Interesting article by Financial Times columnist and Blair biographer Philip Stephens on the phenomenon that's become known as "tactical unwind" in today's FT (unfortunately it can only be viewed with a subscription or free 15 day trial).
Stephens writes: "Paradoxically, the steady rise in support of Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats, in many respects a function of Tory weakness, is potentially as dangerous to the government as to Mr Howard. All but a handful of Mr Kennedy's target seats in the election are Tory-held – many by senior figures such as Oliver Letwin, the shadow chancellor. Mr Blair's concern, though, is what may happen to the Liberal Democrat vote in places where Labour has a small majority over a second-placed Conservative.
"Quite a few of these constituencies were won by the government in the last two elections because of tactical voting by Liberal Democrats aimed at locking the Conservatives out … By some accounts, and these psephological exercises are not an exact science, up to two dozen Labour-held seats could be lost to the Conservatives if the tactical voting were to unwind."
With the exception of John Curtice, few pollsters have tried to analyse the possible effects of tactical unwind in Labour-Conservatives marginals, let alone look at whether a significant number of Tory voters are planning to tactically vote Liberal Democrat in the constituencies where they are the main challengers to Labour.
That's despite the fact that these factors could determine the size of Labour's expected majority. Blair would find a shrunken Parliamentary Labour party much harder to deal with – it's already one of the most rebellious (pdf) post-war parliamentary parties – and it's conceivable that he might be pushed from office without a three-figure majority. Expect to hear the phrase again.
