The recent survey that showed Labour winning a general election by 10,000 votes – if Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri resigned or were fired – has generally been interpreted as good news for Labour. It certainly is good news if you’re Joseph Muscat, a Labour diehard or an MP certain of re-election. However, other Labour MPs, not completely certain of re-election, must have looked at that number with dread.

In ordinary times, a 10,000-vote majority is a handsome victory. But it would translate into a three-seat majority at most, down from the nine-seat majority at the last general election. If the survey is right, six MPs elected on Labour’s ticket are doomed to lose their seats.

Actually, it will be more than six. One or two MPs will lose out to newcomers, as some always do. Six is just the net number. For simplicity’s sake, however, let’s stay with six.

One of them is Marlene Farrugia, obviously. But who are the other five? There are several reasons why it’s difficult to be sure.

First, if the 2013 general election taught MPs anything, it is that few of their seats are completely safe. That election result may have been a great one for Labour, but several of its MPs lost, or almost lost, their seat, including a handful of frontbenchers. This despite a Labour gain of over 20 per cent more seats.

Next, that electoral result was so off the charts that some ‘reversion to the mean’ – as statisticians call mainstream results – is to be expected in 2018. A permanent redrawing of the electoral map seems unlikely now. The highest Labour tide was in the southern districts, so you would expect that, as the tide recedes, most seats will be lost there. But whose?

There are too many unknowns for safe predictions. The retirement of Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca and Karmenu Vella, both huge vote-getters, leaves many votes up for grabs – as might the possible retirement of George Vella and Edward Scicluna (who, remember, won a southern seat).

But the resulting vacuum will not necessarily be filled by sitting MPs. On the contrary, the vacuum entices new entrants into the constituency.

It could be an ambitious minister, like Owen Bonnici, who currently contests only one district but fancies being comfortably elected from two. It could be a non-MP who’s a media personality or who has the spoils of a parastatal chairmanship to distribute.

It could even be Joseph Muscat himself if he decides to shift district to hoover up the glut of votes that used to go to a now-retired popular politician. There are rumours that Muscat is eyeing Vella’s old constituency, perhaps with the twin aim of increasing his tally of personal votes and making sure the Nationalist Party does not exploit the vacuum.

It doesn’t mean that Konrad Mizzi’s tally of votes at the next general election will go down. His halo has been polished by Muscat himself

Such an entry would make an MP dependent on Muscat’s second-preference votes. That means it becomes even more important than usual for that MP to be seen ‘close’ to Muscat, and in his good books.

You might think that among the five MPs at risk of losing their seat there must be the ministers who were forced to step down: so far, Manuel Mallia and Michael Falzon, and soon probably Konrad Mizzi (unless he’s already an ex-minister by the time you read this).

Perhaps. In 2013, Mallia gained many ‘switcher’ votes, a good portion of which he’ll have lost; Falzon even lost his seat and only regained it later. But both resignations were followed by Labour meetings in which each man was lionised as some kind of hero.

Whether all that was pure inconsequential theatre, or whether it conferred a Labour halo, or just simply solidified a sympathy vote, has yet to be seen.

The issue is starkest in the case of Mizzi. Whatever his ministerial fate, his disgraceful behaviour (and Muscat’s prevarication) has lost Labour a lot of votes. But it doesn’t mean that Mizzi’s tally of votes at the next general election (he’s promised to be at the front line) will go down. His halo has been polished by Muscat himself.

It cannot be excluded that others will lose their seats because of Mizzi but that he himself will be returned to Parliament with a bigger vote count.

So, back to the initial question: who are the five (or more) MPs that, as things stand now, look as though they will lose their seats?

No one knows for sure – and that is the salient political point. Almost everyone has reason for some anxiety.

For some, it will be the loss of the switcher vote which last time helped put them over the edge. For others, it will be fear of angry Labour loyalists who look like they might switch to someone new with no baggage. Others might have to contend with a new big shot in their district or a halo effect.

The impact of this environment on Labour’s leadership is paradoxical. On the one hand, it has led to a loss in Muscat’s authority, since his inability to handle Panamagate properly (more so than other scandals) has endangered the re-election of some of his MPs.

However, despite the loss of authority, his MPs are as dependent on him as ever. They might now doubt his judgement, they might privately blame him for their predicament, but they depend on his grace and favour to minimise their chances of being among the five or so who’ll lose their seat.

That is the paradox of Panamagate for Labour. Muscat emerges from it with the authority of his leadership greatly weakened but his power intact.