0mG Blair tEh W1nN@r!!1

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...