“Labour loses majority with just 1% swing” - new report
June 26th, 2006
How boundary changes hurt Brown and make “PM Dave” one step closer
The Tory price on the General Election seat markets is likely to tighten following a big story in the Times this morning on new research on the impact of the boundary changes. Currently the Betfair price has Labour at 1.04/1 to get most seats slightly behind the Tories at 0.98/1.
But the report, by Lewis Baston and Simon Henig for the House Magazine, also underlines the challenge facing Cameron as he seeks to gear the Tories up to win an overall majority. The Tories still need a swing of 9-10% from Labour for Cameron to be certain of forming a Government - down from 11% on the boundaries used at the last election.
-
Labour suffers because almost all the new seats that will be created would have gone to the Tories or Lib Dems last time - while of those that are being abolished two thirds are Labour.
In terms of numbers they suggest that of 13 new seats created 10 would have been Tory in 2005 with one for Labour and two for the Lib Dems. Of nine abolished seats six are Labour, two Tory and one Lib Dem.
The authors conclude “The boundary review heightens the risk to Labour from a relatively small swing of votes that already exists because of the number of highly marginal seats..After the changes, a swing of only just over 1 per cent would destroy the majority, while under unchanged boundaries it would take a 1.8 per cent swing. The situation was uncomfortably tight already, and now Labour has the tiniest margin for slippage.”
-
All of this will add to Labour’s jitters as it is coming to terms with continued poll deficits for the first time in a decade and a half.
In the betting on the actual General Election outcome “no overall majority” is the 1.52/1 favourite, with a Tory majority at 2.2/1 and a Labour majority at 2.45/1
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I find The Times piece quite badly written.
The seats with noticeable changes in the parties positions are referred just with their old name without mentioning the new version. Actually some of them are referred with the old name (Hampstead and Highgate) and some with the new name (Penistone & Stocksbridge)
Then the “fairly safe now more doubtful” category seems to include seats with a less than 10% majority (like Ham&High…which I considered a marginal and not a fairly safe seat anyway) and seat with more than 20% majorities.
I note that York Outer is a tory seat for Baston and Henig, whilst is LD for Wells. I suppose a marginal in both cases, anyway.
And btw, isn’t the newly created Sunderland Central the Tory hope and not Sunderland South?
And actually what are they referring to as Sunderland South? The new Houghton and Sunderland South (which is made up by more parts of the old Houghton and Washington East than the old Sunderland South anyway)?
really badly written piece IMO!
Why no mention of YouGov’s lastest figures in your article, Mike?
Mike - why should the price for a Tory majority tighten? Surely this report just confirms what we know - that it’d take a 9-10% swing for them to get an outright majority, whereas Labour need only a 1-2% swing to lose theirs.
If anything, surely this should just make the hung Parliament option even more of a red hot favourite.
An interesting question though is whether Tory or Labour would be largest party in a hung Parliament, as that affects the dynamic considerably.
My bet would be on the Tories being largest party in a hung Parliament - but perhaps not by very much at all. Could be very interesting.
Who is to say that the Conservatives won’t have a 9pc swing? Surely that level of swing has happened before? Does someone on here know?
I would say that a 9-10% swing remains wildly unrealistic, and in betting terms, not really much more likely than an 11% swing. It just ain’t gonna happen.
Admit that this is bad news for Labour - but don’t forget that we may have a ‘bounce’ from a new leader to factor in. Polls seem to show that there would be no poll boost from Brown but what if, as Mike suggests, the new PM is someone like Johnson and he goes for a snap election in the honeymoon period?
As Oxonian says, this seems to strengthen the odds on a hung Parliament. Lewis Baston is known here as a serious commentator, though I’m wary of analyses of this kind, since rejigged seats sometimes have dynamics of their own. For instance, I remember Brighton Kemptown acquiring a predominently LibDem ward from Lewes. It turned out that many of the voters were potentially Labour, but used to the fact that in Lewes the LibDems were the only party with a decent chance to beat the Tories. They have since gradually switched to Labour. Other parties can I’m sure report similar phenomena.
The YouGov poll is disappointing for Labour, since things have calmed down since the frenetic days of May and we could reasonably have hoped for a modest recovery. I think that most people have stopped following politics closely at the moment with no particular issues engaging them fiercely, and the position is largely static, with a moderate Tory lead. The ‘forced PM’ question - “would you prefer the Tories under Cameron or Labour under X?”, now produces a slightly better result with Brown as Labour PM (44-38 for the Tories, vs 45-36 with Cameron vs Blair), though within the margin of error. 49% think Brown is doing a good job (though this is also down from last year, probably mostly reflecting more economic uncertainty).
There are well over 600 seats in the UK. So how can a net move of about a dozen max make such a difference? There is no ‘Crosby’ seat under new boundaries - half of Crosby goes into Bootle constituency and half goes into the new Sefton Central. It takes a lot of self-conning to think that even the most gerrymandered Sunderland seat is going to return a Tory at the present state of play.
Meanwhile, my Daily Mail shows me that the Amnesiac Chamereon is at it again. Campaigning against post office cuts apparently. Did none of his teenage hangers-on bother to tell him how many POs were closed down under the Tories, and how it is a Tory approach by Blair to the remaining ones which is largely responsible for closing them down?
The papers today also show Charles Clarke ‘flexing his muscles’ against Blair regarding the resignation date. Mr Clarke is miffed at being replaced at the Home Office for incompetence only to be replaced by probably the most incompetent Secretary of State in Labour history (Can anyone recall anywhere he’s been a success?). Poor Charles has realised that his ‘Blair loyalty’, when really he is much more ‘old guard Labour’, is sidelining him in the leadership scramble. He doesn’t ‘get it’ - he just wasn’t incompetent enough. Carling don’t make incompetent Labour politicians, but if they did, John Reid would be used as a template.
A 9-10% for the Tories to win an outright majority is unrealistic, but I’m rather surprised this figure’s been produced when on current boundries the swing required is 7%, and again is 7% on Anthony Wells’ Boundary report; even though the swing required for the Tories 114th target seat, Lancaster and Fleetwood, is 6.1%, which if won would give the Tories a majority of one.
9. On a straight 6.1% swing from Labour the Conservatives would only pick up 14 out of the 25 LD/SNP seats on Anthony Wells’ list, so 7% is correct. I think the seat which gives the Conservatives an overall majority on this basis is Lancashire West (majority 14.1%).
10 - Yes, Anthony did explain that to me a little while ago, though we all know that the Tories will not win seats off the Lib Dems/SNP by UNS from Labour - however that’s another story. Not aure about Lancashire West though.
8 - The new Sunderland Central seat is an outside chance of a Conservative gain in a good Conservative year . In May they outpolled Labour in the wards making up the new seat by 9,046 to 8,217 votes .
There are quite a few straws in the wind that Labour is doing relatively better and the Conservatives worse in the North and vice versa in the Midlands and South especially in seats that are already safe Conservative . This could mean that a 7% swing will not yield as many gains as UNS would indicate .
There will always be differencces of opinion as to which party would have won a particular seat such York Outer buy at least Lewis and Anthony are both using correct logic to make their predictions whereas the Baxter predictions are sadly falsely based .
When did the Tories last get a 9% swing in their favour? 19th century?
Mark at 13:
When did the Tories last get a 9% swing in their favour? 19th century?
1931.
Conservatives 55% (+16.9)
Labour 30.8% (-6.3)
Liberal 6.5% (-17.1%)
National Labour/National Liberal: 5.2% (+5.2)
Others 2.7%
Labour-Con swing: 11.6%
Liberal-Con swing: 17.0%
Special factors (formation of National Government/defection of Ramsay MacDonald/continuing Liberal infighting) applied.
4 - its the price for most seats which will tighten
Reid, while Northern Ireland Secretary, was known to introduce himself as ‘the Taig’ in conversation with representatives of the political parties connected to Loyalist paramilitaries (the PUP and UDP). The likes of David Ervine were not amused at being taken for bigots, having outgrown their inital sectarian prejudice through contacts with Catholics while serving in the Maze.
I haven’t read Baston & Henig’s article but my guess is that the bit about a 9-10% swing is misreporting by the Times and BBC, and what they mean is that the Conservatives will require a 9-10% lead over Labour to win an overall majority, which implies a 6-7% Lab to Con swing.
Kevin L is completely correct. Lewis tells me that if you read the House Magazine piece, they have it right, and The Times have it wrong.