Suddenly, a third Blair term is put in doubt

BRITISH ELECTIONS/Analysis: These results are not just 'mid-term blues' for Labour, writes Frank Millar

BRITISH ELECTIONS/Analysis: These results are not just 'mid-term blues' for Labour, writes Frank Millar

Tony Blair and his not-so-New Labour government have been put on notice: a historic third general election victory is not yet in the bag.

That was the compelling interim verdict last night as the final results in Thursday's local and London's mayoral and assembly elections gave the winning Conservatives a commanding 12-point lead, while the Liberal Democrats pushed the governing party into third place for the first time. Always allegedly preoccupied with his place in history, Labour's greatest ever vote winner also scored a new personal first - this time presiding over his party's worst performance in a local government contest since early in the last century.

On this occasion at least there was no reason to distrust or disbelieve Home Secretary Mr David Blunkett, who declared himself "mortified" by the results as the shadow of war in Iraq and the question of "trust" reopened questions about Mr Blair's leadership.

READ MORE

The combative Health Secretary, Dr John Reid, gamely ventured that there was really no good news for any of the parties from "Super Thursday". And from the south to the north of England the electorate certainly served up mixed messages for both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Yet no amount of spin could disguise a dismal 24 hours for Labour and the party's worst "kicking" by the electorate (Deputy Prime Minister Mr John Prescott's description) since Mr Blair came to power.

With most results declared last night, Labour had lost more than 460 council seats and control of 12 councils, trailing a humiliating third with a projected 26 per cent of the vote, behind the Liberal Democrats on 29 per cent, with the Conservatives way out front with 38 per cent.

Ironically, it fell to maverick left-winger Ken Livingstone to blunt some of this morning's inevitable headline question-marks over the Blair leadership. The man who would have President Bush tried for war crimes was returned for a second term as London Mayor, beating rival Steve Norris in the end with a handsome majority of 161,000 votes. However, Mr Livingstone - who suffered a small drop in his first preference tally and failed to win an outright majority on the first count - may have spent some of the second again wondering about the wisdom of his decision to rejoin Labour earlier this year. Mr Blair readmitted Mr Livingstone to Labour's ranks for fear of otherwise seeing the party trail fourth in this prestige contest. However, the results seemed to confirm that even the beneficial Livingstone effect was not enough to offset entirely "the Blair effect" on Labour's attempt to retain control at City Hall.

And ministers had their own explanation to hand as that overnight trickle of bad results became a steady stream totalling more than 460 lost council seats in England and Wales. After months of denying and defying the opinion polls, yesterday's damage limitation strategy demanded they finally concur: it had been "the war, stupid" after all.

Staying on in Washington for the funeral of former President Reagan, Mr Blair set the tone, admitting that "Iraq and worries over Iraq have been a shadow over our support." And yesterday even the normally pugnacious Mr Prescott admitted Iraq had been a crucial factor in Labour's drubbing, while insisting the general election would be fought and won on domestic issues.

Foreign Secretary Mr Jack Straw admitted the same, while rejecting suggestions that Mr Blair had ceased to be an electoral asset. And Chancellor Mr Gordon Brown appeared on Channel 4 News to play down the significance of this "mid-term" protest vote, as well as Mr Blair's personal liability over Iraq. Staying solidly loyalist, Mr Brown dismissed questions about how he might have handled Iraq differently, reminding people that the decision to go to war had been approved by the cabinet and parliament and backed at the time by the majority of the British public.

Downing Street will not be slow to remind the Chancellor of this admission of shared responsibility should any of Mr Brown's torch carriers seek to exploit this disaster and reopen the leadership issue.

Number 10's narrative also is that Thursday's protest voters were reflecting more on what has been in Iraq, and not what Mr Blair and President Bush (with renewed UN backing) hope will be in the months ahead. In their benign scenario, these elections will now enable the country to "move on".

Mr Blair will also be hoping that today's tales of Labour gloom will be replaced on Monday by renewed Tory infighting following the United Kingdom Independence Party's expected strong showing in the European elections, the first results of which will be declared after 9 p.m. tomorrow night.

Worried MPs with marginal majorities meanwhile will be encouraged to study the figures in detail and conclude that, bad as things may seem right now, Conservative leader Michael Howard finds himself in much the same position as William Hague - who enjoyed a 9 per cent lead in the same elections before crashing to defeat in the 2001 general election. This is true, and yet not quite the whole truth, if only because this time out the Tories had a 12-point lead on an increased turnout.

That said, this was not yet either a Labour meltdown or a Conservative breakthrough. On these figures the Conservatives might be returned as the largest party in a hung parliament. However, Labour's lost seats went both to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, prompting Charles Kennedy to proclaim the arrival of "three-party politics." Mr Howard is not winning on the scale necessary to suggest the public yet see his party as an alternative government-in-waiting. Against that, ministers will be acutely aware that these cannot properly be called "mid-term blues", with the expected general election date actually less than a year away.

Assuming the Prime Minister does not want to be locked in to his final fifth year, Labour's recovery time is significantly shorter than the normal electoral cycle would provide. And Mr Blair has it all to do, all over again.