Posted on 05/06/2005 5:36:10 AM PDT by MadIvan
Tony Blair may have secured a historic third term for the Labour Party last night but the reduction in the size of his majority will significantly change the way in which he is able to act.
His power and his position in the party have depended almost entirely on the perception since his landslide victory in 1997 that he is a winner. In many parts of the country that has now been undermined.
Last night's result could make it more difficult for the Prime Minister to stay in office for the whole of the next Parliament as he promised to do when he said last year that he intended to stand down.
Mr Blair's allies have been admitting privately for several weeks that he would almost certainly have to resign if the Labour majority fell below 60. In the view of many Blairites, 60 to 70 was a grey area which would leave the party leader severely weakened.
Yesterday, before the result was declared, some ministers close to the Labour leader said he would stay at Number 10 for as long as possible.
Other Blairites, though, have detected a change in the Prime Minister's mood during a difficult campaign.
"I think he'll go in about 18 months," said one loyal minister earlier in the week. "Whatever the outcome of the election, he's been badly damaged by the campaign."
Another Labour strategist admitted that Mr Blair's morale had been badly affected by the criticisms he had received from voters on the stump.
"Tony has been shocked by the level of hostility to him personally in the run-up to polling day. No one can know what effect that will have."
However long Mr Blair decides to stay in Downing Street, the reduction in the size of Labour's parliamentary majority will make it much more difficult for him to do what he wants.
The Government will struggle to get controversial legislation, such as proposals to introduce identity cards, on to the statute book now that the number of Labour MPs has been reduced.
Mr Blair may find it hard to implement "unremittingly New Labour" reforms of the public services with a smaller and potentially more rebellious parliamentary party. This month's Queen's Speech is expected to include around 40 Bills.
These will put forward proposals to increase the role of the private sector in the running of state services, plans to create a points system for immigration, and measures to give parents more power to close down failing schools.
Several of these pieces of proposed legislation will be controversial with Labour backbenchers, who are likely to feel emboldened.
Mr Blair may also find it harder to assert his authority on a number of big policy issues, not dealt with in the Labour manifesto, which are due to come to a head in the next six months.
Adair Turner's review of pensions and Sir Michael Lyons's review of local government funding, both due to report before the end of the year, will provoke wide-ranging discussions about the future of savings and the fate of the council tax.
This summer, Labour intends to initiate a public debate on energy policy, which will consider whether the role of nuclear power stations should be increased.
At the same time the Government will consult voters about proposals to replace the road tax with a road pricing system, which would see motorists charged according to the distance they drive.
Hanging over the whole Parliament, meanwhile, will be the question of whether Labour will have to raise taxes again to fund its plans for the public services. Nobody knows whether the love-in between Mr Blair and the Chancellor will continue once the common goal of victory has gone, but the election result is likely to strengthen Gordon Brown's hand.
Most insiders believe that an understanding has been reached between the two on the future of the Government and of their own careers.
In return for the Chancellor's support, Mr Blair has signalled his intention to endorse Mr Brown to succeed him as Labour leader. The handover may come more quickly now.
Please do not abondon your post, sir! Don't let the morons get you down, blackgaurds all!
And I think what people are saying is that they don't see that being done. How do you call people to task? If they are fanatics who feel any method is justified, it won't phase them in the least. And this isn't just about being civil. It's about we're right and you're wrong, so you don't belong here. People seem to think their whole life revolves around this forum or the Internet. When you're up against that, all you can do is shake your head or laugh. Maybe the posters who are leaving don't want to waste their time sorting through the nonsense and vitriol that some people call debate?
Ivan,
If you're mind's made up, then I'm really sorry to see you go. You've added a lot to FR over the years.
I'm hoping that time away will make you realize you miss this place and you will return.
In any event, thanks for your contributions over the years
V.
You and I haven't posted to each other much (if at all), but I have ALWAYS enjoyed your posts.
I do hope you will reconsider.
Regards,
Jenny (V.K.)
The only allies the US can really depend on are the UK, Austrailia, and Poland.
Why not just take a long hiatus ? I've done that a few times after getting fed up with flames from irrational, nasty people who couldn't conduct a civil and substantive argument (used to think only libs did that -- not true).
Some of the hiatuses (hiati?) I took were so long, I forgot my old password and just came up with a new screenname -- like the stupid one I've got now.
I have always been able to count on your reliable perception of the UK view, your unfailing good humor and your great contributions in the face of the minority xenophobia that can be found on any public forum.
Take with you our sincere appreciation and carry from the bulk of us the best wishes to your countrymen. Without the heritage of British ordered liberty, our nation would not exist --PERIOD.
The next time you are in the Guildhall look at the statute of my fifth great grandfather Beckford standing there alongside the luminaries and know that "the rights of Englishmen" carried forth from your land by emigrants helped give your cyber friends all they have today. See you on the web.
33% Tory prolly agree. But 60%+ LDP/labour want the EU constitution and to speak french. No sovereignty.
Labour also got many more seats last night for just a 3% win. That is bad gerrymandering the way texas was before delay fixed it.
how did that happen?
Ivan,
As a semi long time poster, I urge you to reconsider.
I fully understand the reasons why you feel the way you do, and I know the FReeper that is the primary cause of your agitation.
I think the real question we should be asking, is why isnt Q leaving instead?
I for one, will miss Ivan FAR more than Q's exerpted posts.
Cheers,
knews hound
Every time a good Freeper posts an opus, God kills a kitten.
Please stay for the kittens.
Seriously, MadIvan, you will be missed and will always be welcome back. Too many people here (including me sometimes) confuse the most wacked out editorial from the BBC or Guardian with the general opinion in Britain and react against our friends.
btw. You and Ivan taught me alot about british geopgraphy. you have similiar city country slpit like we do here.
I always did think that scotland was more conservative though.
As I see it, you are the lighting rod for frustration people have with Europhiles in both New Labour and the Conservative Party. The more certain idiots laud their affinity for the Continent, the more it reflects badly on all Brits. Look, I'm not saying that the bad apples really ruin the entire bushell, but certainly, the lack of ability of Eurosceptics to make their voice heard well makes it seem to many here in the USA that something like 85% of Brits are defeatist and have adopted the Europhile outlook. At the end of the day, it's a public relations problem for British Eurosceptics, and you will continue to suffer for it until you can get your voices heard.
Agree. Please reconsider. Your views are highly valued by many of us.
Good knowing you, I'll miss your posts.
I'm going to miss you. Unfortunatly for me, one "alternative" site has already engaged in slander against me, while another is even more full of wing nuts than FR. :-(
In many ways, this forum has gotten to have an atmosphere akin to high school, in which the girls who wore too much eye makeup just declared themselves popular and started acting like they owned the place. A lot of folks want to blame any sort of bad atmosphere on FR on the newbies, but I think long-standing posters can be just as much to blame, because there gets to be a feeling of entitlement to better treatment. Yes, there are ill-behaved and disruptive newbies. There are also ill-behaved posters who have been here for significant amounts of time and drive well-intentioned new posters away simply for expressing a contrary opinion.
Personally, I think people just like to use the anonymity of an internet forum to express all the inner aggression they develop from not demonstrating assertiveness in their real lives. Folks have a bad day, or a string of bad days, and then they come home, log onto the computer, and take out all their frustrations on others. Sometimes it's like being in a veritable passive-aggressive support group.
I used to post a great deal. I now mostly read the articles and occasionally post (mostly on medical and scientific issues), due to lack of time with my schooling. However if I still came here for the conversation as much as I used to, I'd probably consider more strongly moving to a more courteous environment.
What is there to reconsider? Where else on the Internet do you have this many friends and admirers? Your allies are in the vast majority, and you might ping some of us if any thread looks like it's going anti-British. Remember, you are NOT a cheese-eating surrender monkey....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.