I’m trying to recall when a party had a majority as large as 161, it hasn’t happened very often so there have not been many opportunities for such a loss of seats and for a party to STILL retain such a comfortable working majority.
In 1945 the Tries lost 177 seats
In 1964 the Tories lost 61 seats
In 1966 the Tories lost 51 seats
Inconvenient fact, in this election the anti Blair and anti war factor worked heavily against labour, in two years time both those factors will have disappeared and the Tories will be in big trouble, again!
I wouldn't call the majority workable. Only 34 Labour MPs need to chuck their teddies to scupper any Blairite bill. If Blair wants to push through any contentious legislation, he will be in grave difficulty. The whips may try and prod the backbenchers in the right direction, but any pleas about the Dear Leader's position will be like pouring petrol on a bonfire. Simply put, Labour have a majority and Blair does not.
Is there any significance in the "two years time" quote?
Brown has a major problem. He cannot please Middle England and the core Labour party in the way that Blair did - both communities have grown wise to the smoke and mirrors. He cannot sit on the fence. I suspect that Labour will quietly ditch the "New" prefix. If the economy is in good shape, then Brown may well get a fourth term for Labour. If it is flagging, then the Tories have an excellent chance.