More in Common's July MRP

Key findings

• Reform UK would be projected to become the largest party with 290 seats, emerging as the clear frontrunner in a multi party race.
  
  
• Labour is second on 126 seats - losing 285 of the seats they won just a year ago and leaving them with fewer than half as many seats as Reform.
  
  
• Conservatives take third place - their number of MPs falling to double figures, putting them just 8 seats ahead of the Liberal Democrats.
  
  
• The SNP are building back their strength almost to 2019 levels - taking 42 out of 57 Scottish seats.

Party	Seat count	Change from 2024 result	Vote share
Reform UK	290	+285	28%
Labour	126	-285	22%
Conservative	81	-40	21%
Liberal Democrat	73	+1	15%
SNP	42	+33	3%
Other	8	+2	2%
Green	7	+3	8%
Plaid Cymru	4	-	1%

Reform has eroded Labour’s 2024 gains

Reform have been able to capitalise on momentum from successful local election results - in April we projected Reform could win 180 seats, they have continued to gain strength in the last few months with a further 110 constituencies that could elect a Reform MP.

Most of Reform’s gains come from Labour-held seats. They have advanced in seats Labour gains - taking 136 of the seats that Labour gained from the Conservatives in 2024.

Reform is also managing to grow support in Conservative areas - winning 59 seats that the Tories held in 2024.

A clear frontrunner emerges

In April we projected a more fragmented parliament - with Reform, Labour and the Conservatives vying to be the largest party each with between 165 and 180 seats. In today’s projection Reform emerges as the clear frontrunner. In the last More in Common MRP model, Reform were gaining seats with an average margin of 9%. In the current projection they have widened this gap - their gains now have them ahead by an average margin of 14%.

If this projected result were the outcome of an election, it would mean a hung parliament with Reform 36 seats short of a majority (their projection is only 16 seats away from David Cameron’s Conservative party in 2010). 

 

Yet the vote share of the main parties remains historically low. Labour won the General Election on an efficiently-distributed 34% of the vote - 6 points more than Reform’s vote share based on this projection. To win the next election - Reform will either need to expand their vote share by wooing new voters, or make the distribution of their vote more efficient by finding votes in unlikely places.

Labour losses flip directly to Reform

Labour’s main losses are to Reform - 223 seats directly flip from Labour to Reform, including many long-standing Labour constituencies in the North of England and in Wales. Under this projection, you could walk from Workington to Hartlepool, and then all the way down the East of England to Clacton without leaving a Reform seat.

• The SNP take a further 31 seats from Labour while the Conservatives take 25.
• In this projection,  a majority of cabinet ministers stand to lose their seats:
• Angela Rayner
• Rachel Reeves
• Pat McFadden
• Yvette Cooper
• John Healey
• Wes Streeting
• Bridget Phillipson
• Ed Miliband
• Liz Kendall
• Jonathan Reynolds
• Heidi Alexander
• Lisa Nandy
• Hilary Benn
  
  
• The main reason voters give for turning away from Labour - regardless of who they would vote for instead - is broken promises and u-turns on previous commitments. More than a third (36 per cent) select this as a reason. Also high on the list is failing to deliver on the cost of living (31 per cent), and their changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance (27 per cent). Labour’s defectors to Reform cite failures on immigration as a driving factor, while Labour’s progressive defectors point to cuts to disability benefits.

SNP projected to make an electoral comeback

After near-extinction in 2024, with just nine MPs in Westminster, the SNP are now projected to take 42 out of 59 Scottish seats - nearly returning to their 2019 strength.

31 of these come at the expense of Labour - while two are taken from the Conservatives and one from the Liberal Democrats.

Conservatives lose a third of their seats

Though some assumed the Conservatives loss of seats in last year’s elections represented their electoral floor, this new projection suggests they could stand to lose a further 40 seats.

These seats are mostly taken by Reform - including seats like Gainsborough and Louth and Horncastle which have been Conservative-held for a century.

Under this projection one in two Conservative frontbenchers would lose their seats, including the Shadow Health Secretary (Edward Argar) and Shadow Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Atkins).

Though the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are close in terms of seat count, where the Conservatives lose it tends to be a closer race - the Conservatives are within 5 points of the winner in 59 seats compared to the Liberal Democrats’ 14.

Liberal Democrats are holding steady

Support for the Liberal Democrats has remained relatively stable over this year.

The Conservatives remain the main challengers in Liberal Democrat-held seats. Reform take an average of 18% of the vote in their seats - ten points lower than the national average.

More in Common's UK Director Luke Tryl said:

"It is an unhappy Birthday for the Prime Minister, his personal approval has hit an all time low, while Britons blame him rather than his Chancellor for the welfare mess and think he has lost control of his party.

Meanwhile our new MRP shows Reform UK as the big winners from the Government’s failures. Although we are a long way from an election and much will change between, Nigel Farage’s Party are demonstrating that they are now close to the level where they could command an outright majority. Britain's political landscape has transformed entirely from just a year ago."

FAQs and Methodology

The MRP model was based on a sample of 11,282 people (representative of British adults) surveyed between 13 and 30 June 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.

How does this model differ from More in Common’s previous models?

A key part of MRP is the post-stratification, which applies predictions to a dataframe of who lives in each constituency. Our post-stratification frame relies on demographic data from the census, which is then extended using data from the British Election Study Post-Election Random Probability Survey which allows us to model which types of people voted for different parties in previous elections.

As the British Election Study Post-Election Random Probability Survey for the 2024 General Election is not yet available, we have used our post-election polling to approximate the demographic characteristics of those who voted in 2024. This is the best currently available data that we have but we will update our post-stratification frame once the BES data for 2024 is available.

Our voting intention polls during the 2024 General Election campaign used the actual candidates who were running in the respondent’s constituency - this model assumes that all parties are fielding a candidate in each constituency.

As a modification from our MRP model in December, the model now adjusts the performance of smaller parties where the model detects local dynamics led to a relative over-performance at the General Election. For example, this has the effect of boosting Liberal Democrat vote shares in certain constituencies.

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.