LAST Saturday was the Grand National. The world-famous steeplechase is a national obsession.

Even people who wouldn't know their horse from their elbow are tempted to blindly stick a pin in the racecard and bet 50p or £1 in the hope fate has selected a winner.

Millions of other prospective punters spend the hours before the race more scientifically: mulling over the runners and riders, taking into account which horses jump best, the condition of the ground, the weather, the distance, the colours the jockey is wearing and the colour of their eyes.

It all leads to people asking themselves one big question: which horse will do best for me?

Similar to the run-up to a General Election, really.

So it was handy that the three major political parties this week launched their May 5 manifestos, packed with promises of how they will change the world during the next five years. Voters can continue pondering: Which is best for me?

It seems there is little clear water separating the policies of Labour and Conservative, the two parties realistically battling to form the next Government.

Labour has pledged to freeze basic or higher income tax rates and VAT. But they are silent on National Insurance contributions - leading to Tories' warnings that these will rise to plug an £11 billion "black hole" in Treasury spending plans.

The Tories, meanwhile, promised to cut tax (£4 billion) and borrowing (£8 billion) while boosting public spending (£15 billion).

Foul! cries Labour, who says these figures do not "add up". Shadow Chancellor Oliver Letwin pointedly dodged calls to rule out tax increases.

In its 112-page, 23,000-word, paperback book-sized manifesto, Labour promised to be tough on crime, improve schools, curbs on immigration and wipe out MRSA. So did the Tories in their 28-page blueprint - but it was far sparser on detail.

The big policy difference appears to be that the Tories would contribute taxpayers' cash to allow patients to have an operation privately.

Even New Labour, which has embraced the NHS "internal market", has blanched at that.

But the parties were a world apart in terms of presentation.

New Labour swaggered on to the stage at London's Mermaid Theatre, a "Magnificent Seven" of Cabinet ministers stood at podiums, on a mission to convince voters to ride out again on their wagon.

The clear subtext was that this was a team effort - Tony 'Brynner' Blair flanked by Steve McQueen, aka Gordon Brown, a man itching to get his hands on the top job. Their differences, at least for the purposes of securing a historic third term in power, have been set aside.

The stageshow recognises that Blair, on his own, is an electoral liability. Many voters consider him untrustworthy and spin-obsessed. It spoke volumes to see his foreign legion - Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon - seated with 25 or so Cabinet colleagues at the back of the stage. Don't mention the war, then.

Michael Howard launched the Tory manifesto alone. Standing on a platform at Conservative HQ in London, he rattled off the party's six key promises in a straightforward, no-nonsense manner.

One view is that this showed Howard as a confident leader. However, there is a sneaking suspicion that by flying solo, he avoided voters staring at his Shadow Cabinet and wondering, "Who?".

A MORI poll published this week suggested people were more inclined to be swayed by policies rather than personalities in this campaign.

So it will be interesting to see how the anti-war Liberal Democrats get on with their ticket: free eye and dental checks, free personal care for pensioners, 50 per cent income tax on earnings above £100,000, a local income tax, lower class sizes and axing tuition fees.

The bookies think this is a long shot? They are offering odds of 100-1 on Charles Kennedy's newborn son, Donald, one day becoming Prime Minister - the same price as his father.

Updated: 09:32 Friday, April 15, 2005