Mr Blair has lots of new friends, but he should not forget his old ones

YOU CAN'T look at the defection of Shaun Woodward to Labour without smiling at the disarray of the Tory Party. Downing Street is understandably chuffed at this latest coup, and it is impossible to view the situation without seeing it from Tony Blair's perspective. Mr Woodward has delivered an early Christmas present to the Government and a blow to the crisis- ridden party he has deserted.

Much has been said about how Mr Woodward's defection is a ringing indictment of the modern Tory Party, which depends for popular appeal on the narrow nationalism of its Eurosceptic wing. Indeed, the incompetence of Tory managers is becoming legendary. Their firmly held belief that defending the ancient sport of riding around the countryside tearing the hell out of foxes only serves to underline their retreat to the narrowest layer of rural Tory voters. They are dead in the water in Britain's urban heartlands, they have made no inroads back into Middle England, and they have been obliterated in Scotland.

But I am not convinced that Mr Woodward's defection represents quite what the commentators have so far said about the Tories at the turn of the century. It is certainly very true that the Tory Party is losing popular support. The Thatcher years hid the fact that the Tories have actually been in decline for most of this century. Margaret Thatcher's triumph in 1983 was interpreted by many commentators as indicating that the Tories could never be beaten. Some on the left became deeply pessimistic, believing that the only future for Labour was a pact with the centre parties. In fact, the seeds of the Tories' decline had already been sown.

They gained strength throughout the latter half of the 19th century as they successfully incorporated both the remnants of the old order - particularly the landed aristocracy - and the emerging manufacturing industrialists and representatives of finance. On this basis, the party moved inexorably across the Home Counties and the London suburbs, building strong bases even in Scotland and Wales. It had reached its high point by 1935, when it gained more than 50 per cent of the vote.

But this rise was based on Britain's role as a world power. At each election it returned to power with a higher vote than the previous one. But, since 1935, it has returned to power with a lower vote than on the previous occasion. Each time it has lost power it has done so with a worse vote than its previous loss of office. In a fascinating opposite process to its inexorable rise, it has gradually withdrawn from Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and is a weak force in most of our major cities.

Thatcher's domination of the Eighties disguised this process. The Labour Party was in turmoil, having spent the latter half of the Seventies fighting both its core working-class electorate and the middle income earners it taxed to pay for its economic policies. Buoyed by North Sea oil, the Tories seemed to be unstoppable.

Now that they are fully exposed it is clear that they are incapable of moving outside their core support. If they accept the new course of British capital - a future in Europe - they will split, driving away much of their small- business support and rural base. If they do not, they will remain a right- wing fringe group.

Where I think Shaun Woodward has made a mistake is in positioning his defection to Labour too closely to recent Tory background. This may send a positive signal to ex-Tories that it is OK to continue voting Labour, but it overlooks why so many Tory voters gave up on John Major in 1997. Mr Woodward argued on David Frost's programme Breakfast with Frost that " ...the party I came into was the John Major party - opportunity for all, society at ease with itself". By contrast, William Hague has driven the party into unacceptable new territory.

Much as Mr Major may be a nice guy, his government was a curse on the British people. His was the government that privatised the railways, creating the Frankenstein's monster of Railtrack. His was is the government that closed more than 30 pits in one afternoon and let mining communities rot. His government was racked with internal feuds and held to ransom by the Eurosceptics. It introduced terrible immigration and asylum legislation, and did nothing to assist the family of Stephen Lawrence, who had to wait for a Labour government to see an inquiry into their son's death. Major's government even botched the Northern Ireland peace process and was roundly rejected by a British electorate sick to the back teeth of the Tories. Far from creating a society at ease with itself, Mr Major created an electorate united against his administration, throwing the Tories out in spectacular fashion.

Mr Woodward's comments make sense if one wants to make a simple point about the Tories' marginalisation, but they will sit uneasily with Labour's core voters. Only last week, Labour's core vote stayed at home in an Islington council by-election, letting the Liberal Democrats storm home to seize control of a local authority which ought to be solidly Labour. It is easy to blame local authorities for such defeats, but my party must face up to the worrying indicators that our core vote is not sufficiently motivated at present. I have severe doubts that it is a good idea to send a signal to them that Labour is the natural political home for Mr Major's wing of the Tory Party.

Roy Hattersley said this week that Mr Woodward's defection says more about the Labour Party than it says about the Tories. Roy has a point. If the press reports are true, then there is a deep irony in the story that Tony Blair met Mr Woodward immediately after speaking at the rally for Labour party members in Brixton, where he and former leader Neil Kinnock spelt out their criticisms of my candidacy for London mayor.

In holding firmly to the alliance with middle-income voters who returned to us after years of voting Tory, we must not allow ourselves to be cut adrift from the people who voted for us consistently in the intervening period.