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.
Guess I'm meeting myself coming and going today!
Leni
That's hugs and kisses (in case you Limeys don't know that).
I've read all the post and this is the one I will respond to. You are parroting the dims with that statement. 'You are free to say what you will if it is the same as what I say.' Do you not hear yourself? Since when has give and take, back and forth, pro and con gone the way of censorship?
Left disrupter's...because someone's opinion doesn't mesh with yours, they are disrupter's?
If you think someone is being disruptive, hit the abuse button and let the moderator decide. A dissenting opinion is not a reason to slam the brakes on anyone who does not agree with the way others think. We all can't walk in lockstep or should.
Once again, the abuse button is a magical thing, the moderators know their job , let them do it.
I hope you've taken note of how many of us oldtimers are rallying around you! It would be wonderful if you would reconsider and stay. This place won't be the same without you. Please consider taking a break from FR and return again soon.
Thanks for that information
LOL! you sir are so fun! See FR offers so much to everyone. Thank you for bringing a smile to my face. :)
I can understand your frustration, but not your course of action.
You say a few here have made you conclude you will no longer stay at FR. By those lights, I am sure there are more than a few you vehemently disagree with in the UK, are you going to leave there also? No, you are a fighter, so you will fight, why not at the very least apply the same standard here at FR?
In short, you are too important to lose because of a ignorant and uncouth minority.
MadIvan
I would like to have a sane discourse about anglo-american relations. I have always been a conservative but have been in a quandary about Blair. I know he is a labour liberal and all that . . but noone came to the aid of America after 9/11 like Tony Blair. His eloquent speeches did much to encourage America He got me thinking. Is it possible to be a liberal and still have courage and conviction? Tony Blair was a man and a friend to America when we needed it. I call him Churchillian.
She is an amazing woman. Her patriotism and her courage are exemplary.
I remember when the very first prayer requests for her appeared here on FR. Most did not think she would survive.
When I saw her speaking on CSPAN I was completely blown away by her attitude towards her injuries.
I am very happy to hear that MadIvan is staying among us. Looking forward to his posts!
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. Dan, you are a FRiend of Ivan, so I'll my give view straight, in response:
No.1 Is probably right
No.2 I cannot speak for anyone else, but I believe in 'liberal' gun laws - I wholeheartedly believe in a man's right to bear arms - Ireland, and indeed Britain, have the tightest gun laws in the World, crime is on the increase in both our fine nations, not to mention the fact that the traitors called Sinn Fein/IRA and the loyalist terrorists can carry any weapon they feel like, while the British and Irish people have to endure the tightest gun regulations in the Western World - we are sitting ducks against both the EU and the IRA!!!!!
No.3 I think, as far as I know, Dan, that the oul' "No Irish or Dogs need apply" was completely made up, the 'Yanks' and the 'Brits' generally treated the Irish well, with some exceptions, of course, and I think you are right - they ignore Thatcher and Churchill.
Dan, goodnight, and good luck!!!!
I don't come here for their opinion.
Your post #643 -- outstanding! You said what I was thinking.
Thank you for letting us know that MadIvan has decided to stay; I've been out and am delighted to read this!
It's a most excellent present, Right in Virginia, and thank you so much for pinging me to this!
Was that the hilarious speech she gave recently, the one where she 'upstaged' Dubya?
And we disgraced ourselves!!
Oh Lord, let us redeem ourselves!!!!
madivan is leaving freerepublic if anyone on my list wants to say goodbye now is the time.
Dont like it? Dont read 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.