From the latest Labour spam: We're placing our final newspaper ads on Wednesday. We want to highlight the message that if only 1 in 10 Labour voters don't vote, or vote for another party, the Tories win.

Blair isn't chasing victory or evading defeat, he's desperately trying to boost his margin, and he's using fear to do it. Let's face it, it's not the first time the Blair government has overstated a threat in order to get its way.

You can't say we didn't see this coming.

Someone else who's ahead of the game is Nick Barlow, who crunched the numbers and debunked the 'vote Lib-Dem get the Tories' lie nearly a month ago. Debunking of this lie and other 'vote Labour or else' lies has followed in The Independent, Channel 4, the Telegraph and the ever-cautious BBC. The latter acknowledges some level of risk when you play the 'one in ten' scenario in marginal seats, but that's not what the poster says, now is it?



When the subject turns to Iraq, Blair may take the time to rattle out the latest defence, but mostly we will be assured that Iraq is a non-issue and the other parties only focus on it because they're reliant on negative campaigning and have nothing positive to offer.

But this last desperate plea for votes from Blair is negative and vacuous in the extreme.

Vote for us or the boogeyman will get you, basically.

Blair needs a strong margin just to survive. He needs a very strong margin to get the cabinet he wants.

And that's what this latest round of fear-mongering is about. It's not about assuring a Labour win (that's already in the bag); it's about the continuation of Blair's leadership.

Only the Labour party have the power to remove Blair and only now do you have a say in that.

Our target is a margin of 70 seats or less. The people who put their money where their mouth is suggest that we're right on target:

Independent - Punters defy polls to predict Labour crash: Punters are betting that Labour's majority will be as low as 60 seats. Few punters are backing a majority of more than 80 seats.

Remember how difficult it was to argue that the WMD threat was a phantom one? The potential consequences were so great that you probably feared speaking out just in case you were wrong. But you were right (and now the misgivings you held all along are dismissed as coming with the benefit of hindsight).

One thing you can look forward to after the election is the continued pursuit of Blair's resignation and many voices raised in protest saying that the majority voted for him, so please shut the fuck up. Until now Blair has desperately tried to minimise the protest vote and insist that this election is not a referendum on Iraq. However, with the polls giving Labour a significant lead, Blair is now preparing the ground for asserting his authority in his next term of government...

Tony Blair: "I've had this election campaign where there have been some pretty fearsome attacks on my character and I'm not going to stand here and beg for my own character. People can make up their minds whether they trust me or not and that's their decision on May 5."

So a large Labour majority on the 5th May will be used by Blair as justification. Justification for Iraq, the anti-terror laws, ID cards and all the other Blairite policy excesses. And a large majority will see Gordon Brown cast aside within 12 - 18 months, as Blair uses his final term in an attempt to permanently place Blairite values at the heart of the Labour Party.

If you do not trust Tony Blair then you should not vote Labour. If you do not share Tony Blair's vision for Labour's future, then you should not vote Labour.

And you should follow this up by letting your local candidate know why they lost your vote.

Stay on target. Use your protest vote without fear.