Full Notional Figures

At the bottom of this post is a spreadsheet giving the full notional results for the provisional recommendations, now covering Scotland, England and Wales (I haven’t calculated any notionals for Northern Ireland). We now have recommendations from all four commissions, the England, Scottish and Northern Ireland commissions have completed their first consultation period (the Welsh one is just starting), shortly they will put up all the written submissions they received and allow a further consultation period to allow people to comment on other people’s comments. After that we have the wait for the Commission to produce revised recommendations later this year.

The overall impact of all four Commissions recommendations is to reduce the number of Conservative seats by 7, the number of Labour seats by 28 and the number of Lib Dem seats by 11. This would have left the Conservatives just short of a majority at the last election with 299 seats (though note the important caveats with any notional calculations – these are just how the seats would have fallen if people’s votes at the 2010 election had been tallied on the new boundaries. In reality some people may have voted differently had the boundaries been different).

Of course, these figures are only what would have happened on the levels of support at the last election. It is extremely unlikely that the next election will be a carbon copy of the last one. It is more interesting to see what difference the new boundaries make on the swings each party need to win.

The Conservatives need a swing of just 0.1% to get an overall majority (equating to a lead of 7.4 points over Labour). This compares to the current position where the Conservatives need a lead of about 11 points over Labour to win.

Labour would need a swing of 2.5% to become the largest party (equating to a Conservative lead of 2.2 points over Labour). This compares to the current position where Labour become the largest party when the Conservative lead drops below 4 points.

Labour would need a swing of 5.8% to gain an overall majority (equating to a Labour lead of 4.3 points over the Tories). This compares to the current position where Labour need a lead of about 3 points over the Tories to win.

Hence Labour would still win a majority with a smaller lead than the Conservatives, and if the two parties had the same shares of the vote Labour would still have substantially more seats than the Conservatives. This is to be expected, as only part of the disparity is caused by unequal boundaries, with unrelated factors like lower turnout in Labour seats and tactical voting against the Conservatives also contributing.

Notional results for Provisional GB Boundaries (excel) (csv)


102 Responses to “Full Notional Figures”

1 2 3
  1. First! :D

  2. I believe someone has worked out that the Conservatives have 300 of the 600 proposed constituencies.

  3. Interesting figures. Given Labour’s very poor 2010 performance, you would have thought that even if things didn’t go very well for them next time they would be capable of adding 5% to the 2010 result. Even this leaves them on only 34%, historically really still a low figure.

    This would mean the Tories would need to hold onto to their vote percentage from 2010 and add to it in order to prevent Labour becoming the largest party. For Labour to win outright looks a little harder, but still by no means impossible. On the swings, they would need to add around 10% and see the Tories lose an odd point or two.

    I’m aware that it’s politics that drives the numbers, so of course it isn’t as simple as looking at historic trends and results and divining what happens at the next election, but I am really surprised that so many people are assuming Labour is in trouble for 2015. At a starting base of 29%, it’s hard to imaging they won’t see some bounce back, and they really don’t need much of a swing to topple Cameron, especially with the Tories still really floundering in Scotland.

  4. I’ve think I’ve come to the conclusion that the fate of the LDs will be largely decided by tactical voting in 2015. Whilst I think they’ll perform better than polls indicate, I still think that they’re going to take heavy losses.

    Tactical voting always favours the LDs, however, with the new notional boundaries, who knows? Candidates won’t be able to print out glossy leaflets with tables on them showing the previous constituency results, because they’re technically irrelevant to the new consituency…

    Many Lab supporters who vote LD tactically might not do so again. Between the collapse in LD support and the boundary changes, it’s anyone’s guess, the waters will certainly be muddier in the run up to the 2015 election.

  5. @Alec

    *Ahem* Some of us have always been looking at the numbers, not the leaders.

  6. “This is to be expected, as only part of the disparity is caused by unequal boundaries, with unrelated factors like lower turnout in Labour seats and tactical voting against the Conservatives also contributing.”

    Neither of which would be the source of a “bias” towards Labour, in my book, unless you’re prepared to embrace PR. It’s simply the natural consequence of FPTP based on constituencies. If you accept FPTP, you have to accept these outcomes (Conservatives please note). If you accept that the principle of PR is what matters alone, it is a bias.

    Lower turnout in Labour seats could only be overcome if boundaries were deliberately designed to make Conservative seats smaller. But that would drive a coat and horses through the idea that different areas of the country have equal representation in parliament based on who lives there.

    As for tactical voting providing a bias against the Cons, I’d suggest it’s the reverse. It simply corrects a bias that occurs where the third party supporters are more anti-Con than anti-Lab, as well as reversing some of the effects of FPTP on the LDs. It could yet work in reverse at the next election, as the political balance of rump of remaining LD supporters has clearly shifted.

  7. I also hope that the LDs are never put in the Kingmaker position again. I think that we will soon find out whether the old adage “it’s better to be in power than out of it” is correct.

  8. “Labour would need a swing of 5.8% to gain an overall majority (equating to a Labour lead of 4.3 points over the Tories). This compares to the current position where Labour need a lead of about 3 points over the Tories to win.”

    I’d start backing Labour for 2015 then. These seemed nailed on, to me.

    And if the LDs won’t rubber stamp this “fairer” solution which gives them an even lower share of the seats for their vote share, then Labour will be a cast iron shoo in.

  9. Liam – it was, er, me. Alas, I’d misread my own figures for the North West. The correct figure is the 299.

  10. coach not coat!

  11. Maybe the boundary changes are not going to make things as good for the conservatives as I thought they would…However if Labour get around 36% which I think is more than likely then the conservatives need to get 44% which is possible by adding Conservative and UKIP vote…Hence if Cameron offers a referendum,then it would be possible to get 44%…Lib Dems would be foolish to agree to the boundary changes without a change in the voting system…They should have coupled this with the AV referendum…Possibly a tactical mistake?

  12. @Nick P
    “And if the LDs won’t rubber stamp this “fairer” solution which gives them an even lower share of the seats for their vote share”

    From the outside looking in, there seem as yet to be no stirrings of revolt. Are any of our LD colleagues here any the wiser?

    They are facing a loss of 11 of their 57 seats, with many of those remaining becoming more marginal. Combined with a big loss of incumbency effects, that points to well under 48 seats even were their vote to recover to GE levels of 23.6%.

  13. Sorry, can’t subtract now. Should be “well under 46 seats”.

  14. @Alec,

    I don’t think people are saying that Labour will be necessarily be in trouble in 2015 per se. It will still be very tough for the Tories to get a majority, even with the new boundary changes. The key point, however, is that it will also be quite tough for Labour to get a majority – certainly tougher than before. I think the overall effects of the boundary changes benefit the Tories not so much because it makes a Tory majority a lot more likely, but because it makes a Labour one less so.

  15. The ESA amendment by Lord Patel in the Lords vote was just passed by 230 to 216! Didn’t see that one coming.

  16. SMUKESH
    ‘Lib Dems would be foolish to agree to the boundary changes without a change in the voting system…They should have coupled this with the AV referendum…’

    I think the LDs have already agreed with boundary changes.

  17. HENRY
    I assume this has to get through Parliament…And if they are going to get much less seats for their voteshare,I am surprised if there isn`t even a murmur from sitting MP`s…Maybe Lib Dems feel very altruistic to the conservatives or plan to go into an electoral alliance with them

  18. Phil

    I think Wales is like Scotland, in that there all councillors are being elected in all authorities on 3 May.

    They have around 12% of councillors in Wales, so if that drops significantly, then I could see big ructions there.

  19. Scotswaehae

    “Lord Freud says that the amendment to extend the limit on ESA to two years will cost £1.6bn over the next five years. He asks:

    Where are we going to find those sums?”

    (from the newsfeed of the paper with the “G” name)

  20. Of course these predictions don’t take into account the popularity of the sitting MP who is in the seat where most of the new constituents live. There will be one candidate people know and trust more, so may be selected by the floating voter. There may be some new seats where there are two popular current MP’s from different parties who have decided to contest the new seat. Some MP’s will stand down, so you could have a reasonably popular current MP standing against someone they don’t know. Each new seat will have a different scenario and I am sure this will play a part.

    This presumes there are enough people out there who vote for the candidate rather than the party they are standing for.

  21. @AmbivalentSupporter – absolutely agreed. It’s just that there are quite a few on here (mainly Labour leaning, it must be said) who are regularly and repeatedly stating that Labour (under the current leadership) can’t win in 2015. These figures suggest something slightly different.

    While he is one of those who takes a negative view of Milliband, I do think @Rob Sheffield has got a very strong point when he talks of needing to view the next election in a totally different way. he has often stated his belief that we won’t now see such wide divergences between the vote share of the two main parties, and due to the effect of the coalition, the days of large leads are over. I tend to agree with this.

    I suspect that this means another hung parliament is a distinct possibility, and that for this reason Lib Dems should keep their heads – they may yet be very important in 2015.

  22. @Anthony Wells

    You are as ever a little cherub, so you are. Thank you.

    @the rest

    OK, Anthony gives us nominal info for the 585 GB constituencies. Applying a Uniform Proportional National Swing, or UPNS[1], today’s polls of 40%/40%/10%/10% gives us:

    * Con: 284
    * Lab: 290
    * Lib: 1 (Orkney and Shetland)
    * Oth: 9 (1 speaker, 6 SNP, 2 PC)

    A majority of 585 is 293, so NOM

    Regards, Martyn

    [1]: where new vote=(old vote)*(national poll percentage now)/(national vote percentage then)

    SAMPLE UPNS CALCULATION
    =======================
    GB results 2010
    Con: 10703696, 36.9%
    Lab: 8606521, 29.7%
    Lib: 6836720, 23.6%
    Oth: 2864073, 9.9%

    Sutton and Cheam result 2010
    Con: 23934
    Lab: 7130
    Lib: 23286
    Oth: 2998

    Opinion poll value now:
    Con: 40%
    Lab: 40%
    Lib: 10%
    Oth: 10%

    Predicted Sutton and Cheam result now
    Con: (40/36.9)*23934 = 24651
    Lab: (40/29.7)*7130 = 10095
    Lib: (10/23.6)*23286 = 9881
    Oth: (10/09.9)*2998 = 3037

    Result: Con hold

  23. @AMBIVALENT SUPPORTER
    Frankly, the 3 posters who instantly predict Labour victory and Tory disaster are totally unreliable such is their hatred of the Tory party. I particularly compare your truthful down to earth assessment of the matter and the pro Labour assumptions these three can always be relied on to produce. Despite Anthony Wells comments to the contrary, one of the 3 Amigo’s, thinks party leader ratings don’t matter, the fact that Cameron, “can only manage level pegging” in circumstances as dark and dire as these, for any government, just doesn’t sink in. Mike Smithson showed some very interesting information yesterday, regarding the public allocation of blame for the cuts. Guess what, Labour by a margin of 18% according to You Gov are blamed. Its nearly two years old and not going away, its will be in place to haunt Labour until the next GE. The posters who make these assumptions now, were telling us the Labour blame game would be dead after 6 months, that was over a year ago. The Labour party was going to win the last GE according to these 3, what ever evidence someone like yourself puts in a calm non partisan way, will be totally ignored by these people who persist in a dream world of their own making.

    BTW I have little idea who will win in 15, but with this leader, I think Labour have a job on.

  24. @ Henry

    I think the LDs have already agreed with boundary changes.
    —————————-
    In principle but not in practice. The number of MPs & method of sizing the seats has been made law but the actual changes are subject to parliamentary approval. So, in theory, the house can prevent the reduction being implemented. I think they’d need a few Tories to be away/ abstain/ rebel too, though.

    Anthony probably has all the numbers for this, too. I’m hoping he’ll post them (again?).
    8-)

  25. Henry,I do not wish to sound unkind,to someone who is
    always so courteous,but is there anything that the LDs
    have not agreed to in this parliament?
    R Huckle,spot on,hard working consituency MPs may well
    not be just airbrushed out.
    Roland,loved your last post,really made me laugh out loud.Rather a rare occurence these days.In times of such
    fraught criticism of my beloved leader.

  26. Roland,I meant your comments vis a vis the leader of the SNP,not the latest one!

  27. @Chouenlai

    Well thank you for that rant – I am sure it has added a lot to the debate!

    What most posters have been saying is that the 2015 is difficult to predict who will win and that it is difficult to see where an OM is coming from on the current figures.

    If we look at actual polling data (by-elections and Local Councils) we see Labour has performed pretty well (seeing it was the incumbent in all the by-elections) and it is taking LD voters – especially in the North. Where the LD vote seems to be holding is in the South.

    With a GE 3 years away it is too early to make a serious judgement but the way it is looking it will be close and the 2010 LD voter may well make the difference.

    As a 2010 LD voter, I will certainly not be voting for a Clegg-led party and absolutely not for the Tories.

  28. @Scotswaehae

    “Many Lab supporters who vote LD tactically might not do so again.”

    Many Con (or SNP in Scotland or PC in Wales) supporters would be absolutely delighted if this were to happen. Lab supporters tactically vote LD in constituencies where doing so may prevent another rival party to Lab ie Con (or in Scotland or PC in Wales) from winning the seat. They do so when Lab itself has no realistic chance of winning. So if they discontinue tactically voting for LD, then whichever is Labour’s rival party in that constituency will have an even better chance of winning. For that Con (and SNP/PC) would be very grateful.

    If that is a planned Lab strategy, then perhaps they had ‘better work it out again’, (and sack the planner!)

  29. @ Old Nat

    I left a comment on the previous thread. In brief, I am happy to leave international law out of the debate, provided that you are too. Although we may have to revisit, if the issue does find its way into a Court.

    Until then, let us agree that it will be about politics & domestic law. We will talk no more of Scotland unilaterally seceding from the UK because the SNP are, by & large, a sensible Party. Therefore, they will neither threaten nor attempt it.
    8-)

  30. @Martyn;

    I fear I may be misunderstanding, but are you saying that under the proposed boundaries, and a vote of 40%/40%/10%/10%, the Lib Dems would have 1 seat?

  31. MARTYN
    Did you say Lib Dems get one seat in 585 seats in a uniform swing once boundary changes were implemented?WOW

  32. @Chouenlai – “BTW I have little idea who will win in 15, but with this leader, I think Labour have a job on.”

    I guess the most relevant point here is to define ‘win’. I would agree that Labour have a big ask to win a majority – a 5.8% swing on the new boundaries is a big swing – almost unheard of pre Blair for either side, although we have I think moved in to an era when voter identification is more fluid and big swings more likely. However, it’s a big ask.

    In terms of denying Cameron a majority, that’s an altogether different matter. After all, the most unpopular PM in years managed to prevent a Tory majority, and while the Lib Dem breakdown greatly alters things, Labour really need to make very little headway to ensure there isn’t a Tory majority.

    For Labour to be the largest party is a bit tougher, but really not that tough, given the background. Equally, it’s possible that Cameron will get that 0.1% swing and get his 2015 majority, but given Labour’s dreadful 2010 result, I really think he will have to pull something remarkable out of the bag to do this.

    The bottom line is that 2010 should have been the golden year for the Tories, electorally speaking. It was good, but not good enough, and that’s where the problem lies.

  33. Martyn

    Libdem 1 seat!!!

    Can’t you run the numbers again and see if we can get a taxi full or at least need a sidecar for the moped. What makes your post even more hurtful is the quite understatement, no jeering or whooping just the facts, I’m not sending you any Christmas cards :smile:

  34. Although I do suppose it depends on how reliable a predictor UPNS is.

    @Anthony: I don’t suppose you’d have any comment on that? :)

  35. @BASZSE
    I think it added a Conservative perspective to the “debate”.
    Rather than the “we hate the Tories and damn what the facts are” section of the post.

  36. @Henry
    @Amberstar

    Any party that tries to stop impartial boundary changes by impartial boundary commissions will be on a real vote loser with the general electorate. It would be all too easy to show how the current boundaries unfairly favour Lab. How could the LD party vote against any measure that improves ‘fairness’. Any such move would be an easy target for Con accusations of ‘gerry mandering’.

    It is one thing to seek changes to the interim proposals during the consultation phases. it is a completely different matter to oppose the final recommendations because they are disadvantageous to your party.

  37. phil

    “This is to be expected, as only part of the disparity is caused by unequal boundaries, with unrelated factors like lower turnout in Labour seats and tactical voting against the Conservatives also contributing.”

    Neither of which would be the source of a “bias” towards Labour, in my book, unless you’re prepared to embrace PR. It’s simply the natural consequence of FPTP based on constituencies. If you accept FPTP, you have to accept these outcomes (Conservatives please note). If you accept that the principle of PR is what matters alone, it is a bias.

    —-

    Absolutely right. And well put.

    With FPTP a party could win the General Election with 301 votes.

    FPTP is a ridiculous system.

    (For the less intuitive; assume Labour get 1 vote in 301 constituencies. And the other parties get 0 vites in them. Labour would win those 301 seats. In the other 299 seats, there could be 80,000 votes per seat for the Conservatives. And none for the other parties. That would mean 24,000,000 Conservative votes and only 301 Labour votes – and yet Labour would form the government).

  38. I think the idea of UNS swings in England is nonsense at the next Westminster election.

    The LDs will do very badly and lose at least half their seats but they probably won’t get destroyed in the West country in the way that some are predicting due to incumbancy/personal vote reasons.

  39. @Top Hat/Smukesh

    Yes. Orkney and Shetland. To run you through a worked example, here’s the calc for North Norfolk

    SAMPLE UPNS CALCULATION
    =======================
    GB results 2010
    Con: 10703696, 36.9%
    Lab: 8606521, 29.7%
    Lib: 6836720, 23.6%
    Oth: 2864073, 9.9%

    North Norfolk result 2010
    Con: 18317
    Lab: 3948
    Lib: 29669
    Oth: 3798

    Opinion poll value now:
    Con: 40%
    Lab: 40%
    Lib: 10%
    Oth: 10%

    Predicted North Norfolk result now
    Con: (40/36.9)*18317 = 19859
    Lab: (40/29.7)*3948 = 5323
    Lib: (10/23.6)*29669 = 12590
    Oth: (10/09.9)*3798 = 3847

    Result: Con gain from Lib

    Do that 585 times, and you get

    * Con: 284
    * Lab: 290
    * Lib: 1 (Orkney and Shetland)
    * Oth: 9 (1 speaker, 6 SNP, 2 PC)

    Which is what I said.

    Regards, Martyn

  40. @Top Hat

    UPNS is a method I made up. It involves multiplication and division. UNS is the method Anthony and other pollsters use. It involves adding and subtracting. UNS can in theory give negative results, UPNS doesn’t do that.

    UPNS is:
    new vote=(old vote)*(national poll percentage now)/(national vote percentage then)

    UNS is:
    new percentage=old percentage+(national poll percentage now minus national vote percentagethen)

    Regards, Martyn

  41. Q. What do you get when you offer a Liberal Democrat a penny for his thoughts?

    A. Change ;)

  42. @R Huckle

    “Of course these predictions don’t take into account the popularity of the sitting MP who is in the seat where most of the new constituents live.”

    Don’t you perhaps think that if the MP is so well known and regarded then it might be already in the GE2010 results, which of course are therefore already taken into account in these predictions. Logically any changes to the electorate must reduce the popularity factor of a candidate compared to GE2010 in most seats. Unless of course your candidate currently has an unpopularity factor and then you may not wish that to be remembered by the new electorate.

  43. The Government was defeated on all three of the welfare reform votes tonight in the Lords! :O

    I expected the Cancer one to pass, but the other two are a bit of a shocker…

  44. @RiN

    It reminds me a bit of the Tory grandee (can’t remember who) on Newsnight during the 97 election night coverage. As the second Tory seat came in he remarked “Well, it looks as if we’ll have a leadership election then…”

  45. @Martyn;

    Then surely what you’ve said is of very little use? Models should be positive-descriptive – you have to abandon them if they don’t work, even if they are mathematically “neat” and seem like they should work. I mean, surely it’d be at least worth looking at the 2005 results, then using a UPNS of the 2010 vote % to see if it accurately predicted that election.

  46. @Chouenlai

    and the facts in your post were…….?

    Criticise others but show them an example as, for example Colin does.

    FrankG

    Interesting that your definition of ‘fairness’ only applies to the Tories. The FPTP system is inherently ‘unfair’ and is supported by the Tories. The biggest losers in terms of impact are the LD who already are ‘unfairly’ treated by the current system.

    I would not go as far to say ‘gerrymandering’ but the change in the number of seats without any other reforms and selling it as ‘fair’ is bordering on mendacious. How Clegg can support this s beyond me

  47. These new boundaries seem to make the outcome of the Cons winning most votes but Lab getting a few more seats more possible.
    Nick Clegg (or whoever) will have to be more specific in ’15 about wheter votes or seats is a bigger Mandate to talk to first.
    BTW Roland, I will be pleased if we score 35% or more next time and deny ther cons an OM.

  48. So Lib Dems get 45/585 if they get 23.6% of vote and 1/585 with 10%…Seems a real drastic reduction in vote/seat ratio

  49. @FrankG

    Why yes! The LibDems might lose vote share if they pull the plug on Boundary Changes…

    They will *certainly* lose seats if they do not.

    They may well, as suggested above, be reduced to a single seat!

    So what do you think will happen?

  50. “Tactical voting always favours the LDs, however, with the new notional boundaries, who knows? Candidates won’t be able to print out glossy leaflets with tables on them showing the previous constituency results, because they’re technically irrelevant to the new consituency…”

    Depends on how much the new boundaries for a seat differ from the old ones. If it’s somewhere with little to no change (Cambridge, Eastbourne, Yeovil, Bath), then comparisons with previous results will still be valid. If a seat has been absolutely ripped apart (like what has happened with Twickenham), then your point is indeed valid.

1 2 3