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.
You mistake the traditions that has kept the nations of the UK together and strong, as being anti-democratic, when that Conservative tradition promoted freedom through stability.
You said you have more freedom of speech. So what can you say that I cannot?
As for the Cuban point. So no US citizens would like to go to Cuba. Your point seems a bit Leninist to me. It would be great to see what you would say if Britain refused it's citizens to travel to certain countries while US citizens could go anywhere. I can hear the cry of "unfree, unfree"! :)
Definitely I second that!
I don't know what will become of FR if the long-timers keep leaving and the forum is left to the very people you describe, Ivan. The moderators need to throw the people off who wield personal attacks, insults and obscenities. There has been entirely too much of that in the past 2-3 years with the new crop (but not ALL) of FReepers signing up.
Hopefully you will reconsider and help make FR better. If not, I understand and wish you the very best.
Well said
Pray for W and Both Our Troops
Yam, this thread is about obnoxious posters making stupid insults and you're looking like a posterboy for that subclass. Cut out the crap, if you can't discuss things civilly you need to back off.
We have chosen these policies through our representatives. We can change them whenever we please.
2. What can you say that I cannot?
I can say anything I want so long as I am not inciting others to commit crimes. Your speech on many subjects (homosexuality, Naziism, Jews, Islam, etc.) is proscribed by your government without you having any legal recourse.
3. Why is it ok to boycott one totalitarian nation but wrong to boycott another?
This is where being sober helps. I never said it was wrong to boycott anyone. Boycott whomever you please! Even us! Jeeze!
I just stepped away from the computer for a while - I had to cook dinner and watch the final results.
I'm overwhelmed by what I'm seeing on my return...OK, I'll stay. :)
Regards, Ivan
Good :-)
All I can say is "wow" and "blimey"...I just came back to a huge swathe of messages...I had no idea. My sincere thanks to everyone.
I will, on reflection, stay. I am very grateful for all your kindness.
Regards, Ivan
Well so can Britons with Gun Control. As you say, "We have chosen these policies through our representatives. We can change them whenever we please" The majority want it and if they change their minds they can. No-one is forcing us.
2. What can you say that I cannot? I can say anything I want so long as I am not inciting others to commit crimes. Your speech on many subjects (homosexuality, Naziism, Jews, Islam, etc.) is proscribed by your government without you having any legal recourse.
I can say ANYTHING I want so long as I am not inciting others to commit crimes, so what is your problem? Do you even know what you are talking about?
3. Why is it ok to boycott one totalitarian nation but wrong to boycott another? This is where being sober helps. I never said it was wrong to boycott anyone. Boycott whomever you please! Even us! Jeeze!
You said it was wrong of me to criticise American policy on Cuba as why should Americans help a Government that helps keep people unfree. Well wise up buddy. You buy and use commodities from unfree people all the time so stop being all self-righteous.
Just don't get used to it. :^)
Jeeze, Louise! Put us all through the wringer next time, why don't you?!:D
Welcome back and let's have no more of that nonsense, it's too exhausting.:)
The "abuse" button is going to get a workout from me as well. I frankly have had it with disruptors pretending to be conservatives.
YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you! Good news to wrap the week up with!
You have that right -- couldn't believe my eyes when I read the start to a post and yet people like that want us to believe they are conservatives -- give me a break!
Now I know you are delusional
Some U.S. citizens want to travel to Cuba. Some do so legally, some do so illegally. The Cuba embargo is not unanimously supported here, which should be no surprise. There are occasionally discussions in Congress of ending the embargo. Pres. Bush gave a fantastic speech on the subject, saying that the Cubans themselves could end the embargo instantly by holding one free election. Of course, an embargo is a collective act. If everyone decides for themselves, then it is not an embargo. I am not saying that there are no good arguments for ending the embargo. My point is that an embargo implemented by freely-elected representatives of the people is not "unfree" or "Leninist." It is just a public policy of a democratic state. Business as usual.
Thank you for staying Ivan we all appreciate it
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.