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 make no sense. I am advocating that the U.S. retain the First Amendment, and I am suggesting that you Brits consider getting yourselves something similar. We are actually doing it, toots. You need to get out of the house more.
But we did. That is why the Lib-dems had a big swing towards themselves as the antiwar vote went to them. The pro-war parties received 70% of the vote.
I am with you 100% -- cannot say the times I have written someone only to not bother to post because it would make no difference.
I love your idea of a rating system. In my sign-on days I was afraid to post very often since I was new -- not today -- a lot of new people not only post right away but keep writing dumb vanities and then attack long time posters when we disagree with what they have said. They seem to be out to start flame wars for the most part. Someone this week had been signed on for less than a week and became a major part of the Laura threads trashing away. Stood out like a sore thumb.
When I came on here early in 1999, I was one of the few Bush supporters but for the most part I had reasoned discussions until I ran into Arator and a few others -- occasionally they overheated but nothing like what I have seen recently over nothing. I think a lot of new sign-ons in the last year are disruptors and some old sign-ons have come back to be a pest all over again with their new found buddies from the Class of 2004.
My two cents!
Yay!!
Ivan, I truly wish that you would stay, but I understand your reason. Please understand that there are many of us who understand and appreciate the many sacrifices that your people have done in the name of freedom.
I am sorry that a few morons have sent you away. I have always enjoyed your eloquence, your humor, and your passion.
God bless, you, my friend. And God bless Tony Blair.
Thank you, so kind as always. You know, I'm beginning to enjoy your posts, although they are so predictable and you do have a rather limited - and regrettably unimaginative - repertoire.
Don't let anyone change you; after all, you make everyone else look better.:)
Runaway Bride placemarker.
;^)
Again, you show the good humility we have always known. Thanks for reconsidering and being generous enough to change your mind and deal with a few back-biters. LOL
Thanks. I do also notice that "class voting" is more common over there than here.
That's the truth. I lurked for a long, long time before I ever signed up. It's aggrevating to see newbies sign up and begin attacking my old FRiends. I think quite a few of them are here to intentionally disrupt.
I want to echo some of the comments I've read here about how much we value our FRiends from Britain. I'd hate like hell if I were judged by the statements and actions of some of our politicians... it is grossly unfair.
Please no ranking system! I would get the boot for my airheaded comments I make from time to time.! :( They are not viscious, just not always well thought out, generally takes place at around 10:00 at night when I just need to shut up and go to bed. :)
So what has JimRob had to say about a rating system for posters?? (at the risk of being thwarted from posting -my- pedantic rants!!!)
Well, aha! Then a ranking system would encourage you to save up your points and go to bed before things get out of hand! ;-)
I have dibs on his silver ware. : ) <<< me
Well now you got me there, but then the fun I have late at night would be taken away. :) Surely we could make the rating system take in account how tired someone is and not penalize them so harshly? Of course, my fellow freepers will then point out to me that I am acting as a democrat because I am not willing to take responsibility for my actions. So, I guess I might as well say "Uncle" right now. ;0)
I think the posters that are bothering you are in the minority.
oh booo hooooo, it wouldnt have been necessary if he hadnt started his cry for attention
I'm NOT excusing the bashing, unless it attacks individuals or governments that deserve it. IE - Michael Moore, George Galloway, Ken Livingstone, Mary Robinson, and John Kerry.
I think there's three schools of thought.
1. Backlash from the papers and TV. People got fed up with the America bashing and take it out on everyone outside the US.
2. (some) Gun Activists. I can't tell you how many times anti-gun activists from other countries go out of their way to bash our gun laws, particularly with a smug attitude. Oftentimes this ties in with the first part with the backlash in the papers.
3. Ethnic history. Particularly true with Irish. This isn't as common in the past here as it was years ago, but still is a factor with some, largely with the Celtic Tiger taking hold in Ireland improving the economy there, reducing immigration from there to the US. Most of the Sinn Fein sentiment here are among the Boston Irish(Boston Brahmins of English blood and Boston Irish fought for years as well) or 2nd/3rd Generation Americans of Irish blood. Their dad and grandfather tells stories they were told from the island, as well as "No Irish or Dogs need apply" from their American history, and it gets passed down through the family. Their view of the English is more from that history, instead of Winston Churchill and Maggie Thatcher.
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.