Michelle points to Powerline's take on yesterday's British election: Iraq, not immigration, was decisive in reducing Labour's majority. In support of this view, Powerline's Paul Mirengoff points to the percentage of the popular vote gained by each party:

Labour's share of the popular vote declined by 4.5 percent, from about 40.5 percent to about 36 percent. The share of the anti-war Liberal Democrats increased by 4.4 percent. So one can argue that Blair's decision to go to war and/or the way he went about it caused at most one tenth of his voters to defect.

The Conservative share of the vote increased by 1.5 percent. One can't conclude from that change that its anti-immigration stance helped the party, although it's possible the Conservatives would have done worse had they not pushed the issue hard.

In fact, as stated, one can't conclude anything from these figures. The next few days are sure to see a number of competing theories emerge regarding the election's outcome. I've already offered my first impressions and will have more to say in the next few days.

In the meantime, it's important to be clear on certain points. The first of these is that what counts in assessing campaign success is not relative share of the popular vote -- i.e., the figures cited by powerline -- but performance in specific constituenties. The Conservative campaign was, from the outset, a targetted one. Under Australian political strategist Lynton Crosby's guidance, Howard's Tories sought to peel away vulnerable Labour constituencies by appealing to voter discontent -- mainly over immigration.

The Liberal Democrats also ran a targetted campaign. The only Party to oppose the Iraq War, the Lib Dems hoped to attract disenchanted Labour votes as well as pick up all those middle class Conservatives supposedly repelled by Howard's stance on immigration.

Comparing the two Parties' performance leaves little doubt as to which was the more successful. The Lib Dems did very well in the popular vote, gaining 4 points on their 2001 performance. But, when the dust settled, it only delivered a net gain of 8 seats.

The Conservative's share of the popular vote was only 1 point higher than in 2001 (bringing their share to 32.7%). And yet they enjoyed a net gain of 35 seats (!). Much the same point can be made about Labour. Some apparently believe that Labour enjoyed a decidive victory. And yet while Labour now holds a parliamentary majority of 65 seats, they received only 35.6% of the popular vote.

In short, distribution of the vote counts just as much -- and sometimes more -- than national share.

What's this tell us about the role played by immigration and Iraq in Conservative vs. Lib Dem strategy? On the face of it, little or nothing. Lib Dem gains were almost all at the expense of Labour but that doesn't necessarily mean that Labour cross-overs were voting against the War (see here). Tory gains were also overwhelmingly at the expense of Labour. But, again, one cannot automatically conclude from this that immigration made all the difference.

But it is significant that, in certain targetted seats -- particularly those in the "white flight" areas of suburban London -- the Tories enjoyed a much larger swing in their favor than expected. It is also significant that there's a consensus among Labour insiders that the Tory gains were had as a result of the Party's immigration platform.

But, again, I'll have more to say later.