Will the Right heed the warning from Gorton and Denton?
DONNA RACHEL
We have a new Green MP in Gorton and Denton, much to the palpable shock of Reform whose candidate only a few months ago was gleefully predicting a teal tsunami| at the next general election.
Reform were always going to have a challenge before them in Gorton and Denton. Although they came second here in the 2024 election, they were a long way off. The seat was Labour’s 38th safest seat in the country.
Consequently people are already dismissing this result as inevitable and not a problem for Reform. That’s a mistake.
Electoral Calculus holds a ‘sorted seat’ list, which uses the predicted difference between Labour and Reform votes to identify both safe seats and key battleground seats for each party. Gorton and Denton is a battleground seat on that list, ranked 148 for Labour, and 236 for Reform. In other words, a loss in this seat means that Labour are predicted to win 148 seats or fewer at the next election, and Reform 236 seats or fewer.
Not only is that not a tsunami of any sort, it’s not even a majority.
This by-election is (hopefully!) a wake up call, but it shouldn’t have been. The picture was the same in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election last year. That race was won by Reform’s Sarah Pochin, giving the impression that Reform are on track for that teal tsunami, but the underlying figures tell a very different story and the party really should have picked up on that.
Runcorn and Helsby is the strongest possible test case for Reform: a post-industrial, predominantly white, Leave-leaning seat where national polling puts the party more than nine points clear of Labour. If the teal maps are right, Reform should be winning seats like Runcorn comfortably.
Reform won by six votes.
Six. Out of 32,655 cast. In a seat where they should have been dominant. Where Labour’s candidate was standing in the shadow of a predecessor convicted of assault. Where the incumbent government was deeply unpopular. Where turnout dropped fourteen points from the general election. Reform’s national polling lead should have produced a comfortable margin, instead they won the closest post-war by-election in British history, a result so tight it required a recount and hinged on a margin smaller than the number of spoiled ballots.
What these two by elections tell us is simple: the Reform majority government the polls predict is a mirage. The teal tsunami will be a washout.
The most likely outcome at the next general election is a hung parliament, and a left-wing coalition government.
To understand why, we have to look at three factors eating away at Reform’s vote. But first, let’s start with a baseline picture: what the polling tells us should happen.
The Baseline
Here’s the seven poll rolling average for the main parties since July 2024:
In January, More In Common polled over 16,000 people on voting intention, and created a seat by seat Multilevel Regression with Post-stratification (MRP) projection for the next general election. As they explain: the MRP “uses data from a voting intention poll to model how people will vote based on their demographics, previous 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 prediction. The model is ‘multilevel’ because it uses both individual and constituency-level data.”
It predicted that Reform would win 381 seats on 31 per cent of the vote, giving them a majority of 114 MPs. This is the baseline we are working from.
It’s worth noting that in its constituency by constituency breakdown, More In Common predicted the following for Gorton and Denton:
Reform 30.0%
Labour 28.3%
Green 23.1%
Conservative 8.7%
Liberal Democrat 7.7%
Obviously, that didn’t happen.
The Cascade
What follows is am attempt to quantify the effects of three different phenomena which challenge Reform’s apparent lead:
- Reform’s ground game, which is lacking.
- The Muslim Vote, which is tactical and organised.
- The right wing split with Advance and Restore.
Together these create a cascade effect, eating away at Reform’s seat projection until the party falls far short of the 325 seats required to form a majority — so far that even a coalition with the Conservatives becomes impossible.
The methodology is straightforward: using Claude AI’s Opus 4.6 Extended model, I took the published More In Common projection as a baseline and applied three successive corrections. Claude drew upon: vote efficiency data from the British Election Study; constituency-level demographic data from the 2021 census, the Henry Jackson Society and The Muslim Vote; tactical voting research from YouGov; and the organisational profiles of the competing parties. The assumptions were then tested against the two by-election results to calibrate.
The result is not an exact seat prediction — elections three years hence are too uncertain for that, and constituency level predictions based on these factors would need more granular data to have any hope of being accurate. Rather, what’s presented here is an analytical framework for understanding why polls are not seats, and why the gap between the two is likely to be very large.
Stage 1: The Ground Game
The most basic flaw with the polling predictions is so fundamental to how politics works and has always worked in Britain , it’s actually shocking to me that no one is making any attempt to factor it in. Bluntly, the map projections assume that polling translates into seats at a roughly uniform rate. Under first-past-the-post, it doesn’t.
It never has. Local campaigning has always had the potential to buck a national trend, but as the party political landscape has grown more crowded and chaotic, there is vastly more scope for anomalous results to arise — just look at Gorton and Denton.
The level to which this factor is overlooked is crazy given the results of the 2024 election. It’s almost as though no one wants to look. We all know by now that Reform won five seats at the last election. In total across all constituencies, they secured 4,117,610 votes (14.3%)
The Liberal Democrats won 3,519,143 votes (12.2%) and currently have seventy two sitting MPs.
4,117,610 votes —> 5 MPs.
3,519,143 votes —> 72 MPs.
That’s the difference a good ground game makes.
That result was the product of something MRP models cannot measure: the difference between a vote backed by a canvasser, a leaflet, decades of community politics infrastructure, and a bar chart telling you this is a two-horse race, versus a vote backed by nothing but a polling number and a vibe.
The British Election Study found that 46% of all Lib Dem votes were concentrated in the 72 seats they won. Nearly half their national vote was doing useful work. Reform’s votes were spread thinly and evenly everywhere, producing impressive-looking percentages and almost no victories.
A third of Reformers did no campaigning in that election, but even among those who did, efforts were overwhelmingly concentrated online. The party lagged behind all the others when it came to getting activists out on the streets to leaflet and canvass. We can’t entirely blame the party faithful, however; I emailed my local branch offering to leaflet my area for them and they turned me down! They said that the party was paying for the Post Office to deliver leaflets, and were apparently happy to sit at home themselves. I never did see a Reform leaflet in that campaign.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems enter the next election as incumbents in 72 seats, each with a sitting MP, an established office, funding pipelines, and the infrastructure that won those assets. Labour, even diminished, retains the union networks. UNISON published an explicit anti-Reform campaign guide in 2025, directing its 1.3 million members to campaign in constituencies where Reform threatens to win. Those are boots on the ground — canvassers, drivers, envelope-stuffers — in precisely the seats where Reform needs to convert polling leads into actual victories.
Then there’s the tactical voting. YouGov’s February 2026 research found that 63 to 77 per cent of Labour voters say they would switch to the Greens or Liberal Democrats to stop Reform winning their constituency. Compass, the centre-left pressure group, has been coordinating progressive tactical voting since 2017 and claims its recommendations led to 35 of 41 endorsed candidates winning their seats (85%) in 2024. TacticalVote.co.uk and similar websites also provide constituency-level recommendations. More in Common’s own research found that if just 60 per cent of progressive voters voted tactically — a figure well within the range suggested by YouGov’s polling — the result would be a Commons in which Reform falls well short of a majority.
Polling captures none of this, yet it matters.
AI analysis: Reform drops from 381 to approximately 280 seats, 46 short of a majority. The Lib Dems gain on incumbency and community politics infrastructure. Labour gains on union mobilisation networks. Reform loses in every marginal where the difference between winning and losing is organisation, not sentiment.
Stage 2: The Muslim Vote
In 2019, 86% of British Muslims voted Labour. By 2024 that support had already collapsed. A Survation poll conducted before the election found only 43% of Muslims were backing the party. 70% said that the Gaza question would be “very important” in deciding who to back.
The Muslim Vote, an organisation set up in 2023 with the help of the former leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, Jalaluddin Patelby, and Anas Altikriti, CEO of the Cordoba Foundation which has links to The Muslim Brotherhood, has been quick to seize the opportunity to harness the British Muslim vote and direct it towards its chosen candidates.
In a statement released the morning following the 2024 general election, the organisation claimed victory for getting five independent candidates, including Jeremy Corbyn, elected to Parliament — the highest number of independents since 1950.
It also claimed:
Major wins for Lib Dems and Greens who benefited from The Muslim Vote. They have won record seats compared to recent decades (71 [sic] and 4 respectively).
Huge majorities slashed for Wes Streeting, Roshanara Ali, Jess Philips, Keir Starmer just to name a few. These are major lessons in seats the Labour Party was otherwise expected to steamroll. Completely unprecedented.
Key majorities slashed:
– Bethnal Green and Stepney from 37,524 to 1689
– Ilford North has become marginal with 500 votes in it
– Birmingham Yardley has become marginal – 12720 to just 700 votes
– Birmingham Ladywood – 28582 to just 3400
This was not a fluke result. It was the emergence of an organised political force, one that has identified 92 constituencies where Muslims exceed 10% of the electorate, and advises voters which candidate — Green, independent, Your Party — is best placed to win. National polls cannot see it, because The Muslim Vote is not a party. It doesn’t show up when a pollster asks “which party will you vote for?” It operates below the waterline of national polling, in the constituency-level machinery that determines who actually wins seats.
The Muslim Vote endorsed the Green candidate in Gorton and Denton. And the result was not close.
Here’s what that means at scale. In the roughly 20 seats where Muslims are more than 30% of the population, the combined progressive-Muslim vote is so large that Reform cannot win regardless of its national lead. In the approximately 70 further constituencies where Muslims constitute between 10% and 30% of the population, the crucial question is whether the progressive vote consolidates or splits. Gorton says it consolidates. If Gorton is the rule rather than the exception — and every structural incentive points that way — then a significant number of these seats are simply off-limits to Reform.
AI analysis: Adding The Muslim Vote. Layered onto the ground-game-adjusted baseline, TMV constituency coordination drops Reform from approximately 280 to 230 seats, nearly 100 short of a majority. Greens, Your Party, and TMV-endorsed independents gain across London, the West Midlands, Yorkshire, the North West, and the East Midlands.
Stage 3: The Right Wing Split
If the picture wasn’t looking bleak enough, in-fighting on the right has made it even more depressing. Mounting dissatisfaction within the Reform ranks has produced two splinter parties, Advance UK and Restore Britain, that threaten to siphon off just enough votes to collapse Reform’s marginal races.
Neither party has yet been properly tested at the polling booth. Advance won just 154 votes in Gorton, a fraction behind the Monster Raving Loony Party on 159, but the party is less than a year old and has not yet got a proper branch structure up and running. With three years yet to go until the next general election must be called, it has time to build enough infrastructure to stand candidates widely — but not enough to have a reasonable expectation of winning.
A comparison with previous UKIP and Brexit Party results may be illustrative. According to the Commons Library:
“The Reform vote share (14.3%) in 2024 is similar to the UK Independence Party (UKIP) vote share (12.6%) in the 2015 general election when it was led by Nigel Farage, when it won one seat.
“In 2019, the Brexit Party won 2% of the vote share and won no seats. However, it only put forward 275 candidates as it did not stand in the 317 seats previously won by the Conservatives. The party won an average of 5.1% of the vote in seats where they stood candidates.”
Assuming Advance can match this by 2029, it would take an average 3,650 votes in every constituency, easily enough to deny Reform victory in places like Runcorn and Gorton.
Restore is in a similar position; although it is even further behind in its mission to become a proper party capable of fielding candidates, it has fired up an active support base and claims to have attracted tens of thousands of subscribers within days of launching.
The electoral arithmetic is unforgiving. Reform’s projected majority in the polling depends on winning hundreds of seats with pluralities, not majorities. In the More in Common January MRP: “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” This level of disproportionality is only possible because the opposition vote is split four or five ways. But the same logic works in reverse: even a small split in Reform’s own vote could cost it seats in every marginal it’s projected to win. Notably, no right-wing splinter candidate stood in Runcorn and Helsby — yet even without the split, Reform barely won.
AI Analysis: Adding the Right-Wing Split. As the final layer on top of both the ground game correction and the Muslim Vote adjustment, the right-wing split drops Reform from approximately 230 to 185 seats — some 140 short of a majority. The Conservatives are the main beneficiaries as right-wing vote splitting hands marginals back to them, particularly in the South East, East of England, and the South West.
The result is a red-green coalition government from 2029 – 2034.
Why a Pact Isn’t the Answer
The instinctive response on the right will be obvious: if vote-splitting is the problem, then a pre-election pact must be the solution. But a pact treats the symptom, not the cause.
The structural disadvantage facing Reform is not primarily arithmetic, it is ecological. As the analysis above shows, the erosion of Reform’s projected majority happens at three different layers: organisation on the ground, coordinated tactical behaviour within key demographics, and the broader institutional environment in which campaigns are fought. A deal between parties would address only the last-mile question of candidate overlap. It would do nothing to change the terrain on which those candidates compete.
The left’s advantage is precisely that it does not rely on formal pacts. Labour, the Greens, Liberal Democrats, unions, activist networks, community organisers, charities, and demographic campaigns such as The Muslim Vote operate as a loose but mutually reinforcing system. They share data, activists, narratives, and institutional backing. Coordination happens culturally and operationally, not contractually. This is what a mature political ecosystem looks like: a distributed network in which each actor performs a different function but pulls in the same strategic direction. The British right has nothing to match this.
A right-wing electoral pact, by contrast, would be a thin layer of cooperation resting on top of an otherwise fragmented landscape. It might prevent a handful of three-way contests, but it would not create activists where none exist, build community trust, generate candidate pipelines, or supply the institutional reinforcement that converts votes into durable power. The scenario modelling makes this clear: even before the right-wing split is introduced, Reform’s projection has already fallen far short of a majority once organisational and ecosystem factors are accounted for.
In other words, a pact could change who stands where, but it cannot change who shows up, who mobilises, who funds, who frames the debate, or who shapes the local political culture. Those are ecosystem functions, and they are precisely where the right is weakest.
The lesson, then, is not that cooperation is unnecessary, but that it must be deeper than electoral convenience. The left wins without formal alliances because it has spent decades building the connective tissue that makes coordination automatic. If the right wants to compete on equal terms, it must build its own infrastructure: training networks, community organisations, policy pipelines, funding streams, and cultural institutions that persist between elections.
Until that exists, any pact will be a tactical fix applied to a structural deficit. And structural deficits, as the cascade demonstrates, always reassert themselves.
This article (The Next Government Will Be A Red-Green Coalition) was created and published by Donna Rachel and is republished here under “Fair Use”
See Related Article Below
The Gorton and Denton By-Election: An Urgent Wake-Up Call for the Fragmented Right – Unite or Perish
CHARLIE HOWDEN
The by-election in Gorton and Denton was not just a political upset; it was a deafening alarm bell for the patriotic Right in Britain. Triggered by the resignation of Labour MP Andrew Gwynne on health grounds, this patchwork of Manchester Gorton, Manchester Withington, Denton and Reddish has been a Labour bastion for decades. But in a result that should send shockwaves through every conservative-leaning heart, Green Party candidate Hannah Spencer stormed to victory with 14,980 votes, claiming a commanding 40.7% share. Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin trailed in second with 10,578 votes (28.7%), Labour’s Angeliki Stogia plummeted to third with a humiliating 9,364 votes (25.4%) and the Conservatives scraped a pitiful 706 votes (1.9%), with the rest scattered among independents and minor parties. Total ballots cast: around 36,828 from an electorate of 76,524, yielding a turnout of just 48.1%, a hair above the 47.8% in 2024, but still a damning indictment of voter disengagement.
Let us dissect this catastrophe to grasp its full horror. In the 2024 general election Labour romped home with 18,555 votes (50.8%) and a 13,413 majority, so the swings here are nothing short of revolutionary. The Greens exploded by 27.5 percentage points, riding a massive 26.4% swing from Labour. Reform UK nearly doubled its tally, surging 14.6 points in share, tapping into raw populist fury over immigration, economic woes, and foreign entanglements like Gaza. Labour’s collapse, shedding over 9,000 votes and 25.4 points, exposes their fragility, while the Tories’ freefall, losing over three-quarters of their support, signals their irrelevance in this fight. This isn’t mere fluctuation; it’s a battlefield where fragmentation on the Right handed victory to the eco-loonies and Islamists on a platter. Issues like the cost-of-living crisis, unchecked migration, and Labour’s perceived betrayal on international matters ignited this firestorm, but the real story lurks in the shadows: the vast, silent army who refused to vote at all.
With turnout scraping below 50%, more than half of eligible voters in this hideously diverse constituency – home to significant ethnic minorities, including a strong Muslim presence, turned their backs on the ballot box. This is no minor glitch; it’s a crisis screaming for attention, especially from the Right. Many of the stay at homes would have been ex-Toy voters, so clearly, the Right, most especially Reform, has failed to persuade them. The patriotic right must confront this head-on: these non-voters are not necessarily apathetic fools. Many are disillusioned citizens, battered by a system that has failed them repeatedly. Why do they stay away? The reasons are as rational as they are heartbreaking. Economic hardships – soaring bills, job insecurity, and unaffordable housing – foster a deep-seated belief that politics is a rigged game for the elite. In Gorton and Denton, local gripes over crumbling public services and transport meld with national betrayals: Brexit’s unfulfilled promises, Westminster’s tone-deaf foreign policies, and a parade of scandals that shatter trust. Polls echo this across similar areas: “My vote changes nothing,” or “They’re all the same” – these aren’t lazy excuses but hard-earned conclusions from years of broken pledges.
Younger folk and those from working-class backgrounds face practical hurdles too, confusing registration, inaccessible polling stations, or simply feeling invisible in debates dominated by London bubbles. In multicultural hubs like this, community ties can mobilise some around hot-button issues, as the Greens did with Gaza discontent, but for many patriots, the spectacle of negative campaigning and media hysteria turns politics into a toxic circus they’d rather avoid. These are good people who cherish Britain but see no point in engaging a machine that grinds them down. The establishment, that cosy cabal of mainstream parties, bureaucrats, and media, loves this inertia. Low turnout lets them coast on organised votes, dodging the need for real change. But here’s the urgent truth: this disengagement is a goldmine for the Right if they seize it. Time is running out; the patriotic Right must earn these voters’ trust and drag them to the polls, or watch Britain slip further into division and decline.
Compounding this urgency are the dark clouds of alleged electoral foul play, which threaten the very foundations of our democracy. Democracy Volunteers’ observers flagged “extremely high” instances of family voting, that insidious breach of the secret ballot under the 2023 Act, where relatives pressure or accompany voters into booths. They spotted 32 cases across 15 of 22 stations, impacting 12% of observed ballots, the worst in their 10-year record. Nigel Farage of Reform UK branded it a “victory for sectarian voting and cheating,” with chair David Bull vowing police reports. Even Labour’s Anna Turley called it “very concerning,” demanding Electoral Commission probes. Yet Greater Manchester Police claim “no reports” reached them, and the Greens sneer at it as “Trump playbook” smears to delegitimise their win.
We cannot ignore the broader pattern. While fraud is, we are told, infrequent in the UK, but the 2015 Tower Hamlets postal vote scandal in ‘diverse’ (read Muslim) areas remind us of vulnerabilities. Globally, in Islamic nations that permit elections, like think Pakistan or Bangladesh, irregularities like clan voting, intimidation, or stuffing are distressingly routine, as noted by Commonwealth and EU monitors. Alarmingly, such lapses are quietly accepted by swathes of the Left here, who champion ‘inclusivity’ over integrity. The Left’s own chequered record – from US mail-in controversies to UK postal woes, shows cheating knows no ideology, but it’s often excused when it suits. In Gorton and Denton, absent proof of decisive fraud, these reports still corrode faith, pushing more voters into abstention. If unaddressed, this rot will spread, handing elections to the unscrupulous while the Right dithers.
But the gravest threat isn’t fraud; it’s the Right’s suicidal splintering. The patriotic bloc (of members at least) of Reform UK, Restore Britain, Advance UK, UKIP and The Heritage Party, is torn asunder by petty egos and turf wars. Reform’s surge bled the Conservatives: 10,578 votes versus a measly 706, but not badly enough to persuade non-voters to turn out, whether because they see Reform as too ‘extreme’ or not extreme enough is a matter of real interest. This division, however, squanders strength on core battles like secure borders, national sovereignty, economic revival to let the extremist Greens hoover up protest votes. The establishment chuckles: fragmented opposition and stay-at-home voters guarantee their grip.
This is the dire warning: the Right must unite now or face oblivion, together with our nation. Ego clashes over leadership or policy squabbles? Shelve them, sort the squabbles later. A forged alliance could unleash a tidal wave: a bold manifesto tackling voter alienation with ironclad immigration curbs, working-class uplift, and unapologetic patriotism. Rebuild trust through genuine outreach, local heroes as candidates, ear-to-the-ground listening, and zero-tolerance for betrayal. The splintering madness plays straight into establishment paws, who nurture the “stay home” brigade with cynicism-fuelling policies. Remember Aristotle’s timeless wisdom: division invites conquest; unity commands victory. Fail here, and Britain risks irreversible fragmentation, with sectarians and socialists carving up the carcass.
In summation, Gorton and Denton’s by-election is a harbinger of doom unless heeded. The vote dissection exposes swings born of rage, deepened by mass abstention and tainted by fraud whispers. Non-voters aren’t the enemy; they’re the untapped force the right must woo with urgency. Patriotic conservatives: rally together, mobilise the disaffected, storm the booths. The hour is late; inaction means surrender. Unite today, or mourn the nation tomorrow.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
