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.
Perhaps not "ok" (whatever that means) but certainly legal, as it should be. Haven't you ever heard of David Duke? The point I was making was a logical one which is why you failed to grasp it. In the UK, the government decides what speech is "ok." Our First Amendment prohibits this. Enjoy your "freedom," cuz.
rearding = regarding
I was curious and looked up your latest FR posts before this thread: rogue yam.
Here's a few samplings:
"I think our British cousins have reverted to an infantile state in face of their diminished world status, and the quickening Muslim and criminal onslaught that is engulfing them."
"I initially thought you were saying stupid things on purpose as some sort of pseudo-macho, poseur/wannabe kind of trip. It seemed perhaps you thought it made you appear tough to have strong opinions, and you were just too ignorant and sloppy to pull it off correctly. Sadly, it now appears that you really believe these things that you say. That is, you really are just plain stupid. It must suck being you."
"OK, I get your point. You are a viscious, ignorant savage who cannot be expected to obey the law. So what does this have to do with the trial in question?"
Jeeze, do you know how to post without trying to trash your opponent? I'd never read your posts before today, and you've certainly made a bad impression on me, and undoubtedly many others. You can't even realize that your opponents don't look bad, YOU DO.
Hello! Anybody home? One more try: you're trashing your own FR reputation, not theirs.
Coop, snugs, don't take yam's comments personally, if you look at his early posts invective appears to be his modus operandi. Pathetic, isn't it?
Yippie. Yippie.
So catching and stopping neo-nazis planning racial hatred and admitting race-hate crimes is now wrong? Wow! That says a lot.
Regards, Ivan
Very good news.
(Peach: how's THIS for a birthday present?! ;-))
Good news.
I nearly missed your goodbye, and thankfully, you're still around.
More than a few of us experienced symptoms similar to withdrawal when you were absent for a few months. Spare us that trauma again. :)
I'm so glad you reconsidered. You have touched the hearts of many people on FR, and your leaving would be a big loss to all of us. :-) IF anyone gets down on you or the UK again, you let us know who it is and we'll set them straight in a hurry. Thank God for the UK, the Brits and you!!
I hope you'll reconsider leaving- your perspective on what's going on in your country is needed on FR. God bless you.
Sorry to see you go, Ivan. I haven't considered writing off FR, but I've noticed that more often than not I hit the reply button and start writing only to cancel and give up thinking that it'll just be no use to type anything at all.
I wish FR had a ranking system that allowed folks like you to post indefinitely and newbies or recognized morons to only post a reply say, once a month.
Stupid question, answered fully by my replies to which you linked (taken as a whole). Lame, lame, lame...
I'm glad that you have deceided to stay. The UK board would be a far less informative and interesting place without your posts and political analyses. Also, I know that our American cousins really appreciate your helpful explanations of UK history, politics and society. (I try to answer those kinds of questions too, when I'm around, but only a few other Brits are here to go through all the UK threads on a typical day and answer them).
All the best,
Ivan,
I read that you will remain among us, after all.
Somehow, I can't help but think that Winston Churchill is smiling to know that you didn't let the little yappie dogs here get to you.
All of us are glad that you will remain on this forum and continue to contribute your insight, wisdom and knowledge.
Thanks, mate.
In that sense, nothing.Why would Britons want an American Republican Party? What within the Republican Party are we so missing?
When the Conservative Party was headed by Mrs. Thatcher, again - nothing. I just am happier when there is a party on offer which advocates government which unabiguously respects and nurtures a spirit of independence in its citizenry. Which does not subvert its citizens' ability to plan their own lives and prosper according to their own virtue.But the problem I see in Britain is that you have made an important and controversial decision on Iraq, and yet the election was run in such a way that the electorate had no clear way to register its approval or disapproval. We had all of that sort of thing we needed, back in 1968.
Back then the Republican Party, having been reluctant to fully engage in Vietnam (Vietnam was really Lyndon Johnson's war; he took it from a side show to a 500,000 troop committment), was reluctant to cut and run and proposed a steady course. And of course Hubert Humphrey, being LBJ's vice president, could not take the position which was already the Establishment position of "objective" journalism and was fast becoming the core attitude of the rest of the Democratic Party. But in 1968 any party which flatly proposed to do what the Democrats ultimately did in 1972 would have suffered the fate that the Democrats ultimately did in 1972 - and in 1968 the Democratic Party's Establishment was not prepared to fall on that sword.
Believe me, you don't want to go there! Of course, your parliamentary system does have the advantage that a government can be replaced without waiting for a year which is an integer multiple of four . . .
I second your comments -- not going to learn anything if we all think alike -- I have thoroughly enjoyed learning about Britain during this election. Found out how much I didn't know! :)
Really glad that Mad Ivan is staying!
Dude! You are failing to understand a profoundly simple and obvious point: what one person labels "hate" is not necessarily so-labeled by another. The issue is who gets to decide which ideas are acceptable for public utterance. In your country, your government decides what you are allowed to say in public. In our country, our First Amendment prohibits the government from declaring the utterance of certain ideas illegal. Thus we are more free than you.
You really need to wake up to this idea, and soon, before it becomes illegal for you to publicly object to the imposition of Sharia law in the U.K.
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.