Monday, June 14, 2004
IT MUST HAVE BEEN ABOUT IRAQ
Given that the BBC was more than happy to tell us that Labour's poor election results domestically were partly because of public disapproval at Britain's stance on Iraq, it is curious that the Beeb neglected to give us similar takes on the reasons other national ruling parties also did very poorly in the European elections. Let's have some fun. Allow me:
That's called always having it your way . . .
Of course, "Iraq" was not the only reason people voted for or against parties in those countries. Just as "Iraq" wasn't necessarily the main reason they did so in Britain. Blair's party could be opposed for NUMEROUS reasons . . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, June 14, 2004
Given that the BBC was more than happy to tell us that Labour's poor election results domestically were partly because of public disapproval at Britain's stance on Iraq, it is curious that the Beeb neglected to give us similar takes on the reasons other national ruling parties also did very poorly in the European elections. Let's have some fun. Allow me:
Germany's governing Social Democrats recorded their worst result since World War II. Official results showed the party took just 21.5% of the vote, with the Christian Democrats set to be clear winners with 44.5%.Undoubtedly, that is because Schroeder's SDP did NOT participate in the Iraq coalition.
French President Jacques Chirac's Union for the Popular Movement, with 16.6% of the vote, finished a far second behind the Socialist Party, on 28.9%, according to the final results.Again, Chirac's party got crunched because he did NOT join the Iraq coalition.
In Poland - largest of the new EU members - partial results indicated the governing left party won just 9% of the vote. Turnout there was just under 20%.How can one be so blind! It is because Poland is in the Iraq coalition, you fool.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi suffered a setback with his centre-right coalition losing ground. His Forza Italia remained the most popular party, but saw its share of the vote drop to 21%, compared with 29.4% in the 2001 general elections.You guessed it: Berlusconi has lost badly . . . because he supports the coalition in Iraq.
That's called always having it your way . . .
Of course, "Iraq" was not the only reason people voted for or against parties in those countries. Just as "Iraq" wasn't necessarily the main reason they did so in Britain. Blair's party could be opposed for NUMEROUS reasons . . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, June 14, 2004
