A blog by Luke Akehurst about politics, elections, and the Labour Party - With subtitles for the Hard of Left. Just for the record: all the views expressed here are entirely personal and do not necessarily represent the positions of any organisations I am a member of.

Friday, May 02, 2008

Oxford

Labour has gained a stunning four seats in Oxford, falling just one short of taking overall control - and missing that ward by just 4 votes.

28 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

But surely Labour is only a party of the North, Wales and Scotland... LOL.

1:34 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger John Doe said...

Since the Iraq war, Labour have done nothing but lose seats in the North, Wales and Scotland.

1:37 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From a huge start, of course they have.

Are you really this thick or are you trolling?

1:41 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger The said...

fucking great torys cunts get bury

1:42 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous blair fan said...

No the share of the vote went up in 2007 from 2004.

In this election it looks as though the share of the vote will be the lowest ever, despite Iraq not being an issue.

1:42 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger John Doe said...

How lovely that you can bury the thought of a million dead people because "its not an issue" to you.

1:44 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous J long said...

Good night so far

Labour down 100

1:44 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger Alan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:45 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Luke, I'm sorry to sound negative, but this is the number-of-the-night so far:

Labour 24
Tory 44
LibDem 25

That's the "national number" projection given by the BBC just now. And while I'd love to see you prove me wrong, I don't see how *that* one can be spun.

1:45 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger Alan said...

It's you!

1:46 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous blair fan said...

You supported the war on democracy in Iraq so you have blood on your hands. We have tried to stop that war - and now with success.

If you are against dead Iraqis then why do you oppose the surge?

1:47 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger John Doe said...

"Hate the spin, not the spinner"

New Labour motto.

1:47 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger John Doe said...

"If you are against dead Iraqis then why do you oppose the surge?"

I didn't say anything about the surge. Are you a mind reader?

1:48 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Doe's gutted that there were no Baathist candidates.

1:49 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger The said...

what is that old dear doing on the right on hoon

1:49 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger John Doe said...

"You supported the war on democracy in Iraq so you have blood on your hands. We have tried to stop that war - and now with success."

You opposed the war on a concept, so declared a real war that killed a million real people. An illegal war of aggression. If Nuremberg laws applied, Blair and his cronies would be hung for war crimals.

1:50 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger John Doe said...

*crimes

1:50 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Doe is gutted that there were no candidates willing to gas parts of the population and round up political opponents and torture and murder them like his favourite party the Baathists.

1:53 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger The said...

watch antony king on bbc when ever nick talks he thinks he is a tory boy

1:55 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous john doe said...

I am retarded so please go easy on me.

1:55 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger John Doe said...

"John Doe is gutted that there were no candidates willing to gas parts of the population and round up political opponents and torture and murder them like his favourite party the Baathists"

If you want to talk about dead Iraqis, the USUK sanctions on Iraq killed a million people, half of them children. This war has killed a million people. Bush and Blair make Hussein look like fucking Gandhi. I'd have thought somebody with your record of supporting failed policies would be more humble.

1:57 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So sanctions shouldn't be applied and military intervention shouldn't be used. How else would the Baathists be removed or were you happy to support the regime?

Also your figure of a million has no substance. Linky Linky?

2:01 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am retarded so please go easy on me.

It's apparent, I sympathise.

2:02 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sanctions were Saddam's fault; they saved a lot of lives by stopping him from invading his neighbours again.

2:02 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger John Doe said...

How the fuck does denying medicine to Iraqis and starving them of food hurt Hussein? You killed Iraqi CIVILIANS. 500,000 of them children. Saddam Hussein was fine... so fine that you thought he was still a threat in 2003 and could deliver chemical weapons to UK territory within 45 minutes. The sanctions did nothing but kill innocents. And now you're reaping what you sowed, the Iraqis hate your fucking guts and will kill our soldiers at any opportunity.

2:08 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How the fuck does allowing Saddam to build nukes and invade his neighbours save lives, you predictable moron?

The reason Saddam was so weak in 2003 is precisely because of the very sanctions you opposed.

Brain dead loser.

2:17 am, May 02, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see John Doe is still having his Saddam love in. I wonder if he idolises Hitler too?

10:00 am, May 02, 2008

 
Blogger zhangxiaopi said...

solar fountain solar pump

4:18 am, May 14, 2008

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 
Free Hit Counters
OfficeDepot Discount