Just a quick line to point out that the Constituency guide part of the site has now been updated to reflect the general election results and the new MPs elected, including the target and defence lists for the parties (SNP and UKIP to follow). Before anyone points it out there’s still lots to do – including new swingometers and updating MPs profiles to reflect the reshuffles.

345 Responses to “Constituency Guide update”

1 2 3 7
  1. Well, at least the SNP target list won’t take long.


  2. Many thanks for all your efforts. A great resource.

  3. James Morrison

    “Well, at least the SNP target list won’t take long.”

    My thought too!

  4. Looking at the “Labour Target” seats, the new “mountain to climb” for them seems dramatically steep.

    Only 21 seats where they are within 5% of the winner, and the first Scottish seat is Aberdeen South at number 84, where they are 14.8% behind.

  5. The unions are updating their membership list for the leadership election. My wife got her questionnaire form from her union.

  6. Oldnat,

    I think you will that there are four SNP seats more vulnerable to Labour than Aberdeen South – the most marginal being East Renfrewshire.

  7. Graham

    No doubt Anthony will correct his list in due course – unless he had a reason for listing the seats in the way that he did.

  8. Oldnat

    They are clearly listed under Labour Targets!

  9. Oldnat
    May I refer you to target numbers 26- 44 -60 – and 64.

  10. Graham

    So they are! Serves me right for skimming the list.

  11. ON – your main point though is valid a 2.3% swing v Cons in marginal seats just to get 20 seats which they would need minimum to keep the Cons out of power, other things being equal.
    This is without the expectancy of the reduction to 600 seats making things tougher, plus individual voter registration possible working against Labour.

    On the face of it very hard to see Labour leading a Government after the in 2020 GE, just from the arithmetic.

    The old cliché applies imo oppositions rarely win GEs, but Governments can lose them.
    Labour best chance is for the Tories to mess things up, argue about Europe, possibly lose a few MPs to the UKIP.
    Or perhaps mess up their leadership Elections which I doubt.

    Whilst The Tories messing up is Labours best bet they need to be a viable alternative of course.

  12. GRAHAM.
    I THINK that Lab might have a fighting chance under LK.

  13. Have been polled by both YouGov and Populus today so hopefully we can expect something in the way of polls soon.

  14. Another striking thing about the target lists is that with the LD wipe-out and the huge swing to SNP, Lab and Cons are very much back to a head to head contest.

    46 of Labs top 50 targets are Cons seats.
    45 of Cons top 50 targets are Lab seats.

  15. EIY – yes back to 2 party politics in E&W effectively.

  16. George Galloway announces his London Mayoral candidacy by Twitter:


  17. Jim Jam

    That’s one more than in Scotland ;-)

  18. Chrislane
    I disagree – she will not win back the core voters who have gone to UKIP/Green /NV.
    I would certainly not support a party led by her.

    I think there is a good chance of pushing the Tories back to 310 in 2020 assuming a 650 House of Commons. Not persuaded that would be enough to keep Tories in office and have no doubt that LibDems would not touch them again with a bargepole!

  19. Exile in Yorks

    Given the 2015 numbers in Berwickshire etc, it seems most likely that the Tories will take that seat in 2020.

    If Mundell and Murray can hold on, the Tories may well have double the number of seats in Scotland Labour will have – indeed double the number of seats of all other Unionist parties!

    Don’t write them off. :-)

  20. You are a star Anthony for doing all this – such a mine of information and a real help to get a sense of where things are at.

  21. Even without the boundary changes and reduction in MPs things would look very tough for Lab in 2020. With the (expected) changes in the boundaries I think the Conservatives have to be very strongly odds on.

  22. Old Nat

    As Mark Twain almost said “reports of the death of Scottish Unionism have been greatly exaggerated”.

  23. Things do look bad for Labour, but, dear me, look at the Lib Dems target list. They will do well to gain three seats!

    We are indeed back to two party politics in E & W.

    I genuinely had not appreciated the scale of the Lib Dem problem – this has implications for the way in which Farron, if indeed it is he, deals with it all.

    I just don’t think it is remotely realistic to expect a ‘breakthrough’ and get back to twenty, thirty or more seats, even with a few by elections. Farron is going to have to find another way, perhaps using the old methodology of concentrating on council activity, and building from there.

    Looking at that list, I have to say that further decline in seats is the likelier outcome next time around.

    Labour has to try for that former Lib Dem vote, surely. As do the Tories for that matter. That’s an awful lot of voters out there who are relatively uncommitted and are not likely to go back to the Lib Dems.

    I keep thinking that even some of those who voted Lib Dem this time, would not have done so if they had known that support was so low. How many really committed Lib Dem enthusiastic supporters are there?

    Lib Dems to get 0 seats next time might be an interesting bet.

  24. @AmbiSupp and others

    According to the bookies the best price for most seats for the Tories is 4/9 and Lab 2/1 against.
    Given the views on here about steepness the Lab odds look a bit stingy.

  25. There is also a tendency for east midlands marginals to swing rather wildly. I recall very big pro-Tory swings in places such as Amber Valley in 1987 – again at variance withe national swing. They swung back again very sharply in both 1992 and 1997 and I rather expect that to happen again. I really doubt that Broxtowe- Sherwood- Amber Valley – Loughborough are in reality as secure for the Tories as might appear to be the case on paper.

  26. Once Anthony and others have the time! it’ll be interesting to see the calculations for the probable 600 Westminster seats based on the 2015 results.

    I can’t see that helping Labour’s recovery chances much.

  27. Millie

    Most of the seats on the LD target list are ones they have just lost, and therefore their 2015 vote share was presumably helped to some extent by an incumbency bonus. By 2020, the new holders of those seats will have started to build their own incumbency bonus so the task for the LDs in 2020 to win any of these back is even harder than the raw numbers suggest.

  28. I see Electoral Calculus has done a rough & ready version of the 600 seats based on the 2013 boundaries and separate UNS assumptions for E&W and Scotland.


    Con 325 : Lab 202 : SNP 49 : LD 5 : PC 3 : NI 16

  29. @Oldnat

    Don’t you love FPTP?

    Con – 36.9% of the vote, 54% of the seats.
    SNP – 4.7% of the vote, 8% of the seats.
    LD – 7.9% of the vote, 0.8% of the seats.

    That’s about as fair as FIFA.

  30. CMJ

    I’ve thought of FPTP as a rather rude (if accurate) acronym since the 1960s!::-)

    All these Johnny Come Latelies (I’m not referring to you!) whining because it doesn’t suit the big parties any more are quite amusing.

    I notice you didn’t mention UKIP – who would be the big gainers in England, and hence why I reckon the Con/Lab duopoly would much prefer to abandon Scotland than to jeopardise their seats in England by introducing PR for Westminster.

  31. I didn’t mention UKIP as the projection gave then zero.

    I remember maths with zero or infinity being complicated ;-)

    (although Douglas Adam’s explained it well)

  32. CMJ

    Could get worse for the LDs yet, if O&S were to disappear (as its MP seems to have done).

    The Coalition proposals included protection for the LD’s (then) Highland & Northern Isles seats with special island protection and maximum area provisions.

    Will the Tories continue with that with the Boundary Review, or will they tweak that anomaly out of existence?

    That could create an extra 2-3 seats for England


    You seem to have forgotten that the electorate rejected an alternative means of electing a government during the last government and seem happy with FPTP.

    Perhaps you didn’t like the democratic will of the people at the last election?

  34. @TOH

    a) AV is terrible system that even electoral reform fans dislike. Mr Cameron must have delighted when the Lib Dems accepted it as the alternative to FPTP

    b) The AV referendum became nothing more a referendum on Nick Clegg

  35. ExileinYorks

    True – I think I might have referred to this factor at some point.

    Its seems a bit severe, but I really see no quick way back for the Lib Dems. In my constituency they fell from second with 31.2% of the vote to fifth with 6.8%. What is so striking is the chronic flakiness of the support they once had: very very few people, it seems, had any deep-seated commitment to the party.

    Not a great place from which to rebuild.

  36. CMJ


  37. Millie

    And, of those who did vote for their LD candidate, how many were voting tactically to avoid someone even worse, and how many had any “deep-seated commitment to the party”?

  38. OldNat

    Pretty much what I said in my 5.53 post.

    Its all rather sad – the discovery that there are no liberals left.

  39. @Millie

    I agree.

    There is a huge hole for a party that is socially liberal and willing to defend civil liberties, like say the pre-2010 Lib Dems.

    They seem to be lost values, when they are so vital right now.

  40. Millie

    Alternatively, it’s all rather exciting! As circumstances change, political ideologies which were once dominant, move to the margins.

    If anything, Liberalism was about the liberties of the individual against the state. That remains a valuable and important argument, but one that individual members of all parties pursue, and hopefully can work within their parties to achieve. It’s doubtful that a party with that main objective has a role.

    Meantime, the environment and the effects on individuals and communities has a much greater resonance, and there is a party with that as its main thrust.

    Socialism has also receded to the margins of political debate. It is also possible that the major party once proposing that will also fail to provide a coherent argument for people to support it, but Labour has some way to fall in England yet. :-)

  41. Survation have tweeted about an EU poll, with some limited data –

    All : Stay 45% : Leave 38%
    Con : Stay 41% : Leave 39%
    Lab : Stay 61% : Leave 23%
    UKIP : Stay 6% : Leave 86%

  42. CMJ

    Agree with you both.

    The collapse of the LibDems and the collapse of Socialism, all at the same time, leaves, as you say, a ‘huge hole’.

    Which I will now discuss down the pub.

  43. @ExileinYorks
    “George Galloway announces his London Mayoral candidacy by Twitter”

    Good news for whoever the Tory candidate will be. Although an irrelevance overall, GG could probably take 2-3% from the Labour candidate.

  44. @AW – Thanks for updating the constituency lists.

    So Lab would need a swing of approximately 6% against the Tories in 2020 to end up as the largest party. This is possible but they will need quite a bit of luck to get there.

  45. Anyone who was going to Vote Labour but opts for Galloway would presumably put Labour second.

    Also, If GG actually gets some people to vote who wouldn’t otherwise bother and their Supplementary preference goes to the Labour Candidate it may help the latter.

    I suppose their may be some voters who don’t use their second vote and choose GG over the Labour candidate; or some who would have voted Other, Labour but might go Other, Galloway for example.

    IMO, the key question is can the Tories find another candidate to transcend London being a Labour City and Galloway standing or not makes little difference either way.

  46. I suspect if the Libdems track back to the left under a new leader they will pick up a lot of support from voters who have no where else to go. In their heartland of the Southwest I think many of their previous voters sought to punish them last time for what was perceived as their ‘collaboration’ with the conservatives and these same supporters would not take too much to get them back on board.

  47. NEILJ

    @” In their heartland of the Southwest I think many of their previous voters sought to punish them last time for what was perceived as their ‘collaboration’ with the conservatives ”

    ……by voting for Conservative candidates …?

  48. Colin

    “……by voting for Conservative candidates …?”

    Do you know that is what 2010 LD voters did?

    The average churn for the 55 seats in SW England among the larger parties was

    LD -19.5%
    UKIP + 9.2%
    Green +4.8%
    Con +3.8%
    Lab +2.1%

    You may be right that the former LDs voted Tory and not for other parties – but some evidence would be useful.

  49. @Colin, Oldnat

    In some ways, given the election result, it is surprising how little changed in most seats. In very many seats the Conservative Vs Labour percentages remained much the same – the Tories targeted their advance where it counted most, gaining LD seats and a few others..

    Here’s a map showing Conservative Vs Labour Swing Percentages

  50. TimBick is of course me (ukelect), using a different browser.

    I find this map interesting as well – it shows the

    relative percentage swing between Conservative and UKIP

1 2 3 7