Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4519863.stm

I never even realised the election took place so quickly.

It appears blairman has won again, what do you guys feel about this?

It's no surprise...look at the 'competition'.

As for Blair, he's a intelligent guy and a worthy PM. It's just a shame he played sheep to Bush's shepard.

Oh...and I so nearly didn't reply because of the stupid title. Consider yourself blessed. By. Me. Welcome.

Oh-You-Tea spells...

i had a sneaky suspiscion he would have won.

Howard of the Tories didnt seem to impress much, with his contious rant of Blair being a liar. He focused more on calling him (Blair) names rather than letting the General Public know what direction he was taking and what new measures he intended to implement.

The Lib Dems stood more of a chance, however the Genral Public dont take the Liberal goals too close. Too, how can i say, different. and people dont want to see harsh changes. It should be blended in gradually.

Blair won again, but with less majority knowing that he has to improve on PR rather than his charisma. In the end it seemed that the Labour had feasable objectives as contrasted to the ' others '

PS:
whats with the tilte CM ?

I read it a few hours ago
not surprised at all... highly predictable

idd Ice

what's idd?

Not surprising

bad BAD BAD BAD BAD

Urgh... I think it's a total fix... Same as Bush staying Pres =/

Blair is more of a Weiner then a winner =P

As long as he doesn't cause more trouble, or make things worse, or try to get rid of English currentcy... <.<; I don't care who's PM >.>;

bad BAD BAD BAD BAD

still...at least the labour majorityn has been severely slashed...from 167 seats in the house of commons to 66....this means labour wont be getting as much of their idiotic legislation passed and put onto the statute books in the next parliment

it also means we dont have to rely on the house of lords to stop those very same pieces of legislation

Gee, a 66 majority is enough to get nearly all votes through. You aren't going to see much of a difference.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Gee, a 66 majority is enough to get nearly all votes through. You aren't going to see much of a difference.

only if all the labour back benchers vote in favour of the government....which doesnt happen all that often...

you have to remember that alot of labour MP's are still old style socialists....their government are anything but

there would need to be some major whipping campaigns going on to ensure victory

labour now hold onto the power by the smallest share of the vote EVER for a government

I wouldn't count the upper house as an upper house these days

****ing slave of Bush

**** **** AND ANOTHER ****

What are ya saying?

Originally posted by jaden101
bad BAD BAD BAD BAD

VERY VERY BAD!!

Originally posted by ChickinMeat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4519863.stm

I never even realised the election took place so quickly.

It appears blairman has won again, what do you guys feel about this?

I have no idea even after reading the site on who the heck this guy is.JM

you dont know who tony blair is...

Me and Jackie aren't from U.K. like you guys are...so no, we don't know who he is..but I'm guessing that he is a trouble maker?

another 4/5 years.... thank god he didnt get a huge majority again. it was predictable though - the tory campaign wasnt strong enough and the lib dems arent yet a threat. Dont worry JM i know somebody in the UK who didnt even know what the liberal democrat party was.

I'm with ush on this very little will change

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
I have no idea even after reading the site on who the heck this guy is.JM
Well hmm the Torys are like the Republicans....and well the Labour party...becomes more and more republican...and the liberal democrats don't get voted anyways.

But The Labour boss is your presidents B!tch so whatever.

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
I have no idea even after reading the site on who the heck this guy is.JM


nobody important :s only like britain's prime minister

well...there is one silver lining to this dark cloud

from this point on you people from the UK can NEVER point your fingers at americans and call us idiots. now we have proof that BOTH our countries are packed with idiots.

other than that though....WOW....what a disappointment

Lib Dems gained 11 seats nice going for those guys, still bloody small but nice going for them anywayz

Originally posted by chelsea17
Me and Jackie aren't from U.K. like you guys are...so no, we don't know who he is..but I'm guessing that he is a trouble maker?

well Im not from the states and I know who bush is

true Ice But bush is a bit more well known than blair

oh come on, no offense but you have to be very ignorant not to know who blair is, I mean england's one of the most powerful countries of the world, and prime minister is as important as president!

True ever so true, but Bush is still a bit more well known, Mainly because -I think- the US its presence is more visible aboard (with all those soldiers ) and the US being '"the last remaining superpower" (to quote Bush Senior)

Well.....I think Blair at least should be known...you don''t really have to know Howard or that other guy whos name I forgot

True but well maybe not every education system is that good

maybe

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well.....I think Blair at least should be known...you don''t really have to know Howard or that other guy whos name I forgot

Charles Kennedy

Blair Palpatine has been upto bush type ballot tricks, but as someone mentioned at least the lib dems have some more seats

england and america are f*cked
Bush: monkey man who has the intelligence and worse he's bent on world domination well if he isnt he might as well be
Blair: as someone said before blair is Bush's lap dog
Bush: jump blair!! jump!!
Blair: how high sir!? how high!? - average convo between bush and blair!! were screwed

Originally posted by IceWithin
well Im not from the states and I know who bush is

I have never heard of him....I don't like Bush, doesn't sound like I'd like Blair either

yeah...america's lapdog...even given the fact that we could only go to war if the entire parliment voted in favour of it...if it didn't...then blair wouldn't have been able to send in the troops

so that makes all 500+ MP's bush's lapdogs as well

yea whats this country coming to

Originally posted by naybean

Dont worry JM i know somebody in the UK who didnt even know what the liberal democrat party was.

That simply isn't possible

Kind of laughable how this whole election come down to hatred of Bush.

Are you all of such short attention span that you couldn't actually concentrate on the true purpose of the election?

It was out of Labour, Tory and Lib Dems. Labour have proven, aside from the Iraq situation (which, for you Geography majors, isn't part of this country), that they are capable of running this country.

-AC

which "labour" are you talking about?

Are you that ignorant? Or just being overly sarcastic?

You believe Lib Dems and/or Tories are more capable of running this country?

-AC

Here is a question for you English Historians out there. The title says "Blair secures historic third term". Has there been another PM that has serve more than two terms?

Thatcher. She had 3 terms.

...And It is not just Iraq. That IS as people have said, the focal point,
but the failed targets on crime, education, health care, university fees, border control, the lies , arrogance and the unwillingness to listen to the electorates is what has landed Labour in the position of contempt that they find themselves in....

And although I'd agree that its hard to look around and find anyone with a more confidence inspiring look to run the country,
I'd say that i think Howard couldn't have screwed the pooch any worse than Blair.....

Thatcher?

Why? Out of curiousity.

I don't personally see how anyone could sanely vote Conservative.

-AC

ugh does anybody else find the title annoying
can a mod change it to "Omg, Blair the winner"

And I can't see how anyone could sanely vote Blair either...
But thats just our passionate opinions huh...
But even though I am no Torie, lib dem were never gonna do it...
So it was tac vote time...

Why do you say you don't see how anybody could sanely vote for Blair? Because of the Iraq situation that in hindsight has nothing to do with the reasons why you should be voting? "But if he lied about Iraq he can lie about other things." True. SOMEONE has to be in power though and Blair is better than both the Conservative and Lib Dem candidates.

I don't like the man, lets not get it twisted here. Conservatives are and always have been a bunch of rich old bastards who take care of those earning more than 50K a year and f*ck everyone else. 80's mining strikes? Oh and on that note...

Like I said, why Thatcher? Unless you're dodging the question.

-AC

I dont know... ask the voters of the time...!! Not dodging.... It was possibly because of weak Labour opposition at the time, which just goes to show that "Better the devil you know" might not always be the best thing I guess....

Rich guys taking care of themselves etc? So are new labour.
They are very similar to the Tories in this regard.
Never before have the two parties of Tories and Labour been so similar in regards to so many issues...
And what about the winter of discontent and its near sequel under Blairs rule?

Near sequel? Bit of a stretch.

I'm waiting though. Don't just chime in with "Thatcher" and "I can't see how anyone could sanely vote for Blair." without giving reason.

So why vote for Thatcher, when she's clearly someone who always has and always will (along with all Conservatives) primarily supported upper classes? Unless you are upper class I don't see why you'd vote for them.

So, explain.

-AC

Hang on... I think we have our wires crossed here AC.
Baroness Thatcher wasn't running and is out of the Tories...
Ergo there is no reason to vote for her.
I "Chimed in" with Thatcher in response to Winds question on terms!
I was applying it in no way to any argument....

Well if you look at the seats/votes last night where there are strong non-upper class prescences, you might note that an awful lot of people voted Torie last night...

The Firestrikes, petrol strikes etc under Blair were very remiscant indeed of the late 70s (The last time Labour were in charge prior to this stint) in regard to the "near sequel" tag...

If there is Something I hated about the Tories in regard to they way they deal with the national services, it'd be privitisation....

Under Labour, the gap between Rich and Poor has gotten quite wide indeed, they keep the poor poor too.
So why not vote for the other party if you are dissatisfied with the current Party?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Hang on... I think we have our wires crossed here AC.
Baroness Thatcher wasn't running and is out of the Tories...
Ergo there is no reason to vote for her.
I "Chimed in" with Thatcher in response to Winds question on terms!
I was applying it in no way to any argument....

Yeah you edited your post. It just said "Thatcher". Glad we cleared that up.

Why vote for the other party if you're dissatisfied with the current? Because the other is worse.

Michael Howard, jeez. If you'd be happy with him running out country, well. Says it all.

-AC

I edited the post about 30secs after I first posted it...!
I thought your response was a bit fast to the whole thing
Now I see...... OK LOL

Worse in your opinion. Which is fine. Thats all good as we love freedom of vote.
Howard definitely wouldn't have been ideal for sure, but I don't want labour in.... So there you go... It didn't say it all, did it?

It'd be like me saying "Well you want Blair" That says it all..... when it would'nt unless I was trying to inferr some deficiency in your way of thinking.. Which'd be a little overly personal rather than sticking to the subject at hand...

As I have said, I tac voted... Im actually more of a leftist than the tories, but the Lib dems were never gonna be up to it.......

Right. Thats it from me for a few days.... Im off for the weekend...... See you all soon...

so a 50% increase in NHS spending leading to only a 5% improvement in overall hospital service as well as an increase in MRSA cases is your idea of capable running of a country

if it were a buisness it would have went bust by now...lucky that the labour government has an almost limitless source of income through johnny tax payer

Yeah that's just as well isn't it?

Originally posted by WindDancer
Here is a question for you English Historians out there. The title says "Blair secures historic third term". Has there been another PM that has serve more than two terms?

I think its called Historic because its the first labour PM to get elected for a third term

But you probably knew that so

Originally posted by jaden101
so a 50% increase in NHS spending leading to only a 5% improvement in overall hospital service as well as an increase in MRSA cases is your idea of capable running of a country

if it were a buisness it would have went bust by now...lucky that the labour government has an almost limitless source of income through johnny tax payer

I didn't say they were perfect. I said in comparison to Michael Howard's crew and with regards to any other choice, they are capable.

If Labour are as bad as people believe, bottom line is, we'd be in a state of anarchic political war, but we're not.

-AC

Would your (Brit voters) opinion change on the labour if Gordon Brown had to suceed as PM in the mid-term course of the Labour Govt. ?

I mean there is a lot of cons against the failed targets of Blair's administration, and we know that Gordon Brown did have a rift with Blair on domestic issues so would Gordon Brown equally spell out the same labour ideaology or would he be more prctical ?

People that are liberals in america just hate the mans guts because he sided with Bush. no otehr reason. guilty by association. i am willing to bet 80 percent of them are just like me and don't know enough about blair to have a really educated opinion about the man. If i was voting for him it would be different, but i just really havn't had much time to study up on him, probably just like most of the people that are complaining that he was re elected along with his Labor party

Kennedy could never run the country, nor Howard, he's a vampire; Blair is the best leader.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't say they were perfect. I said in comparison to Michael Howard's crew and with regards to any other choice, they are capable.

If Labour are as bad as people believe, bottom line is, we'd be in a state of anarchic political war, but we're not.

-AC

my problem with labour is that their answer to every problem is to throw massive amounts of money at it...we are already by far the most highly taxed nation in Europe....we work the longest hours.......yet the streets of most other countries have less litter than ours...the roads of the northern European countries dont come to a stand still with 3 inches of snow(ours never used to either but they do now)

why does everything have to cost so damn much

why is there more pen pushers in the NHS than there are Doctors, nurses and cleaners combined....and why do these pen pushers have far larger salaries than the nurses?

i'll tell you why

labour came into power and helped put an entire generation of school leavers through university and initially said "to hell" with the trades and skills...

when these people emerged from university with worthless degrees the government had to create pointless jobs in the public service to accomadate them....hence the fact that there are now 850,000 more public service jobs than there were 8 years ago...

these people now HAVE to vote labour...cause if the tories got into power then these people are the very same ones that the tories are talking about when they said "eliminate waste" from public spending

and not to mention things arent as rosy as labour point out

for a start you have to examine the claim that there are far less unemployed now

did you know than any person who is on a new deal programme and is still in reciept of job seekers allowance IS NOT classed as unemployed

did you know that if the man in the household in employed and the female isnt...and she is claiming job seekers allowance....then she IS NOT classed as unemployed either

every day you read stories in the news of more manufacturing jobs being lost (rover...IBM)...you need 3 main stable sectors for a truly stable economy...a good housing market...a buoyant retail sector and most importantly...a successful manufacturing sector

manufacturing has collapsed and debt is driving this country into a retail and housing crash...

basically an increase in interest rates by another 1.5% will destroy this country and make what the tories did seem a miracle by comparison...

I see what you're saying, I'm perfectly aware. Had Liberal Democrats had a more convincing presentation (from my POV) then I would have voted them, but the way I see it is like this:

It was either gonna be Labour or Tory, right? We know that. So who would you rather vote for? Personally, I'd rather vote Labour. I don't like Tony Blair or Labour, particularly. I like Howard and the Conservatives even less though.

-AC

i voted tory...why?...seeing as you think no sane person would vote for them...and i have a stamp on my hand that says i am sane

i voted for tory because i genuinly think that the money that labour spend can be made more effective through less beurocracy

many people voted against labour cause of the war issue...personally i thought it was the only principled thing Tony Blair has done in his entire premiership

lets look at one of Tony's finest political acts...the same tony that doesnt have a reverse gear

in 1997

" we have no plans to introduce top up fees and infact will legislate against them"

tada...like magic...we now have top up fees

and 57 other tax rises to boot

i dont want politicians who change what they believe in purely for political opportunism...

Charles Kennedy's entire political manner can be summed up in what he says about Iraq...." i'm against the war...but im glad saddam's gone"

that stinks to me of a person who wants the results but doesnt want to make the desicions or the sacrifices that deliver those results

i agree with many political commentators that the tory campaign was too negative... the labour campaign was to reactive and the liberals campaign was to wishy washy nothingness

still

whats done is done...the tories and the libs made gains...but labour are still in power

and im sure i'll be a good few quid less well off in another 4 years than i am now

thanks to all the labour voters...remind me to not buy you all a drink when i'm filthy rich

It would have been a good post had you not capped it off with a smart remark that nobody really cared about.

Aside from that, you showed me why you didn't vote Labour...excellent. You vote for whoever you wanted to vote for, I wasn't chastising you.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It would have been a good post had you not capped it off with a smart remark that nobody really cared about.

Aside from that, you showed me why you didn't vote Labour...excellent. You vote for whoever you wanted to vote for, I wasn't chastising you.

-AC

it was sort of a dig at the people who vote for labour out of some blind ideal that they are working class people voting for a working class party simply because they haven't bothered finding out the reality

then to top it off....the same people blame those parties for not listening to them

why vote if you have no idea what you're voting for?

I agree.

I was the first person to stand up and say don't vote Lib Dems just coz you don't like someone in the two main parties. It's stupid.

-AC