Updated swingometers

I have now updated the swingometers on the site with 2010 election data.

Dull old text version here – http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/swing-calculator
Lovely graphical version (but needs a plug-in for Internet Explorer) – http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/swingometer-map
Enhanced graphical version with seperate swings for Scotland and Wales – http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/advanced-swingometer-map

Of course, these may turn out to be of purely academic interest, since the government still seem to be intending to reduce the number of seats by 10% in time for the next election, and that’s leaving aside the possiblity that the voting system itself is changed. We shall cross those bridges when we reach them though!


105 Responses to “Updated swingometers”

1 2 3
  1. Howard, I know, that is my point, what is the point of having two of them now if they are on the same side?

  2. Pam F
    There will only be ‘one of them’ -that’s FPTP. But when we get STV (dream on Howard) we will still have elections with parties stressing their own qualities. One has to get used to this. Barring upset, regardless of whether we get AV or better, all GE outcomes will be like this from now on IMO. If the Weston voters had voted tactically there would have been a coalition with Labour (assuming the other targets followed suit) and we could still have a by-election with both Lab and Lib candidates. What’s the difference with Thirsk?

  3. Howard.. just that it is post the general election and coalition.
    Even though the government is a new one, clearly this is effectively a by election, not like the general election.

  4. Rob Sheffield,

    “ANY attempt to predict the Thirsk election is utter nonsense (other than that Tories will win) !”

    Agree absolutely. If you were referring to the figures of C 57; LD 20; Lab 18 which I posted in my detailed response to Sue Marsh, please note that this is what I said the result was likely to have been had Thirsk voted last Thursday along with everyone else.

    I have no idea what the final figures will be on 27 May, but I do stand by my original comment (bottom of page 1 on this thread) which Sue queried, in particular re relative position of Lab and LDs.

    FWIW, I think that the Thirsk election would have been a lot more interesting had Cameron told Clegg to take a hike and tried to run a minority Govt.

    Conversely, had Clegg signed up to a Lab-LD deal, I suspect the voters in Thirsk might have gone for a result something alone the lines of Con 70+ with Lab and LD vying to lose their deposits behind the other also-rans.

  5. new thread available

1 2 3