Tony Blair’s wish to fight the election on which party is tougher on terrorism is depressing. There is no mistaking his intentions. Last week

he told parliament: “The shame will lie with the Conservatives who, faced with legislation to prevent terrorism . . . are going to vote against it.”

It is disgraceful to suggest that one party does not wish to “prevent terrorism”. Until recently Labour demonised Michael Howard for being an illiberal home secretary. With a quick somersault it now denigrates him for being soft on terror.

On Blair’s logic other wimps include Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit (who escaped assassination by Irish terrorists in the Brighton bombing of 1984) since they, too, voted against the government’s Prevention of Terrorism Bill. They were joined by that other well known sucker for suicide bombers, Lord Irvine, Blair’s former lord chancellor and mentor.

A year ago this weekend Spanish politicians played party politics with terrorism. In the few hours between the murder of nearly 200 people in the Madrid train bombings on the Thursday and the general election on the Sunday, Jose Maria Aznar, the incumbent, claimed that it was the work of Eta terrorists.

He hoped for political advantage because his socialist opponents were seen as too conciliatory towards the Basque separatists. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the challenger, pointed the finger instead at Al-Qaeda, arguing that Spain was being punished for its government’s pro-American line. Those events have left Spain deeply polarised and a new bitterness has entered the political debate.

The United States is also profoundly divided following an election campaign dominated by George Bush’s claim that John Kerry would be unreliable on national security.

It is easy to see that Bush’s campaign has inspired Blair. It represents a significant shift. Until now his political successes have depended on building consensus. With this issue he wishes to polarise Britain. He tells us you are either with him or against him. Either you oppose terror or you are its naive accomplice.

That divisive rhetoric reminds many in the Labour party of the Thatcher government. They see Blair continuing to metamorphose into the Iron Lady. He convinces himself that he is always right, no matter how often he has been forced to change his argument. The virulence with which he denounces opposing views is almost paranoid. It was irrational for him to suggest that he would rather have no bill than accept a sunset clause that would limit it to one year’s life. Eventually he himself proposed a similar compromise but gave it a different name.

In the heated atmosphere Howard reminded him that in opposition Blair had habitually opposed the Tory government’s anti-terror legislation.

If Blair fights the election on who is soft on terrorism he may not get the answer he expects.

Events in Northern Ireland have focused attention on what kind of deal Blair did with the terrorists there. The robbery at the Northern Bank in Belfast (supposedly by the IRA) and the murder of Robert McCartney should put Blair as well as Sinn Fein on the defensive.

The handshakes that produced the Good Friday agreement may have ended the bombings but they have left the prime minister with dirty hands. In the year after the pact there were 103 IRA punishment beatings. Today none of the 70 people who saw McCartney killed will step forward to testify, which suggests that the population is cowed by the fear of terrorist reprisals.