ELECTION ANALYSIS

So, who won? Well, hopefully we all did in the gambling sense but that election result was probably the first ever that could genuinely be claimed as either a victory or a defeat for all three parties. From a wider political perspective, a sterile and cynical election campaign resulted in another derisory turnout. At 61.3%, just 2% higher than 2001 despite the vast expansion of postal voting, it is clear that often repeated commitments by the political class to re-engage the public have either been wholly ineffective or are merely lip service.

Whereas widespread apathy, boredom or disillusionment with the political process is obvious from the low turnout, those who did vote also registered the biggest rejection of the two main parties in post-WW2 Britain. Labour and the Conservatives managed to poll just 67.7%, compared to 74.7% in 2001 and a peak of 96.1% in 1955. The Liberal Democrats are obviously the main beneficiary of this trend, but minor parties
also now account for over 10% of the vote. Most commentators have noted that Britain’s first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system has again delivered a perverse result in terms of the distribution of parliamentary seats, with Labour attaining 55% of the seats on only a 35% share of the vote. The FPTP system clearly encourages voters to choose either Labour or Conservative so one has to wonder just how badly they might perform under proportional representation. Both are beginning to resemble professional political machines whose reasons for existence are disappearing along with their mass memberships.

Labour are justified in celebrating an historic third term. Despite the loss of seats and further erosion of their vote to the left-leaning Liberal Democrats, the government still managed a comfortable win despite the inevitable hostility generated by long-term incumbency and crippling controversies such as the war in Iraq, the introduction of tuition fees and a chaotic immigration system. However, the consensus amongst most non-partisan commentators is that the victory was achieved in spite of Tony Blair, whose popularity has diminished considerably over the last 8 years. Power within the Labour Party has now shifted irredeemably to Gordon Brown, who will surely take over the leadership at some stage during this term. My reckoning is that Blair will resign after a catastrophic defeat in next year’s referendum on the EU constitution, should it take place. Even without that, Blair will do very well to last into 2007.

Brown will inherit an electoral headache ahead of the next election. Though it remains possible at this stage that Labour may be able to reclaim some of its lost votes next time under a different leader in different circumstances, one has to expect that after 3 terms in these disillusioned times, more voters will be looking for a change. After this result there are dozens of Labour seats now held by a very small majority that will probably fall to the Tories next time. Most notably in Kent, Labour managed wafer thin victories in Gillingham, Dartford, Medway, Sittingbourne & Sheppey and Thanet South and will do extremely well to hold on next time in such seats.

The wider long-term problem for Labour, though, is their disconnection with traditional working-class voters. The trend across Labour’s industrial heartlands is desperately low turnout accompanied by pincer movement from the Lib Dems on the Left and in some areas a surge in support for the BNP on the Right. The New Labour project appeared to take such voters for granted and its metropolitan leadership seems to have no idea how to communicate its message to them. While redistribution has remained central amongst Labour policies, the party’s lack of willingness to talk about it and failure to adopt the language of the Left means the issue has lost electoral salience. Very few voters seem aware of the redistributive nature of tuition fees, tax credits or the Sure Start nursery scheme, for example. During the campaign, while the Tories and their media allies were able to complain endlessly about increased taxation as if the burden was equally shared, Labour were unable to press the point that vast swathes of families on low pay were better off under the tax credits system. Equally, I didn’t notice much media or government scrutiny of the Tory plans for public services, which amount to little more than redistribution from poor to rich.

Here lies the central problem facing New Labour. Blair has moulded an electoral machine that attempts to appeal to all sections of society with an ideology-lite brand of managerialism. While this is all well and good when in opposition or the early days of government, a political party or movement requires a clear set of principles that the public permanently associate with it. Brownites like Foreign Office Minister Douglas Alexander and Robin Cook seem to understand this better than many of their counterparts, arguing for the government to reclaim the moral high ground with value-driven policies that would stress Labour’s timeless commitment to social justice. I wish them the best of luck but they will have their work cut out setting this agenda so late into a Labour government that has almost certainly passed its peak of popularity.

As for the Tories, despite a controversial election campaign Michael Howard does deserve some credit for his management of the party. I’m sure most of their supporters would have settled for a gain of 32 seats when Iain Duncan-Smith was leader two years ago. The party’s campaigning machine looks far advanced from 2001. Swing seats were ruthlessly and successfully targeted and a credible slate of candidates resulted in numerous new faces whose task will be to modernise the parliamentary party’s staid image.

Smart campaigning tactics have disguised the scale of the task still faced by the Tories, though. The party’s share of the vote flat-lined again at 33%, more or less the level it has been at since 1992. Again, its focus on core issues such as tax and immigration has rendered the party unelectable to many centrist voters, particularly outside the South-East. The seats they gained were mostly a result of either the swing away from Labour to the Lib Dems (largely due to Iraq, so far from certain to be repeated next time) or dissatisfaction with Labour in the overcrowded, overpriced South-East. In order to form a government, the opposition have to do a lot more than simply capitalise on discontent, and there is little evidence to suggest a credible alternative agenda that could appeal to a majority of Britons is around the corner. With a potentially divisive leadership contest now under way, where the irreconcilable differences between traditionalists and modernisers will rise to the fore again, Tory prospects still look pretty bleak.

Next time, boundary changes should guarantee an increase in the number of Tory MPs, as some of the pro-Labour bias in the current electoral map is reduced. But even if, using the most positive estimates, this can yield another 30 seats, it still doesn’t look feasible that the Tories could win the 324 seats required to form an overall majority. My initial calculations suggest that there are now 88 Labour seats that they can realistically target, but in practice they will do well to increase their tally by more than 50. Again, the Tories made less headway the further one travels from London, obtaining less than 30% in every region north of the East Midlands. 25 years of what former Tory minister Lord Gilmour describes as “One-nation in the South-East Conservatism” has clearly left its mark.

At the heart of the leadership debate will be the question of whether the Conservative Party chooses to move back towards the centre-ground of British politics in terms of both policy and language. My suspicion is that they will again reject such an approach and prefer to continue as a socially authoritarian, Eurosceptic, low-tax party that talks endlessly about crime and immigration. If so, it will be difficult to engage the millions that have deserted them since 1992. Furthermore if they begin to be perceived as a potential government, (unlike this time where Labour supporters felt free to abstain or register a protest), then they will leave themselves open again to tactical voting from moderate and left-wing voters.

One of the issues left open to debate is exactly who won the battle between the Tories and the Lib Dems. Indeed, interpretation of that answer is central to how each party shapes its future strategy. Many commentators have seized on Lib Dem losses in places such as Guildford and Newbury plus the failure of the decapitation strategy in Maidenhead, Dorset West and Haltemprice and Howden as evidence of the danger of Charles Kennedy’s left-wing stance on tax. There is almost certainly some merit in this but it only tells part of the story. The Lib Dems will indeed be very disappointed by the clear swing away from them in Surrey, but will equally be delighted to have held on to Romsey, Cheadle and particularly with the stunning gain of Solihull.

Its very hard to judge the decapitation strategy as it may well be the case that David Davis, Oliver Letwin and Theresa May were rewarded for campaigning much harder in their own constituencies than previously, while Michael Howard clearly benefited from the electoral boost that party leaders always tend to receive. Elsewhere, apart from the ‘Surrey swing’ and the overall net gain of 2 seats the Tories enjoyed, it is possible to argue that the Lib Dems actually came off better in the battle. There were four tight three-way marginals where voters had a clear opportunity to choose which party they preferred to Labour. In Bristol West, Falmouth & Cranbourne and Leeds North West the Lib Dems won, while Labour held Watford. The most notable fact was that in all of them the Tories finished third.

Despite the relatively small improvement in the number of seats won by the Lib Dems, I would argue they had the best night of the three main parties. Optimists had been talking about 75 or more seats but, as I argued in my election betting guide, there really weren’t that many realistic targets. 62 is admittedly the low end of expectations but the Lib Dem strategy is primarily about the long-term. Their dominance of the student vote suggests they are continuing to thrive among younger voters that will bode well for future elections with generational replacement, but the most promising aspect of the 2005 election is their growing foothold in the cities.

Just as Tory supporters appear to be vacating the main urban centres outside London, the Lib Dems are growing and could present a genuine threat to Labour in such areas in future elections. The party’s strategy is clear. Firstly, gain council representation and then gradually establish a presence using their army of young activists and constant propaganda via the Focus newsletters. As the party’s profile rises and campaigning spreads across local constituency borders, they begin to be taken more seriously as an alternative vote to the two dominant parties. After this election, the number of seats where the Lib Dems are in second place and therefore the main threat has risen considerably – even if most seats where Labour is the target they will start from a long way behind. Time and again we have seen how much better the Lib Dems do when they are seen by voters as having a chance and not as a wasted vote. I strongly fancy them to again increase their seats total again next time and genuinely bring about an era of three-party politics. At the very least, they are capable of scaring Labour in their heartlands and ensure that government doesn’t take such voters for granted.

Since the election, there has been a fair bit of media discussion about the unfair electoral system and the case for proportional representation though this now seems to be restricted to the campaign in the Independent. I’ve always been an advocate of PR and frankly, I can’t see how any fair-minded individual that could defend a system that grants 85% of the seats to two parties that received 67% of the vote (and this is before we get on to the subject of the ludicrously unfair distribution in favour of the government). The difference now is that the pragmatic electoral case for reform should be clear to all three parties. The Tories look unlikely to ever win enough seats to form a majority on their own without a radical shift in their positioning. The Lib Dems clearly need PR as the only way of receiving the seat share that their vote share deserves. And now Labour, with the boundary changes looming, must surely be tempted to forge an alliance with the Lib Dems that would probably deliver a permanent progressive coalition government rather than wait for the electorate to use the country’s bizarre electoral system to give them a kicking. First past the post works well in a two-party system, but is an anachronism in a multi-party system, that we now very clearly have. Sadly, I’m not holding my breath for the day Labour and the Tories actually realise this.

P.S.

Apologies to the Nationalist parties, whom I’ve overlooked. This is basically because their scope is so clearly limited. The SNP performed well in their target seats if poorly overall but remain unlikely to ever seriously contest more than about 8 seats while for PC the number is even fewer. Northern Ireland, on the other hand, remains fascinating but not particularly relevant to this article which is mainly concerned with the battle between the three main parties of mainland Britain who don’t compete there.

THE ULTIMATE GENERAL ELECTION BETTING GUIDE

The only problem with betting on a General Election is that they only come around once every 4 years. Along with other forms of novelty betting such as the Eurovision Song Contest, political betting really can be a licence to print money if you’re prepared to put in the necessary research. Unlike sports betting, where no matter how much shrewd research you put in your fate can still hang on the width of a crossbar, a lucky bounce off a tree or a fall at the final fence, there is nowhere near the potential for an upset in politics. We know, for example, that at least two thirds of all constituencies will remain with the same party. The vast majority of people usually vote for the same party so in order to work out where the changes will occur, our focus is mainly based on the behaviour of the relatively small percentage of floating voters.

The most obvious market to bet on is which party will win the most seats. However, as odds of 1/20 at best on Labour imply, this is a waste of time unless you’re prepared to lay out thousands in order to buy money – though in reality there are very few better ways of making 5% profit in less than a week. For the value-seeking punter though, it makes much more sense to look at the various speciality markets available such as the number of seats won by each party, the size of Labour majority, individual constituencies and other specialities that I will mention in due course. At the bottom of this article, I’ve listed all the seats that I think still have a good chance of changing hands .But first, here’s an overview of the three parties and their prospects.

After 3 weeks of the election campaign, the polls look fairly consistent and unlikely to change much in the next week. In fact, the polls have fluctuated very little since Black Wednesday in 1992, when the Conservatives’ ERM policy imploded and the party’s long-held reputation for economic competence disappeared in an instant. Since that moment, aside the odd bizarre week such as the 2000 fuel protests, the Tories have rarely polled more than 35%. As Labour have proved their own economic competence in government and successive Tory leaderships’ have shifted their language and policies to the right, the Tories’ ratings have remained virtually static.

To make matters worse, one of the many poisoned chalices left over from the catastrophic Major era is an electoral system massively slanted against the Tories in favour of Labour. Just what was going through the mind of Major’s negotiating team at the last boundaries commission is anyone’s guess. Their problems are compounded by demographic trends that mean the Tory vote is disproportionately concentrated in rural and suburban areas, limiting the number of seats they can hope to challenge in. The party’s presence, in terms of both supporters and activists, is virtually non-existent in vast swathes of urban Britain. It is estimated that the party needs a lead of at least 7% in order to gain a majority. Moreover, even if the two main parties receive an identical share of the vote on 37%, Baxter’s online electoral calculus estimates that Labour would gain 347 seats as opposed to the Conservatives’ 223.

So it seems an absolute certainty that Labour will poll the most votes and win the most seats, and very close to a certainty that they will gain a majority. Using the useful calculator available on www.electoralcalculus.co.uk this would be the overall distribution of votes and seats if average recent polls were replicated on Thursday.

LABOUR 39% - 391 SEATS
CONSERVATIVE 33% - 172 SEATS
LIBERAL DEMOCRAT – 21% - 55 SEATS

However, using that kind of methodology alone for calculating seat totals, which incidentally is very similar to the methods used by every TV station, has its drawbacks and ignores a number of useful relevant factors.

Firstly, the seats are distributed according to the overall national swing, ignoring any differentials amongst the regions. In reality of course, each seat is an individual constituency with local issues and trends that may differ from the national average. For example, it is plainly apparent from general and by-elections since the early 1990s that the Tory vote has all but disappeared in Scotland, Wales, the North of England and inner cities. Yet the party managed to make gains in Essex last time, contrary to the national trends. Likewise, since the Iraq war Labour support has collapsed amongst Muslims, students and to a lesser extent, the liberal professional middle classes, groups that aren’t evenly spread across constituencies.

Another problem is that methodology such as this fails to account for differential turnout, which looks certain to be an issue this time. While Tory sympathisers, more likely to be motivated to help oust Blair, are almost certain to vote whilst Labour sympathisers are less likely to vote – either in protest at the Iraq war and the government’s general right-wing direction or out of the widely held view that their vote is unimportant as Labour are so far ahead in the polls. Turnout will be absolutely critical to the final seat totals as the latest MORI poll implies. When asking all respondents naming a party, Labour holds an impressive 10 point lead. But amongst those certain to vote their lead slips to a paltry 2%.

There is also the conundrum to solve of how efficient the polls will be. In past elections, the Conservative vote has been consistently underestimated, for a variety of reasons that I won’t go into here. All the polling companies have adjusted their methods to take this into account but it would take a very brave man to bet against a repeat performance. More important is probably the tendency to wildly overstate Labour support. Prior to 2003 and the Iraq conflict, Labour regularly polled in the mid-40s with a high of 48% during the last election campaign yet only ended up with 42%. In monthly MORI polls since June 2003, Labour have only managed to poll 40% four times and have never managed higher.

So clearly Labour has lost some support, and all the evidence points to the Liberal Democrats as the sole beneficiaries. While Charles Kennedy’s party managed just 19% in 2001, it now regularly polls around 22%, approximately the same increase as Labour’s decline. Which brings me nicely to the final critical factor to take into account – tactical voting. In 1997 and 2001, a tactical alliance was clearly established between many Labour and Lib Dem voters where each voted for the party most likely to oust or keep out the Tories in an individual seat. Whereas Labour defectors to the Lib Dems can reasonably be expected to behave the same way again in line with the national transfer between the two parties, it seems rather unlikely that natural Lib Dems will tactically vote for Blair again. In fact, this time we may see natural Lib Dems tactically voting Tory to oust Labour candidates, though there is little suggestion of it.

LABOUR

I’ve now looked at every single marginal seat in the country and estimated the threat of a Tory revival or a tactical switch in each. In my opinion, Labour remain extremely vulnerable in up to a maximum of 56 seats, though it is unlikely they would lose all of them. However I do expect at least 30 seats to be lost which means I expect the potential range for Labour seats to be between 344-370. My current exact prediction is 359 seats, which would give Blair a majority of 72. As I mentioned earlier, there isn’t anywhere near the volatility in political betting as is found with sports so prices around 5/1 for 351-360 and 360-370 should not be overlooked.

There are several constituencies around that look like Labour bankers, but they are all at prohibitive odds. TYNEMOUTH at 4/11 (Skybet), BIRMINGHAM EDGBASTON at 1/2 (Ladbrokes) and GRAVESHAM at 8/13 (Skybet), look the best three for big hitters.

ADVISED BETS

5pts LABOUR TO GET 351-360 SEATS @ 9/2
5pts LABOUR TO GET 361-370 SEATS @ 9/2
(www.williamhill.co.uk or www.betfair.com)

5pts LABOUR MAJORITY BETWEEN 61 & 80 @ 9/2 (BETFAIR)


CONSERVATIVES

With the government apparently out of touch with public opinion on immigration, the EU, tuition fees and Iraq, one might expect the natural consequence to be a resurgence in support for the Conservatives. Certainly, after the 2 worst election results in the party’s history in 1997 and 2001, the only way should be up. However, they are hampered by two crucial factors.

Aside the aforementioned bias in the current electoral system caused by demographic factors, the second major problem facing the party is a complete inability to communicate with the wider electorate beyond their core vote of 32-34%. While this section of the country loyally turns out to vote Tory at every general, local or European election, the rest of the country seems disinterested. Since Black Wednesday, the party has failed to achieve more than 37% in any single monthly Mori poll (aside a handful of ‘certain to vote’ polls that registered 39% earlier this year).

It seems that from this election campaign, Michael Howard has still to learn the lessons from previous elections. In 2001, William Hague failed to make progress of any significance from the party’s disastrous showing in 1997 after running a right-wing campaign on immigration, Europe and crime that excited his party’s existing supporters but turned the rest of the country off, leaving Blair and New Labour to dominate the centre-ground where most floating voters reside. As their support has stagnated since the beginning of the campaign, it looks like Howard’s repetition of an identical agenda to that of his predecessor has had a similar effect.

Realistically, the best the party can hope for is around 35-36% of the vote, which will only result in a moderate number of seats gained (Baxter estimates 35% = 195 seats). However, a ray of hope appears when we look at the issues of turnout and tactical voting. Recent polls by MORI suggest 72% of Tory voters are certain to vote as opposed to only 55% of Labour voters. While this wouldn’t be enough to turn around the big deficits in many Labour held seats, it should be critical in the close marginals. In my view, in seats like KETTERING, DORSET SOUTH, and BRAINTREE, where Labour’s majority is wafer-thin, the Conservatives will be very hard to beat. The party has enjoyed success in just about every minor election since 1997 for exactly these same reasons of turnout - which has probably given party strategists unjustified confidence about the party’s direction. With the latest turnout predictions around 57%, the Tories are the sole beneficiaries.

The problem with backing any of the three seats mentioned above is the prohibitive price. Along with most of the other confident gains listed at the bottom of this article, we’re looking at heavy odds-on in such places, a risk I’m not interested in taking considering the Conservative Party’s enduring unpopularity. However, I would be surprised if they fail to make a few gains in the South-East. Their campaign against immigration and failing public services has far more resonance in this overcrowded part of the country. Seats in Essex and Kent now held by Labour were almost all staunchly Thatcherite in the 1980s and clearly that part of Britain doesn’t share the negative associations of the Tory era with so much of the rest of the country. I would be shocked if they fail to take HORNCHURCH, BRAINTREE and THANET SOUTH. Sadly, all of these seats are too short to justify a bet. Overall, I think the potential range for the Tory’s seats total is a narrow 185-203, which makes the 181-200 band tremendous value in what isn’t a particularly volatile market.

The best seats to back the Tories in are places that look less likely at first glance such as WIMBLEDON, ANGUS and FOREST OF DEAN. In Wimbledon, they polled a respectable 36.6% in 2001, 4% above their national total so clearly a permanent Tory vote resides in the area. This is one of those typical marginals that would have be unconsidered as a Labour target until 1997, but then proceeded to deliver Blair an increased majority in 2001. The problem for Labour is that they may well have benefited from tactical voting in the past and the profile of much Labour support here is liberal professional middle class, exactly the type of voter flirting with the Lib Dems at this stage. Local results since 2001 suggest a fragmentation of the left-wing vote towards the Lib Dems and the Greens. Clearly, a General Election is a very different sort of contest, but Labour will have their work cut out to maintain their coalition in this area against a solid Tory vote.

In Angus, the redrawn boundaries appear to have created a very tight SNP/Tory marginal. With the SNP by no means certain to get their vote out for Westminster elections and recent polls implying a mini-revival for the Scottish Tories, they shouldn’t be outsiders for the seat and 6/4 looks worthy of a small punt.

No Labour government has ever won a majority without winning Forest Of Dean, but demographic changes in this part of the world appear to favour the opposition. The Tories managed a decent 4% swing here in 2001 and have dominated local politics since. Labour are struggling badly in rural areas and their cause is not furthered at all by the retirement of popular sitting MP, Diana Organ.

BETS ADVISED

10pts CONSERVATIVES TO WIN BETWEEN 181-200 SEATS @ 5/2 (www.totesport.com)

4pts WIMBLEDON @ 5/4 (www.bluesq.com)
4pts ANGUS @ 6/4 (HILLS)
3pts FOREST OF DEAN @ 5/6 (HILLS)

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

In my opinion, the key to successful constituency betting at this election is finding the banker Lib Dem targets. Everything is in their favour this time. The unpopularity of the government (particularly on its left flank), the Tory shift away from the centre ground and a widespread distrust of mainstream politics have all combined to give the Lib Dems their best electoral prospects in decades.

Unfortunately for Charles Kennedy, his party suffers more than anyone with Britain’s perverse electoral system. Despite regularly polling around 22% in the national polls, even a dream result on Thursday would only yield 15% of the total seats in Parliament. I would be shocked if they failed to get 60 seats, 7 more than their present total, but equally doubt they can top 70 seats. Clearly this makes 9/4 about a 61-70 margin with www.totesport.com an obvious bet.

The best strategy though is to back the awesome Lib Dem electoral machine to triumph in its key marginals. Buoyed by a growing young and active membership the party have become ruthlessly efficient at winning key marginal seats. Since the mid-90s, it has been mostly the Tories have suffered as a consequence but the by-election results in Brent East and Leicester South suggest the party is ready to make inroads into Labour territory as well.

I expect several Lib Dem gains from Labour this time around. The most obvious is CARDIFF CENTRAL where a large student vote is ready to punish the government for tuition fees, though the best odds of 1/4 make little appeal. According to a poll for Newsnight, among students certain to vote, the Lib Dems have an impressive 24% lead. This kind of stat implies Cardiff Central is an absolute mortgage job but there are bigger-priced alternatives available too. Eagle-eyed viewers of the Newsnight student house may have noticed the poll in this week’s local paper that suggests the Lib Dems are winning BRISTOL WEST. 40% of this constituency are students from the 2 universities in the area, while much of the rest of the Labour vote falls into the wavering professional, educated middle class category. Its far from certain exactly what will happen in this seat but the Lib Dems should certainly start favourites and well worth a bet at 6/4 with Hills.

Other areas where middle-class Labour support is expected to switch are CAMBRIDGE, HORNSEY AND WOOD GREEN and ISLINGTON SOUTH. All of these 3 will require a substantial swing so cannot be counted as bankers like the previous two recommendations. Of the 3, 15/8 about a LD victory in Islington looks the best. I’m also predicting Lib Dem gains at Labour’s expense in BIRMINGHAM YARDLEY and OLDHAM-EAST AND SADDLEWORTH. In Scotland, my calculation is a net gain of 3 seats, of which the best looks ABERDEEN SOUTH. Sadly, no bookie has priced this up just yet so keep an eye out in case that changes nearer to the day. Instead, we should back them to win the newly redrawn constituency of INVERNESS, NAIRN, BADENOCH and STRATHSPEY at 8/11 with Hills. In return, their by-election gain in Leicester South looks vulnerable to a Labour comeback but I reckon Sarah Teather will hold on to BRENT-EAST.

Arguably the most interesting battleground of this election is the Tory v Lib Dem contest taking place in around 20 marginals. The results of these are absolutely central to the respective parties’ prospects. There are quite a few more seats where the Tories are challenging to overturn small majorities than the reverse, but the overall national position at present suggests that they will struggle to gain more than a couple. These could very easily be offset by the Lib Dems’ ‘decapitation’ strategy, where they are pursuing several high profile Tories in their own seats. David Davis, Oliver Letwin, Theresa May, Tim Collins and even leader Michael Howard are all vulnerable. Howard shouldn’t have too much trouble and I’m very tentatively going for Letwin, Davis and Collins to hang on by their fingertips. May, however, looks extremely vulnerable in MAIDENHEAD, where we can still get a very tasty looking 7/4 about an upset. Since unexpectedly slashing her huge lead in 2001, the Lib Dems have surged in the area. The 2003 local elections yielded a 15% lead and there are plenty of potential tactical Labour defections for the party to claim.It all suggests to me that Maidenhead is going the same way as Guildford, Richmond and several other Southern Tory heartlands the Lib Dems have gradually taken over since 1997.

SEAT TOTALS:

4pts 61-70 seats (TOTE) @ 9/4

INDIVIDUAL SEATS

8pts MAIDENHEAD @ 7/4 (www.ladbrokes.com)
7pts INVERNESS, NAIRN, BADENOCH & STRATHSPEY @ 8/11 (HILLS)
4pts BRISTOL WEST @ 6/4 (HILLS)
3pts ISLINGTON SOUTH @ 15/8 (www.paddypower.com)

Taking everything into account, these are my predictions for the final distribution of seats:

LABOUR 359
CONSERVATIVE 191
LIB DEMS 67

LABOUR MAJORITY = 72

Finally, if anyone reading this wants to contest any of my views concerning the seats or has any useful information to share, feel free to send me a message.

Good Luck!

SEATS PREDICTED TO CHANGE AT 2005 ELECTION

CONFIDENT

CARDIFF CENTRAL (LIB DEM GAIN FROM LABOUR)
BRISTOL WEST (LIB DEM GAIN FROM LABOUR)
BIRMINGHAM YARDLEY (LIB DEM GAIN FROM LABOUR)
ABERDEEN SOUTH (LIB DEM GAIN FROM LABOUR)
INVERNESS, NAIRN, BADENOCH & STRATHSPEY (LIB DEM GAIN FROM LABOUR)
BEXLEYHEATH & CRAYFORD (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
HORNCHURCH (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
THANET SOUTH (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
BRAINTREE (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
FOREST OF DEAN (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
MONMOUTH (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
NORTHAMPTON SOUTH (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
LANCASTER & WYRE (CON GAIN FROM LAB)

FANCIED
DUNBARTONSHIRE EAST (LIB DEM GAIN FROM LABOUR)
OLDHAM-EAST AND SADDLEWORTH (LIB DEM GAIN FROM LABOUR)
CAMBRIDGE (LIB DEM GAIN FROM LABOUR)
HORNSEY AND WOOD GREEN (LIB DEM GAIN FROM LABOUR)
ISLINGTON SOUTH (LIB DEM GAIN FROM LABOUR)
LEEDS NORTH-WEST (LIB DEM GAIN FROM LABOUR)
DUNDEE-EAST (SNP FROM LABOUR)
OCHIL AND SOUTH PERTHSHIRE (SNP FROM LABOUR)
ANGUS (CON GAIN FROM SNP)
DORSET SOUTH (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
ENFIELD NORTH (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
ILFORD NORTH (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
WIMBLEDON (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
DARTFORD (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
GILLINGHAM (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
MILTON KEYNES NE (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
SITTINGBOURNE AND SHEPPEY (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
PETERBOROUGH (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
WELWYN HATFIELD (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
KETTERING (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
SELBY (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
MAIDENHEAD (LIB GAIN FROM CON)
SURREY SOUTH-WEST (LIB DEM GAIN FROM CON)
LEICESTER SOUTH (LAB GAIN FROM LIB DEM)



TOO CLOSE TO CALL
SPARKBROOK AND SMALL HEATH (LABOUR HOLD FROM LIB DEM)
BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW (RESPECT GAIN FROM LABOUR)
FALMOUTH AND CRANBOURNE (LAB HOLD 3-WAY MARGINAL)
BIRMINGHAM HODGE-HILL (LABOUR HOLD FROM LIB DEM)
ROCHDALE (LABOUR HOLD FROM LIB DEM)
FINCHLEY AND GOLDERS GREEN (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
MEDWAY (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
HARWICH (LABOUR HOLD FROM CON)
GLOUCESTER (LABOUR HOLD FROM CON)
STROUD (LABOUR HOLD FROM CON)
WANSDYKE (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
RUGBY & KENILWORTH (LABOUR HOLD FROM CON)
SHREWSBURY & ATCHAM (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
WELLINGBOROUGH (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
CALDER VALLEY (LABOUR HOLD FROM CON)
SCARBOROUGH & WHITBY (LABOUR HOLD FROM CON)
SHIPLEY (LABOUR HOLD FROM CON)
WIRRAL WEST (LABOUR HOLD FROM CON)
CLWYD WEST (CON GAIN FROM LAB)
PRESILI PEMBROKESHIRE ((LABOUR HOLD FROM CON)
ORPINGTON (LIB DEM GAIN FROM CON)
TAUNTON (CON HOLD FROM LIB DEM)
DORSET WEST (CON HOLD FROM LIB DEM)
HALTEMPRICE AND HOWDEN (CON HOLD FROM LIB DEM)
BOURNEMOUTH-EAST (CON HOLD FROM LIB DEM)
HARBOROUGH (CON HOLD FROM LIB DEM)
CHEADLE ((LIB DEM HOLD FROM CON)
WESTON SUPER-MARE (LIB DEM HOLD FROM CON)
NORFOLK NORTH (LIB DEM HOLD FROM CON)
MID-DORSET & POOLE NORTH ((LIB DEM HOLD FROM CON)
SOMERSET & FROME ((LIB DEM HOLD FROM CON)
LUDLOW (LIB DEM HOLD FROM CON)
HEREFORD ((LIB DEM HOLD FROM CON)
BRECON & RADNORSHIRE (LIB DEM HOLD FROM CON)
ROMSEY (LIB DEM HOLD FROM CON)
NEWBURY (LIB DEM HOLD FROM CON)