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.
And they say Americans have no sense of the ironic!
I was not saying Americans are unfree. How many times do I have to say that I was showing how innocent points can be made to look devious.
If Britain suddenly banned all products from a certain nation, there would be people on here condemnung the socialist totalitarian state that is Britain. Most nations have things they are free to do that other are not.
In Norway there are probably groups of men laughing at the unfree Americans because they can hunt whales but US citizens cannot! :-)
You're back!? Oh, crap. (Just joking. See #418.)
Freerepublic has changed, no matter where you go or what you do if you have open forums you will always get the bottom of the barrow come in to say stupid stuff.
What are you going to do run away whenever you are confronted by ignorance?
Good luck.
I really enjoy the perspective you bring to FR, and hope you reconsider.
I beg you consider the pseudo Latin phrase "Illegitimi non carborundum est" on this issue.
<ducking>
We're glad you are staying. ;)
Glad to see it.
Thank you, x. I had a senior moment there and couldn't come up with the name.
They just don't make speechwriters like those three anymore.
MadIvan,
I've seen that you've decided to stay, and I know I can't appologize for someone else's actions. I just want to say thank you for giving us some perspective on British politics, especially these last couple of days.
Britain has been an important ally of the US for more than 100 years (although I guess we didn't start off on the right foot, LOL:). Together our countries defeated the Kaiser, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, and Soviet Communism, and our alliance is bringing freedom to millions in the Middle East. Any country with that kind of track record has got something to be proud of. So, from this side of the pond, thank you, and don't let the jerks get to you.
OK, coop, you're just babbling now so I will leave you to it. As for the free speech thing, next time you're sober and bored, check into the Race Relations Acts and the arrest and imprisonment of one Mr. Tyndall. Say what he said there and you are decidedly less free than if you say the say things here (setting aside entirely whether it is logical or moral to espouse such opinions). There are many other examples, of course, but one is sufficient. Besides, I don't really believe you were sincere in your claims to free speech. I just think you are too ashamed to face the truth and so have chosen to lie instead. Bye.
Great news!
oops, sorry... "...say the same things here..."
I'm so glad!
I've seen a lot of opuses since I've been posting on FR, but I've never seen such an outpouring of regret at someone leaving as I've seen on this thread! That's got to tell you something!
I see to defend your idea that the UK has less freedom of speech than the US, you use a Nazi from the British National Party. Unbelievable!!! Are you telling me that it is ok to incite racial hatred in the USA?
MD4Bush was apparently here on a specific mission, so he wasn't the average troll. Most of them eventually slip up with their postings, especially if you give them a bit o' prodding.
I agree. I myself am a Scottish Conservative, and am unlikely to see a Tory Scotland anytime soon, but a revival is very much possible.
All it needs is a charismatic Tory leader and off we go... :-)
I am willing to have a good debate no matter what the ideology, but people should be honest to themselves and others as best they can be rearding their ideology. If they are something other than a consevative, they shouldn't be claiming they are.
Many people, even on talk radio, attempt to pass themselves off as conservative and aren't. Their misrepresentation is sometimes though not always, deliberate.
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.