
manifesto. the - 0.03% (2)
labour policies. - 0.03% (2)
to vote - 0.03% (2)
the statement - 0.03% (2)
companies to - 0.03% (2)
on time - 0.03% (2)
pay suppliers - 0.03% (2)
the 2015 - 0.03% (2)
triple lock - 0.03% (2)
yet the - 0.03% (2)
just a - 0.03% (2)
this isn’t - 0.03% (2)
have to - 0.03% (2)
about what - 0.03% (2)
labour stands - 0.03% (2)
was another - 0.03% (2)
they seem - 0.03% (2)
try to - 0.03% (2)
with labour - 0.03% (2)
climate polling - 0.03% (2)
analysis of - 0.03% (2)
– new - 0.03% (2)
since 2005 - 0.03% (2)
new data - 0.03% (2)
what labour - 0.03% (2)
suggests labour - 0.03% (2)
published today. - 0.03% (2)
5-year high - 0.03% (2)
climate are - 0.03% (2)
high – - 0.03% (2)
a 5-year - 0.03% (2)
is now - 0.03% (2)
was in - 0.03% (2)
ed miliband - 0.03% (2)
in labour, - 0.03% (2)
in climate - 0.03% (2)
polling since - 0.03% (2)
to know - 0.03% (2)
attention to - 0.03% (2)
this focus - 0.03% (2)
a quarter - 0.03% (2)
mar 2013, - 0.03% (2)
age 16+ - 0.03% (2)
before they - 0.03% (2)
strongly supported - 0.03% (2)
who would - 0.03% (2)
that’s the - 0.03% (2)
which i - 0.03% (2)
some of - 0.03% (2)
severe weather - 0.03% (2)
of policies - 0.03% (2)
or perhaps - 0.03% (2)
one in - 0.03% (2)
but this - 0.03% (2)
think it’s - 0.03% (2)
crucial for - 0.03% (2)
state of - 0.03% (2)
election, so - 0.03% (2)
the triple - 0.03% (2)
labour promised - 0.03% (2)
the same. - 0.03% (2)
may – - 0.03% (2)
of their - 0.03% (2)
the rich - 0.03% (2)
so this - 0.03% (2)
by paula - 0.03% (2)
the basis - 0.03% (2)
those with - 0.03% (2)
level for - 0.03% (2)
and labour - 0.03% (2)
labour now - 0.03% (2)
it, the - 0.03% (2)
more i - 0.03% (2)
corbyn did - 0.03% (2)
will have - 0.03% (2)
effort into - 0.03% (2)
the two - 0.03% (2)
series of - 0.03% (2)
voters were - 0.03% (2)
1 comment - 0.03% (2)
like it - 0.03% (2)
was one - 0.03% (2)
open vs - 0.03% (2)
why the - 0.03% (2)
popular politician - 0.03% (2)
have made - 0.03% (2)
seats with - 0.03% (2)
and rich - 0.03% (2)
uk’s most - 0.03% (2)
this might - 0.03% (2)
a majority - 0.03% (2)
only a - 0.03% (2)
in turnout - 0.03% (2)
despite the - 0.03% (2)
polls and - 0.03% (2)
remainers who - 0.03% (2)
perhaps the - 0.03% (2)
trying to - 0.03% (2)
vote share - 0.03% (2)
in seats - 0.03% (2)
a high - 0.03% (2)
high proportion - 0.03% (2)
tories made - 0.03% (2)
the left - 0.03% (2)
of its - 0.03% (2)
act (part - 0.03% (2)
labour’s balancing - 0.03% (2)
corbyn and - 0.03% (2)
the right. - 0.03% (2)
(many of - 0.03% (2)
it’s so - 0.03% (2)
the rest - 0.03% (2)
exactly as - 0.03% (2)
poorer people - 0.03% (2)
effect of - 0.03% (2)
the political - 0.03% (2)
they had - 0.03% (2)
there’s a - 0.03% (2)
prime minister. - 0.03% (2)
for may - 0.03% (2)
compared with - 0.03% (2)
said they - 0.03% (2)
balancing act - 0.03% (2)
citizens of - 0.03% (2)
liberal voters - 0.03% (2)
labour did - 0.03% (2)
the government - 0.03% (2)
to protect - 0.03% (2)
may have - 0.03% (2)
tories were - 0.03% (2)
next time. - 0.03% (2)
it could - 0.03% (2)
few reasons - 0.03% (2)
assuming the - 0.03% (2)
a much - 0.03% (2)
the tories. - 0.03% (2)
older people. - 0.03% (2)
that could - 0.03% (2)
tougher opponent - 0.03% (2)
will be - 0.03% (2)
few years - 0.03% (2)
the support - 0.03% (2)
it had - 0.03% (2)
them from - 0.03% (2)
and who - 0.03% (2)
of people - 0.03% (2)
it’s like - 0.03% (2)
actually a - 0.03% (2)
party because - 0.03% (2)
did was - 0.03% (2)
think labour - 0.03% (2)
a series - 0.03% (2)
– at - 0.03% (2)
because they - 0.03% (2)
the final - 0.03% (2)
thorough than - 0.03% (2)
with keiran - 0.03% (2)
into account - 0.03% (2)
projected to - 0.03% (2)
what the - 0.03% (2)
gap in - 0.03% (2)
are dissatisfied. - 0.03% (2)
matt did - 0.03% (2)
as much - 0.03% (2)
is ready - 0.03% (2)
projection of - 0.03% (2)
made some - 0.03% (2)
matters with - 0.03% (2)
narrows to - 0.03% (2)
13-16pts as - 0.03% (2)
has narrowed - 0.03% (2)
to project - 0.03% (2)
polls, politics - 0.03% (2)
in historical - 0.03% (2)
us about - 0.03% (2)
politician – - 0.03% (2)
satisfaction polls - 0.03% (2)
the campaign. - 0.03% (2)
historical polls, - 0.03% (2)
by 15-18pts - 0.03% (2)
suggest the - 0.03% (2)
is actually - 0.03% (2)
win. this - 0.03% (2)
a 15-18pt - 0.03% (2)
election, i - 0.03% (2)
data. the - 0.03% (2)
but still - 0.03% (2)
not to - 0.03% (2)
make much - 0.03% (2)
(this is - 0.03% (2)
linear regression - 0.03% (2)
that showed - 0.03% (2)
this means - 0.03% (2)
of corbyn - 0.03% (2)
towards him - 0.03% (2)
the swing - 0.03% (2)
– so - 0.03% (2)
over the - 0.03% (2)
true gap - 0.03% (2)
through the - 0.03% (2)
isn’t just - 0.03% (2)
are relatively - 0.03% (2)
and on - 0.03% (2)
matt’s analysis - 0.03% (2)
groups and - 0.03% (2)
things about - 0.03% (2)
– to - 0.03% (2)
i would - 0.03% (2)
a couple - 0.03% (2)
a small - 0.03% (2)
polls is - 0.03% (2)
last two - 0.03% (2)
/ opinium - 0.03% (2)
are the - 0.03% (2)
put it - 0.03% (2)
than voting - 0.03% (2)
between labour - 0.03% (2)
among a - 0.03% (2)
i discussed - 0.03% (2)
a more - 0.03% (2)
i haven’t - 0.03% (2)
don’t just - 0.03% (2)
it’s possible - 0.03% (2)
first to - 0.03% (2)
of support - 0.03% (2)
this week, - 0.03% (2)
the social - 0.03% (2)
and, with - 0.03% (2)
it more - 0.03% (2)
this would - 0.03% (2)
would mean - 0.03% (2)
who the - 0.03% (2)
remembering that - 0.03% (2)
after the - 0.03% (2)
seem to - 0.03% (2)
the true - 0.03% (2)
from 2015 - 0.03% (2)
read the - 0.03% (2)
that public - 0.03% (2)
opinion would - 0.03% (2)
keiran and - 0.03% (2)
so much - 0.03% (2)
much closer - 0.03% (2)
years ago - 0.03% (2)
2017 by leo - 0.16% (10)
by leo – - 0.16% (10)
the lib dems - 0.14% (9)
between the parties - 0.11% (7)
the gap between - 0.11% (7)
the tories a - 0.11% (7)
gap between the - 0.11% (7)
voters said the - 0.08% (5)
course for a - 0.08% (5)
on course for - 0.08% (5)
– comments off - 0.08% (5)
comments off on - 0.08% (5)
leo – comments - 0.08% (5)
politics, polling matters - 0.08% (5)
in terms of - 0.06% (4)
the polls are - 0.06% (4)
about climate change - 0.06% (4)
posted in politics - 0.06% (4)
– mori, age - 0.06% (4)
at the election. - 0.06% (4)
that the tories - 0.06% (4)
party of remain - 0.06% (4)
with the leader - 0.05% (3)
tories will win - 0.05% (3)
likely to win - 0.05% (3)
the best prime - 0.05% (3)
to be the - 0.05% (3)
stop brexit party - 0.05% (3)
for the lib - 0.05% (3)
in net satisfaction - 0.05% (3)
the tories will - 0.05% (3)
you can listen - 0.05% (3)
the tories have - 0.05% (3)
can listen to - 0.05% (3)
labour from the - 0.05% (3)
the difference in - 0.05% (3)
labour voters said - 0.05% (3)
uk worries about - 0.05% (3)
leader could have - 0.05% (3)
matters posted in - 0.05% (3)
in politics, polling - 0.05% (3)
much difference to - 0.03% (2)
politics on may - 0.03% (2)
it may be - 0.03% (2)
9th, 2017 by - 0.03% (2)
a couple of - 0.03% (2)
voting intention data - 0.03% (2)
percentage satisfied with - 0.03% (2)
suggests the tories - 0.03% (2)
are on course - 0.03% (2)
of the gap - 0.03% (2)
win by 15-18pts - 0.03% (2)
satisfaction polls suggest - 0.03% (2)
for a 15-18pt - 0.03% (2)
one of the - 0.03% (2)
this points to - 0.03% (2)
almost exactly as - 0.03% (2)
the percentage satisfied - 0.03% (2)
tories are on - 0.03% (2)
a tory victory - 0.03% (2)
high – new - 0.03% (2)
– how high - 0.03% (2)
can their support - 0.03% (2)
go as the - 0.03% (2)
lib dem fightback - 0.03% (2)
to the latest - 0.03% (2)
popular among the - 0.03% (2)
at least consider - 0.03% (2)
party of remain? - 0.03% (2)
latest polling matters - 0.03% (2)
a single-issue stop - 0.03% (2)
unlikely to win - 0.03% (2)
pb/polling matters podcast - 0.03% (2)
agree with the - 0.03% (2)
those who voted - 0.03% (2)
to win more - 0.03% (2)
of those considering - 0.03% (2)
the 2015 manifesto - 0.03% (2)
to pay suppliers - 0.03% (2)
about climate are - 0.03% (2)
at a 5-year - 0.03% (2)
in historical polls, - 0.03% (2)
of climate polling - 0.03% (2)
– new analysis - 0.03% (2)
climate are at - 0.03% (2)
a 5-year high - 0.03% (2)
analysis of climate - 0.03% (2)
polling since 2005 - 0.03% (2)
matters on april - 0.03% (2)
what labour stands - 0.03% (2)
answer to labour’s - 0.03% (2)
radical policies the - 0.03% (2)
severe weather events - 0.03% (2)
in the us - 0.03% (2)
to look at - 0.03% (2)
victory narrows to - 0.03% (2)
(many of whom - 0.03% (2)
rest of the - 0.03% (2)
of people who - 0.03% (2)
don’t believe another - 0.03% (2)
crucial for labour’s - 0.03% (2)
socially liberal voters - 0.03% (2)
policies that did - 0.03% (2)
a few reasons - 0.03% (2)
the tories were - 0.03% (2)
of labour voters - 0.03% (2)
tory voters said - 0.03% (2)
the basis of - 0.03% (2)
of the campaign - 0.03% (2)
– 1 comment - 0.03% (2)
that could be - 0.03% (2)
the more i - 0.03% (2)
balancing act (part - 0.03% (2)
to say they - 0.03% (2)
ready to be - 0.03% (2)
polling matters with - 0.03% (2)
the state of - 0.03% (2)
matters / opinium - 0.03% (2)
on polling matters - 0.03% (2)
– be the - 0.03% (2)
first to comment - 0.03% (2)
is ready to - 0.03% (2)
was crucial for - 0.03% (2)
the economy in - 0.03% (2)
focus groups and - 0.03% (2)
the tories made - 0.03% (2)
but there are - 0.03% (2)
posted in labour, - 0.03% (2)
politics on june - 0.03% (2)
what it would - 0.03% (2)
with a high - 0.03% (2)
posted in historical - 0.03% (2)
polls, politics on - 0.03% (2)
projection of tory - 0.03% (2)
corbyn’s ratings improve - 0.03% (2)
to 13-16pts as - 0.03% (2)
matters with keiran - 0.03% (2)
tory victory narrows - 0.03% (2)
uk’s most popular - 0.03% (2)
13-16pts as corbyn’s - 0.03% (2)
make much difference - 0.03% (2)
the change in - 0.03% (2)
the swing towards - 0.03% (2)
to win by - 0.03% (2)
the gap in - 0.03% (2)
as matt did - 0.03% (2)
at the election, - 0.03% (2)
that the polls - 0.03% (2)
of support for - 0.03% (2)
open vs closed - 0.03% (2)
leo – 1 - 0.03% (2)
and the tories - 0.03% (2)
seems to have - 0.03% (2)
in seats with - 0.03% (2)
high proportion of - 0.03% (2)
the party because - 0.03% (2)
labour manifesto launch - 0.03% (2)
of those who - 0.03% (2)
of the public - 0.03% (2)
remembering that they - 0.03% (2)
on the basis - 0.03% (2)
isn’t just a - 0.03% (2)
voted labour in - 0.03% (2)
in the polls - 0.03% (2)
polls suggest the - 0.03% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.