More in Common's January MRP

Key findings

• Reform holding strong: Reform UK are projected to win a majority of 112 over all other parties combined, with rapid polling gains now holding steady.
• Stable but fragile: In this scenario Reform would win 60 per cent of seats on 31 per cent of the vote, rivalling the 2024 General Election as one of the most disproportionate results in modern British history.
• Reversal of fortunes: Labour would slump to just 85 seats, a loss of 326 seats from their July 2024 landslide.
• Look who's back: This poll may be a sign the Conservatives are stabilising  - while still down on their 2024 count, this result is better than our last MRP projection and puts them within 15 seats of Labour.
• Green shoots: The Greens are projected to more than double their parliamentary presence from 4 to 9 seats - taking seats directly from Labour.

Party	Seat count	Change from 2024 result	Vote share
Reform UK	381	+376	31%
Labour	85	-326	20%
Conservative	70	-51	21%
SNP	40	+31	3%
Liberal Democrat	35	-37	11%
Green	9	+5	12%
Other	6	+1	2%
Plaid Cymru	5	+1	1%

More in Common UK Director Luke Tryl said:

"Reform continues to hold poll position in our MRP. Based on polling since the budget, it suggests that in an election tomorrow Reform could hope to secure a substantial three-figure majority. Meanwhile the Polanski surge sees the Greens continue to make gains, with disillusioned progressives putting them  within shouting distance of many more gains from Labour. 

On the other hand, Labour would slump to a modern low, losing over half of the total number of seats in parliament and being reduced to just 85 MPs. While the Tories would lose a further 50 from their 2024 nadir, this projection actually represents an uptick in the Tories’ fortunes and signs that the Badenoch bounce may at least be stabilising their position in places like the ‘Blue Wall’ - even as they lose seats to Reform in their Brexit-voting former heartlands.

But there is one major caveat: tactical voting. For the first time we have explored how tactical voting could reshape the model projections. It suggests the Liberal Democrats could be big winners here - and if that if tactical voting is anywhere close to the scale we saw in Caerphilly, that parties of the left could deny Reform a majority and form a rainbow coalition of their own. 

The threat of tactical voting, combined with the narrow margin of many of Reform’s projected victories, suggests their momentum may have at least temporarily stalled. That, combined with the fact we are still years from an election, means that despite their success in 2025, the path to the next general election is still far from known."

Reform’s polling gains are holding steady

More in Common’s MRP model projects in an election tomorrow Reform would win a majority of 115, with 381 MPs in Westminster.

The rise of Reform seems to have plateaued - this projection is only a slight increase in their seat count compared to September, suggesting their poll position is holding steady.

Reform isn't only winning in coastal Essex or the Red Wall. They're projected to win in a range of different seats - aided by a split opposition: university towns, market towns, post-industrial cities, commuter suburbs.

Labour has slumped

Labour is projected to fall to just 85 seats, a loss of 326 seats from their July 2024 landslide. No major party in British history has experienced such a rapid reversal of fortune.

In this scenario it is hard to picture what a Labour survivors' shadow cabinet might look like, with frontbenchers including Rachel Reeves, Yvette Cooper and Ed Miliband projected to lose their seats.

The party would be reduced to a rump of urban strongholds: London boroughs (Barking, Battersea, Hackney), university cities (Cambridge, Oxford East, Sheffield Hallam), parts of Merseyside and a scattering of metropolitan centres.

Labour haemorrhages support across its traditional heartlands - Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster would all fall to Reform. Labour are reduced to just 6 seats in Wales while in Scotland the SNP reclaims much of the Central Belt.

Conservatives clawing back

While this projection represents a loss of over 50 seats for the Conservatives, it may bring some comfort to the Tories - for the first time in a year the number of seats More in Common’s MRP model projects the Conservatives to win has increased from the previous model.

This improvement comes at a cost to Labour, holding onto affluent seats in and around London where Labour and the Liberal Democrats are their competitors, while the seats they continue to lose to Reform UK are found in more working-class and Leave-voting areas. The party would essentially become more Cameronite.

The Conservatives are now within touching distance of Labour - taking a similar vote share, but with a less efficient spread which would lead to them securing 15 fewer seats.

Green shoots

The Greens are projected to more than double their parliamentary presence from 4 to 9 seats. This would be their best ever result and a significant breakthrough, but a modest foothold in Westminster politics.

Four projected gains come directly from Labour collapse in progressive-leaning urban areas such as Bristol, Manchester, and Sheffield, suggesting the Greens are managing to position themselves as the progressive alternative.

The Green vote share is projected to rise in target seats in places like East London, and small swings could see them win seats like this where disillusioned progressives are abandoning Labour.

Liberal Democrat squeeze

As Labour and the Conservatives have shed votes since the General Election, the Liberal Democrats have been much more resilient. But the Liberal Democrats see their position weakened in this projection - with half of their current MPs projected to lose their seats.

The party suffers from losing votes to the right, with around one in seven  2024 Liberal Democrats now supporting the Conservatives or Reform.

On the other side - unlike in previous MRPs - they benefit less from defections from Labour, with the Greens eating into that voter pool. Though around one in ten 2024 Labour voters now support the Liberal Democrats and the Greens respectively, the Greens are taking voters that otherwise might have voted Liberal Democrat in their key marginal seats.

A creaking first-past-the-post system

The projected scenario would upend the political status quo - with six parties having meaningful representation in Westminster.

Remarkably, Reform’s projected majority is based on winning just 31 per cent of votes nationally - the most disproportionate result in modern history - and most constituencies are won with less than 35 per cent of the vote.

While the Liberal Democrats and Green Party are projected to take roughly the same share of the vote, the Liberal Democrat vote is distributed more efficiently - taking four times as many seats as the Greens. However the Greens may soon rise to the point where a flat vote share is beneficial. 

Nearly half of Reform's projected seats would be marginals. Like the voter base that put Labour in government currently, this coalition would be broad but shallow - and potentially fragile.

What difference could tactical voting make?

In the wake of the Caerphilly by-election result which appears to have seen significant progressive tactical voting, for the first time we have directly modelled how different degrees of progressive tactical voting could affect the overall result.

If just one in five voters who intend to vote for Labour, the Greens, or the Liberal Democrats voted tactically within this bloc in seats where their preferred party was less likely to win, they could take an extra 46 seats. If twice as many voted tactically - far from  inconceivable given the Caerphilly result - Reform would no longer be projected a majority.

On the other hand, tactical voting between Conservative and Reform voters would mainly benefit Reform and be less dramatic overall -  if one in five voters intending to vote for the smaller of the two in their constituency voted for the other, the Conservatives could win a further 6 seats, and Reform another 22.

At 60 per cent tactical voting it would be more likely we would see a 5 party rainbow coalition of the left than a Reform Government or Tory-Reform Coalition, while Liberal Democrats losses would be reversed with a degree of tactical voting at this level.

The caveat here is that in a volatile multi-party environment it will be difficult for voters to predict which direction to tactically vote.

FAQs and Methodology

The MRP model was based on a sample of 16,083 British adults surveyed between 27 November and 16 December 2025.

What is an MRP?

‘Multilevel Regression with Post-stratification’ (MRP) uses data from a voting intention poll to model how people will vote based on their demographics, voting behaviour and information about their constituency. These results are then applied to the demographic and electoral makeup of each constituency to make a constituency-level estimate. The model is 'multilevel' because it uses both individual and constituency-level data.

How is this different from your normal voting intention poll?

The voting intention regularly published by More in Common is a national estimate based on a representative sample of at least 2,000 people. It indicates roughly how many people in Great Britain intend to vote for one party or another. This is simple to calculate and allows us to track changes through time.

But if you want to estimate a national seat count, this isn’t as useful. No political party performs equally well in every seat, because their supporters are not evenly spread across the country. For example, a 70-year-old man who didn’t go to university and lives in a small village has a higher likelihood of voting Conservative than a 25-year-old woman renting a flat in a major city.

The benefit of MRP is the ability to use information about the different people who live in every constituency across the country to estimate how many people will vote for each party.

How does the model account for those who don't know how they will vote?

When we ask people their voting intention, some people say they don’t know. We push them to say who they would vote for if they were forced to choose, and we use this response as their expected vote. Some people, when asked to imagine that they were forced to choose, still don’t know who they would vote for. Using our MRP model, we’re able to make a better guess at how these “double don’t knows” might end up voting. When training the model to predict people’s voting intention based on their demographics, voting behaviour and information about their constituency, we excluded the responses of people who didn’t know who they would vote for (after the squeeze) from the training data. When we apply the model to all the voters in the constituency, it effectively means we estimate the votes of people who don’t know, according to how people like them (in terms of demographics and past voting behaviour) but who do know, intend to vote. So if someone lives in a rural area, is over 75 and voted Conservative in 2024, the model uses the fact that most over 75s in rural areas who voted Conservative in 2024 and do know who they’ll vote for say they will vote Conservative, to guess that if they do vote it will likely be for the Conservatives.

Is this a snapshot or a projection?

With four and a half years before the next General Election must be called this model is unlikely to represent anything close to the ultimate result and should not be seen as a projection of the election.

As well as not knowing what might happen between now and 2029, we also don’t know which parties will stand in different seats, what tactical voting might look like exactly and who will ultimately turn out to vote. What’s more, the degree of electoral fragmentation makes individual seat dynamics even more difficult to project than previously.

Instead this model provides a baseline for how the electorate has fragmented since the last General Election and what the implications of that might be for the make up of a future Parliament. We will continue to update it throughout the next Parliament and introduce new data as it becomes available.

Why does the model show X party winning in Y constituency?

MRP models are a good way to estimate how the parties might perform across different constituencies based on their demographic makeup. However, they don’t account for local factors that impact a small number of constituencies, such as a popular incumbent, well known or controversial council policy. These factors make it difficult to predict exact vote shares even in the best of times, but even more so when three parties are polling at over 20%, making three-way races more common. Therefore it would be a mistake to draw too much from the estimated vote share in an individual constituency.