Electoral Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 123-142. 1995
Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0 2 6 1 - 3 7 9 4 / 9 5 $ I 0.110+11.011
U T T E R W O R T H
I N E M A N N
0261-3794(94)00017-4
Historical Precedent and British
Electoral Prospects*
J R CORNFORD*
Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, Department of
Geography, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
D F L DORLING
Department of Geography, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
and
B S TETHER
Science Poli~ Research Unit, Universily of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RE UK
This article d e v e l o p s a c r u d e b u t robust m e t h o d for creating plausible
future general e l e c t i o n results o n the basis of p r e v i o u s c h a n g e s in the
w ) t e - - t h a t is, c o u n t e r f a c t u a l future results. By m a t c h i n g c o n s t i t u e n c i e s
from t w o elections a c c o r d i n g to t h e relative electoral p e r f o r m a n c e of all
the significant political parties, m a n y of t h e practical p r o b l e m s of projecting previous c h a n g e s in t h e distribution of votes can b e o v e r c o m e . The
m e t h o d is d e m o n s t r a t e d using t h e e x a m p l e of r e c e n t general elections in
Great Britain to create a n u m b e r of p r o j e c t e d o u t c o m e s for a fictional
general election in 1996. T h e implication of t h e s e results is that, barring
some strictly u n p r e c e d e n t e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n in the electorate, t h e parties,
or t h e electoral system, n o party o t h e r t h a n the Conservatives c a n form a
majority g o v e r n m e n t at t h e n e x t election. W e c a n say this w i t h some confid e n c e , b e c a u s e testing t h e m e t h o d using all the British general elections
in the p e r i o d of 1970 to 1992 s h o w s it tn p r o d u c e a range of scenarios
that have n e v e r b e e n awry by m o r e t h a n eight seats.
*An earlier version of this article was p r e s e n t e d at t h e Political Studies Association,
Elections, Public O p i n i o n s a n d Parties Study G r o u p Annual C o n f e r e n c e , U n i v e r s i ~ of
Lancaster, 1993. W e w o u l d like to a c k n o w l e d g e the assistance of Charles Pattie in d r a w i n g
o u r a t t e n t i o n to some of t h e literature in this field and of J o h n Curtice, David Dorling,
Martin Harrop, Ron J o h n s t o n , Iain McLean, Peter Taylor, J o h n Tomaney, G r a h a m Upton,
a n d t w o a n o n y m o u s referees for reading and c o m m e n t i n g o n various earlier drafts of this
article. T h a n k s are also d u e to Ron J o h n s t o n and Martin Harrop, w h o supplied some of
t h e m o r e r e c e n t e l e c t i o n statistics used.
124
Historical Precedent a n d British Electoral Prospects
Introduction
W h a t g o e s a r o u n d , c o m e s around.
]American p o p u l a r saying]
W h a t d o w e m e a n w h e n w e say that a given e l e c t i o n is similar to, o r r e m i n i s c e n t
of, a p r e v i o u s election? W h a t c o m m e n t a t o r s are usually saying is little m o r e than
that s o m e v e r s i o n o f t h e national c h a n g e in t h e v o t e s for e a c h p a r t y (or t h e ' s w i n g '
b e t w e e n parties) is o f a similar value to that r e c o r d e d at p r e v i o u s elections. Less
often, t h e y suggest that a p a r t i c u l a r regional p a t t e r n o f c h a n g e in the d i s t r i b u t i o n
o f t h e vote, o r e v e n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the v o t e in an individual seat, is similar.
W h a t t h e s e c o m m e n t a t o r s are d o i n g is l o o s e l y c o m p a r i n g s o m e m e a s u r e o f t h e
relative p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e m a j o r p a r t i e s b e t w e e n p r e v i o u s successive e l e c t i o n s
w i t h that b e t w e e n t h e e l e c t i o n on w h i c h t h e y are n o w c o m m e n t a t i n g a n d its p r e d e cessor. In this article w e a t t e m p t t h e s a m e task in a m o r e s y s t e m a t i c m a n n e r , consist e n t l y c o m p a r i n g e l e c t i o n results o v e r time.
O n c e w e can c o m p a r e e l e c t i o n s o v e r t i m e consistently, it b e c o m e s p o s s i b l e to
p r o j e c t p r e v i o u s c h a n g e s in t h e p a t t e r n o f v o t e s o n to k n o w n e l e c t i o n results to
g e n e r a t e a r a n g e o f ' p r e c e d e n t e d ' future e l e c t i o n results. T h e r e will b e a g e n e r a l
e l e c t i o n in Britain b e f o r e April 1997, m o s t p r o b a b l y s o m e t i m e in 1996. That
e l e c t i o n will a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y b e f o u g h t in substantially the ' s a m e ' seats as p r e v i o u s
p o s t - w a r e l e c t i o n s a n d b y substantially the ' s a m e ' parties. In this article various
m e t h o d s are d e v e l o p e d to p r o j e c t plausible results for that e l e c t i o n on the basis o f
t h e last e l e v e n g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n s of t h e p o s t - w a r p e r i o d 1 9 5 5 - 1 9 9 2 . t
Recent British Electoral History and the Electoral Triangle
T h e p e r i o d since 1955 has seen m a n y c h a n g e s o f g o v e r n m e n t and the rise of the
third party w i t h i n a relatively stable electoral structure (Stevenson, 1993). Figure 1
s h o w s t h e distribution o f votes by seat for t h e t h r e e main parties at e a c h e l e c t i o n
using t h e s t a n d a r d electoral triangle (Upton, 1976; 1994; Miller, 1977). Readers w h o
are unfamiliar w i t h t h e electoral triangle m a y n e e d s o m e g u i d a n c e in i n t e r p r e t i n g
Figure 1. In t h e electoral triangle t h e share o f t h e v o t e g a i n e d by e a c h o f the t h r e e
m a i n parties in e a c h c o n s t i t u e n c y is d i s p l a y e d graphically by a dot. A d o t falling in
t h e u p p e r s u b s e c t i o n o f t h e triangle r e p r e s e n t s a seat w o n b y t h e third p a r t y (Liberal
Party, Liberal/SDP Alliance, o r Liberal D e m o c r a t s ) . A d o t in t h e b o t t o m right-hand
s u b s e c t i o n r e p r e s e n t s a scat w o n b y the Conservative Party. Similarly, a dot in the
b o t t o m left-hand s u b s e c t i o n r e p r e s e n t s a seat w o n b y t h e Labour Party. The closer
t h e d o t s are to the b o u n d a r i e s b e t w e e n the subsections, t h e m o r e marginal are the
scats that t h e y r e p r e s e n t . T h e h i s t o g r a m on the base of the triangle r e p r e s e n t s the
distribution o f votes in seats in w h i c h t h e r e w a s n o third-party c a n d i d a t e ( h e n c e ,
t h e h i s t o g r a m d i s a p p e a r s after 1979). Seats w h e r e the main parties did n o t stand
(i.e., N o r t h e r n I r e l a n d after 1970 o r w h e r e the S p e a k e r d e c l a r e d h i m s e l f to b e
i n d e p e n d e n t ) are s h o w n as d o t s to t h e right o f t h e main triangle. The p a t t e r n f o r m e d
by t h e d o t s s h o w s t h e ' s h a p e ' o f t h e v o t e at e a c h general election. The c h a n g e in
that s h a p e o v e r t i m e shows, in outline, the e v o l u t i o n o f British electoral c o m p e t i tion. 2 (Figure 1 can b e c o m p a r e d w i t h Table 1 w h i c h s h o w s the n u m b e r o f seats
w o n b y the m a i n parties at e a c h e l e c t i o n in a m o r e familiar m a n n e r . )
T h e e l e c t o r a l triangle is n o t r e s t r i c t e d to s h o w i n g t h e results o f a single election.
T h e c h a n g e in t h e relative p e r f o r m a n c e of any t h r e e parties can be d i s p l a y e d by
JR CORNF(>RI),DFL DORLINGAND BS TH'HEI;~
125
i'-i
October
'74
&
adjusted
'79
Liberal Democrat
IOO%
Labour
100%
~ Conservative
100%
Fl(;. l. General election results 1955-92 shown using tile standard
electoral triangle
plotting the share of the vote given to each party at two, usually successive,
elections are t w o dots. An a r r o w j o i n i n g the t w o dots (and with its head p o i n t i n g
to the later of the t w o elections) r e p r e s e n t s the c h a n g e in the relative p e r c e n t a g e
share of the vote of the three parties. This is s h o w n in Figure 2 using the e x a m p l e
of c h a n g e b e t w e e n the general elections of 1983 and 1987 in a singlc seat,
G r e e n w i c h . The length of the arrow, a n d the angle w h i c h it makes with some given
r e f e r e n c e line, provides a visual r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the direction a n d m a g n i t u d e of
electoral change. This t e c h n i q u e is used in Figure 3 w h e r e the c h a n g e in the relative
p e r c e n t a g e share of the vote in every c o n s t i t u e n c y in m a i n l a n d Britain b e t w e e n the
1987 a n d 1992 general e l e c t i o n s is s h o w n by arrows s u p e r i m p o s e d on an equal
p o p u l a t i o n cartogram w i t h the axes of the triangles o m i t t e d to clarify, the figure.
126
Historical P r e c e d e n t a n d British Electoral Prospects
TABLE 1. British election results, 1955-92
Election
year
Con.
Lab.
Lib.
1955
1959
1964
1966
1970
1974Feb.
1974Oct.
1979
1983
1987
1992
344
365
304
253
330
297
277
339
397
376
336
277
258
317
363
287
301
319
269
209
229
271
6
6
9
12
6
14
13
11
23
22
20
Nat.
Other
3
1
1
9
14
4
4
6
7
2
6
14
12
12
17
17
17
Note: Includes Northern Ireland. Lib. = Liberal Party
1945-79, Liberal/SDP Alliance 1983-7, Liberal
Democrat Party 1992. Nat. = combined SNP and
Plaid Cymru.
Source: King et aL, 1993: 249; COI, 1991.
Democrat 100%
%
<,
D50%
1987
D40%
D30%
Labour 100°/o
o~
o~
o~
Conservative 100°/o
I
Fr(;. 2. Representing electoral change for a single seat using the electoral triangle
JR CORNFORD, DFL DORLING AND BS TETHER
127
FIG. 3. Change in the relative share of the vote fi)r the three
'main' parties, 1987-92
The cartogram is s h o w n here to illustrate the e x t e n t of variation in c h a n g e in the
vote b e t w e e n individual c o n s t i t u e n c i e s (Dorling, 1992). ~
What to Project?
H o w m a n y times have w e h e a r d c o m m e n t a t o r s o n election night suggesting that
the results r e p r e s e n t a r e p e t i t i o n of '1964' or of "1970'? H o w often have they
asserted that a given electoral result is ' u n p r e c e d e n t e d ' ? H o w often is it suggested
that a victory for a given party is 'of historic p r o p o r t i o n s ' ? As William Miller and
his co-authors (1990, p. 1) have p o i n t e d out, professional electoral c o m m e n t a t o r s
"always m e a s u r e e v e n t s against e x p e c t a t i o n s ' . W h e n they are surprised by an
election result, t h e n , it is either b e c a u s e the result really is surprising or b e c a u s e
the e x p e c t a t i o n s w e r e over- or under-inflated. Ivor Crewe, w r i t i n g before the 1992
election (1991, p.23) suggested that
128
Historical Precedent and British Electoral Prospects
the three election defeats of the past decade have left Labour so far behind
the Conservatives in the popular vote that the electoral turnaround needed
to restore Labour to office at the next election will have to be extraordinatT by historical standards.
What w e n e e d to establish, then, is exactly w h a t those 'historical standards' are:
w h a t w o u l d h a p p e n tf history w e r e to repeat itself?. The rest of this article is, therefore, c o n c e r n e d w i t h establishing reliable b e n c h m a r k s - - ' c o u n t e r f a c t u a l ' results for
a future '1996' election based o n p r e v i o u s general elections against w h i c h such
c o m p a r i s o n s c a n be made. The analysis, then, is of the ' w h a t if' variety: c o n c e r n e d
w i t h w h a t w o u l d h a p p e n i f history w e r e to repeat itself. But h o w are w e to establish r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n s of the o u t c o m e ?
Academic p s e p h o l o g i s t s seem to have d e v e l o p e d a small industry dedicated to
the task o f p r e d i c t i n g the o u t c o m e of British general elections o n the basis of such
data as poll results (Whiteley, 1979), local e l e c t i o n results (Curtice and Payne,
1991), geographically r e f e r e n c e d s o c i o - e c o n o m i c data (such as h o u s e prices a n d
u n e m p l o y m e n t - - S p e n c e r , Beange, a n d Curtice, 1992), studies of individual voting
histories (such as c a n be d r a w n from the British Election Panel Studies to create a
'flow of the vote m a t r i x ' - - s e e J o h n s t o n , Pattie, a n d Allsopp, 1988) or the early
results o n election night ( B r o w n and Payne, 1975). For an o v e r v i e w of statistical
m e t h o d s for electoral forecasting see Payne (1992).
Each of these m e t h o d s raises significant problems. Most directly, m e t h o d s w h i c h
use i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h is t a k e n to indicate c u r r e n t voting i n t e n t i o n (e.g., voting
b e h a v i o u r in local elections, c u r r e n t s o c i o - e c o n o m i c data or r e s p o n s e s to o p i n i o n
polls) may have some utility in a n s w e r i n g q u e s t i o n s a b o u t what w o u l d h a p p e n if
there w e r e a general e l e c t i o n t o m o r r o w (the standard o p i n i o n poll question), b u t
that a n s w e r may have little relevance to the o u t c o m e of a general election three
or four years h e n c e . A s e c o n d p r o b l e m is raised by the c o n t e x t in w h i c h such data
is g a t h e r e d - - a n s w e r i n g an o p i n i o n poll is, as the last British general election d e m o n strated, n o t at all the same as actually voting at the polling station. Even polls taken
only a few h o u r s before the vote can b e unreliable (Moon, 1992, p.159). Likewise,
local elections c a n n o t be taken as a p r o x y for general elections, just as c o m p l e x
correlations b e t w e e n s o c i o - e c o n o m i c variables and party-preference c a n n o t be
automatically a s s u m e d to be stable. To project general elections, w e w o u l d argue,
the primary r e q u i r e m e n t is general election data. Finally, while the British Election
Studies p a n e l surveys do p r o v i d e a good source of information, the size of the
sample m e a n s that c o n s t r u c t i n g a flow-of-the-vote matrix can only be d o n e at a
regional scale (see J o h n s t o n a n d Pattie, 1993), while a real general election will, of
course, be fought in some 651 plus c o n s t i t u e n c i e s .
In o r d e r to o p e r a t e at the c o n s t i t u e n c y level, in the interests of geographical
realism, o n e is forced to a b a n d o n using a flow-of-the-w)te matrix a n d settle instead
for the less satisfactory ' c h a n g e in the p e r c e n t a g e share of the vote'. This, of
course, raises significant p r o b l e m s . Firstly, it is voters, not c o n s t i t u e n c i e s , w h i c h
vote. Thus, to create a realistic flow-of-the-w)tc matrix o n e w o u l d r e q u i r e inform a t i o n o n m i g r a t i o n b e t w e e n c o n s t i t u e n c i e s , data o n individual deaths a n d data
o n individuals r e a c h i n g the age of minority. As w e have little h o p e of c o n s t r u c t ing such a matrix at the c o n s t i t u e n c y level, w e are forced back to u s i n g aggregate
c o n s t i t u e n c y - l e v e l v o t i n g data, a n d t h u s the change-in-the-percentage-vote-share
m e a s u r e of c h a n g e . H o w e v e r , w e thus c o n f r o n t a major ' p r o b l e m of p r o p o r t i o n ate s w i n g ' (McLean, 1 9 7 3 ) - - t h e fact that a small c h a n g e in the p e r c e n t a g e of the
JR CORNFORD,DFL DORLINGAND BS TETm~
129
vote share of a party w i t h a large established p e r c e n t a g e share of the vote is g o i n g
to b e m u c h larger t h a n a change in the p e r c e n t a g e of the vote share of a party
w i t h a small e s t a b l i s h e d p e r c e n t a g e share of the vote. By p r o j e c t i n g historical
c h a n g e in the p e r c e n t a g e of the vote share from a situation in w h i c h a g i v e n party
had a small established vote o n to a situation in w h i c h that party has a large established p e r c e n t a g e of the vote, w e risk c r e a t i n g absurd results. This issue is,
h o w e v e r , addressed b e l o w .
A New Method for Projection
H o w t h e n are w c to project p r e v i o u s c h a n g e s in the p e r c e n t a g e share of the w)te
o n to k n o w n results? T h e general p r o b l e m has b e e n well described by Budge and
Farlie (1977, p.450):
At the start of any attempt to estimate the next set of [election] results
we have to decide whether the next election will repficate the last set (in
which case we simply use the previous figures) or whether it will differ
(and if so, in what way and to what extent).
Having already d e c i d e d o n using constituency-level general election data, the next
task is that of d e c i d i n g w h i c h general elections to use. In this article, elections
results have b e e n d r a w n from the period "within living m e m o r y ' of m u c h of the
p o p u l a t i o n . Although there have b e e n significant social, political, and d e m o g r a p h i c
c h a n g e s over the four d e c a d e s covered, m a n y of those p e o p l e w h o voted in 195~
will still be registered to vote in 1996 a n d h e n c e these are not entirely discrete eras
(despite a "decade of d e a l i g n m e n t ' , party identification is still seen as strong
t h r o u g h o u t the lifecourse, and b e y o n d it t h r o u g h the political socialization of
children). Moreover, in spite of major political changes, the actual electoral
s y s t e m - - p l u r a l i t y w)ting w i t h i n some 600 plus m a i n l a n d s e a t s ~ - - r e m a i n s virtually
identical save for a few i n n o c u o u s b o u n d a r y changes.
H o w should ' w h a t if' p r o j e c t i o n s be generated? This can be e x p r e s s e d more
formally as a q u e s t i o n of h o w to gain a counterfactual result for election q by
p r o j e c t i n g from the vote for a given party at a k n o w n election p on the basis of
the c h a n g e in the relative p e r c e n t a g e share of the w)te for a set of parties b e t w e e n
previous elections a and b. For example, we may w a n t to project the future '1996'
election (q) from the 1992 results (p) o n the basis of the c h a n g e in the w)te from
the 1959 election (a) to the 1964 election ( b ) - - i n short, what w o u l d be the result
of an identically large rise in the Labour w)te? Alternatively, w e may w a n t to project
from 1992 q~) to a p r o s p e c t i v e 1996 (q) o n the basis of the most r e c e n t pair of
elections, ! 987 (a) to 1992 (b), (i.e., with p equal to b ) - - i n short, w o u l d "one more
heave', exactly the same as the last one, be e n o u g h for Labour to w i n a w o r k i n g
majority?
The traditional m e t h o d involves taking a simple m e a s u r e of ' u n i f o r m swing' and
a p p l y i n g that s w i n g to the d i s t r i b u t i o n of votes in each seat at the last election to
g e n e r a t e a p r o j e c t i o n for the n e x t election (as in Harrop and Shaw, 1989). Such an
approach, while simple to e x e c u t e (in terms of the electoral triangle the same
d i s p l a c e m e n t w o u l d apply to every dot), suffers from the w e a k n e s s of totally ignoring geographical variation in the c h a n g e in the vote. (riven the i n c r e a s i n g geographical variation in swings in r e c e n t years ( l o h n s t o n , Pattie, and Allsopp, 1988), this
fact may lead to d o u b t s a b o u t a c c e p t i n g the i m p l i c a t i o n s of such a calculation.
130
Historical Precedent and British Electoral Prospects
A c k n o w l e d g i n g g e o g r a p h i c a l variations in t h e c h a n g e in t h e vote, a m o r e sophist i c a t e d a p p r o a c h m i g h t b e to m o d e l e a c h c o n s t i t u e n c y s e p a r a t e l y ( H a r r o p a n d
Shaw, 1989; Budge a n d Farlie, 1977). In t e r m s o f t h e e l e c t o r a l triangle w e w o u l d
s i m p l y d i s p l a c e t h e d o t r e p r e s e n t i n g a given c o n s t i t u e n c y b y t h e s a m e values as
t h o s e g e n e r a t e d b y t h e c h a n g e in t h e relative p e r c e n t a g e share o f t h e v o t e in that
c o n s t i t u e n c y b e t w e e n o u r t w o ' b a s e ' e l e c t i o n s ( a a n d b). H o w e v e r , s u c h an
approach only replaces the geographical oversimplification of applying a uniform
n a t i o n a l c h a n g e in t h e v o t e w i t h a g e o g r a p h i c a l f e t i s h i s m - - i t i g n o r e s t h e fact that
seats c h a n g e o v e r time, in effect t r e a t i n g s p a c e ( c o n s t i t u e n c i e s ) as a neutral refere n c e r a t h e r t h a n as a d y n a m i c a n d c o n s t r u c t e d social entity (Pred, 1988). For
e x a m p l e , a T o r y seat, w h i c h w a s 'safe' in 1983 a n d w h i c h s w u n g d r a m a t i c a l l y
t o w a r d s L a b o u r in 1987, w o u l d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s w i n g at t h e s a m e rate and in t h e
s a m e d i r e c t i o n in 1992 b e c a u s e it w o u l d have b e c o m e a marginal seat. Further, this
m e t h o d suffers from t h e ' p r o b l e m o f p r o p o r t i o n a t e s w i n g ' (McLean, 1973) or, using
t h e e l e c t o r a l triangle, p r o p o r t i o n a t e change-in-the-vote (a 5 p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e in t h e
C o n s e r v a t i v e v o t e in a seat in w h i c h t h e C o n s e r v a t i v e s ' p r i o r share o f t h e v o t e w a s
20 p e r c e n t , is n o t c o m p a r a b l e to a 5 p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e in t h e C o n s e r v a t i v e share o f
t h e v o t e in a seat w h e r e t h e p r i o r C o n s e r v a t i v e v o t e is 60 p e r c e n t (a little o f a little
is a little, w h i l e a little o r a lot is r a t h e r more!). Further, if v o t e r s ' d e c i s i o n s a n d
p a r t y strategies are i n c r e a s i n g l y s h a p e d b y t h e p r i o r electoral b a l a n c e in a given
seat ( v o t e r s v o t e tactically, p a r t i e s target marginals), t h e n m a i n t a i n i n g geographical c o n s t a n c y risks ignoring the electoral context. ~
W h a t is r e q u i r e d , t h e n , is a m e t h o d w h i c h can m a t c h c o n s t i t u e n c i e s a c c o r d i n g
to s o m e i n d i c a t i o n o f similarity in t h e e l e c t o r a l c o n t e x t ; o n l y t h e n is it p o s s i b l e to
p r o j e c t t h e c h a n g e in t h e v o t e in t h e first c o n s t i t u e n c y o f a p a i r o f earlier e l e c t i o n s
o n to t h e k n o w n result o f s o m e later election. T h e n e x t p r o b l e m is h o w to m a t c h
pairs o f c o n s t i t u e n c i e s in a w a y that is b o t h r i g o r o u s and plausible. That is to say,
w h i c h a c o n s t i t u e n c y s h o u l d w e use to m o d e l t h e c h a n g e in t h e v o t e from a given
p c o n s t i t u e n c y ? T h e o b v i o u s a n s w e r - - c o m p a r i n g t h e same c o n s t i t u e n c y at e a c h
e l e c t i o n - - i s , as w e have argued, p r o b l e m a t i c .
W h a t is r e q u i r e d is a c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e relative p e r f o r m a n c e o f p a r t i e s in 'politically' similar places. Such a c o n c e p t could, o f course, b e very c o m p l e x . 'Political'
similarity c o u l d b e d e f i n e d in a n u m b e r o f ways. F o r e x a m p l e , o n e m a y w i s h to
c o m p a r e p l a c e s w h i c h have h a d similar levels o f u n e m p l o y m e n t , e t h n i c diversity,
p r o f e s s i o n a l w o r k e r s , a n d so on.
W h a t e v e r definition is c h o s e n for t h e r e l e v a n t i n d i c e s o f similarity, t h e quantitative p r o c e d u r e is m u c h t h e same. W e w o u l d try to m a t c h e a c h c o n s t i t u e n c y w i t h
t h e m o s t similar c o n s t i t u e n c y according to the indices. Thus, if t h e i n d e x w a s t h e
ratio o f t h e Registrar G e n e r a l ' s social classes I, II, a n d IIIN, to classes IIIM, IV, a n d
V, t h e n a seat w h e r e this ratio w a s r o u g h l y 1 : 1 at t h e first e l e c t i o n o f t h e base
p a i r ( a ) w o u l d b e p a i r e d w i t h t h e seat closest to having an identical ratio at the
e l e c t i o n from w h i c h w e are p r o j e c t i n g (p). In short, r a t h e r t h a n saying s o m e t h i n g
a b o u t t h e relative p e r f o r m a n c e o f p a r t i e s in c o n s t i t u e n c y x at t w o elections, w e
c o u l d say s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h e relative p e r f o r m a n c e o f p a r t i e s in a c o n s t i t u e n c y o f
type z at t w o elections. Each c o n s t i t u e n c y at a given e l e c t i o n (p) can t h e n b e
c o m p a r e d w i t h the c o n s t i t u e n c y w h i c h m o s t n e a r l y a p p r o x i m a t e s to it in t e r m s of
t h e c h o s e n i n d e x at the earlier o f t h e t w o p r e v i o u s e l e c t i o n s (a).
B e c a u s e o u r i n t e r e s t is in t h e f u t u r e e l e c t o r a l p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e m a i n p a r t i e s
in Britain, t h e i n d e x o n w h i c h w e h a v e s o u g h t to m a t c h pairs o f c o n s t i t u e n c i e s
JR CORNFORD, DFL DORLING AND BS TEq'HER
131
in this article is t h e p a t t e r n o f v o t e s for t h o s e p a r t i e s in t h e p r e v i o u s e l e c t i o n
(this a p p r o a c h also has t h e a d v a n t a g e o f b e i n g p a r s i m o n i o u s w i t h t h e d a t a - - w e
o n l y r e q u i r e a t a b l e o f g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n results). Thus, for e x a m p l e , in o r d e r to
p r o j e c t a r e s u l t for t h e ' 1 9 9 6 ' (q) e l e c t i o n f r o m t h e 1992 (p) e l e c t i o n b a s e d o n
t h e c h a n g e in t h e v o t e b e t w e e n t h e 1987 ( a ) a n d 1992 (b) e l e c t i o n s , seats are
m a t c h e d in t e r m s o f t h e r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s in t h e p r e c e d i n g
e l e c t i o n s , 1992 (p) a n d 1987 ( a ) r e s p e c t i v e l y . H e n c e , a c o n s t i t u e n c y w h i c h h a d
e l e c t i o n r e s u l t s o f C o n s e r v a t i v e 42.8 p e r c e n t o f t h e vote, L a b o u r 46.1 p e r c e n t
a n d Liberal D e m o c r a t s 9.9 p e r c e n t in 1992 w o u l d b e p a i r e d w i t h a c o n s t i t u e n c y
w h i c h h a d e l e c t i o n r e s u l t s o f C o n s e r v a t i v e 42.8 p e r c e n t . L a b o u r 46.1 p e r c e n t .
A l l i a n c e 9.9 p e r c e n t in 1987, o r w i t h t h e ' n e a r e s t ' c o n s t i t u e n c y to that result.
T h a t is to say, w e w o u l d m a t c h c o n s t i t u e n c i e s a c c o r d i n g to t h e s m a l l e s t d i s t a n c e
b e t w e e n t h e i r c o - o r d i n a t e s w i t h i n t h e e l e c t o r a l t r i a n g l e ( s e e Figure 1). 6 This gives
a full set o f ' m a t c h e d p a i r s ' o f c o n s t i t u e n c i e s ( a l t h o u g h it is p o s s i b l e for a n u m b e r
o f t h e p c o n s t i t u e n c i e s to b e m o d e l l e d f r o m a single a c o n s t i t u e n c y ) . T h e p e r c e n t age c h a n g e s in t h e v o t e b e t w e e n t h e b a s e pairs o f e l e c t i o n s , a a n d b, in t h e first
c o n s t i t u e n c y o f t h e p a i r is t h e n u s e d to g e n e r a t e a h y p o t h e t i c a l result for the
e l e c t i o n q p r o j e c t i n g f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s e l e c t i o n p in t h e s e c o n d c o n s t i t u e n c y o f
t h e pair. 7
This m e t h o d , t h e n , has s e v e r a l m a j o r a d v a n t a g e s . First, t h e p r o b l e m s o f a shifting g e o g r a p h y are o v e r c o m e b y t h e m a t c h i n g o f seats o n t h e g r o u n d s o f e l e c t o r a l
similarity r a t h e r t h a n g e o g r a p h i c a l c o n t i n u i t y . S e c o n d , t h e p r o b l e m s r a i s e d by
p a r t i e s failing to c o n t e s t seats at o n e o r o t h e r o f t h e t h r e e k n o w n e l e c t i o n s are
e l i m i n a t e d b e c a u s e seats are m a t c h e d o n t h e i r relative e l e c t o r a l p e r f o r m a n c e .
Third, i m p o s s i b l e o r illogical r e s u l t s ( s u c h as a p a r t y i n c r e a s i n g its v o t e until it
e x c e e d s t h e total e l e c t o r a t e ) are virtually a b o l i s h e d . F o u r t h , a n d i m p o r t a n t l y , only
m o v e m e n t s w i t h i n t h e e l e c t o r a l t r i a n g l e w h i c h h a v e a c t u a l l y h a p p e n e d in t h e past
are p r o j e c t e d into t h e future: if c h a n g e s in t h e p e r c e n t a g e s h a r e o f t h e v o t e did
not result in t h e d e f e a t o f a c a n d i d a t e t h e n , t h e y will h a r d l y e v e r d o so in o u r
projection. The problem of using proportionate movements within the electoral
t r i a n g l e is d r a m a t i c a l l y r e d u c e d b y m a t c h i n g seats a c c o r d i n g to similar p o s i t i o n s .
Finally, t h e m e t h o d is frugal in its d a t a r e q u i r e m e n t s so that t h e day after the
' 1996" e l e c t i o n , t h e m o d e l c a n b e re-run after e n t e r i n g o n l y t h e n e w c o n s t i t u e n c y
results to p r o d u c e a p l a u s i b l e set o f c o u n t e r f a c t u a l r e s u l t s for an e l e c t i o n in 2001
( a s s u m i n g five-year t e r m s a n d n o m a j o r c h a n g e s in t h e s t r u c t u r e o f e l e c t o r a l
politics).
Most i m p o r t a n t l y , this m e t h o d is p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e to the p r e s e n t electoral
climate. By m a t c h i n g marginal seats w i t h marginal seats, a n d seats in w h i c h tactical v o t i n g can d e t e r m i n e t h e result w i t h similar seats, w e w o u l d argue that this
m e t h o d can m o r e realistically m o d e l future o u t c o m e s for t h e 1990s on t h e basis o f
past p e r f o r m a n c e than s i m p l e e x t r a p o l a t i o n o f swings. For e x a m p l e , a seat w h i c h
has b e c o m e a T o r y - L a b o u r marginal from b e i n g a 'safe' C o n s e r v a t i v e seat is m o r e
likely to see its third-party v o t e s q u e e z e d as a result o f tactical v o t i n g and deliberate t a r g e t i n g o f that seat b y b o t h t h e C o n s e r v a t i v e a n d Labour parties, r a t h e r than
c o n t i n u i n g its m i g r a t i o n across t h e e l e c t o r a l triangle to b e c o m e a 'safe' L a b o u r seat.
In t e r m s o f t h e e l e c t o r a l triangle, t h e n , t h e seat is m o r e likely to ' m o v e ' vertically
d o w n w a r d s r a t h e r than to c o n t i n u e m o v i n g h o r i z o n t a l l y leftwards (as w o u l d b e
i m p l i e d by its g e o g r a p h i c a l o r national c h a n g e in t h e v o t e models). P e o p l e i n c r e a ~
ingly w)te a c c o r d i n g to t h e existing e l e c t o r a l b a l a n c e in their c o n s t i t u e n c y (the
132
Historical Precedent and British Electoral Prospects
e v i d e n c e o f this can b e s e e n in t h e e v o l u t i o n o f the ' s h a p e ' o f the v o t e in Figure
1); h e n c e , a s i m p l e m e t h o d o f p r o j e c t i o n w h i c h takes this into a c c o u n t can claim
s o m e t h e o r e t i c a l validity. A formal e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e n e w m e t h o d is given in a b r i e f
appendix.
T h e k e y question, h o w e v e r , is h o w d o e s t h e m e t h o d p e r f o r m in practice?
Testing the Method Using Known
Results from 1974 to 1992
W e can n o w use t h e m e t h o d to s h o w w h a t w o u l d have h a p p e n e d at previous
elections if the change in the relative percentage share o f the vote f o r the various
parties in the m a t c h e d seats h a d replicated those o f earlier elections. T h e s e calculations for e v e r y g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n from F e b r u a r y 1974 to April 1992, using t h e
g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n s from 1955 to 1987 as t h e base pairs, are s h o w n in Table 2. Some
h e l p m a y be r e q u i r e d in r e a d i n g the table. For e x a m p l e , t h e five figures in the t o p
left h a n d c o m e r o f t h e table r e p r e s e n t t h e c o u n t e r f a c t u a l result, in t e r m s of seats
w o n , o f p r o j e c t i n g from t h e actual results o f t h e 1970 g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n o n the basis
o f t h e n e w m e t h o d (using c h a n g e b e t w e e n t h e g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n s o f 1955 a n d 1959)
to s h o w t h e m i x o f seats g o i n g to the four identified parties (Conservative, Labour,
Liberal, a n d g r o u p e d Nationalists) in a c o u n t e r f a c t u a l ' 1 9 7 4 ' result r e p e a t i n g t h o s e
c h a n g e s . T h e l o w e s t g r o u p o f figures in e a c h c o l u m n thus r e p r e s e n t s the actual
result o f t h e s e c o n d o f t h e t w o e l e c t i o n s i n d i c a t e d at t h e t o p o f t h e c o l u m n (in all
cases only m a i n l a n d seats are s h o w n ) .
F r o m this table, then, w e can c o m p a r e o u r c o u n t e r f a c t u a l results w i t h t h e k n o w n
results for m a i n l a n d seats a n d t h u s identify t h o s e e l e c t o r a l p e r f o r m a n c e s w h i c h
w e r e u n p r e c e d e n t e d l y g o o d o r bad. In short, w h a t t h e table tells us is that:
- - T h e C o n s e r v a t i v e Party d i d u n p r e c e d e n t e d l y well in 1979 getting five m o r e seats
than in any o f t h e six p r o j e c t e d c o u n t e r f a c t u a l s .
- - T h e Labour Party d i d u n p r e c e d e n t e d l y w e l l at t h e polls in 1992, getting eight
m o r e seats t h a n any o f the nine p r o j e c t e d c o u n t c r f a c t u a l s w o u l d have suggested.
- - T h e Liberals did u n p r e c e d e n t e d l y well in F e b r u a r y 1974, g e t t i n g t h r e e m o r e seats
than any o f t h e f o u r p r o j e c t e d c o u n t e r f a c t u a i s , as did t h e Alliance in 1983, w h e n
the m a r g i n w a s just o n e seat.
- - T h e c o m b i n e d Nationalist p a r t i e s did u n p r e c e d e n t e d l y well by t w o seats in
F e b r u a r y 1974 and u n p r e c e d e n t e d l y b a d l y by t h r e e seats in 1979.
U n p r e c e d e n t e d e v e n t s are, then, not unlikely. Nevertheless, the simple tact that
the m e t h o d has never p r o d u c e d a range that has been exceeded by more than
eight seats suggests that it is robust. T h e r e is o n e f u r t h e r p o i n t to m a k e here.
Intuitively, w e m i g h t e x p e c t u n p r e c e d e n t e d o u t c o m e s to d i m i n i s h w i t h t i m e as w e
a d d f u r t h e r c o u n t e r f a c t u a l results. W h a t a p p e a r s to b e h a p p e n i n g , h o w e v e r , is the
o p p o s i t e w i t h t h e larger u n p r e c e d e n t e d results e m e r g i n g later in t h e e l e c t o r a l series
(for e x a m p l e , the C o n s e r v a t i v e ' s five seats in 1979 a n d Labour's very i m p r e s s i v e
eight seats in 1992).
A final, if p e r h a p s unfair, test is to c o m p a r e o u r results w i t h t h o s e w h i c h w o u l d
b e p r o d u c e d if t h e s i m p l e t w o - p a r t y 'Butler' s w i n g s h a d b e e n u s e d to g e n e r a t e the
p r o j e c t i o n s . To d o this, for e a c h seat, the v o t e s o f only t h e parties w h i c h w e r e first
a n d s e c o n d (at e l e c t i o n a ) are p r e s u m e d to c h a n g e in p r o p o r t i o n to t h e Butler
s w i n g b e t w e e n t h e m at t h e base pair o f p r e v i o u s elections. D o i n g this o b v i o u s l y
d o e s n o t a l l o w for the t h i r d - p l a c e d p a r t y at e l e c t i o n a to influence t h e o u t c o m e .
JR CORNFORI), DFL DORLIN(; AND BS TETHER
133
TABLE 2. Historical counterfactual results for all elections from February 1974 to 1992
Projecting from the election of the first date to the election of the second date
Replicating
the swing
between given years
1970
1974f
1974f
19740
1974o
1979
1979a
1983
1983
1987
1987
1992
335
2"3
6
2
618
314
2711
26
1I
623
269
311
18
23
623
369
25, I
0
633
442
183
23
S
633
373
232
20
633
226
3"79
II
1
618
25,1
322
4q
6
623
214
3i3
59
"7
623
296
313
22
2
633
348
2tl5,
78
2
633
33 I
2i9
5I
2
633
250
357
8
2
618
245,
347
20
1I
623
202
379
24
17
623
318
29II
6
633
332
263
31
~
633
~3(1
263
3I
9
633
363
2+i2
3
"7
618
371)
226
12
I1
623
334
25,9
8
18
623
422
2(11
3
633
45,11
144
311
9
033
t3++
I ~(~
II
10
63a;
285
308
14
9
618
246
261
91
23
623
22,i
306
56
37
623
3i3
25,2
18
20
633
35,2
143
127
I
633
342
20 ~
-2
12
633
277
319
13
14
25,5,
3~3
13
22
023
3q2
2-3
364
239
20
I0
633
35,5,
2qH
22
8
633
(:on
339
~ 19
i66
i3"
l.ab
Lib
Nat
Tot
-9-83
Con
Lab
lab
Nat
"l'ot
83-87
269
I1
4
211i
2
633
I+0
I "6
23
t
633
I3
633
397
209
368
116
393
I ]9
23
121
811
4
(+33
'5
633
(+
633
( :on
376
l.ab
Lih
Nat
Tot
87-92
( ion
l.ab
Lib
Nat
229
22
6
633
382
2218
0
632,
55-59
Con
Lab
l.ib
Nat
Tot
59-6t
Con
Lab
Lib
Nat
Tot
6+-66
(kin
Lab
Lib
Nat
Tot
66-"0
Con
Lab
Lih
Nat
Tot
-rO_-+tf
(ion
Lah
Lih
Nat
Tot
if-74o
(on
I+al)
l.ib
Nat
Tot
- io-79
T<)t
623
623
1I
633
335
271
20
7
633
Note: The bold figures show the actual results (mainland scats only). For instance, the 1970-74 change applied to
the 1971/ result produces the 1974 result. Results not in bold represent counterfactual projections from the first
election indicated at the top of the column, based on prcccdentcd change indicated hy the row titles, calculated
using the method given in the appendix.
134
Historical Precedent a n d British Electoral Prospects
This fact w e a k e n s the p e r f o r m a n c e of such an a p p r o a c h in practice. For instance,
p r o j e c t i n g the 1979 general election, o n the basis of the Butler swings b e t w e e n all
the elections since 1955 p r o d u c e s p r o j e c t e d results w h i c h , at best, still underp r o j e c t the Conservative result by 16 seats (twice as large an error as the w o r s t
p r o j e c t i o n made using the n e w m e t h o d d e v e l o p e d here). I n d e e d , e v e n if the Butler
swings b e t w e e n t w o e l e c t i o n s a n d the results of the first election of that pair are
k n o w n , the results of the s e c o n d e l e c t i o n c a n n o t be g e n e r a t e d correctly.
Projecting a Prospective 1996 Election
As w i t h historical c o m p a r i s o n of events in general, the most i n t e r e s t i n g application
of this m e t h o d is in g e n e r a t i n g h y p o t h e t i c a l e l e c t i o n results for f u t u r e elections.
W h a t the m e t h o d p r e s e n t e d a b o v e allows us to do is use the c h a n g e in the vote
b e t w e e n p r e v i o u s pairs of elections to g e n e r a t e some ' p r o j e c t e d o u t c o m e s ' for the
n e x t e l e c t i o n b a s e d o n p r e v i o u s c h a n g e in the vote (see Table 3). O n c e again w e
m u s t stress that these should n o t be t a k e n as p r e d i c t i o n s of w h a t the actual
o u t c o m e of the n e x t e l e c t i o n will be. W e have already s h o w n h o w unreliable they
w o u l d b e by using p r e v i o u s results to p r o j e c t the k n o w n results for s u b s e q u e n t
elections. 8 Rather, they are useful in giving some plausible i n d i c a t i o n of the p o t e n tial range of p r e c e d e n t e d o u t c o m e s , thus giving us a formal m e t h o d for determining w h a t is an ' u n p r e c e d e n t e d result'. 9
First, h o w e v e r , w e n e e d to i n t r o d u c e some caveats. O n e p r o b l e m , w h i c h w e
have already noted, is that of the e l e c t i o n from w h i c h w e are projecting. A particularly strong result in that election, c o u p l e d w i t h a historically strong result from
a p r e v i o u s pair of elections, will p r o d u c e an implausibly good result (and vice
versa). T h e r e is also the d a n g e r of p r o j e c t i n g m a n y seats from a very few bases.
For e x a m p l e , f e w seats p r i o r to the 1974 February elections will have suitably large
Liberal votes for t h e m to m a t c h w i t h 1992 seats. Projection of a '1996' election o n
the basis of 1955 or 1970 will, therefore, m a t c h m a n y of the 1992 seats with only
TABLE3. Projecting from 1992 on the basis of the change in the w~te in the last ten pairs of
general elections: constituencies matched by electoral position
Base
elections
Con.
Lab.
LD.
Nat.
Oth.
Result
1955-59
1959-64
1964-66
1966-70
1970-74Feb
1974Feb-74Oct
1974Oct-79
1979adj-83
1983-87
1987-92
353
272
295
400
309
316
390
367
340
295
253
320
306
207
270
290
225
201
265
310
19
38
26
9
39
14
15
55
17
16
7
3
4
14
14
12
2
6
11
10
1
0
2
3
1
1
1
4
0
2
Con.majority
Lab.minority
Lab.minority
Con.majority
Con.minority
Con.minority
Con.majority
Con.majority
Con.majority
Lab.minority
1992 result
335
271
20
7
0
Con.majority
Note: Mainland seats only are included in the projections and in the '1992 Result' to
enable comparisons. We have not attempted to model the 17 Northern Ireland seats. The
two 1992 Milton Keynes seats have been combined. Best and worst results for each party
arc shown in bold.
JR CORNFORD, DFL DORLING AND BS TETHER
13S
a handful o f 1955 o r 1970 seats, a l t h o u g h w e w o u l d argue that t h e s e are t h e only
past data w h i c h p r o v i d e a r e a s o n a b l e basis for p r o j e c t i o n .
F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e is t h e p r o b l e m o f n a t i o n a l i n c u m b e n c y : t h e b e s t m a t c h e s are
likely to b e w h e r e t h e d e f e n d i n g g o v e r n m e n t is t h e s a m e p a r t y at b o t h e l e c t i o n s a
a n d p . Finally, w e have t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e t i m i n g o f e l e c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e e c o n o m i c
c y c l e - - h e r e t h e b e s t m a t c h e s are likely to b e b e t w e e n t w o e l e c t i o n s h e l d d u r i n g
similar e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s (for e x a m p l e , at the h e i g h t of a b o o m o r t h e t r o u g h
o f a recession). In general, then, w e s h o u l d b e v e r y w a r y o f taking o u r results t o o
seriously w i t h o u t firmly c o n t e x t u a l i z i n g t h e m first. In spite o f t h e s e p r o b l e m s , w e
d o n o w have a m e t h o d for p r o j e c t i n g a future e l e c t i o n result o n t h e basis o f previous e l e c t o r a l c h a n g e , w h i c h n e i t h e r i g n o r e s n o r fetishizes e l e c t o r a l g e o g r a p h y ,
w h i c h can c o p e relatively easily w i t h b o u n d a r y changes, a n d w h i c h , from past
e x p e r i e n c e at least, a p p e a r s to p r o d u c e a plausible range o f results.
W h a t d o e s this tell us? T h e historical p r e c e d e n t , o n t h e basis o f five out of the
last ten pairs o f g e n e r a l elections, is that t h e C o n s e r v a t i v e s are t h e o n l y p a r t y w h i c h
will b e able to rule alone after t h e n e x t election. In just t w o cases, b o t h replicating s w i n g s from t h e 1960s, t h e Liberal D e m o c r a t s and Labour w o u l d b e able to
form a joint administration. In t h e r e m a i n i n g t h r e e cases p a r l i a m e n t w o u l d be
p r e c a r i o u s l y hung. Most interestingly, in t h e e v e n t of an e x a c t re-run o f the last
e l e c t i o n (at w h i c h , w e s h o u l d r e m e m b e r , t h e L a b o u r Party w o n an u n p r e c e d e n t edly large n u m b e r o f additional seats), no t w o parties c o m b i n e d w o u l d b e able to
form an a d m i n i s t r a t i o n w h i c h c o u l d c o m m a n d a w o r k i n g m a j o r i t y o f o n e o r m o r e
v o t e s in the H o u s e o f C o m m o n s (given the role o f t h e S p e a k e r and i g n o r i n g the
near impossibility of a Con-Lab 'national' government).
R e p e t i t i o n o f all t h e C o n s e r v a t i v e victories, a p a r t from t h e last one, result in
C o n s e r v a t i v e overall m a j o r i t y o f b e t w e e n 15 a n d 75. R e p e t i t i o n of Labour's victories in 1964 o r 1966, w h e n b r o u g h t f o r w a r d to 1996, w o u l d e n a b l e a joint
Labour/Liberal D e m o c r a t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n to o p e r a t e w i t h a b s o l u t e p a r l i a m e n t a r y
majorities o f 33 and 7 respectively. ( T h e r e is, o f c o u r s e , no g u a r a n t e e that t h e
Liberal D e m o c r a t s w o u l d c h o o s e to ally t h e m s e l v e s w i t h L a b o u r o r vice versa.) A
r e p e a t o f t h e F e b r u a r y 1974 e l e c t i o n w o u l d leave L a b o u r a n d t h e Liberal D e m o c r a t s
c o m b i n e d w i t h e x a c t l y t h e s a m e n u m b e r o f seats as t h e C o n s e r v a t i v e s (309). T h e
Conservatives, e v e n w i t h t h e Ulster Unionists, w o u l d still n o t have an a b s o l u t e
majority, so t h e r e w o u l d , p r e s u m a b l y , b e a s e c o n d e l e c t i o n s o o n after ( f o l l o w i n g
t h e historical p r e c e d e n t ) . A s q u e e z e o n the third party, identical to that w h i c h
o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n F e b r u a r y and O c t o b e r 1974 w o u l d , ironically, e n a b l e the
C o n s e r v a t i v e s to form a g o v e r n m e n t w i t h Ulster Unionist s u p p o r t .
T h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g result, as s t r e s s e d above, w o u l d be a r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e last
g e n e r a l election. In that event, L a b o u r a n d t h e Liberal D e m o c r a t s c o m b i n e d w o u l d
have an overall m a j o r i t y o f p r e c i s e l y o n e seat. m In s u c h a situation, t h e v a g u e n e s s
o f the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p o s i t i o n o f t h e S p e a k e r a n d D e p u t y Speaker, a n d t h e role of
tile Nationalist a n d Unionist parties, w o u l d b e highlighted. W c should, h o w e v e r ,
b e a r in m i n d that in all t h e a b o v e s p e c u l a t i o n t h e p o t e n t i a l effects of the forthc o m i n g B o u n d a r y C o m m i s s i o n d e l i b e r a t i o n s have n o t b e e n i n c l u d e d .
Problems
and Refinements
S o m e p r o b l e m s w i t h t h e m e t h o d have a l r e a d y b e e n i d e n t i f i e d above. It may, for
e x a m p l e , b e a r g u e d that t h e m e t h o d of one-to-one m a t c h i n g o f seats c a n n o t be
136
Historical Precedent and British Electoral Prospects
e x p e c t e d to give good p r o j e c t i o n s for individual seats, ignoring as it does m a n y of
the particular c o n d i t i o n s in each seat. W e can feel reasonably assured that such
c o n d i t i o n s will c a n c e l each o t h e r out across a large n u m b e r of seats. In this section,
therefore, w e w a n t to highlight a n u m b e r of the m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l issues w h i c h
m u s t be taken into a c c o u n t in d e v e l o p i n g the model. First, using the actual vote
(i.e., prior party s t r e n g t h ) as the i n d e x o n w h i c h seats are m a t c h e d has b e e n c h o s e n
here as the simplest a n d most r o b u s t solution. It may not, h o w e v e r , be the best
indicator of similarity b e t w e e n seats. It may make m o r e sense to use s o c i o - e c o n o m i c
a n d d e m o g r a p h i c data instead of, or in addition to, electoral data in order to m a t c h
seats. For e x a m p l e , w e c o u l d use a basket of variables such as social class c o m p o sition, h o u s e h o l d t e n u r e , rate of u n e m p l o y m e n t , industrial structure, i n c u m b e n c y ,
candidate gender, etc. to create or r e f n e the m a t c h i n g of c o n s t i t u e n c i e s . Such data
is b e c o m i n g easier to c o m e by at the c o n s t i t u e n c y level (e.g., from the 1991 Census
of Population), b u t d e t e r m i n i n g w h i c h variables should be in the basket, and w i t h
w h a t w e i g h t i n g , is still a major p r o b l e m . Similarly, m a t c h i n g c o u l d be c o n s t r a i n e d
to seats in the same geographical region, b u t this merely raises the p r o b l e m of
d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t are the a p p r o p r i a t e (i.e., politically significant) regions, t~
T h e r e is a s e c o n d p o i n t w h i c h m u s t also be considered. As a p p l i e d in this article,
the m o d e l is static. W e m i g h t m a t c h t w o different seats, x and y, b o t h of w h i c h
have exactly identical electoral results in a given year, b u t w h i c h are m o v i n g in
different political d i r e c t i o n s over time. For e x a m p l e , o n e seat may have o n c e b e e n
a strong Labour seat that has m o v e d t o w a r d s the Liberal D e m o c r a t s (due, perhaps,
to gentrification) w h i l e a n o t h e r seat may have o n c e b e e n a solid Tory seat w h i c h
is m o v i n g t o w a r d s Labour (due, perhaps, to an influx of u n i o n i z e d public sector
employees). Both have the same result at a given m o m e n t in time b u t are m o v i n g
in different political directions. To r e m e d y this defect, w e w o u l d n e e d to m a t c h
o u r seats, n o t o n the basis of a static result as w e have d o n e above, b u t rather o n
some m e a s u r e of the m a g n i t u d e a n d d i r e c t i o n of r e c e n t change. More generally,
any t e m p o r a l a u t o c o r r e l a t i o n of c h a n g e s in the vote c o u l d be e x p l o i t e d to e n h a n c e
this m e t h o d . This is o n e possible direction for future research.
A f u r t h e r p o i n t relates to the m a t c h i n g of seats a c c o r d i n g to the relative n u m b e r s
of votes cast for each m a i n party a n d a c o m b i n e d g r o u p of ' O t h e r ' parties. To r e t u r n
to the electoral triangle for a m o m e n t , it may make m o r e sense to m a t c h seats in
t e r m s of their ordinal electoral position w i t h i n the triangle. Thus, for example, the
'safest' Conservative seat at election a w o u l d be m a t c h e d with the safest
Conservative seat at e l e c t i o n p. That is to say, in terms of the electoral triangle, the
seat n e a r e s t to the b o t t o m right h a n d c o r n e r at e l e c t i o n a w o u l d be m a t c h e d with
the seat that is closest to that p o i n t at election p. We also c u r r e n t l y ignore
t u r n o u t / a b s t e n t i o n s for the p u r p o s e of m a t c h i n g seats. This c o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d
in a r e f i n e m e n t of the m e t h o d b u t is c o n s i d e r a b l y less i m p o r t a n t in general elections
t h a n in by-elections.
Finally, the implicit a s s u m p t i o n of the m o d e l is that the parties are c o n s t a n t s - that the Labour Party is the same party in the 1990s as it was in the 1950s and that
the same is true of the Conservatives. This is, of course, n o t very plausible. Even
less plausibly, w e have regarded the Liberal Party, the Liberal/SDP Mliance, the
Social a n d Liberal D e m o c r a t s a n d the Liberal D e m o c r a t s as the same party. ~2 This
w o u l d , of course, be a p r o b l e m if w e did w a n t to predict the results. However, we
are i n t e r e s t e d here in w h a t a historian w o u l d call the counterfactual case: w h a t
w o u l d h a p p e n ~f the parties w e r e regarded as constants. The implication is that o u r
JR CORNFORD, DFL DORLING AND BS T|'THI!R
137
r e s u l t s - - f o r e x a m p l e , the electoral success of the Labour Party c o m p a r e d with o u r
p r o j e c t i o n s for 1 9 9 2 - - c a n suggest s o m e t h i n g a b o u t the i m p a c t of the actual
c h a n g e s in the parties, their policies, a n d their c a m p a i g n i n g . This article will, therefore, be w o r t h r e t u r n i n g to after the results of the n e x t general election are
k n o w n - - i r r e s p e c t i v e of the actual o u t c o m e .
Implications o f the Model: Two Tory Generations?
In spite of all these caveats, w e n o w have a range of fairly plausible o u t c o m e s for
the n e x t election w h i c h w e can use as b e n c h m a r k s against w h i c h it can be d e c i d e d
w h e t h e r the actual result, w h e n it comes, is ' u n p r e c e d e n t e d ' . The clear implication
of the results of o u r calculations is that, w h i l e there is a p r e c e d e n t for the
Conservative Party to lose its overall majority, a n d e v e n fl)r it to cease to be the
largest single party in the House of C o m m o n s , there is n o r e c e n t p r e c e d e n t for the
Labour Party to w i n a majority of the 633 ~ m a i n l a n d seats (see Table 3). Even
p r o j e c t i n g o n their best previous p e r f o r m a n c e ( 1 9 5 9 - 6 4 ) , Labour only m a n a g e to
gain 320 s e a t s ~ - - s t i l l six short of an overall C o m m o n s majority w h e n w e bear in
m i n d the 17 scats in N o r t h e r n Ireland. Further, w e s h o u l d take into a c c o u n t the
fact that Labour will p r o b a b l y also suffer from the results of the re-drawing of
electoral b o u n d a r i e s (although this is by n o m e a n s assured). ~ Modelling on the
effects of the 1979-83 re-districting, w e estimate that these c h a n g e s c o u l d benefit
the Tories by some 13 seats a n d deprive Labour of n i n e a n d the Liberal D e m o c r a t s
of five (cf. Pattie, 1990, p.23; Rooker, 1989). Perhaps most d e p r e s s i n g of all for
Labour s u p p o r t e r s is the fact that not o n e of the p r o j e c t i o n s gives Labour m o r e
votes (as o p p o s e d to seats) t h a n the Conservatives (the full results, i n c l u d i n g the
projected share of the vote, arc s h o w n in Cornford, Dorling, a n d T e t h e r (1993)).
The future, then, looks grim for the Labour Party. t"
Things look, if anything, e v e n w o r s e for the Liberal Democrats in the short term.
Even o n the basis of the best post-war p e r f o r m a n c e of third parties (that of the
Liberal/SDP Alliance in 1983), Liberal D e m o c r a t s w o u l d still fail to get m o r e than
55 seats, in spite of getting a p r o j e c t e d 900,000 or so m o r e votes than Labour! In
the e v e n t of a repeat of 1983, large n u m b e r s of Liberal D e m o c r a t votes and seats
w o t d d be w o n at the e x p e n s e of Labour, leading to a Tory landslide (and thus
d e p r i v i n g the Liberal D e m o c r a t s of the p o w e r w h i c h c o u l d accrue to t h e m in a
h u n g parliament). Only if the Liberal Democrats can take an u n p r e c e d e n t e d l y large
share of votes from the Conservatives w o u l d they c o n t r i b u t e to a c h a n g e of government. If the Liberal Democrats are to have some b a r g a i n i n g p o w e r in the process
of c h o o s i n g a g o v e r n m e n t , it is p e r h a p s m o r e i m p o r t a n t for that party to e n s u r e a
balance b e t w e e n the o t h e r t w o main p a r t i e s - - e v e n at the e x p e n s e of its o w n total
n u m b e r of seats.
The e s s e n c e of the situation is that the British electoral system c a n n o t c o p e with
a split o p p o s i t i o n . Thc Tories, w i t h a regular 4 2 - 4 3 p e r c e n t of the vote (or a r o u n d
a third of the entire electorate) can rely o n the o t h e r t w o main parties to split the
anti-Conservative vote leading to the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a - - s u r e l y politically undesira b l e - p r e d o m i n a n t - p a r t y system (Lord Hailsham's famous 'elective dictatorship').
Using the historically p r e c e d e n t e d electoral c h a n g e s in the vote s u p e r i m p o s e d u p o n
this p a t t e r n of prior party s u p p o r t suggests very strongly that the Conservative
P a r t y - - a l o n e or with o t h e r s - - w i l l form the n e x t g o v e r n m e n t . In such an event, two
w h o l e g e n e r a t i o n s will have c o m e of age tinder the Tories.
138
Historical Precedent and British Electoral Prospects
But will history c o n f o r m to s u c h p r e c e d e n t ? D o e s ' u n p r e c e d e n t e d ' equal
' i m p o s s i b l e ' o r e v e n 'unlikely'? Clearly, w e can imagine an u n p r e c e d e n t e d seac h a n g e in the future o f British electoral politics. Such a c h a n g e c o u l d originate
in any o f o n e or m o r e o f the following: the electoral system; the electorate; or
the parties. Any significant c h a n g e in the electoral system ( s u c h as the replacem e n t o f plurality v o t i n g in single m e m b e r c o n s t i t u e n c i e s ) is highly unlikely
b e f o r e the n e x t general election ( a l t h o u g h m o r e likely in the l o n g e r term). We
will, therefore, ignore that possibility. A major c h a n g e in the voting b e h a v i o u r
of the e l e c t o r a t e is always possible, triggered by s o m e political or e c o n o m i c
event (say, a f u r t h e r recession or a m a j o r c o r r u p t i o n scandal). By far the m o s t
likely s o u r c e o f s o m e u n p r e c e d e n t e d i n t e r r u p t i o n to British politics, h o w e v e r , is
c h a n g e in the parties t h e m s e l v e s and in their relationships to each other. Very
crudely, w e can divide the significant possibilities into two: either there is a realignment a m o n g the o p p o s i t i o n parties; or t h e r e is a major upheaval within the
Conservative Party.
The m o s t widely d e b a t e d (although not necessarily the most likely) unpreced e n t e d c h a n g e on the o p p o s i t i o n side is the various proposals for a Labour-Liberal
D e m o c r a t electoral pact before the next election (Dent, 1993). On the dubious
assumptions that all Labour voters d e p r i v e d o f a Labour candidate w o u l d vote for
the Liberal Democrat, and that a majority of Liberal D e m o c r a t voters (at least)
w o u l d vote for a Labour candidate w h e r e the Liberal D e m o c r a t s stood d o w n , the
strategy could just s u c c e e d in r e m o v i n g the Tories. The similarity in some elements
of the party p r o g r a m m e s also helps. A clear c o m m i t m e n t to introducing proportional representation might clinch the deal (and, if successful, prevent the n e e d
for such a pre-election pact in the future). The p r o b l e m s with such a strategy are,
h o w e v e r , legion and the benefits to the opposition far from o v e r w h e l m i n g (i.e.,
on D e n t ' s extremely optimistic forecast, 55 extra seats for Labour and 10 extra
seats for the Liberal D e m o c r a t s from the 1992 result). Such a pact w o u l d also give
further c r e d e n c e to the Tory claim that a 'vote for the Liberal D e m o c r a t s is a vote
for Labour'. The national o p p o s i t i o n parties may well, therefore, prefer to
d e n o u n c e pacts nationally while turning a blind eye to local 'arrangements'
(Crewe, 1993).
There is, however, a n o t h e r possibility for a c h a n g e of g o v e r n m e n t - - a d m i t t e d l y
o n e that is even less historically p r e c e d e n t e d than a Lib-Lab electoral p a c t - - a split
in the Conservative Party. While this may s o u n d rather fanciful, the proposal is
p e r h a p s m o r e plausible n o w than it has b e e n in recent history. For example, Peter
Mair (1992, p.95) has suggested that 'the possibility of a fragmentation of the right
of the British political s p e c t r u m . . , cannot be discounted, particularly in the light
o f the successful mobilization of e x t r e m e right parties in Belgium, France and
Germany, and the conservative Lega in n o r t h e r n Italy.'
Virtually all party splits in Britain have b e e n sparked by territorial p o l i t i c s - - t h e
issues of H o m e Rule, Ireland, the Empire, and Europe. The Conservatives,
w h a t e v e r their mystique of unity, seem currently to have a major Achilles h e e l - the E u r o p e a n Union. Both Labour and Liberal D e m o c r a t leaderships are n o w
u n a m b i g u o u s l y pro-European, including a c c e p t a n c e of the 'Social Chapter' of the
Maastrict Treaty. Already, the o p p o s i t i o n have managed, by allying themselves with
the so-called Tory Euro-sceptics, to defeat a g o v e r n m e n t with a clear overall majority. As three recent c o m m e n t a t o r s (Baker, Gamble, and Ludlam, 1993, p.164) have
p o i n t e d out:
JR CORNFORD,DFL DORLING AND BS TE'rHHi
139
A considerable part of the unparalleled electoral success of the m o d e m
Conservative Party rests on its image as a united and loyal organisation
w h o s e defence of the British state and of British interests abroad is not
destabilised by intva-party fractures. This image is b e c o m i n g badly dented.
British e l e c t o r a l p o l i t i c s is n o w e x t r e m e l y difficult to i n t e r p r e t . E v e n e x p e r i e n c e d
a c a d e m i c c o m m e n t a t o r s s e e m u n a b l e to d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e 1992 e l e c t i o n p r o v i d e d
'a solid p l a t f o r m f o r a L a b o u r g o v e r n m e n t . . ,
following one further swing of the
p e n d u l u m in 1 9 9 6 / 9 7 ' ( C r e w e , Norris, a n d Waller, 1992, p . x x x i i i ) o r if it c o n f i r m e d
' t h a t in t h e late t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y Britain has m o v e d to a " d o m i n a n t p a r t y " s y s t e m
in w h i c h t h e C o n s e r v a t i v e s are t h e natural p a r t y o f g o v e r n m e n t ' (ibid, x x x i v ) . T h e
h i s t o r i c a l p r e c e d e n t s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e n e x t e l e c t i o n will r e s u l t in e i t h e r a
Conservative working majority or a precariously hung parliament. However, histor 3 ,
as has a l r e a d y b e e n p o i n t e d out, d o e s n o t a l w a y s p a y m u c h a t t e n t i o n to p r e c e dent-especially
w h e n h i s t o r i c a l a c t o r s b e c o m e a w a r e o f that p r e c e d e n t . W h a t
r e m a i n s to b c s e e n is h o w t h o s e a c t o r s - - e l e c t o r a t e a n d p o l i t i c i a n s a l i k e - - r e s p o n d
to t h e s i t u a t i o n w h i c h w e h o p e to h a v e h e l p e d clarify.
Appendix: A New Electoral Projection Method
T o c a l c u l a t e t h e v o t e for p a r t y n in scat x at e l e c t i o n q, p r o j e c t i n g f r o m e l e c t i o n
p , o n t h e basis o f t h e c h a n g e in t h e v o t e in seat y ( t h e ' c l o s e s t ' seat p o l i t i c a l l y - s e e b e l o w ) b e t w e e n e l e c t i o n s a a n d b, t h e f o r m u l a is:
n... =
;%:,
(1 + (n,,,,
-
n,,,,) / n,,,,)
w h e r e n.,.,/ is t h e n u m b e r o f v o t e s for p a r t y n in seat x at e l e c t i o n q, etc.
Seat y is c h o s e n f r o m all t h e seats w h i c h e x i s t e d in b o t h e l e c t i o n a a n d e l e c t i o n
b by m i n i m i z i n g t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n a p o i n t r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e r e l a t i v e e l e c t o r a l
p e r f o r m a n c e o f e a c h o f five c a t e g o r i e s o f p a r t i e s a n d its c o u n t e r p a r t for e l e c t i o n p.
It is c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g t h e s t a n d a r d f o r m u l a o f P y t h a g o r u s a p p l i e d to a f o u r d i m e n s i o n a n a l o g u e o f t h e e l e c t o r a l t r i a n g l e ( f o r f u r t h e r details s e e C o r n f o r d , D o r l i n g , and
Tether (1993)).
T h i s s i m p l e f o r m u l a m a t c h e s seats s u c h t h a t w h e n t h e c h a n g e in t h e v o t e fi)r
o n e seat is a p p l i e d to a n o t h e r , i m p l a u s i b l e r e s u l t s are h a r d l y e v e r p r o d u c e d b e c a u s e
t h e t w o m a t c h e d seats are so similar in e l e c t o r a l t e r m s .
Notes
1. This period was chosen because the election of 1955 was the first in which the
constituency system (and the structure of party competition) was adequately close to
that in place today. Some may argue that the 1950s and 1960s are too tar back in time
fi)r their elections to be comparable with those of the 199Os. While the degree of similarit}' in terms of issues, parties, and electorate obviously does diminish over time, a n u m b e r
of reasons can be given for studying such a long period. The d e c t i o n s of 1959 and 196.4
provided examples of swings that can o c c u r after a long Conservative rule, similar in
length to that of today. Indeed, the 196Os give us two of the only three clear Labour
victories of this period so w e need to look back this far in time to find recent examples
of non-Conservative opposition victories. Finally, since it is not too difficult to study this
n u m b e r of elections, it can be argued that the more historical the perspective that we
can muster, the better. The n e w data set used in this study (containing the linked individual constituency result of all these general elections) is available from the ESRC Data
Archive at the University of Essex.
140
Historical Precedent and British Electoral Prospects
2. The advantage of the graphic triangle over m o r e traditional statistical measures is that
the relative fortunes of t h r e e parties can be shown. In m o s t cases in Britain this is
adequate. However, in situations w h e r e t h e r e is a significant fourth party (such as the
nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales) nationalist seats will be incorrectly r e p r e s e n t e d
as having b e e n w o n by o n e of the three main parties, but the relative share b e t w e e n
the t h r e e main parties will still be correctly r e p r e s e n t e d . In our numerical analysis, w e
have in fact used a four dimenstional space ( w h i c h cannot, o f course, be correctly repres e n t e d o n paper) to include the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties ( g r o u p e d together)
and g r o u p e d votes for ' o t h e r ' candidates. B e t w e e n 1955 and 1992 t h e r e w e r e t w o
geographical re-districtings o f seats. Cornford, Dorling, and Tether (1993) discuss h o w
t h e s e w e r e dealt w i t h and give the data sources. In 1955 and 1959 the Conservative
Party did not stand in a handful o f seats w o n by the Liberal Party. The seats thus lic o n
the Liberal-Labour axis and are h e n c e o b s c u r e d o n Figure 1.
3. The cartogram used h e r e is an equal electorate area cartogram in w h i c h every
c o n s t i t u e n c y is r e p r e s e n t e d by an a r r o w w h i c h is placed within an area p r o p o r t i o n a t e
to the electorate o f that constituency. The c o n s t i t u e n c i e s are arranged spatially such that,
so far as is possible, each is n e i g h b o u r i n g t h o s e c o n s t i t u e n c i e s with w h i c h it is geographically contiguous. This a p p r o a c h allows c o m p l e x spatial patterns of three-party c h a n g e
to be r e p r e s e n t e d visually.
4. In line w i t h o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s in this field, w e have o m i t t e d the (currently 17) seats in
the p r o v i n c e of N o r t h e r n Ireland from our projections because the dramatic change
w h i c h o c c u r r e d after 1970 altered the electoral politics in the p r o v i n c e b e y o n d recognition.
5. Both the uniform national d i s p l a c e m e n t and the c o n s t a n t c o n s t i t u e n c y m e t h o d s are illustrated in Cornford, Dorling, and Tether (1993).
6. The use of the electoral triangle is purely expository. The m e t h o d is not restricted to
three-party elections, and in the calculations s h o w n in Figure 4 and 5 w e have used a
four-dimensional space and have taken into account the Scottish and Welsh nationalists
and g r o u p e d ' O t h e r parties', as well as incorporating Labour, the Liberals/Alliance/Liberal
Democrats and the Conservatives. For further detail see Cornford, Dorling, and Tether
(1993).
7. Given that b o t h the results are available, it w o u l d be perfectly possible to generate a
hypothetical result ff)r an earlier election based on a later swing: that is, provide an
a n s w e r to the question: What w o u l d have h a p p e n e d at an earlier election if the swing
had b e e n exactly the same as that at a later election? We might call this 'ante-jection'
rather than pro-jection.
8. A salutary r e m i n d e r of the dangers o f claiming too m u c h for the predictive ability of a
m e t h o d is p r o v i d e d by Budge and Farlic (1977, p.494). Attempting to predict a prospective 1977 election, they argued that 'our a priori specification of a close-result thus in
no way d e t e r m i n e s the o u t c o m e of the simulation for 1977 o t h e r than safeguarding
against an obviously unrealistic victory by 60 seats or more'. In the event, admittedly
delayed by t w o years, the Conservatives had a majority of 70 seats over Labour at the
1979 election!
9. A r a n d o m e l e m e n t could be i n t r o d u c e d to the projections to s h o w h o w robust each
individual projection is. However, 11 individual sets of restflts s h o w a great deal of uncertainty and so w e have not c h o s e n to embellish the table further.
10. Although, to be precise, b e c a u s e w e arc c o m b i n i n g the t w o Milton Keynes seats, both
of w h i c h w o u l d return Conservatives, w e are back to the position of identical n u m b e r s
of seats going to a Labour/Lib Dcm g r o u p and the Tories (see note 13).
11. This has, in effect, b e e n achieved for Scotland and Wales w h e r e the p r e s e n c e of nationalist parties will p r e v e n t English seats being m a t c h e d to Scottish or Welsh o n e s and vice
versa.
12. To heap caveat u p o n caveat, it is w o r t h noting again that ' p r e c e d e n t e d ' should not necessarily imply likely. For example, on the basis of the last four elections, it w o u l d be
u n p r e c e d e n t e d for the third major party to fight the next election u n d e r a name w h i c h
they have used before! This does not mean, h o w e v e r , that the Liberal Democrats are
likely to c h a n g e their n a m e before the next election, but not to do so w o u l d be, as w e
say, ' u n p r e c e d e n t e d ' in r e c e n t electoral history. The r e c e n t election results in Canada
also suggest that real voters do not necessarily respect p r e c e d e n t .
JR CORNFORD, DFL DORLINGAND BS TETHER
141
13. In fact, 6 3 4 - - b u t w e are still adding the two Milton Keyncs seats together. We must,
therefore, bear in mind that figures for the Conservatives should be increased by one in
all cases and maybe by more w h e n the full results of the Botmdary Commission's most
recent deliberations are taken into accotmt.
14. This relatively good result for Labour may be explained by the fact that Labour saw
'slightly bigger' than average swings in the marginals in 1964 (on this point see
Berrington, 1965, p.25).
15. See, for example, 'Labour beats Tories at o w n game in boundary, review', The Guardian,
31 August 1993, p.3.
16. What w e seem to be ruling out here is the (precedented) prospect of Labour having a
useful working majority of more than 30 seats. We must be aware, however, that such
concrete statements have an uncanny tendency to be proved ludicrously w r o n g (see
note 8 above). Personally, w e regard this tendency as a good reason for making such a
negative prediction.
References
Baker, D., Gamble, A. and Ludlam, S. (1993) Whips or Scorpions? The Maastricht vote and
the Conservative Party, Parliamenta~. Affairs, 46(2), 151-66.
BBC/ITN (1983), The BBC/ITN Guide to the New Parliamentar): Constituencies.
Parliamentary Research Services: Chichester.
Berrington, H. (1965) The General Election of 1964, Journal ~f the Royal Statistical SocieO',
Series A, 128(1), 17-66.
Brown, P. and Payne, C. (1975) Electinn Night Forecasting, Journal o f the Royal Statistical
SocietF, Series A, 138(4), 463-98.
Budge, 1. and Farlie, D. (1977) Voting and Party Competition: A Theoretical Critique and
3)enthesis Applied to Surveys f r o m Ten Democracies, J o h n Wiley, London.
CO1, Parliamenta~. Elections, (1991) HMSO, Central Office of Information, Aspects of
Britain Series, London.
Cornford, J.R., Dorling, D.F.L. and Tether, B.S. (1993) Historical Precedent and British
Electoral Prospects, Department of Geography Seminar Paper No. 63, Department of
Geography, University of Newcastle u p o n Tyne.
Crewe, I. (1991) Labour Force Changes, Working Class Decline and the Labour Vote: Social
and Electoral Trends in Postwar Britain in F.F. Pivcn (Ed.). Labour Parties Dt
Postindustrial Societies, Polity Press, Cambridge 20-46.
Crewe, I. (1993) Tories could be trounced within Lib-Lab pacts, Independent on Sumlal',
9 May.
Crewe, 1., Norris, P. and Waller, R. (1992) The 1992 General Election in P. Norris et al. (Eds).
British Elections and Parties Yearbook 1992, pp. x v - x x x v i . Harvester Wheatsheaf, New
York.
Curtice, J. (1983) UK General Election Results 1955-1970 and Associated Information
( c o m p u t e r file). ESRC Data Archive, Study SN:1799 Colchester.
Curtice, J. and Payne, C. (1991) Local Elections as National Referendums in Great Britain,
Electoral Studies, 10(1), 3-17.
Dent, M. (1993) The Case fl)r an Electoral Pact Between Labour and the Liberal Democrats,
Political Quarterly, 64(2), 243-51.
Dod's Guide to the General Election 1992. Dod's Parliamentary Companion Ltd,
Etchingham, East Sussex.
Dorling, D.F.L. (1991) The Visualization of Spatial Social Strncturc, (unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.
Dnrling, D.F.L. (1992) Stretching Space and Splicing Time: From Cartographic Animation to
Interactive Visualisation, Cartography aml Geographical Infi)rmation 3)zs-tems, 19(4),
215-227 and 267-270.
Dorling, D.F.L., Pattie, CJ. and Johnston, R.J. (1993) Measuring Electoral Change in Three Party
Systems: An Alternative to Swing, Political Science and Politics, 737-741.
Harrop, M. and Shaw, A. (1989) Can Labour Win? Ilnwin, London.
Johnston, RJ. and Pattie, C.J. (1993) Where the Tories Lost and Won: Geographical Variations
in Voting at the 1992 British General Election, Parliamenta O' Affairs, 46(2), 192-2(12.
142
Historical Precedent a n d British Electoral Prospects
Johnston, R.J., Pattie, C.J. and Allsopp, J.G. (1988) A Nation Dividing? The Electoral Map
o f Great Britain 1979-1987. Longman, London.
King, A. et aL, (1982) Britain at the Polls 1992. Chatham House Publishers, Chatham NJ.
Latham, J.L. (1982) British General Elections 1955-1979 (computer file). ESRC Data
Archive, Study SN:1677, Colchester.
Mair, P. (1992) The Question of Electoral Refi)rm, New Left Review, No. 194, 75-97.
McLean, I. (1973) The Problem of Proportionate Swing, Political Studies, 21, 57-63.
Miller, W.L. (1977) Electoral Dynamics in Britain Since 1918, Macmillan, London.
Miller, W.L., Clarke, H.D., Harrop, M., Lednc, L. and Whiteley, P.F. (1990) H o w Voters
Change: The 1987 British Election Campaign in Perspective, Clarendon Press, Ox|k)rd.
Moon, N. (1992) Exit Polling: A Question of Sampling: in P. Norris et aL (Eds), British
Elections and Parties Yearbook. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.
Pattie, C. (1990) 'On and On and O n . . . Must the Conservatives Win? The Electoral
Geography of Britain in the 1990s. Nottingham University, Department of Geography,
Working Paper No. 4.
Payne, C. (1992) Statistical Methods for Electoral Forecasting in the UK, in P. Norris et al.
(Eds), British Elections a n d Parties Yearbook, pp. 138-158 Harvester Wheatsbeaf, New
York.
Pred, A. (1988) Place as Historically Contingent Process: Structuration and Time-Geography
of Becoming Places, Annals o f the Association o f American Geographers, 74(2), pp.
279-297.
Rooker, J. (1989) Beaten by the Boundaries. Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform,
Guildford.
Spencer, P., Beange, R. and Curtice, J. (1992) The 1992 Election and the North South
Divide. Shearson Lehman Brothers, London/New York.
Stevenson, J. (1993) Third Party Politics Since 1945: Liberals, Alliance and Liberal
Democrats, Blackwell, Oxford.
Upton, G.J.G. (1976) The Diagrammatic Representation of Three Party Contests, Political
Studies, 24, 448-454.
Upton, G.J.G. (1994) Picturing the 1992 General Election, Journal o f the Royal Statistical
Society, Series A.
Whiteley, P. (1979) Electoral Forecasting from Poll Data: The British Case, British Journal
o f Political Science, 9(2), 219-236.