Conventional wisdom holds that Labour will win the 2005 general election with ease, as it did in 2001 and 1997. There are, however, a number of factors that could make this election one of the most unpredictable in recent memory. This means that, although many of the key battlegrounds will be familiar, the 2005 election will be anything but a re-run of 2001.
Unknown factors shaping the outcome of the election include turnout, the public reaction to military action in Iraq, and the impact of a potentially strong performance from the Liberal Democrats and the minor parties. These electoral wildcards are reflected not just in which key seats receive the most resources, but also in the flavour of the campaign required to win.
As in previous elections, the second-place challengers in the overwhelming majority of Labour marginals are the Tories. And, as before, most of these seats are geographically concentrated in London, the southeast and the Midlands. Both Labour and the Tories are devoting the bulk of their resources to fighting these battles.
In some areas, such as the new towns of the southeast, Labour’s task is to fend off a conventional opposition challenge, fighting back Tory assaults on key issues such as crime and asylum. Harlow and Stevenage are two such examples.
But on top of this, the Tories are deploying a new weapon: apathy. Because the Tories believe that their core supporters are likelier to vote than Labour’s, a key part of their strategy is to make wavering voters think that all politicians are as bad as each other. Dozens of Tory candidates could emerge as unexpected victors if Labour’s less committed supporters stay at home.
But that is not the only threat to Labour – the party’s core vote is under pressure too, particularly in more metropolitan, middle-class marginals such as Battersea, Putney, Wimbledon and Brighton Kemptown. Disillusioned by the Iraq war, anti-terrorism legislation and public service reform, many core Labour voters in metropolitan areas may switch to the Liberal Democrats. The main beneficiaries, however, would once again be the Tories.
In addition to the traditional battlegrounds, both Labour and the Tories face challenges in some less familiar areas – some of which are quite surprising.
For Labour, the Muslim vote is likely to be a major weak spot in a handful of seats. This means that traditionally safe seats such as Blackburn and Bethnal Green and Bow are now seen as vulnerable – to the Tories and George Galloway respectively.
This may also have a major impact in key marginals such as Crawley and Slough, where the erosion of Muslim support, the effect of a Tory challenge, and disenchantment on the liberal left all combine into a particularly potent threat.
Labour also faces a growing urban challenge from the Liberal Democrats, with Cardiff Central, Birmingham Yardley and Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central regarded as key targets. In these areas, the challenge is quite different to the Liberal Democrat threat in the metropolitan south, with tactical voting by natural Tory supporters likely to be at least as important as Labour disaffection over the war.
The Conservatives face their own Liberal Democrat challenge as a result of the LibDems’ so-called ‘decapitation strategy’. A number of high-profile Tory frontbenchers with slender majorities – including David Davis, Oliver Letwin, Theresa May, Tim Collins and even Michael Howard himself – are subject to aggressive challenges from second-placed Lib Dems. The odd Labour minister – Charles Clarke and Alistair Darling, for example – has also been threatened with ‘decapitation’, although these claims are most likely overblown.
As Alan Milburn has argued, the implication of all this is that Labour’s 2005 campaign needs to be radically different. The factors shaping the outcome in each constituency vary widely, meaning that the party has to engage with voters differently on the ground.
A lot has changed in the past four years, so our campaigning must change, too.