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.
If you don't think Democrats are posting here, pretending to be anti-Bush by posing as conservative purists, you haven't been paying attention.
Ivan! Please don't go. I do realize we are sometimes seperated by a common language. We will be much less for having lost your keen insight. Please reconsider. I also know what you mean about having your Country disparaged. It comes from every direction here to the US. You have defended the UK very well indeed.
Regards from the Great State of Texas,
Liberty
I agree with you about that live thread last night -- finally got fed up and went to do something else.
The USA owes her founding concepts of freedom and liberty to English traditions. 'Course, some folk here don't even admit that America is about liberty.
Anyway, FR will be the better if you stay aboard.
Take a number.
Come on Ivan, you know better. The idiots of which you speak do not speak for the majority here. Water off the back. You're a treasure so just take a break, at most. The slams against England are not your country, but the left that is hurting it. Please reconsider....
oooopppss sorry guess i hit a nerve
Lots of canaries in the mine have been keeling over. Hope that analogy is false, though.
Excellent! Glad to hear it.
I wish you well although you have never responded to one post I ever sent you. Never could figure out why.
Britain has been a good friend to America. I hope you haven't written all of us off because of the behavior of a few lunatics.
Good luck.
Lucille
You made some rather sweeping assertions about your opponents. Too many folks will make such generalizations about the other side - using "they" and "them" - but when confronted, they'll plead that they didn't target anyone in particular. Sorry, but that is no defense.
If you don't think Democrats are posting here, pretending to be anti-Bush by posing as conservative purists, you haven't been paying attention.
I've been here a long, long time and have smoked out more trolls than you'll ever know. The actual closet democrats usually lose it soon enough and out themselves with a little prodding.
But it's wrong to make claims that posters on the other side in a debate must be closet Democrats, especially when many of them have been here for years and have made many solid conservative postings. It just adds to incivility when people do that - would YOU like having your opinion on a subject being critiqued as that of a closet Democrat?
Ivan, sorry the boorish moronic hordes finally got to you. They are a cancer here at FR. Stay well and thanks for the uncounted hours of enjoyment you brought this forum.
Ivan,
I rarely post, but I spend a great deal of time reading FR. I wish you would stay. I always look forward to reading your commentary.
I always enjoyed your posts... the british perpspective, sense of humour, class, stiff upper lip, pugnacious personality... all add tremendously to this forum.
I hope you reconsider. Wherever you go there are going to be idiots. Freerepublic is no exception, but the large majority is decent, thoughtful people bonded by a similar world view.
But if you do find a site that's better, come back and tell us about it.
Oh, in that case, I'll just bring a stick and a bag of marshmallows.
:( This is the first opus that I've actually been sad to read.
I'll miss you.
What do you expect from a bunch of under acheiving cubicle workers who are so dishonest that they prosecute their excuse for a real life from a keyboard on their boss's time?
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.