 |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
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 will be missed.
There was a lot of uncivility unleashed during the Terri Schiavo saga, the likes of which we hadn't seem since the Elian saga. And that seemed to shift the tenor of the forum, and it hasn't shifted back.
However, this is also the time to work out beefs within the GOP - just after the last election, but well before the next one. So some of the rancor is, IMO, healthy, because it ensures that the higher-ups realize that there are a wide range of viewpoints that need to be addressed.
Folks shouldn't be so quick to label grumblers as some kind of closet Democrat - typically in a presidential election, you have to put some of your issues aside and vote for the greater good, as we did in 2004 because John Kerry left us no choice whatsoever with a war being waged. But that does not mean those issues are buried and gone for good.
I have been here for awhile and that is something that comes and goes from time to time.My guess is outside sources come in to tear us apart.
Remember the last election?I believe we played a pivotal part in Bush's election..ie Buckhead's blowing apart the National Guard "Story".The dems know our influence and will do about anything to stop us.
There have been problems on both sides that have been allowed to continue.......in the case of Laura, where vulgarity and slander in the name of 'decency' has been left alone, but worse in the case of dear Terri where evil things were being said by some freepers, and dozens of trolls posing on both sides of the issue. Rotten things were said about the Pope too...
Free speech is a good thing, but common decency and a compunction to tell the truth has been missing all over the place here lately, and if it's driven Ivan away (in addition to many others), it needs to be controlled.
Yes, I'm well aware of the ebb and flow of the forum having read it since 1997.
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
This isn't about Laura any more, it is about the tone of FR - and the matter with Laura is the most recent episode of such incivility. So it is highly relevant to address that.
Free speech is a good thing, but common decency and a compunction to tell the truth has been missing all over the place here lately, and if it's driven Ivan away (in addition to many others), it needs to be controlled.
And as I said, one of the best ways to improve civility is to demand it of those on your own side. Did you call anyone on your side to task for excessive attacks? Or are you only concerned about the incivility of the other side?
I stated that I disagreed with the name calling. Stop whining.......please??
(Mind if I ask how old you are.....just for future reference?)
I started lurking here in 97.
Many of us here appreciate your country and your contributions too, MadIvan. Please reconsider. Although I do understand your reaction, this can be a vicious place but those who speak out that way do not represent the majority. Thanks for all your insights.
This makes me very sad, MadIvan. I do hope you reconsider.
You're bemoaning the lack of civility on this forum. I am saying that a good way to improve it is to prod those on your side to be more civil. Folks during a debate are more likely to heed calls for civility from their own side. That's why more people need to step up and demand a better tone - from those they agree with. The mods and JimRob can only do so much, as they have said time and time again.
(Mind if I ask how old you are.....just for future reference?)
Old as dirt.
Don't go!!! Stay with us!!! Please!!!! :(
As someone who has half her family on your beautiful island, I have greatly appreciated reading your insight into all things English.
Please do not go. If you feel you absolutely must, do not go far. Start a weblog. I, for one, would be a frequent reader.
Yes, of course.
My statement was too general, if not misleading. I meant he sought to retain a consensus for sake of holding on to the reigns of the issue of Iraq. In his case, that meant retaining a consensus within his party.
Sorry for the confusion.
I am really grateful for what Britain has done for the US. Thank you.
US-UK-----Brothers Forever.
Look, FR has more than its fair share of bigots, but I think the majority of Freepers LOVE most things British. I am hispanic, without a drop of English blood in me, but I am an Anglophile of the highest degree! Don't let the bombastic minority here get to you my friend. You are one of the better posters on FR.
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.