Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    fixated
    Reputation: DougSloan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,571

    Blair, pro war leader, elected to 3rd term

    Despite being closer, Blair was re-elected, too. Anyone care to explain this? With all the anti-war sentiment in England, and supposedly not being under the mind control of Karl Rove, how can British voters possibly do this? I've not read anything to indicate that there are more important issues that secured the Labour Party, and that the defining issue in the election was the Iraq war. What's up with that?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4520317.stm

  2. #2
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    22,998

    he took the middle ground, but...

    The analyses I have read stated that he won because he was seen as relatively moderate compared with the other 2 party candidates. Lesser of 3 evils in this case, and he got something like 37%, not exactly a mandate.

    However, note that his party LOST a lot of seats, about 100 iirc. And the losses came from MPs who were pro war. The Labour MPs who held the seats were not pro war.
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

    List of people who get unduly personal and are such a waste of my time I wrote a script to delete all their posts, even those in other people's replies:

    AM999

  3. #3
    OES
    OES is offline
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    14,508
    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    Despite being closer, Blair was re-elected, too. Anyone care to explain this? With all the anti-war sentiment in England, and supposedly not being under the mind control of Karl Rove, how can British voters possibly do this? I've not read anything to indicate that there are more important issues that secured the Labour Party, and that the defining issue in the election was the Iraq war. What's up with that?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4520317.stm
    Britain is a liberal country. The Brits like socialism. Blair's party is liberal and socialist. The conservative candidate was awful, and conservatism doesn't appeal to Brits anyway.

    Blair was elected DESPITE his war record, not because of it. It's really not a mystery.

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    Despite being closer, Blair was re-elected, too. Anyone care to explain this? With all the anti-war sentiment in England, and supposedly not being under the mind control of Karl Rove, how can British voters possibly do this? I've not read anything to indicate that there are more important issues that secured the Labour Party, and that the defining issue in the election was the Iraq war. What's up with that?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4520317.stm

    If I am not mistaken the polls from britain indicate that most did NOT think Iraq was the most important issue and those that did voted for third party candiates (liberal democrats), since they felt that the conservative party was worse than the liberal Labour party of Blair.

  5. #5
    fixated
    Reputation: DougSloan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,571

    Bush, too?

    Quote Originally Posted by OldEdScott
    Blair was elected DESPITE his war record, not because of it.
    Any chance the same thing applied to Bush, or was it because of the war?

  6. #6
    OES
    OES is offline
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    14,508
    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    Any chance the same thing applied to Bush, or was it because of the war?
    The AMerican electorate is evenly divided and frozen in place. It's like the Battle of the Somme. Millions die, nothing changes. Issues don't move anyone. Elections are won because you're more successful at getting your base out of the trenches and over the top. The damndest thing I ever saw.

  7. #7
    What did you say? Huh?
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    18,246
    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    Any chance the same thing applied to Bush, or was it because of the war?
    IMO-because he was the candidate who made the masses think that he was the only one who 'could protect the country'....

    even though most of the post 9/11 panic security legislation has been found to be rather worthless in terms of increasing security (and spending lots of money in the process)..there was a NYTimes article on the matter this weekend...I'll need to dig for it though...
    Man. You are all stuped.
    ~RUFUSPHOTO

  8. #8
    OES
    OES is offline
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    14,508
    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    Any chance the same thing applied to Bush, or was it because of the war?
    I was trying the say the war was, astonishingly, not an issue in the American campaign. The war probably didn't sway 77 votes.

  9. #9
    Master of flip comments
    Reputation: gregario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,739

    duh.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldEdScott
    Britain is a liberal country. The Brits like socialism. Blair's party is liberal and socialist. The conservative candidate was awful, and conservatism doesn't appeal to Brits anyway.

    Blair was elected DESPITE his war record, not because of it. It's really not a mystery.
    Doug needs to listen to the BBC via NPR. I doubt if Rush covered this topic so he's clueless and clearly drawing the wrong conclusions. Blair was the "hold your nose and vote" candidate and his party lost seats in parliment.

  10. #10
    OES
    OES is offline
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    14,508
    Quote Originally Posted by gregario
    Doug needs to listen to the BBC via NPR. I doubt if Rush covered this topic so he's clueless and clearly drawing the wrong conclusions. Blair was the "hold your nose and vote" candidate and his party lost seats in parliment.
    Well, good luck to anyone who tries to claim the Bush/Blair re-elections as stunning public ratifications of the Iraq adventure. As well call the Bush election a stunning public ratification of youthful drug and alcohol abuse. Just because two things stand side by side doesn't mean they're linked.
    Last edited by OES; 05-09-2005 at 08:37 AM.

  11. #11
    RIP Funny Penguin
    Reputation: thatsmybush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    15,895
    On top of that, Blair apologized and had "rallies" that were more analogous to a public blood letting. People just standing their screaming at him...him nodding ALA Clinton's best pain feeling. The intent was to let people vent at him, take out their frustrations with the war and then vote him back in. (Only something to imagine here.)

    The internal skinny is that he won't make 5 years that his margin is so slim that if his "liberal" wing decides to walk he will lose the government.
    In the time of battle you don't rise to the occasion you resort to the level of your conditioning...

  12. #12
    Master of flip comments
    Reputation: gregario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,739

    meanwhile back in the land of the free...

    [QUOTE=thatsmybush]On top of that, Blair apologized and had "rallies" that were more analogous to a public blood letting. People just standing their screaming at him...him nodding ALA Clinton's best pain feeling.


    You couldn't even get into a Bush speech without pledging loyalty. That's about as "unAmerican" as you can get.

  13. #13
    fixated
    Reputation: DougSloan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,571

    no clear choice?

    Quote Originally Posted by OldEdScott
    I was trying the say the war was, astonishingly, not an issue in the American campaign. The war probably didn't sway 77 votes.
    There wasn't exactly a clear choice there, either. Kerry didn't take a bold stand opposing the war. All his opposition lost in the "nuance". Kerry did not make the election a war referendum, like Dean might have.

  14. #14
    OES
    OES is offline
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    14,508
    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    There wasn't exactly a clear choice there, either. Kerry didn't take a bold stand opposing the war. All his opposition lost in the "nuance". Kerry did not make the election a war referendum, like Dean might have.
    Absolutely. I believe I implied as much in my Somme metaphor. Dean would have got 'em over the top better.

    Have I mentioned what a rotten candidate John Kerry was?

  15. #15
    Arrogant roadie.....
    Reputation: Dave_Stohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,232
    Well, Doug, I watch the BBC every night, and my friend in Hertsfordshire keeps me posted on the latest in British politics, so here goes:

    Labour: 37% of the vote. Tony Blair supports the war

    Torries: 33% of the vote. They also support the war.

    Liberal Democrats: 25% of the vote. Anti-war. BTW, Mr. Kennedy is (gasp) gay.

    Others-Green, UKIP, SNP: 5%.

    So, Tony gets re-elected with something like 14% less of the popular vote than Georgie-porgy got last November. Since the Labour lost a sh!tload of seats, expect Tony Blair to be replaced as party leader (and PM) at the next party convention.

    Right now, the Labour have a slim majority, but if anything gets people to turn against Tony, his government will fall. I give him 1 year, tops.

    BTW, they still have socialised medicine, and it costs them significantly less per person to provide insurance than we are paying....
    We are the 801
    We are the central shaft

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_Stohler
    Well, Doug, I watch the BBC every night, and my friend in Hertsfordshire keeps me posted on the latest in British politics, so here goes:

    Labour: 37% of the vote. Tony Blair supports the war

    Torries: 33% of the vote. They also support the war.

    Liberal Democrats: 25% of the vote. Anti-war. BTW, Mr. Kennedy is (gasp) gay.

    Others-Green, UKIP, SNP: 5%.

    So, Tony gets re-elected with something like 14% less of the popular vote than Georgie-porgy got last November. Since the Labour lost a sh!tload of seats, expect Tony Blair to be replaced as party leader (and PM) at the next party convention.

    Right now, the Labour have a slim majority, but if anything gets people to turn against Tony, his government will fall. I give him 1 year, tops.

    BTW, they still have socialised medicine, and it costs them significantly less per person to provide insurance than we are paying....


    - right on all accounts, apart from;"Mr. Kennedy is (gasp) gay."
    (unless you know more than us, he's married with a newly born sprog)




  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    67
    One of the reasons Blair did get back in, I think, (I agree with a lot that has been said) is that the economy here has been relatively strong under the Labour party, via, the approach of the Chancellor - Gordon Brown. There is this feeling that Brown will replace Blair in the near future, he's a bit more palatable, and a bit less (please excuse the term) 'Presidential' than Blair. There also seems to be a bit of friction between them.
    The Tories, I think, scored a bit of a 'home goal' in their pre-election advertising by stating - 'vote Blair, get Brown' (!) , which probably is what most Labour voters would want.

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,700
    His party lost seats to the Conservatives who were even more staunch supporters of the war. I don't get your reasoning.
    Just because I understand doesn't mean I care!
    - From my beer koozie

    Anti-Americanism is the principle zeitgeist of our times.

    - the rydster

    Sometimes your answer is as simple as looking down and noticing your own feet for the first time.
    - Snakebit

  19. #19
    633
    633 is offline
    Ti me up
    Reputation: 633's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_Stohler
    BTW, they still have socialised medicine, and it costs them significantly less per person to provide insurance than we are paying....
    I have spent a lot of time in Britain working with my company's customers over there. Interestingly, several of them are health insurance companies. Britain, and Australia, and many other countries have socialised medicine as a safety net. But anyone who actually wants anything like the medical care we expect in the U.S., and wants to be seen in a reasonable amount of time, also buys private medical insurance. So you get high taxes AND you get to pay health insurance premiums.
    Michael



    You see lots of happy cyclists. When was the last time you saw a runner smiling?

  20. #20
    fixated
    Reputation: DougSloan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,571

    funny

    You couldn't even get into a Bush speech without pledging loyalty. That's about as "unAmerican" as you can get.
    Funny, I've seen Bush speak, being no further that 10-20 feet away, and never pledged anything. My wife was with me and she's typically a democrat. Urban myth maybe?

  21. #21
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    22,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Live Steam
    His party lost seats to the Conservatives who were even more staunch supporters of the war. I don't get your reasoning.
    What a suprise!

    Labour lost seats compared to conservative gains, but that does not mean that conservative candidates who supported the war won seats from labour candidates that supported the war. It is a lot messier than that I think. There is nuance in the electorate. Think of it this way, in the USA a Republican from Maine can be more liberal than a Democrat from Georgia. I am sure similar things hold true for England.

    In this case I am just repeating something I read from British sources (and I can't even remember where I heard it, probably some google news feed) saying that labour pro war candidates tended to lose, but labour anti war candidates tended to hold their seats. Make of it what you will. I don't follow their system and the details of the election anywhere close enough to evaluate what happened in a fine grained way.
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

    List of people who get unduly personal and are such a waste of my time I wrote a script to delete all their posts, even those in other people's replies:

    AM999

  22. #22
    Arrogant roadie.....
    Reputation: Dave_Stohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,232
    Quote Originally Posted by UK rider
    - right on all accounts, apart from;"Mr. Kennedy is (gasp) gay."
    (unless you know more than us, he's married with a newly born sprog)



    Well, my friend is gay (and a bit of a yob, if you ask me), so perhaps he was only repeating hearsay. At the very least, I've heard many comments about Mr. Kennedy being "ginger", but perhaps they were only talking about his hair colour.......
    We are the 801
    We are the central shaft

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: giovanni sartori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,019

    Correct

    You are correct, if you can afford private health insurance, you get it. it beats waiting days or weeks for an appointment and treatment.

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,700
    This is old stuff, but I think the majority of people saw through Kerry's bullsh!t. Reference my post below. Those sound bites pretty much summed up Kerry's inability to take a stand. Americans may be many thing, but they know a bullsh!ter when they hear one. Even the Bush bashers cannot say he hasn't stayed on message - even if they don't like the message. No one could ever say that about Kerry.
    Just because I understand doesn't mean I care!
    - From my beer koozie

    Anti-Americanism is the principle zeitgeist of our times.

    - the rydster

    Sometimes your answer is as simple as looking down and noticing your own feet for the first time.
    - Snakebit

Similar Threads

  1. Kerry's illustrious war record exposed!
    By Live Steam in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-01-2004, 10:37 AM
  2. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 10-02-2004, 04:37 AM
  3. Kerry film scenes tonight reenacted??????
    By ClydeTri in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 07-31-2004, 06:20 AM
  4. Why did Kerry vote "for" war?
    By AJS in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-23-2004, 07:24 PM
  5. The America I want
    By Flip Flash in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-02-2004, 02:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

2015 LIGHTS SHOOTOUT

Hot Deals See All Hot Deals >>

Interbike Featured Booths

Check out the hottest road bike products from these brands!



















See All Interbike Coverage - Click Here »


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook