posted May 05, 2005 11:38 PM            

We heard that John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia was in big trouble for aligning Australia with the US in the war on terrorism and sending troops into Iraq. John Howard won reelection handily.

We have heard all the rhetoric about Tony Blair..that he would pay a price for sending troops into Iraq and aligning Great Britain with the US in the war on terrorism.

And now, all three of the foremost supporters of the war on terrorism and the Iraqi war have been reelected.

So, one must ask; are the pundits of the far left radicals gross liars? Or are they so brain dead and out of touch with reality and with the people of their respective nations that nothing they say can or should be taken seriously?

Blair Wins Unprecedented Third Term
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, May 6, 2005

LONDON - 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.
Such an outcome, if confirmed by the actual vote count, 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.

The BBC and ITV television stations projected Labour would win 356 seats in the 646-seat parliament, ahead of the Conservatives with 209. The Liberal Democrats — the only party to have opposed the Iraq war — were projected in third place with 53 seats, for them a disappointing gain of two seats.

The first 23 seats to be declared were won by Labour incumbents, one went to the Conservatives in a key marginal district and one went to the Liberal Democrats, according to official results.

With his majority reduced from the current 161 to 66 seats, Blair could face difficulties controlling a disaffected faction of his party deeply disillusioned with his leadership, especially over Iraq.

Clare Short, who quit Blair's Cabinet over the war, said Blair had proved a liability.

"I think everyone agrees we would have done better with a different leader," Short said.

Former Conservative Defense Secretary Michael Portillo said the projected outcome could prove perilous for Blair.

"On these results I would have thought ... the Brown supporters will be wondering how quickly they can move Tony Blair out of Downing Street," he said.

Counting was to continue through the night, and the winner would not be officially confirmed at least until Friday morning. The outgoing house had 659 seats, but the incoming Parliament will have 646 seats following an adjustment of several electoral boundaries.

The projections, based on a survey of at least 13,000 voters in 115 closely contested districts, showed Labour with 37 percent of the popular vote, the lowest winning share ever.

While Blair apparently was diminished in victory, Conservative leader Michael Howard gained stature as his party lost a third straight election but at least showed some signs of life.

The Conservatives were projected to take 33 percent. The Liberal Democrats were in third place with 22 percent.

A big part of the Conservative strategy was to make it a referendum on Blair, urging voters to "wipe the smirk" off his face. Although Howard supported the Iraq war, he attacked Blair, accusing the prime minister of lying about intelligence and the legality of the invasion and lacking a plan to win the peace.

But Blair benefited from the Conservatives' even greater unpopularity and a perception that the opposition is less capable of handling the economy.

And the government's strong economic record — Britain's growth is high and unemployment low compared to much of the rest of the European Union — appears to have outweighed the resentments over Iraq. Labour is also credited with improving public services such as health and education through investment.

Never before has the Labour Party won three straight elections. Margaret Thatcher accomplished the same feat for the Tories, the only other prime minister in modern British history to do so.

Still, the projected victory for Labour on Thursday stood in stark contrast to Blair's landslides in 1997 and 2001.

Under Britain's parliamentary system, in which Blair must command a majority in the House of Commons and some lawmakers often rebel against party discipline, the size of the majority is critical.

'In For a Tough Time'

William Jones, a political analyst at Manchester University, said that if it turned out to be "anything under 100," Blair would be "in for a tough time. Under 50 he will be in terrible difficulties I think we will see him disappear very quickly."

Geoff Andrews, a political analyst at the Open University, said a group of around 50 rebellious lawmakers within the Labour Party could exercise greater influence as its lead over the opposition slipped.

Blair's government only narrowly defeated Labour revolts in the last parliament, including the crucial vote to go to war in Iraq and legislation to introduce tuition fees for university students, allow more private funding for state-run hospitals and toughen anti-terrorism laws.

Other governments have coped with smaller majorities. Thatcher won with a majority of 43 in 1979. Her successor, John Major, struggled along with a majority of 21, which shrank toward zero at the end of his five-year term in 1997.

The margin of a Labour victory could have consequences for Britain's "special relationship" with the United States.

The battering that Blair took over Iraq during the campaign suggested that any future British leader will probably be wary of backing Washington militarily in the face of hostile domestic opinion.

Blair says this will be his last term. A politically weakened Blair would find it difficult to persuade British voters to approve a proposed constitution for the European Union — which requires ratification by all member states.

During the campaign, the left-leaning Guardian newspaper offered free clothespins to any reader who requested one after a columnist urged reluctant Labour supporters to put aside opposition to the Iraq war and back the party for its domestic policies.

Iraq loomed large in voters' thinking.

"Iraq has been a big thing — trust," said Nicola Wyndham, 33, who voted for Labour four years ago but switched to the Liberal Democrats this time. "He (Blair) has had eight years to make an impact and he really hasn't. There are still problems with health, education and crime."

"I've turned from Labour to Liberal Democrat because I don't really believe what Labour are saying," said Marguerite Hoy, 64, a voter in Braintree, northeast of London.

Democratic Party volunteers from the United States joined Blair's campaign, including Stan Greenberg, Zack Exley, Bob Shrum and Karen Hicks.

Republicans, the traditional allies of British Conservatives, were not much in evidence. Bush's White House has kept the Tories at arms length in deference to his alliance with Blair.

In New York, two small makeshift grenades exploded early Thursday outside a building housing the British Consulate. The blast caused minor damage and no injuries.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/5/164948.shtml

posted May 06, 2005 12:41 AM              

by David W. Moore

posted May 06, 2005 03:00 PM            

As for elections being a fiction, you might want to have a talk with Thomas Dewey, Walter Mondale, John Heinz Kerry, John Edwards, Algore, Tom Foley and Tom Daschle, among the many who know or knew better.

Petron, so what. Bush won the only poll that matters...the Presidential election and managed to increase Republican representation in both the House and Senate while doing so.

posted May 06, 2005 06:26 PM              

Leo Sun and Moon, Aries Mars and Scorp Rising!!?!!

Makes sense...

posted May 08, 2005 01:32 AM              

Labour MPs tell Blair to quit Downing Street
David Cracknell, Political Editor

PRESSURE on Tony Blair to quit as prime minister intensified this weekend with a growing number of Labour MPs calling for him to leave Downing Street within a year.
The backbenchers, many speaking publicly for the first time, have been moved to hasten Blair’s departure after his majority was slashed by 94 in Thursday’s general election.

Many of them say they were shocked by the hostility shown towards them and the prime minister on the doorstep during the election campaign. With a smaller majority, backbenchers will wield far more power and have the potential to help vote down key government bills in the forthcoming Queen’s speech, including soon-to-be-published legislation on ID cards.

Further pressure has been put on Blair to go early, despite his stated intention to serve a full third term, by Michael Howard’s announcement that he is quitting as leader of the Conservatives. Howard told friends that one of the reasons for his statement on Friday was to raise the pressure on Blair to make an early exit himself.

Some MPs close to Gordon Brown believe Blair may decide to quit this year, using the G8 summit in Gleneagles in July or the party conference in autumn to stage an early exit.

However, the comments by MPs this weekend suggest No 10’s hopes may not be realised, particularly if Blair continues to commit himself to serving a full term. At least 30 of the 100 MPs contacted by The Sunday Times wanted Blair to go sooner rather later, many within a year. It follows an article by Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, in which he called on Blair to step down early, even before the local elections next year.

The prime minister will this week seek to shore up support among his MPs when he addresses a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party at the House of Commons.

But yesterday Frank Dobson, the former health secretary, described Blair as an “electoral liability” who would have to go sooner rather than later.

He suggested that if Britain scrapped plans for a referendum on the European Union constitution after a French no vote at the end of this month, many MPs believed he could go even quicker. “Lots of people said on the doorstep during the campaign they couldn’t vote Labour because of Iraq but an even larger proportion said they wouldn’t vote Labour again until Tony Blair had gone. And that’s a major problem.”

John Austin, MP for Erith and Thamesmead, said Blair should go before the party conference. “He was a liability and not an asset in this election. You can’t beat about the bush. Blair was a negative factor on the doorstep, time and time and time again,” he said. “We need a mechanism like the Tories where the grandees go round and tell the leader it is time for him to go. I think it was somewhat arrogant to say he was going to continue with a full term.”

Bob Wareing, MP for Liverpool West Derby, said: “I think the chickens are coming home to roost for Blair. I am hoping the succession will happen as soon as possible.”
Christine McCafferty, MP for Calder Valley, said: “My take on it is that within a year the prime minister will stand down. I would like to see the process take place, but we have just had the election so we need to pause for breath.”

David Taylor, MP for Leicestershire North West, said: “I expect to see Blair go within a year to 18 months.”

David Hamilton, MP for Midlothian, said: “The leadership issue should be dealt with after the G8 and European presidencies (the end of the year).”

Glenda Jackson, MP for Hampstead and Highgate and former transport minister, said Blair should go in six months. “He’s clearly an electoral liability,” she said. “If Tony has been listening, as he says he has, he knows he has to lance the boil properly by going sooner rather than later.”

Albert Owen, MP for Ynys Mon, said: “I believe he will go next autumn.”

Desmond Turner, MP for Brighton Kemptown, said: “It would be nice to see Brown crowned as early as the next party conference. There is only one choice for leader. I don’t think anyone else need apply for the job.”

Doug Henderson, MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North and an ally of the chancellor, said he would be talking to colleagues this week about when they thought Blair should step down.

“The fact that Howard has made his announcement puts a bit of pressure on Blair to indicate fairly soon when he intends to retire as prime minister,” he said. “By the autumn people in the parliamentary party and in the country will want some indication of when Blair intends to hand over.”

Kate Hoey, MP for Vauxhall, said: “Of course he has been damaged and I think that every MP that comes back will tell just how unpopular he was. I’ve no idea when he will step down, but I would have thought it would have been sooner rather than later.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1603310,00.html

posted May 08, 2005 04:20 PM              

LONDON -- Prime Minister Tony Blair should quit, critics from within his own Labour Party said Sunday, blaming Blair for the party's sharply reduced majority in Britain's national election.

Former Cabinet minister Frank Dobson joined other lawmakers in suggesting that Blair's unpopularity, largely over the Iraq war, cost Labour dearly in Thursday's ballot.

"I don't think prime ministers can go on if a very substantial part of their own party thinks that it would be decent of them to resign," Dobson told the ITV channel.

Blair "was an enormous liability in this general election. If he had not been leader I doubt whether we would have lost a seat. We would probably have gained some," added the former minister. Dobson is a supporter of Treasury chief Gordon Brown, who is widely regarded as Blair's chief political rival and successor-in-waiting.

posted May 09, 2005 02:14 PM            

If leftists had their way, the Taliban would still be in control in Afghanistan, oppressing women and everyone else...but especially women. Saddam would still be overseeing the rape, torture and murder of his own citizens and planing the next attack against a neighboring country.

So, now these very same leftists are attempting to downplay the Blair reelection victory and in attempts to do so have quoted some backbiting backbenchers in the Labor Party as saying Blair should resign.

Now as an additional rationale for Blair to resign, it is mentioned that his main rival in the election....the one who lost the election for his party, is stepping down. Let's see, the guy who lost is stepping down so the guy who won should step down...now doesn't that make perfect sense....only to the utterly irrational, illogical and loony leftists.

These are election charts. Now, don't take my word for it but if you add up all the votes possible by the opposition parties, you will find that if they all got together and voted as a block against a Labor Party plan, they would still come up 67 votes short.

Blair delivered a 67 vote bulletproof majority in the election and the leftists are calling that a disaster for Blair. The fact that the Labor Party has never had 3 successive majorities in the British government is also being cast as....somehow...a defeat.

Got to love the irrational, irresponsible, illogical loony left but on the other hand, it gets harder and harder to believe a word they say.

2005 UK SCOREBOARD
Party Seats
LAB 356
CON 197
LD 62
DUP 9
SNP 6
SF 5
PC 3
SDLP 3
IKHH 1
UUP 1
Others 2

posted May 09, 2005 03:56 PM            

quote:

---

jwhop, I thought you may have had a party going on in that house. Pluto, Moon, and Chrion in your 10th I find particularly interesting. Do you mind if I pick your brain?

---

Hmmm DayDreamer, not as long as you're careful and promise not to short anything out!

posted May 09, 2005 07:51 PM            

That's the real reason the United States is a representative Republic and not a democracy.

posted May 09, 2005 09:21 PM            

Howard and Blair were handily reelected as well. Someone out there sure as hell likes them...in spite of all the made up polls leftists like to point to. My bet is that Kerry would take a far worse drubbing if the election were redone today than he did last November.

posted May 09, 2005 09:43 PM              

quote:

---

Except for one small detail you insist on overlooking. Bush was reelected with the largest number of votes in American Presidential history-jwhop

---

squaaaawwk!!.....limbaugh keeps repeating that 1 line too but never mentions that kerry also received more votes than any candidate in any previous U.S. election. whooo hoo

does that mean kerry is more popular than clinton & reagan?

bush jr. also had the smallest margin of victory in U.S. history

posted May 09, 2005 10:46 PM            

John Kerry is losing steam daily and will be nothing more than a footnote in history books....unless he is historically recognized for the American traitor he really is.

It should be further recognized that leftists pulled out all the stops to defeat Bush....and failed. Soros and other leftists spent millions of their own fortunes...and failed. The press pulled out all the stops to defeat Bush...and failed. All the phony polls showing Kerry leading Bush...failed, all the phony exit polls intended to supress the Republican vote failed.

The historical footnote on leftists will be that they are/were failures.