The Week in Politics: This is not the time to give Blair a bloody nose

Some in Labour would prefer a period of Tory rule - the kamikaze option

If there is one thing the political parties can agree on, it is that the general election will be decided by disaffected Labour supporters. No one really knows what they will do on 5 May, which is why the outcome is so uncertain.

If there is one thing the political parties can agree on, it is that the general election will be decided by disaffected Labour supporters. No one really knows what they will do on 5 May, which is why the outcome is so uncertain.

The Tory family has come home after Michael Howard's carefully targeted appeal. But the Labour family remains split, undecided whether it can support the man who misled us into the Iraq war.

Labour strategists are desperate to close the "5 per cent gap" in its support - those people who identify themselves as "natural Labour" but do not intend to vote for the party. They hope the disenchanted will "break late" in the campaign, taking Labour's share of the vote through the 40 per cent barrier. They point out that grudging Labour supporters will not tell the first pollster they meet that they will back Tony Blair when it comes to it.

It is clear from e-mails from readers of this column that many natural Labour supporters are torn. When I reported that Mr Blair was seen as a liability on the doorstep and that people want a "fresh-start" Labour government under Gordon Brown, many readers agreed. Some will, however reluctantly, stick with Labour in the hope that Mr Brown takes over as soon as possible. Others will vote Liberal Democrat or Green.

The dilemma for progressive voters has spawned a number of tactical voting campaigns and websites. Anything that increases interest in the election and boosts turnout is a good thing. It's also a bit of fun. Why not give Mr Blair "a bloody nose", as the New Statesman advocates in this week's edition? Cutting his majority to 60, as the left-wing magazine recommends by tactical voting against 47 named Labour MPs, is an appealing prospect for many people.

The journalist John Harris has written a very readable book on tactical voting and has a website of the same name: www.sonowwhodowevotefor.net. Another campaign, www.strategicvoter.org.uk, says: "So long as the Tories aren't surging in the polls, we consider that a strategic vote for them in the many Labour-Conservative marginals can be a skilful way to procure the balanced Parliament in which anti-war and pro-proportional representation (PR) MPs elected from other constituencies can exert maximum influence."

If only it were that simple. It might be feasible to create a nationwide wave of tactical voting against Mr Blair - but I don't see how it could be restricted to a certain number of seats. It would be virtually impossible to deliver disciplined voting on a constituency-by-constituency basis.

Our election system is so inflexible that a campaign to reduce Labour's majority could wipe it out altogether. No wonder an anxious Labour high command is warning that by not backing the party, progressive voters could allow Mr Howard into Downing Street "by the back door".

Calculations for this paper last autumn by John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, showed that, in theory at least, the Tories could achieve a hung Parliament without increasing their 2001 share of the vote if disenchanted Labour supporters switch to the Liberal Democrats. A shoal of Labour-Tory marginals would go Tory. It would not deliver an outright Tory victory, but wiping out Labour's majority would be a psychological one.

On the face of it, backing Charles Kennedy's party gives disaffected Labour folk three goodies for the price of one - a protest vote against Mr Blair and a positive vote for the only one of the big three parties to oppose the Iraq war and support PR.

Surely, the way to break our creaking electoral system is to highlight its unfairness, the argument runs. Otherwise, nothing will ever change. In a hung Parliament, Mr Blair might suddenly rediscover his long-standing sympathy for electoral reform, which he forgot about after winning two thumping majorities.

There is a Catch-22. Sensible Liberal Democrats admit their best hope is to increase their number of seats from 55 to about 75. The word is that they are doing better north of the M4 motorway than south of it. While they will capture some Labour seats, they could well lose some they currently hold to the Tories.

The sad truth is that the election will be fought under the present system, not the fairer one Britain deserves. So there are only two outcomes possible on 5 May - a Labour government and a Tory one.

I thought Mr Blair was wrong about Iraq and still do. I can understand why if people feel so strongly about it, they might want to vote against Labour whatever the consequences. But they should accept that a Tory government might be one of those consequences. I know some natural Labour supporters who would prefer a period of Tory rule to a Blair government with another thumping majority. That seems a kamikaze option.

It is true that people can't vote directly for a Brown government. What is the next best thing? This week's rapprochement between the two men shows how Mr Blair needs Mr Brown to counteract his own unpopularity among natural Labour supporters. Mr Blair may want to do another three-and-a-half years in Downing Street but I doubt very much that he will be able to achieve that, whatever his majority.

However unpalatable, the real choice for the Labour disaffected is between stomaching a couple more years of Mr Blair, with Mr Brown in a pivotal role before he takes over, and a Howard government.

a.grice@independent.co.uk