It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

VOTE2005 - Britain's voters heading to polls

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Just a general question here:
Will the Daily Mirror run a front page asserting "How Can [insert number here] People Be So DUMB?" if Blair wins?





seekerof




posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Good to see Blair wins a third term. Bush wouldn't know what to do if he lost.

Wonderful video



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by andpau66
Good to see Blair wins a third term. Bush wouldn't know what to do if he lost.

Wonderful video


i cant believe that so many still voted for Blair. Still it was a vastly reduced amjority which means he will have to be more careful from now on.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
I think it is still remarkable the cross atlantic corporation between an american conservative party and english labour, one tends to think as Reagan/Thatcher as the ultimate interatlantic conservative lovecouple, but it goes to show that labour has lost its "red" colour and become a pragmatic party run by bussinesmen (Iould think that joining the iraq adventure was motivated as well for future financial kickbacks in mind, about 3,5 percent of British GDP is generated by american owned companies , furthermore there is even much more crossatlantic financial dependancies/investments/shareholding in big oil/weaponsystemscompanies) , ideologically shifted in the center, allowing it to swoop up votes from both people slightly left or right from that center...

In 2004 the British economy was strill riding some propery speculation bubble, driven by the banking/insurance sector, creating an economical much better picture than mainland europe, wich surely helped to minimize labour losing much votes, but one has to keep in mind that economic picture is slightly distorted as its done mainly with borrowed money (morgages etc) and jobs mainly created in services, while real indeginous and british owned manufacturing has declined (Rover etc).



[edit on 6-5-2005 by Silenus]



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Just a general question here:
Will the Daily Mirror run a front page asserting "How Can [insert number here] People Be So DUMB?" if Blair wins?





seekerof


Nope, over here in the UK, all types of media tend to back a party during the election and the mirror always back labour even though they were againts him and the war. Politics is a funny game



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rustiswordz
i cant believe that so many still voted for Blair. Still it was a vastly reduced amjority which means he will have to be more careful from now on.


Very careful is the word now,
he will find it hard to get backing from his own party aswell as tories and lib dems. The house is going to be very interesting now, i doubt Blair will join Bush on anymore wars...especially Iran due to it will cost lives and the economy.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Yay labour won. Aint that great. Now to blank out politics entirely for the next four years or so, until it is rudely forced upon me again. I hate politicians. Since when has a politician ever done anything truly great and productive for the world. Nope the great things of this world are thanks to the inventors, engineers, artists and other creative people. Politicians are there to control the world, not create a better one.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
This 'small majority' stuff is really quite amusing.

Whilst it is true that a majority of 66 is 'small' compared to the 169 and 159 majorities of 1997 and 2001 respectively it is actually a big win compared to the usual postwar British norms.

One might consider that Maggie Thatcher's first gov in 1979 had a majority of 43.

Hardly stopped her & Co. implementing a radical program for gov did it, hmmm?

(.....oh, and I can only think that those who imagine UK politicians don't do anything positive haven't got kids, don't have a mortgage etc etc.)



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
This 'small majority' stuff is really quite amusing.

Whilst it is true that a majority of 66 is 'small'


Of course its small compared to previous election results, but at the same time its still small. It could be worse, we could of had a "hung parilament". Any majority is good.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Of course its small compared to previous election results, but at the same time its still small.


- No, this is simply not true. 66 is not a small majority.

The 66 majority is only 'small' when compared to Tony Blair's Labour party results in 1997 and 2001.

It is absolutely not 'small' when compared to the typical UK post war record.

1945 was a huge landslide with a Labour majority of 136.
1950 was a Labour majority of 5
1951 was a tory majority of 17.
1955 was a tory majority of 54
1959 was a landslide tory majority of 100
1964 was a Labour majority of 5
1966 was a landslide Labour majority of 96
1970 was a tory majority of 30
1974(1) was a hung Parliament
1974 (2) was a Labour majority of 3
1979 was a tory majority of 43
1983 was a huge landslide tory majority of 143
1987 was a landslide tory majority of 102
1992 was a tory majority of 21
1997 was a huge landslide Labour majority of 179
2001 was a huge landslide Labour majority of 167.
www.psr.keele.ac.uk...




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join