Polls say Blair is home and dry. Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

WITH the British general election just a day away, Tony Blair has problems. People don’t seem to trust him any more.

Everyone wants to know when Gordon Brown will succeed him as prime minister. There is even talk (albeit fanciful) of him having to face the International Criminal Court over the war in Iraq. But all this is for another day. His election victory, at least, seems assured.

Or so the opinion polls say. Labour has led the Conservatives consistently.

Labour's share of support may have fallen but people like the alternatives even less.

The only question seems to be: how much will Blair win by? If the Labour majority in the House of Commons falls to less than 50, his position as prime minister will be in danger in the short term. If he retains a majority of 70 or 80 seats, his departure will be at a time of his choosing (probably with a little bit of friendly advice from Gordon) but he has said that he will not lead the Labour Party into the next general election in 2009.

Yet while it seems hard to predict anything other than a Labour victory, there are grounds for treating the opinion polls, and the received wisdom about an easy Blair victory, with some caution.

The percentage of the vote enjoyed by the parties on a national basis is of limited value in assessing what is going to emerge on election night.

Britain operates a 'first past the post' electoral system. The candidate who gets the most votes in each constituency wins. A small number of votes can win you the election if there is a low turnout, or if some of your opponent's supporters stay away, or if they transfer their allegiance to no-hoper candidates.

Under this system, Blair could win a 90-seat majority with only a 36% share of the vote nationally, as one opinion poll has predicted. It would be the lowest share of the vote ever by a party winning an overall majority.

But by the same token, the Conservatives could do surprisingly well on Thursday with only 33% of the vote. Some observers believe that this may happen, arguing that the Conservatives have fought a tactical campaign, playing a limited hand to maximum effect.

Knowing that Michael Howard has an image and baggage problem going back to his time as home secretary, Conservative party handlers have adopted a two-fold strategy. Step one, attack Blair with ferocity to persuade Labour voters to stay away or switch their allegiance. Anywhere will do.

At the last election, Conservative candidates finished in second place to Labour in many constituencies, with the Liberal Democrats coming third. So Labour votes drifting to the Liberal Democrats would be as good as votes for the Tories if they allowed Tory candidates, who might otherwise end up in second place, to finish first.

Seen in this light, it was a good idea for the Tories to portray Blair as a liar over Iraq, even if the public might disapprove of the tactic. Mud sticks. Iraq won't win the Tories any new votes since they backed the decision to oust Saddam. But it might send left-wing and pacifist elements in the direction of the Liberal Democrats, who now occupy the left wing of British politics and who opposed the war from the beginning.

The second, and more interesting, part of the Tory strategy has involved concentrating their resources on marginal constituencies where Labour majorities were at their thinnest last time around. The Tories have massively outspent Labour in these marginals, identifying local issues of concern and hammering home their message on every available medium.

The most controversial use of this strategy has involved immigration. Even before the Iraq war, Labour MPs were saying that the issue of asylum seekers was the most important issue being raised in the weekly constituency clinics.

This is partly because the British government's strategy of dispersing immigrants around the country has created the impression of a large influx of non-nationals in some places, but especially in deprived areas where public services are already under severe strain.

The Tories have seized on the issue, sometimes in very subtle ways. For example, 'keyhole campaigning' which involves identifying and targeting particular voters who may have fears and concerns. Voters are asked a series of questions about various issues.

OTHER questions in the survey might then focus on the sitting MP in the constituency. No allegation is made. But the cumulative effect of the survey is to create a link in people's minds between the problem and the local MP.

The fruits of this kind of campaigning will not show up in an opinion poll.

People don't like to be seen as racist and therefore the campaigning goes on 'under the radar'.

But the Conservatives' campaign slogan, 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?' gives the game away. It's a slogan that speaks to people about unspoken fears. It has, in short, 'something of the night about it'. Other parties may also be using the direct marketing approach in their election campaigns. But Labour is in a defensive position since its policy and government record are there to be attacked. The Conservatives, on the other hand, don't have to talk about themselves as a possible government.

Theirs is a spoiling strategy, designed to play up discontent with Blair and discourage potential Labour voters. "Take the smirk off his face" is the slogan of the main Tory ads. "This is your last chance to teach him a lesson" is another, making the most of Blair's announcement that he won't seek a fourth term as prime minister.

Whether all this will shift a significant number of seats in the Conservatives' direction is impossible to tell. But the strategist behind the Tory campaign, Lynton Crosby, has successfully applied the technique in Australia.

The Tories will be concerned, however, about a strong swing to the Liberal Democrats. That could be enough to beat both the Conservatives and Labour in some constituencies. And some leading Conservatives could be vulnerable, too. Michael Howard himself in Folkestone, shadow home secretary David Davis in Yorkshire and shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin in Dorset all have thin majorities and could be vulnerable on the night.

In the end, Labour may suffer from the fact that many of those who would prefer to see them return to power would like to see them do so on a reduced majority.

The very predictability of British politics in recent years has led to major complacency in Blair's government. A large Labour majority in the House of Commons overcame the need for consultation on sensitive issues like prevention of terrorism legislation and the war in Iraq.

In the short term, that kind of situation may lead to a backlash at the polls.

For the long term, it makes a strong argument in favour of proportional representation and the single transferable vote. Although there is no sign of it happening, the introduction of PR would probably ensure that the victory of one side could never again be viewed as a foregone conclusion.