Comments on: Read this

By: Meaders

Meaders — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:56:00 +0000

I don’t buy it: it would be difficult to vote for SP without knowing full well what the consequences would be for Iraq, and we have to assume people voted in that knowledge. The issue was very sharp, very polarised, and – in an election dominated by two parties with completely opposed policies – did not admit for grey areas like "disapproving of lying but liking the occupation". (Unlike Britain where "disapproving of lying, disliking the occupation, but voting New Labour anyway" was the choice many were left to make.)

By: john b

john b — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 06:56:00 +0000

"Beyond any doubt, the Spanish vote was to remove the troops from Iraq."

This isn't "beyond any doubt". The Spanish voted for a party that sought to remove the troops from Iraq. They also voted against a leader who sought to lie to them for political advantage after the bombings.

Clearly, many voters had already made up their minds by the time of the bombings to vote SP because of the war. But nobody knows whether the swing from PP to SP *after* the bombings was driven by a dislike of lying, or an increased disapproval of the war.

By: Meaders

Meaders — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 06:48:00 +0000

Are you serious? I don't disagree with the article's prescriptions, but I don't think I could find a worse way of reaching them. For instance, to hold that the London bombings had nothing to do with Iraq, and then to write:

"In a country where a sizeable part of the population remembers how Franco got started, don't rule out the historical wisdom of the voters of Spain as a factor in last year's election upset there."

...is particularly strange and inconsistent. Beyond any doubt, the Spanish vote was to remove the troops from Iraq. This was the Socialist Party's big manifesto promise from considerably before the Madrid bombing. Given that the Popular Party attempted initially to blame the atrocity on ETA - pushing, like Charles Clarke, an argument for a domestic clampdown, ignoring foreign policy - the fact the PP's claim was (rightly) rejected in favour of a claim that the attack was linked to Iraq runs exactly against the Fiend's argument.