|
Post by Emerald City on May 4, 2005 19:03:49 GMT -5
Blair on track for re-election on eve of British vote
LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair looked on track to win a third straight term in power, as Britain prepared to vote in a general election that has repeatedly called his integrity over Iraq into question.
A trio of new opinion polls all predicted Blair's Labour Party would triumph again at the polling stations on Thursday, though most likely with a smaller share of the vote than in the 2001 election.
But with the surveys also showing as much as a quarter of the electorate still undecided, the big question was not whether Blair would be re-elected, but by how much -- or how little.
Many voters, furious at Blair for taking Britain into the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, could either boycott the polls or opt for the anti-war Liberal Democrats, potentially robbing Labour of a convincing landslide win.
Blair, who turns 52 on Friday, issued a final rallying cry on election eve, reiterating a warning -- discounted by most independent experts -- that a low turnout will hand the main opposition Conservative Party an upset victory.
"This is a tough and tight race," Blair insisted in an impassioned speech in Yorkshire, northern England, warning that anti-Labour protest votes could "let in a Conservative MP".
"Keep that back door locked. We don't want the Tories (Conservatives) in by the front or back door," he said.
Conservative leader Michael Howard, 63, and Liberal Democrat chief Charles Kennedy, 45, were also out Wednesday blitzing constituencies up and down the country where tight races could determine the outcome.
Howard remained defiantly upbeat despite the polls. "We are working towards winning tomorrow," he insisted.
Kennedy, meanwhile, whose smaller Liberal Democrats have won support as the only main party to oppose the Iraq war, predicted they would make their best showing ever.
|
|
|
Post by Emerald City on May 4, 2005 19:05:05 GMT -5
Blair steered Labour to landslide victories in May 1997 and June 2001, scoring a record 166-seat majority in parliament with 40.7 percent of the vote in the latter election.
But that was before he decided to join US President George W. Bush in invading Iraq in March 2003, despite popular opposition that at one point saw more than one million anti-war protesters on the streets of London.
Nagging questions about the legality of the war, and how soon Blair decided to take Britain into it before telling the public, have foiled Labour's bid to put the strong economy at the heart of its campaign.
According to a survey to be printed in Thursday's edition of the Times newspaper, Labour will gain just under 38 percent of the vote, well down on 2001.
But the poll also predicted that the Conservatives' share of the vote is likely to drop below even the 31.7 percent they scored of 2001, a figure seen at the time as a disaster.
Two other polls being published Thursday also gave Labour a lead, with the Guardian predicting a massive 130-seat parliamentary majority for Blair.
In contrast, the Independent put the Labour lead at only three percentage points, although it also noted that more than a quarter of the electorate had yet to make up their minds.
Many analysts say that if Labour gets less than a 100-seat majority in the 646-seat House of Commons, Blair is likely to make way sooner rather than later for Gordon Brown, his ambitious and more popular chancellor of the exchequer.
The most difficult scenario for analysts is a hung parliament, in which Labour would not have a clear majority. In that instance, it would have to depend on the goodwill of smaller parties to govern.
On the other hand, victory for Labour would mark the first time that the once-socialist, now more centrist party has won three elections in a row since its founding in 1900.
"The last election (in 2001) was a done-deal election with no real expectation of anything else and no real bitter issue," said Colin Rallings of the elections centre at Plymouth University, southwest England.
|
|
|
Post by Emerald City on May 4, 2005 19:10:39 GMT -5
If Bush could be voted back in then so can Blair :shifty:
|
|
|
Post by Diamond Girl on May 4, 2005 19:41:50 GMT -5
:whistle:
|
|
|
Post by Motown Honey on May 5, 2005 2:19:12 GMT -5
If Bush could be voted back in then so can Blair They both should be barred from office
|
|
|
Post by Emerald City on May 6, 2005 18:14:39 GMT -5
Well ((MS)) Bush and Blair now both have something to smile about; Blair Wins
|
|
|
Post by Motown Honey on May 7, 2005 22:42:04 GMT -5
Well ((MS)) Bush and Blair now both have something to smile about; Blair Wins How long are y'all terms...We have three more years of this mess
|
|
|
Post by Emerald City on May 8, 2005 13:25:58 GMT -5
How long are y'all terms...We have three more years of this mess Four whole years :befuddled:
|
|
|
Post by Motorcity on May 8, 2005 16:46:29 GMT -5
Four whole years Looks like England and America are in for it :frustration:
|
|