The 2005 general election was a flawed triumph for Tony Blair and his Labour government. On the one hand, they achieved their third successive victory with a working overall majority of 65 over all other parties combined, or 67 if the Speaker and his non-voting deputies are excluded. This enabled a third full term in office, a unique achievement for a party which had never previously governed for a longer period than six years, in 1945-51 and 1964-70. If Blair were to fulfil his stated aim of remaining Prime Minister for the bulk of the period before the next election, he would be able to surpass ten years as Prime Minister and even remain in Downing Street for a longer time than Mrs Thatcher had between 1979 and 1990. On the other hand, however, the endorsement of the electorate was unconvincing. Labour’s share of the UK vote fell to just 35.2%, the lowest share of the vote ever recorded for a winning party, and 5.5% less than in 2001. Given that the turnout, 61.5%, had only risen by 2.1% from the historic low of four years previously, barely a quarter of eligible voters had voted Labour. This was scarcely a compelling basis for a claim for a mandate supporting the legitimacy of a government as it strove to complete the New Labour ‘project’ within a context of conflictual world affairs. Furthermore, Blair’s decision in autumn 2004 to announce that he would not stand for a fourth term of office as Prime Minister uniquely placed him in the role of a ‘lame duck’ from the moment his tenure was apparently confirmed and extended.