Click on any year below to go to the detailed Track Record for that election, or browse the summary results underneath.
| Party | Pred Votes | Pred Seats | Actual Votes | Actual Seats | |
| CON | 21.8% | 78 | 24.4% | 121 | |
| LAB | 38.8% | 453 | 34.7% | 412 | |
| LIB | 11.0% | 67 | 12.5% | 72 | |
| Reform | 16.4% | 7 | 14.7% | 5 | |
| SNP | 3.1% | 19 | 2.6% | 9 |
The 2024 prediction used a combination of a poll-of-polls plus regression
analysis.
The overall conclusion was correct: there was a large Labour landslide, a collapse in the number
of Conservative seats, and gains for the Liberal Democrats and Reform UK.
In the event the Labour lead was lower than the polls had indicated, so that the
Labour majority was lower than predicted.
Full details of 2024 error analysis.
| Party | Pred Votes | Pred Seats | Actual Votes | Actual Seats | |
| CON | 43.3% | 351 | 44.7% | 365 | |
| LAB | 33.9% | 224 | 33.0% | 203 | |
| LIB | 11.7% | 13 | 11.8% | 11 | |
| SNP | 3.6% | 41 | 4.0% | 48 |
The 2019 prediction was the first time regression analysis
was used, and it was broadly accurate. The polls fairly accurately indicated a substantial
lead of the Conservatives over Labour, which our new regression-based model translated into
a considerable Conservative majority. In the event the Conservative lead of Labour was
slightly greater than the polls had shown, so that the Conservative majority was a bit
bigger than expected.
Full details of 2019 error analysis.
| Party | Polls Votes | Pred Votes | Pred Seats | Actual Votes | Actual Seats | |
| CON | 43.2% | 44.3% | 358 | 43.5% | 318 | |
| LAB | 36.4% | 35.3% | 218 | 41.0% | 262 | |
| LIB | 7.9% | 7.9% | 3 | 7.6% | 15 | |
| SNP | 4.0% | 4.0% | 49 | 3.1% | 35 |
In 2017, the prediction was not accurate. The primary cause of error was a significant error in the pre-election polls conducted by the national pollsters. They estimated a Conservative lead over Labour of 6.8%, when the reality was a Conservative lead of only 2.5%.
Consequently our prediction had too many seats predicted for the Conservatives and too few for Labour. Tactical voting also benefitted the Liberal Democrats who gained seats despite losing national vote share.
| Party | Polls Votes | Pred Votes | Pred Seats | Actual Votes | Actual Seats | |
| CON | 33.7% | 33.5% | 280 | 37.8% | 331 | |
| LAB | 33.4% | 31.2% | 274 | 31.2% | 232 | |
| LIB | 8.9% | 11.0% | 21 | 8.1% | 8 | |
| SNP | 4.1% | 4.1% | 52 | 4.9% | 56 |
In 2015, the prediction was not accurate. The primary cause of error was a significant error in the pre-election polls conducted by the national pollsters. They estimated a Conservative lead over Labour of only 0.3%, when the reality was a Conservative lead of 6.6%. The spread betting markets were a bit more realistic on the Conservative lead, but over-estimated Liberal Democrat support.
Consequently our prediction had too many seats predicted for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and too few for the Conservatives.Also read our 2015 election night blog.
| Party | Polls Votes | Pred Votes | Pred Seats | Actual Votes | Actual Seats | |
| CON | 35.7% | 36.1% | 297 | 37.0% | 307 | |
| LAB | 27.8% | 27.6% | 235 | 29.7% | 258 | |
| LIB | 27.3% | 26.9% | 86 | 23.6% | 57 |
In 2010, our predictions were fairly accurate. The main error was that we predicted too many
Liberal Democrat seats and too few Labour seats. This error was mainly caused by both the pollsters
and the betting markets over-estimating the strength of the Lib Dems. Our prediction for the Conservatives was
relatively good for both share of vote and number of seats.
Full details of 2010 error analysis.
Model Comparisons for 2010 election.
| Party | Pred Votes | Pred Seats | Actual Votes | Actual Seats | |
| CON | 31.7% | 170 | 33.2% | 198 | |
| LAB | 37.5% | 389 | 36.2% | 356 | |
| LIB | 22.8% | 58 | 22.6% | 62 |
In 2005, the poll and model errors did not cancel out but both pushed
in the same direction. The polls' error, although smaller, still exaggerated
the predicted Labour majority. Also regional swings, some tactical voting unwind
and other non-linear effects further reduced the actual majority.
Full details of 2005 errors.
| Party | Pred Votes | Pred Seats | Actual Votes | Actual Seats | |
| CON | 30.3% | 150 | 32.7% | 166 | |
| LAB | 46.3% | 435 | 42.0% | 413 | |
| LIB | 17.5% | 45 | 18.8% | 52 |
In 2001, although the polls exaggerated Labour's lead, the result was largely unchanged from the previous election. Since the polls overestimated Labour's lead by over 6%, the actual majority would have been around 147 on a uniform swing basis. The non-uniform swing in some marginal seats makes the prediction seem less inaccurate than it deserves. Full details of 2001 errors.
| Party | Pred Votes | Pred Seats | Actual Votes | Actual Seats | |
| CON | 30.6% | 191 | 31.4% | 165 | |
| LAB | 47.2% | 415 | 44.4% | 419 | |
| LIB | 15.4% | 25 | 17.2% | 46 |
This year, the pollsters were true Cassandras - they predicted gloom for the Conservatives, but were not fully believed. Many remembered the errors of 1992 and were unconvinced by the polling figures. However they turned out to be broadly accurate, and Labour did indeed win a landslide majority. On election night, Martin Baxter was the first commentator on the BBC to correctly predict the scale of their victory.
| Party | Pred Votes | Pred Seats | Actual Votes | Actual Seats | |
| CON | 36.9% | 295 | 42.8% | 335 | |
| LAB | 39.0% | 308 | 35.2% | 271 | |
| LIB | 19.8% | 20 | 18.3% | 20 |
Electoral Calculus got 1992 spectacularly wrong. We predicted a Labour victory, but with a hung parliament. In fact the Conservatives were returned to office with a reduced majority. The principal cause of the error was that the opinion polls mis-estimated the relative support of the two parties.
The pollsters took the 1992 debacle very seriously, and put much effort into improving their methods. This would pay off next time, but they had already lost credibility.