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.
Best of luck. Agree upon your premises, am sorry to see you go, and won't bother pleading for you to stay. Outside of www.RightGoths.com , are there any other websites you currently pontificate the political on?
PLease make a comeback for the French Constitution vote.
Ok, I couldn't resist.
What do you propose? Do we need to be more vigilant and less tolerant of the jerks among us?
Read my posts, I hate the Provos, there are only a few of those 'barstool republicans' around, unfortunatley there is a high concentration of them where I live - will be argueing with then later in the pub!
Thanks for replying, a misunderstanding I guess, like I said to Mad Ivan - British and Irish FReepers are the best of FRiends!
FRegards,
IT.
The nations of the British Isles have so much in common and our history is so shared that we always should be.
Hey guy ... don't EVEN think of leaving ... your insight and wisdom are needed here more than ever.
That's the truth!
Ivan,
Have you noticed that quidnunc, the fella I was referring to in post 9, has just been banned? He posted a thread earlier on with: '(This time without a flame war, please)' after the article's title. That wasn't a very smart move given that the moderators are on the look out for disruptors on this topic board now!
Godspeed.
Stop it bud. I gave you some crap but it was all in fun. You stay. *I'll* go.
Besides, if you leave, I'll just talk bad about you when you are gone.
You don't want that, do you?
Proving the point that honest reasoned discussion has given way to unhinged vitriol.
The longest breather I have ever managed was a little more than a month last year.
I'm obsessive, I think.
Your reply is poorly reasoned. You cited trade with Cuba as a superior freedom of your country as compared to ours. As I pointed out, this is without merit. Apparently you now agree and say it was a "joke." Fine. That leaves you without any point at all.
It has been pointed out the American freedom to keep and bear arms is superior to that of Britain, generally speaking. It is also true that we enjoy greater freedom of speech. If doing this sort of comparison seems "self-righteous" to you, well, too bad! The important issue is whether it is true that Americans are more free.
The nonsense about Arab oil and Chinese goods is just that; nonsense. The U.K. is not boycotting these goods and I did not say that American use of them constitutes some sort of greater freedom. Total rubbish, your comment.
I hope you are drunk, because if you reason this poorly sober then you must have a pretty tough go of things.
Ditto.
1. British Citizens are legally free to travel anywhere in the world. Your Government says you are not.
2. What can you say that I cannot?
3. Why is it ok to boycott one totalitarian nation but wrong to boycott another?
Ivan,
I am sorry to see you go. I have not myself seen the people of who you speak, running down the UK, but it is not hard to imagine it happening, and I for one am very sorry for it.
When America and Americans have so few steadfast allies in this world today, it makes no sense to thrash them for not being in line with our definition of "right".
Again I'm sorry to see you go, but I cannot blame you for feeling the way you do.
All the best, friend.
No, the poster was just spouting off a meaningless, assinine comment. He even admitted so himself. Too bad for you.
I do try to remember that there are human beings behind these posts. And, I'm willing to keep trying harder! ;-)
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.