Posted on 05/06/2005 1:35:50 AM PDT by yoe
Tony Blair won a historic third term as prime minister Thursday, but his Labour Party suffered a sharply reduced parliamentary majority in punishment for going to war in Iraq. A chastened Blair said "we will have to respond to that sensibly and wisely and responsibly."
The outcome could set the stage for Blair to be replaced in midterm by a party rival such as Gordon Brown. As Treasury chief, Brown was widely credited for the strong economy that appears to have clinched Labour's victory, outweighing the bitterness many voters said they felt over Iraq.
With 614 of the 646 House of Commons seats counted, official results showed 352 seats won by Labour, enough to form a government, 191 went to the Conservatives, 59 went to the Liberal Democrats - the only major party to oppose the Iraq war - and 12 to other smaller parties.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
It's amazing how they know what every voter is thinking. My headline would have been. "Brit's vindicate Blair's decision to go to war with historic third term."
Blair certainly didn't look like a happy camper giving his acceptance speech.
He knows he won't complete this term.
As soon as Iraq resolves, the LibDems will lose half their seats.
But I thought there were good signs that their might be a Tory upset?
In any case the Tories find themselves in a much stronger position. How many new seats did they win?
Blair was never going to complete his term. He said prior to the election this would be his last campaign.
Regards, Ivan
I think you're overstating Iraq as the cause of the Lib Dem surge - people have been watching the BBC too much around here. The Lib Dems are a party of opportunists, more or less - and they'll latch onto whatever they can find in order to win votes. Now, some people noticed this - that's why Lib Dem seats like Weston Super Mare, Guildford and Newbury all went back to the Tories last night. The Liberals should be worried that opportunism may have gained them Labour seats, but it lost them Tory seats.
Regards, Ivan
"What is amazing is how people bought the MSM 'news' about Tony Blair's chances of retaining his seat...the exit polls were about as reliable as were the exit polls for Bush. The MSM did not want Mr. Blair to win and did their level best to confuse and mislead - just as they always do"
What are you talking about? The exit polls were amazingly accurate and there was never the slightest doubt raised over Tony Blair losing his seat.
"Clearly the crowing by the LibDem spokeman is specious - this does not mark a "third party era" in Britain. The LibDem vote was a one-issue protest vote.
As soon as Iraq resolves, the LibDems will lose half their seats."
That's not a good analysis. The Lib Dems have been making steady gains in national elections since the party formed in the late-80s. There's no reason to think that last night marked anything more than a continuation of that in terms of seats. They actually picked up a lot of votes, but not so many seats - they were taking Labour support in Labour safe seats that the Lib Dems had no hope of winning.
For all those quibbling over whether this was a protest vote over Iraq or a vindication of Blair over Iraq, the answer is that it was neither. By and large Iraq was only an issue for people who would have voted against Blair for other reasons anyway.
Perhaps you could answer a question for me. I don't seem to understand exactly why as whatever shade of conservative, I should want Blair in office instead of Howard. Howard is the party of Thatcher, the party wanting deregulation, the party wanting to cut spending. Every time I watch PM's questions, it seems Blair is wanting to roll out another plan that will cost even more. Setting aside the foreign policy stances, which I could care less about in this election, why support Blair as some seem to do around here?
The people supporting Blair on here are all American. It's a mystery to us Brits too.
I'm sorry -- the exit polls predicted a 66 seat majority for Labour. They turned out to be almost spot on. No-one ever said Blair had a chance of losing his parliamentary seat and the British papers have always said it would take a miracle for him to lose the overall election.
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.