Good job UK voters!

[LuckyTheDog]

They were not stupid enough to hand the country to the Tories, but still found a way to spank Blair for getting them into the Iraq quagmire:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4521627.stm

Kudos, Brits!

[TyeDye75]

1. Finally someone who understands the dilemma

[jmatthan]

2. But did you notice howe Blair

he had a "MANDATE" with just 36% of 60% of the electorate approval!! 40% of the electorate did not even bother to cast their votes!! They are the real winners.

Jacob Matthan
OUlu, Finland

[AP]

8. He did better than Republicans in the US. He has about 60% of seats and

turnout was 10% higher.

[eissa]

3. I'm just glad Galloway got in

I hope he continues to be a thorn in Blair's ass.

[Amonester]

4. Yes, but what about that "Nobody's Above The Law"

"aggreed with" in our "Free" Western Democratic world?

IMHO (and "I am not the only one..."), in order to keep it at that, poodle should now resign immediately (as in "right" now...) as PM, and start to pack-up for his long awaited cruise to the Hague. I have a feeling his judges are perhaps getting a little tired of waiting for him to show up (by himself) so the Democratic world can keep the words "Honesty" and "Justice" their true meanings that so many Good People fought and died for in history.

bLiar to The Hague.

Merci.

(Thank you.)

[mogster]

5. Well

I'm not sure wether I'd call it a good job. Why not the lib dems?

The war wasn't Blair's desicion alone, and the whole apparatus underneath will still be intact when he leaves. Presumably to be impeached and brought to Haag.

Any Brits that care to elaborate a bit why the LibDems is such a bad alternative? I've read several comments that really brands them as something between the devil and Mr. Bush*

[Taxloss]

6. The most effective opposition to the war came from within the

Labour party. The seats that were lost last night were mainly occupied by pro-Blair new MPs who entered parliament in '97 - a neo-liberl new breed. The "old guard" sit mostly in safe seats, and that's why they can safely rebel against the whip and defy the leadership, little risk of losing their seats.

So what we saw last night was a cull of the lickspittles and a hardening of the antiwar position of the parliamentary party. Labour has already had big revolts over controversial right-wing legislation, but the legislation has squeaked through because of the size of the majority. That won't happen any more. The cabinet will have to be more conciliatory.

I know it's hard to understand - it's hard to explain! But then I find American politics baffling at times.

[AP]

9. The people who won in '97 weren't neoliberals. There were a lot of women

in that class and they were solid liberals who took seats form tories.

If anyone is going to lose, it'll be people in those districts -- people without long track records and people in formerly conservative districts.

Yesterday wasn't a referendum on thosing MPs' politics. It was a reflection of their tenuous position, and it's too bad that liberals didn't protect them.

[AP]

10. The people who won in '97 weren't neoliberals. There were a lot of women

in that class and they were solid liberals who took seats form tories.

If anyone is going to lose, it'll be people in those districts -- people without long track records and people in formerly conservative districts.

Yesterday wasn't a referendum on thosing MPs' politics. It was a reflection of their tenuous position, and it's too bad that liberals didn't protect them.

[mogster]

12. Thanks for broadening the picture, AP

:hi:

[mogster]

11. Thanks for answering

I feel somewhat at ease ;-)

Lol, it's not only you that struggles to grasp the finer details in Am. politics. And as for Britain, I'm just out in the blue.

I'll read a bit in your blog, I think.

[Taxloss]

7. You're welcome. Thank you.

We've got rid of the loathsome Howard, and strengthen parliament. A good result.