Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
No, but the numbers make it clear that a sizeable number of people who opposed the war must have voted for Blair after the fact. After all, even if just the two million people who marched against it didn't vote for him you'd have seen a sizeable swing away from Labour, so extrapolating that across the country, you are forced to assume that many millions of people who opposed the war and are happily mouthing off about the Chilcott Report nonetheless voted for Blair in 2005.

As for the argument that there were no alternative parties, that's simply not true as the LibDems opposed the war. It is equally the case that simply withholding one's vote altogether was an option that was available to absolutely everyone.

The fact is that many of those wringing their hands and wagging their fingers after the Chilcott Report simply didn't care as much about Blair's Iraq war as much as they like to pretend, which makes their faux outrage pretty hard to stomach.
That would be true if the war in Iraq was the only election point in 2005.. it wasn't, the economy wtc will have been up there. So it isn't a shock that Labour voters still voted Labour as the economy was still doing well then, and we hadn't had the "boom and bust" that we had through the 80's and early 90's