There can only be one winner in the battle for the Baghdad bounce

Managing expectations of gains and losses has become the latest political game of all the political parties' spin doctors

The fog of war is finally lifting as party leaders seek to shake domestic politics out of the slumber of the past six weeks. The Prime Minister promised yesterday that this was not the time for a quiet life and that he would re-engage his attention on the public services with renewed vigour. The implication of these remarks suggests a willingness to seek a confrontation with certain trade unions, who will be the new scapegoats for any policy delivery failures. Rather like Margaret Thatcher, who was emboldened to take on Arthur Scargill after defeating the Argentinians, Mr Blair appears battle-hardened and willing to follow up the victory over Saddam Hussein with domestic struggles against both union leaders and recalcitrant backbench MPs.

Meanwhile, Iain Duncan Smith rallied his troops in Guildford for Thursday's local elections, thereby signalling an end to his temporary truce with the Government. The choice of Guildford, which the Conservatives lost at the last general election to the Liberal Democrats (who also now control the local council), for the Tory leader's speech was significant; it indicates his recognition that he faces a political war on two fronts.

But while the politicians begin, once again, to grapple with the hoary old subjects of crime, education, health and the euro, the electorate seems to be yawning at the prospect of peacetime politics and apathetic at the onset of another dose of democracy. If a third of them can be bothered to go to the polls on Thursday, this will be hailed as a good turnout. Even in the days of relatively good turnouts, only 40 per cent of voters participated in council elections. In many areas, this time, there will be no more than 25 per cent making the journey to the polling station.

It is worth asking whether the political parties – with the honourable exception of the Conservatives – are themselves guilty of exacerbating the decline in voter participation. While the Conservative Party is contesting 8,710 of the 10,427 vacancies, the Liberal Democrats and Labour are contesting just 6,595 and 6,836 seats respectively, fuelling suspicions that in many areas there is now more than just an informal Lib-Lab pact. This means that, for voters in many wards, there will be no real choice and little incentive to make the trip to the polling station.

Of course it can be argued that, from a tactical point of view, it makes sense for the Liberal Democrats and Labour to concentrate their resources where they have a greater chance of winning; but, nationwide, such an approach is a fraud on the public and adds to the general cynicism of electors.

So Mr Duncan Smith deserves full credit for providing the chance to vote Conservative. Whether he can make further gains on top of those William Hague achieved four years ago is a moot point. Those council seats up for grabs on Thursday were last contested in 1999, when the Tories made substantial gains, clawing back many of the seats they should never have lost in the disastrous contests in 1995. There is, therefore, some technical justification for Mr Duncan Smith's claim that the potential for further gains this time may be limited to just 30 seats.

But the Tories could do with a headline that shows them making a real advance beyond the official target they have set, and privately, it seems that even Central Office will be disappointed if there are not net gains of about 150 seats. Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings, the local government psephologists, say that if real progress is to be made by the Tories at the next general election, gains of 500 seats should be their target. Less than this and the headline gains will be an illusion – although perhaps sufficient to save Mr Duncan Smith.

The stakes for Iain Duncan Smith's leadership in these local elections were seen as high at the beginning of the year and remained so right up to the start of the Iraq war. The internal wrangling over personnel changes at Central Office, which led to an onslaught against Mr Duncan Smith by Michael Portillo, were thought by many (myself included) to be a prelude to a leadership challenge after the local elections. This prospect seems to have receded, save for the possibility that while there could be net gains at the expense of Labour, any significant losses to Liberal Democrats in parliamentary seats that the Tories hold by a small margin – such as Maidenhead, represented by the party chairman, Theresa May – could strike panic in MPs concerned for their own re-election.

Managing expectations of gains and losses has become the latest political game of all the parties' spin doctors. Just as the Tories are managing speculation about gains down to a minimum, Labour are busily talking up how badly they are likely to do. Losses of 500 seats are predicted by party managers – rather strange, since the opinion polls suggest a healthy "Baghdad bounce" for Tony Blair. But losses there will undoubtedly be, since there is evidence in Labour's traditional heartlands that party members and activists are still raw with anger at the original decision to go to war, and upset over tuition fees and foundation hospitals. Reports of resignations have affected canvassing activity, and once-safe councils such as Sheffield could fall to the Liberal Democrats, who could be the biggest winners on Thursday night. (They, incidentally, have set no targets for gains or losses.)

It is doubtful whether Mr Blair will lose any sleep over the results. But some of his backbenchers, who hold constituencies where the Tories may make further gains over the excessive council tax rises, will have a sleepless night on Thursday. Labour MPs in Sussex, Kent and other home counties who won unexpectedly in 1997 have been reeling at the massive tax increases, in excess of 20 per cent in some cases, and they will be anxious to see whether voters pin the blame on central government.

The excessive level of council tax rises, particularly in the Tory south, is a direct result of what Mr Duncan Smith rightly described as gerrymandering and cheating. The Government has deliberately switched resources to their friends in the north as a result of a new funding formula. Very often the rises impinge upon county councils, but it is the district councils, which collect the tax, that are in the firing line on Thursday. This has become the biggest stealth tax in recent years. Whether the Tories can pin responsibility for it on the Government remains to be seen.

Local councils are now more under the thumb of central government than at any time, even during the heyday of Margaret Thatcher. Until they are freed from Whitehall control, with the power to raise all their finance, they will continue to suffer from ever smaller turnouts. And low turnouts in council seats make the attempts by pundits to read anything into the results afterwards particularly difficult. But that won't stop us trying to work out whether there was a Baghdad bounce or a Baghdad backlash.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk