Damn it, MadIvan! You do that again and I'm going to have to fly back to England. Don't make me come over there!
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.
Now I know that you are incapable of saying anything of substance whatsoever.
MI...I will surely miss you. I have enjoyed your posts and often you have brightened my days. Godspeed my friend.
Makes us even then
I just read your post that you were leaving...I hope that this is true and you have decided to stay. Regards Ivan, Big'ol
Hey, you had this planned all along, didn't you?! Kinda like when Coca Cola planned the whole New Coke fiasco to increase sales... pretty sneaky...
:-)
Glad you didn't leave, you're one of the more interesting personalities on the Freep.
He's not dead yet. LOL, it's like the scene in Godfather Part III where Michael Corleone says, "I keep trying to get out, and they drag me in!"
Damn it, MadIvan! You do that again and I'm going to have to fly back to England. Don't make me come over there!
Oh comeon, you are going to let a little name calling scare you off?
Keep up the fight.
I don't think I've ever posted to you, but I really enjoy your analysis and commentary about the UK.
Your leaving is FR's loss.
One never knows the accuracy of any particular post now do we? I read "the rest of the story" later on.
I think we have to be careful by what we mean by anti-English though. There is no violent anger or blame being fostered on England by the vast majority of the population for any of Scotland's problems. Any gripe is more concerned with political policy.
You hear more anti-Scottish points from people like Boris Johnson and Jeremy Paxman than anything remotely anti-English in Scotland. It would be political suicide to blame England for anything.
The point I am trying to make is that for some Scots they do not like the Conservative Party because they are anti-English, but because they see the Tory party as Anti-Scottish. Thatcher experimenting on Scotland with the Poll tax was an example of that.
Well you must agree then that as the majority of Britons want Gun Control and their representatives carry those wishes out it is a symbol not of the unfree but of freedom!
You still haven't told me what I cannot say that you can.
Don't leave, Mad Ivan. You have many friends and fans here.
Just ignore the nattering nabobs of negativism.
(BTW, who wrote that speech for Spiro Agnew?)
Well, this is fair up to a point. However, the distinction here between our system and yours is that the right to bear arms is explicitly placed in our Constitution and can only be changed by a laborious, time-consuming effort by a large super-majority of States. Sure, it's sort of true that you all could, over time, implement something similar if you managed to get past all of the political roadblocks. But we have it now. In fact, we've had it since 1789.
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?
Yes I do. I'll just leave you to think whatever you want on this one, though.
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.
I did not say it was wrong for you to criticise our Cuba policy. I said it was illogical for you to cite our Cuba policy as an example of how Americans are less free than you. The fact that you cannot distinguish between these two widely disparate concepts is further proof of what I charitably characterized as your "drunkenness."
:-)
Glad to hear it!!!
(BTW, who wrote that speech for Spiro Agnew?)
William Safire, back in the days when he, Pat Buchanan, and Ray Price were Nixon's speechwriters. Nixon loaned them out to Agnew and Safire in particular had a great time.
Hi Mad, you ought to try to be a Mormon posting anywhere on religion topics. Talk about irrational responses!
A Dios!
Well that just sucks. I always learned something from your posts and appreciated your point of view.
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.