May I present the Con side of the swingometer for 2009 / 2010?

[Harry Hayfield]

Yes, it's taken a long time (but with 650 seats to calculate, tally and list on a swingometer what did you expect) but we have now the Con side of the swingometer for the next election and I'd like members view on it:

No swing: Lab 348 Con 213 Lib Dem 60 Others 29 (Lab maj 46)
1% Con: Lab 334 Con 232 Lib Dem 55 Others 29 (Lab maj 18)
2% Con: Lab 322 Con 248 Lib Dem 52 Others 28 (Lab short by 4)
3% Con: Lab 307 Con 265 Lib Dem 51 Others 27 (Lab short by 19)
4% Con: Lab 295 Con 280 Lib Dem 48 Others 27 (Lab short by 31)
5% Con: Con 309 Lab 275 Lib Dem 40 Others 26 (Con short by 17)
6% Con: Con 329 Lab 259 Lib Dem 36 Others 26 (Con maj 8 ) (darn smilies)
7% Con: Con 351 Lab 243 Lib Dem 30 Others 26 (Con maj 52)

[afleitch]

If it only takes us 6% to gain a majority then I for one am delighted It's less than I would have imagined. If the party makes big swings in some key seats, it may take even less to return a Conservative government, The swing in 2005 was 3% IIRC, so it shows it's not beyond the impossible.

A direct 3% swing coincidently from 2001-2005, according to the old swingometer accurately predicted the number of Tory seats, but estimated Labours majority at 104. In order to cut Labours majority to 66, it would have needed a theoretical swing of just over 4.5%

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Which set of notionals is this based on?

---
A 6% swing is quite large; it'd take out an M.P with a majority of 12% (and if the election in which the 12% majority happend was fairly even, 12%, while not exactly safe, is hardly marginal).

The 3% swing of last election isn't much to go by; 2001 was a landslide, and swings on the recovery (is that the right word to use?) from a landslide, are in theory higher than swings from a fairly even election (as 2005 was, more or less).

Swing in every election since the concept was invented:

1950: 2.85
1951: 0.95
1955: 2.1
1959: 1.05
1964: 3.15
1966: 2.7
1970: 4.75
1974: 1.25
1974: 2.1
1979: 5.15
1983: 3.96
1987: 1.69
1992: 1.97
1997: 10.0
2001: 1.77
2005: 3.0

1979 is an interesting one; the Labour % only fell by about 2%. Interesting to see how close the swing in 2005 was to 1950.

[Harry Hayfield]

Which set of notionals is this based on?

---
A 6% swing is quite large; it'd take out an M.P with a majority of 12% (and if the election in which the 12% majority happend was fairly even, 12%, while not exactly safe, is hardly marginal).

The 3% swing of last election isn't much to go by; 2001 was a landslide, and swings on the recovery (is that the right word to use?) from a landslide, are in theory higher than swings from a fairly even election (as 2005 was, more or less).

Swing in every election since the concept was invented:

1950: 2.85
1951: 0.95
1955: 2.1
1959: 1.05
1964: 3.15
1966: 2.7
1970: 4.75
1974: 1.25
1974: 2.1
1979: 5.15
1983: 3.96
1987: 1.69
1992: 1.97
1997: 10.0
2001: 1.77
2005: 3.0

1979 is an interesting one; the Labour % only fell by about 2%. Interesting to see how close the swing in 2005 was to 1950.

The Baxter calculations of how similar a seat to it's predessor (but the actual calculations of votes are mine)

[Harry Hayfield]

If it only takes us 6% to gain a majority then I for one am delighted It's less than I would have imagined. If the party makes big swings in some key seats, it may take even less to return a Conservative government, The swing in 2005 was 3% IIRC, so it shows it's not beyond the impossible.

A direct 3% swing coincidently from 2001-2005, according to the old swingometer accurately predicted the number of Tory seats, but estimated Labours majority at 104. In order to cut Labours majority to 66, it would have needed a theoretical swing of just over 4.5%

6% swing to Con using 2005 Election as base:
Con 303, Lab 257, Lib Dem 56, Others 30

6% swing to Con on 2010 boundaries:
Con 329, Lab 259, Lib Dem 36, Others 26

% Change between Election 2005 and 2010:
Con +3.7% Lab +0.1% Lib Dem -3.1% Others -1.0%

So clearly what seems to be happening is that boundary changes are making Lib Dem seats more vulnerable than Lab seats

[afleitch]

The Conservatives need to sink their teeth into the Liberal Democratic vote, both in the South West, but also in the marginals in order to win. Labour was pretty much stripped down to close to its core vote in 2005, so the Tories could only take a few percent off Labour alone. Combine a few percent from Labour in the marginals with a few more percent off the Lib Dems, then we would see a better result.

[Harry Hayfield]

So may I present the Con / Lib Dem swingometer:

7% swing to Lib Dem: 92 Lib Dems
6% swing to Lib Dem: 87 Lib Dems
5% swing to Lib Dem: 78 Lib Dems
4% swing to Lib Dem: 74 Lib Dems
3% swing to Lib Dem: 71 Lib Dems
2% swing to Lib Dem: 67 Lib Dems
1% swing to Lib Dem: 64 Lib Dems
No swing: 60 Lib Dems
1% swing to Con: 55 Lib Dems
2% swing to Con: 52 Lib Dems
3% swing to Con: 51 Lib Dems
4% swing to Con: 48 Lib Dems
5% swing to Con: 40 Lib Dems
6% swing to Con: 36 Lib Dems
7% swing to Con: 30 Lib Dems