The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Could the Tories miss out by just 5,357 votes?

The 16 constituencies that will deprive David Cameron of an overall majority.

By Jon Bernstein Published 10 April 2010 16:28

Another day, another raft of opinion polls -- but how to interpret them? We know that applying a uniform national swing is unsatisfactory, as it takes no account of concentrated canvassing in marginals, regional issues, or the incumbency factor, likely to help popular sitting MPs regardless of the relative unpopularity of their party.

Yet, only the very occasional survey polls opinion on a constituency-by-constituency basis, and even then only in key marginals.

In an attempt to make more sense of national numbers as they apply across the country's 650 constituencies, Resolver Systems has developed a forecasting model that looks to make more of "where votes come from".

For example, Liberal Democrat voters in 2005 who say they are switching to another party are much more likely to vote for the Conservatives than they are not to vote at all. However, people who voted for parties that were not one of the "big three" are much more likely to stay home than they are to vote for the Conservatives. (The modellng is more complex than that, but that's the gist.)

16 seats that could deprive Cameron of his majority

Applying this method to the most recent Guardian/ICM poll (crucially ICM is one of the few polling firms to ask a question about past voting behaviour), the predicted outcome of the election would leave the Tories up by 100 seats but still 16 short of an overall majority.

The constituencies that would have deprived the Tories of power are listed above. The tiny majorities in all 16 amount to 5,357 -- in other words, the number of votes between a hung parliament and an overall majority.

It's worth noting that Populus has begun asking the "previous voting" question and Daniel Finkelstein and his Fink Tank team at the Times are attempting to do something similar. Yesterday, based on the latest Times/Populus poll, they predicted the Tories would be seven seats short of power.

We'll be returning to the Resolver numbers between now and election day.

Follow the New Statesman team on Facebook.

Tags: Election 2010

More from Jon Bernstein

6 comments

Sat, 2010-04-10 22:35 — Will (not verified)

By the looks of things these figures are a model rather than actual polling in those seats? Leeds North West in particular is absurd - the Tories will come third! How people switch in Labour seats is going to be different from held Lib Dem seats.

Sun, 2010-04-11 00:56 — Barry Jones (not verified)

I simply do not understand how ANYONE with half a brain can even consider voting tory.....UNLESS they are VERY high earners. DO NOT have a mortgage, ( as interest rates will SHOOT UP ), they are in BUPA as the NHS will be starved of funds, and kids at private schools, ( probably registered charities!!! ), as schools will have leaks in the roof again!

Mr Brown has lead the world in his management of what the Bankers have caused. Have we all failed to remember that this problem has been caused by stupid / greedy bankers - not by government mis-management of the economy - in fact the LABOUR government has delivered a "predictable" economic growth pattern for 10+ years....FANTASTIC.

To all floating voters....DO NOT READ THE 'MAIL'

Sun, 2010-04-11 02:03 — Daniele1

Barry Jones:
You should add:do not read "the Mail", the "Telegraph", the Daily Express, the Sun, the list is endless.
The right wing press is on a mission and YES, the politically illiterate will vote the Tories in, having forgotten Thatcher and the rest.They will regret it 1 month later and moan about the bloody Tories of course and you won't find anyone to admit they voted Tory.

This is not a Democracy. It is a Monarchy and the King is Murdoch.

Sun, 2010-04-11 16:58 — jason from weymouth

You are bang on Daniele. The Tories and all of their cronies feed off political illiteracy, that is how they win elections (nationally and locally) and sell newspapers. The debate about vat supports the cronyism argument as they will target the public sector as part of the their crisis capitalism agenda. The malignant tumour that is neo liberalism might now induce its fatal final blow. Unless we can stop it!!

Sun, 2010-04-11 20:59 — richard (not verified)

Barry,
What utter nonsense, you must be straight from Labout HQ.

Gordon Brown said he had abolished boom & bust, but he made exactly the same mistakes as in the past. Milking the golden goose off the housing market and consumer credit boom until the goose keeled over and died. Given he had appalingly sold all our gold off at completely the wrong time, we also then had no hedge against the recession.
I won't even be able to read the labout manifesto, as the last one I read in 2005 promised me a referendum on Europe, which was taken away once they realised there might be a NO vote like in Ireland. Definitly time for a change.

and yes there is right wing press, not not as bad as the left wing gutter press like The Mirror.

Tue, 2010-04-13 09:37 — Dave (not verified)

I'm earn under 30k, I don't have a mortgage, no private health insurance, and don't have kids in private schools.

But Gordon Brown has created an economy that is too highly dependent on public services. Yes, public services are important, but for a lot of people like me, the last 12 years has seen my actual earning derided by ever increasing taxes (without any end in sight). I think it's patronizing to pledge to freeze any increases in income tax, yet at the same time put up NI - the overall affect is STILL the government taking my money. He's not even trying to hide these 'stealth' tax rises anymore. If I had more money that I could spend, I would want to send my kids to a private school, I would want private health care, and I would want to be a high earner one day.

Since when did it become a crime to be, or aspire to be, wealthy and want the best for your family??? Being overly dependent on the state, like Labour wants everyone to be, although helps the poorest in our society, also penalizes the richest in our society - and for everyone who's already in the middle-ground (like me) has little incentive to work and progress to become more wealthy. And that's just wrong.