How About that Tony Blair!

[I miss Reagan]

How about that eh. Good ol' Tony wins what was supposed to be a referendum on the Iraq War. Now I'm sure the story has changed and there will be a lot of back peddling by the anti-war left. In fact I remember some on this forum predicting his demise in this election based on the war. In fact it seems the British people overwhelmingly support Blair in his decision to stick to supporting the US, although the media spin would have has believe something different. The pro-war conservatives gained on both the Labour and most notably the anti-war Liberal-Democrats who only gained 2 seats. How's that for a message.

yahoo

[Guest eureka]

Blair was returned with about 36% of the vote and you call that a resounding win. When most of the vote would come, Iraq or not, it shows just how much was lost. It was the smallest vote for a majority ever in British history

The Liberal Democrats received 22% of the vote. They did not merely gain two seats.

[I miss Reagan]

I knew the excuses would come. Try third consecutive majority. I guess if the Liberal-Democrats only recieved 22% of the vote, that means around 80% of Britans support the war.

[moderateamericain]

Blair was returned with about 36% of the vote and you call that a resounding win. When most of the vote would come, Iraq or not, it shows just how much was lost. It was the smallest vote for a majority ever in British history

The Liberal Democrats received 22% of the vote. They did not merely gain two seats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, what it means is that only 58 percent of the countries voters give a rip. (provided a third candidate didnt recive a larger percantage)

[Guest eureka]

It means a lot more than that. Only the Iraqis and George Bush are consumed with Iraq.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear moderateamericain,

(I cringe every time I [mis]spell that name)

that means around 80% of Britans support the war.

Hardly. Look at the vote in the US last time around. The US voters were looking at many issues, not just the war ones when they narrowly elected GW Bush over Kerry last time around. Domestic issues were probably the biggest factor. In Britain right now, no one has any confidence in the other two parties.

Just as in Canada. Many people would probably vote Conservative, even if out of spite against the Liberals, except hardly anyone trusts Harper to run Canada. The Conservatives, with the right leader, should be at about 80% popularity right now, but as it stands, even a scandal of epic proportions can't help make a 'shoe'in' run at the 'big prize'.

[Black Dog]

Ya know IMR, it would help you cause if the article you linke dto didn't contradict your premise:

Tony Blair won a historic third term as prime minister Thursday but his Labour Party suffered a sharply reduced parliamentary majority in apparent punishment for going to war in Iraq, according to projections based on exit polls.

Blair's Labour party lost 47 seats, both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats made significant advances at Labour's cost. Ousted labour MP George Galloway managed to defeat the Labour incumbent on platform soely devoted to Iraq.

Iraq cost Blair big time. The only reason it diodn't cost him the countryw as a lack of credible alternatives (sound familiar?).

Oh and every single public opinion poll before and sionce the war on iraq began has shown a majority of Britons oppose the war (at the start of the conflict only 29 per cent were in favour). Your simplistic analysis and pathetic spin have no connection with reality.

Labour latest Iraq casualty

With the re-election of the last of the three leaders of the coalition of the willing, it would be tempting to conclude that the political impact of the Iraq war in Britain has not been as great as many predicted.

But while Tony Blair still has a job, it would be nonetheless a grave mistake to underplay the importance of Iraq in determining the result of last week's general election.

[I miss Reagan]

Ya know IMR, it would help you cause if the article you linke dto didn't contradict your premise

You're a little slow BD so I'll try to be a little more clear for you. See: "In fact it seems the British people overwhelmingly support Blair in his decision to stick to supporting the US, although the media spin would have has believe something different." Part of the premise was that the media is spinning Blair's third majority into something negative. For the past 2 years the media has been claiming that Blair would likely fall in the next election. Even the day before the election the papers were claiming that this election was a referendum on Blair and his support for George Bush. If you like, BD, I'm sure I can find a more right slanted article for you.

Blair's Labour party lost 47 seats, both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats made significant advances at Labour's cost.

You really should get a job at the Globe and Mail. Remember the Tories are pro-War. And, "significant"!?. You consider 2 seats significant? yikes, you don't set the bar very high do you.

Anyway this is becoming pattern behavior for you. According to you Bush won 04' based soley on the votes of religious radicals. And the story evolved when it suited your arument whether it was fear mongering, Kerry bashing etc. etc.

Iraq cost Blair big time. The only reason it diodn't cost him the countryw as a lack of credible alternatives (sound familiar?).

Now, you're not saying the NDP isn't a credible arternative are you?

[Black Dog]

You're a little slow BD so I'll try to be a little more clear for you. See: "In fact it seems the British people overwhelmingly support Blair in his decision to stick to supporting the US, although the media spin would have has believe something different." Part of the premise was that the media is spinning Blair's third majority into something negative. For the past 2 years the media has been claiming that Blair would likely fall in the next election. Even the day before the election the papers were claiming that this election was a referendum on Blair and his support for George Bush. If you like, BD, I'm sure I can find a more right slanted article for you.

Since you're obviously not one to let things like facts challenge your preconcieved notions, I'll refrain from pointing out that the "overwhelming support" for Blair amounted to a 36 per cent share of the popular vote, the lowest for any incoming majority government in Britain's history. Factor in a voter turnout of 61 percent, and it turns out Labour won the support of only a fifth of the electorate. Not that reality ever penetrates the concrete bunker betwixt your ears.

You really should get a job at the Globe and Mail. Remember the Tories are pro-War. And, "significant"!?. You consider 2 seats significant? yikes, you don't set the bar very high do you.

The Lib Dems gained 11 seats, not two. And, since you claimed this election was an endorsement of Tony Blair, the Conservative gains represent a further erosion of Labour's support.

Anyway this is becoming pattern behavior for you. According to you Bush won 04' based soley on the votes of religious radicals. And the story evolved when it suited your arument whether it was fear mongering, Kerry bashing etc. etc.

Quotes and citations, please.

Now, you're not saying the NDP isn't a credible arternative are you

I believe they are. the media in Canada has decided otherwise.

[moderateamericain]

Dear moderateamericain,

(I cringe every time I [mis]spell that name)

that means around 80% of Britans support the war.

Hardly. Look at the vote in the US last time around. The US voters were looking at many issues, not just the war ones when they narrowly elected GW Bush over Kerry last time around. Domestic issues were probably the biggest factor. In Britain right now, no one has any confidence in the other two parties.

Just as in Canada. Many people would probably vote Conservative, even if out of spite against the Liberals, except hardly anyone trusts Harper to run Canada. The Conservatives, with the right leader, should be at about 80% popularity right now, but as it stands, even a scandal of epic proportions can't help make a 'shoe'in' run at the 'big prize'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually i didnt post that 80 percent of britian supports the war.

i posted that only 58 percent of britians give a rip (thats all that voted) i wouldnt bother cringing its not worth your time and effort.

[USPE]

The entire political system in the U.K. is totally flawed and it is impossible to beleive that the most powerful empire in the world at one point still can't sort out its issues with electoral reform.

There you have to see how many overall districts out of 651 you can win but you only ever vote for your local MP who is affiliated (usually) to a party but if you support your local MP who happens to be a part of the national government who you don't support then you're screwed! To vote out the leader in Westminster you would need to vote for a candidate that was in a different party to his in your own local district irrelevant of the performance of the local MP who was affiliated with the same party as that of the leader.

Its total nonsense and about time there was some reform in Britain.