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.
I would LOVE to know why he was banned. I wonder if it had anything to do with this thread. He was the worst anti-Brit on FR
Glad you're staying Ivan, and if your post got rid of quidnunc, well done!
Thank you for staying. You make FR a better place.
My point is, that if we see somebody making mischief on this forum, whether directed at us personally or not, we should report it. Otherwise the varmints get too numerous.
What are you talking about? I don't remember any major flame wars over Britain, so I can't understand the offense, but I think most Freepers here are pretty pro-Britain. It's the weaselly opportunists in Parliament in all three of the major parties that we dislike. Same situation in the U.S., of course...except there are just the two major weasel associations to dislike.
We'll miss you if you do go, sir. I've enjoyed reading your posts, and hope you do determine to check in now and again regardless.
Someone pointed out, about 675 posts back, that there are indeed subtle and malevolent people who come over here from DU specifically, at the invitation of degenerate personalities like Moby and Michael Moore and the late and very unlamented FR poster Eschoir, a liberal Democratic DC lawyer (is there anything lower?) whose numerous avatars once drove JR to seek relief in a court of equity, to make life difficult for posters like you precisely because of your principles and your ability to articulate them.
Please don't be discouraged by all this into withdrawing from the public forum, even a corner of it like FR. On a personal note, I've been glad to see your posts myself and I know the place -- or rather, the virtual space -- will be poorer without your well-spun electrons.
When the adversaries of well-meaning people try to substitute mere cleverness for virtue, voices like yours are needed to point out the difference.
As for critics of Great Britain, which -- truth in advocacy here -- raised up my mother who fortunately for me decided to take a chance on a Yank, a lot of us noticed when the President of Mexico, so recently feted with pomp and circumstance in America's capital as our newest "best friend" (wot, cried the Canadians -- we're chopped liver now?), retired to his ranch while columns of smoke trailed over Manhattan and the Pentagon; but the prime minister of Great Britain stuffed his pockets full of brass knuckles and ran toward trouble instead, and was sitting in the gallery of the House of Representatives when President Bush addressed the nation on the terrorist attacks.
Funny how, when things get ugly, the same old faces always show up.
Behind walls of oak or Leigh-Mallory's big wings, Britain has always been safe from tyrants, and anyone who reaches out a claw for Britain gets to withdraw a bloody stump. That's always been your reasonable policy, mate -- and you know it's ours, too. Will it be stumps all around, then? Right, who's next?
Please reconsider, and stick around, friend. Tony Blair did.
I will remain - but I hope this clarifies why I am absolutely outraged.
Regards, Ivan
I've done that ~ gotta keep the varmint count down. :)
Be Ever Vigilant!
Japan was surprised by the gas attack mounted by Aum Shinrikyo, but Scotland Yard found the Mohammedans' Holy Ricin of God before they could use it on anyone. I've seen some pique expressed about shaggy sheikhs slipping through police cordons in London, but the piquerati don't always consider that perhaps there was a reason that the personality of interest slipped away ...... or may have been allowed to slip away.
If I were a London police inspector sincerely interested in meeting all the sheikh's special friends, I might let him slip away to go visit a few of them. Then I could visit them, too, and we could all get to know one another.
Too, people who compare British security unfavorably to France's need to reflect on how many North African Moslems are living in France, and how many attacks on Jews there have been in the two countries, comparatively.
That's precisely what happens. What people don't realise is that every time the radical Islamists speak up in public, there's a policeman at the back of the crowd quietly taking down names and taking photographs. We have, by this method, prevented attacks on Britain.
Regards, Ivan
And as for "attacks on Jews", I don't think that snide comments dropped in a London gentlemen's club count the same as pipe bombs left in a synagogue doorway.
Actually, I will hate to see you go--though you have given me no small amount of grief.
You have been at least an interesting part of the FR mileu.
And, you have a sense of humor and can be some fun.
However, you also, to be honest, have a tendency to flame those who disagree with you--particularly in at least a couple of topic areas.
So, to read that you are put-off by flame wars at your or Britain's expense is a bit . . . convoluted, disingenuous?
Anyway--I wish you well. I still care for the Brits a lot. And, given all the Moslem assaults on your country--I think you are headed for at least as many horrid traumas as we are.
I hope you life somewhere other than London. I believe London is going to be utterly destroyed though I'm not sure whether by manmade or natural disaster. I think more likely the latter but it may be a matter of which hits first.
Since you think such postulations are idiocy--I have no doubt you will ignore this one--until after it occurs.
Be safe, healthy and fulfilled in pursuits of honorable goals.
Cheers.
You're going to leave because of these morons?
Are you kidding?
I am so glad that you reconsidered! Welcome back, friend.
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.