Spain PM-elect: Troops out of Iraq

[Skippy1]

Funny you should mention that Skunk, I actually "just came across this snippet" myself.

In a stunning upset, voters decided to give power to the opposition Socialist Party, whose leader, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has promised to immediately withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq, unless the United Nations approves their presence. With a majority of the vote counted, the Socialists won 43 percent of the of the ballots cast. That means the Socialists will occupy 164 seats of the 350 seats in parliament, with 148 seats going to the Popular Party. The results would leave the Socialists short of an absolute majority, but they can rule by forming a coalition with smaller regional parties. After observing a minute of silence in memory of the victims of Thursday attacks, Mr. Zapatero made a brief acceptance speech. The Socialist leader promised to bring about a tranquil change for the benefit of everyone. He also promised to rule with humility saying that power would not change him. He also vowed to make the fight against terrorism his immediate priority. The results were a blow to outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar who was hoping to hand over power to his hand-picked successor, Mariano Rajoy, who promised to continue Mr. Aznar's pro-American foreign policy. Earlier polls taken before the terrorists attacks showed Mr. Rajoy and the Popular Party well ahead of the Socialists. But Thursday's terrorist attacks, changed all that. More than 12 million Spaniards took to the streets of Spain's major cities in protest, as mounting evidence of those responsible for the bombing pointed to Islamic extremists, not the country's violent Basque separatist group, or ETA.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...47C1C37A0051E2

All depends on where you look I suppose.

[Skunk]

Well, as I said, it can be used either way by those in denial that they lost an election on their lack of merit rather than any external event.

We saw this in the Netherlands not too long ago. There has been for YEARS a growing resentment of immigrants and the way that the state had dealt with the issues (head in the sand).

Along comes ONE man (Pim Fortuyn) who was both intelligent and who had bags of charisma. He sets up his own party based largely on the immigration issue and challenges the existing status quo and within months he was set to win the elections with a landslide.

Then, a just a couple of weeks before the election he is murdered - but his party "List Pim Fortuyn" still managed to take a large number of seats in parliament.

Now, those in denial started dribbling on that his party got a sympathy vote as a result of his assassination. In reality, Pim Fortuyn WAS the party, the party WAS HIM and actually, many people didn't vote for his party after his death because they no longer saw a point - his party probably would have won MORE seats had he lived.

Self denial, self-denial, self-denial - how can anyone not agree with MY principles. I AM RIGHT and therefore there has to be some other reason why people didn't vote for me/my party of choice. And they'll make up any excuse to explain it "it was raining, there was a postal strike, a bomb, lies in the press" - whatever. Any reason other than people not believing in their POV.

But voters rarely vote on single issues (esp. in the EU) - it's never that simple.
There are a large number of people in the UK who demonstrated against the war but will still vote for Blair in the next election because they see him as the lesser evil. There are others who were for the war but will not vote for him as a result of his reorganisation of University funding and his lack-lustre attempts to improve the NHS and reduce crime. Voters are not sheep who will move according to how loud the dog barks - they are more like donkeys, stubbornly holding their position until you offer them enough carrots to make them get up.

Aznar whipped the donkey during (and after) the Iraq war (and even in the aftermath of the Madrid blast) and didn't have enough carrots on offer to keep his party in power afterwards. As one Madrid resident puts it:

"And we were not afraid. There was no room in us for fear. This was our funeral, our personal and furious homage to the victims. We would have felt pain even if ETA had been guilty; we did not hate ETA any more or less than we hated al-Qaida. We hated murderers infinitely, all murderers, and this hate motivated us, not fear...

On Sunday, the Spanish people voted bravely, they voted with rage and they voted according to their conscience. Spain has not humiliated herself before the attacks of terrorists, she has risen up against a government which humiliated her every day by using terrorism as an electoral weapon. Spain has shown that she is a decent country. The Socialist party has won the elections, but never was a victory so desired been at the same time as sad as this one."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/arti...170873,00.html

[ 03-17-2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: But voters rarely vote on single issues (esp. in the EU) - it's never that simple.

Really? And where are your statistics. Where is your proof? On what version of reality are you basing this assertion on? Your experience? That YOU or your friends rarely vote on single issues?

Try presenting reasons rather than spouting off your opinion on the motives of MILLIONS of people you do not know and don't understand if you want your opinion-presented-as-gospel-truth to be taken any more seriously than deluded rantings.

For the record I have no opinion on that. I haven't seen any evidence to support either a pro or anti assertion. I am simply sick to death of inane overgeneralisations presented as fact.

Show me that voters rarely vote on single issues, for until you do, it would seem the existence and popularity of such single issue parties as The Greens, Nuclear Disarmament Party, Shooters Party, No Self Government Party (which earned enough votes to govern in a coalition govt. in Canberra, Australia) prove you wrong.

[Yorick]

http://www.lincolnheritage.org/About...ens_unite.html


Europe's Greens Unite

Summary

Some 1,300 delegates from 32 European Green parties met Feb. 22

in Rome to form a united party, adopt a common platform and

campaign for European Parliament elections in June. As divisions

in the European Union grow, pan-European narrow-issue parties --

such as the Greens -- will gain strength because they have the

best chance of transcending national borders.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: But voters rarely vote on single issues (esp. in the EU) - it's never that simple.

Really? And where are your statistics. Where is your proof? On what version of reality are you basing this assertion on? Your experience? That YOU or your friends rarely vote on single issues?

Try presenting reasons rather than spouting off your opinion on the motives of MILLIONS of people you do not know and don't understand if you want your opinion-presented-as-gospel-truth to be taken any more seriously than deluded rantings.

For the record I have no opinion on that. I haven't seen any evidence to support either a pro or anti assertion. I am simply sick to death of inane overgeneralisations presented as fact.

Show me that voters rarely vote on single issues, for until you do, it would seem the existence and popularity of such single issue parties as The Greens, Nuclear Disarmament Party, Shooters Party, No Self Government Party (which earned enough votes to govern in a coalition govt. in Canberra, Australia) prove you wrong. [/QUOTE]So let me get this straight - are you saying that if the Nuclear Disarmatment Party advocated child sex in addition to banning nuclear weapons, that people would still have voted for it?

One issue can take part in the decision making process - but it rarely settles it.

By the way, I don't recall Austrialia making an application to join the EU - but we will consider it if you really want

[Skippy1]

Wahhhaaaayyyyy! Go Yorick! Don't you hold back there mate, let it all out!!

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: Europe's Greens Unite Summary Some 1,300 delegates from 32 European Green parties met Feb. 22 in Rome to form a united party, adopt a common platform and campaign for European Parliament elections in June. As divisions in the European Union grow, pan-European narrow-issue parties -- such as the Greens -- will gain strength because they have the best chance of transcending national borders.

And as you can see, in the Core Values of the British Green Party, environmental issues only take TWO of their 10 main Core Value Points. They are not 'single issue' parties:

1. Humankind depends on the diversity of the natural world for its existence. We do not believe that other species are expendable.
2. The Earth's physical resources are finite. We threaten our future if we try to live beyond those means, so we must build a sustainable society that guarantees our long-term future.
3. Every person should be entitled to basic material security as of right.
4. Our actions should take account of the well-being of other nations and future generations. We should not pursue our well-being to the detriment of theirs.
5. A healthy society is based on voluntary co-operation between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination whether based on race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, social origin or any other prejudice.
6. We emphasise democratic participation and accountability by ensuring that decisions are taken at the closest practical level to those affected by them.
7. We look for non-violent solutions to conflict situations, which take into account the interests of minorities and future generations in order to achieve lasting settlements.
8. The success of a society cannot be measured by narrow economic indicators, but should take account of factors affecting the quality of life for all people: personal freedom, social equity, health, happiness and human fulfilment.
9. Electoral politics is not the only way to achieve change in society, and we will use a variety of methods to help to affect change, providing those methods do not conflict with our other core principles.
10. The Green Party puts changes in both values and lifestyles at the heart of the radical green agenda.
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/values.html

[ 03-17-2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Skippy1]

Gotta go now, will get back to you tomorrow.

Cheers, Skip.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: But voters rarely vote on single issues (esp. in the EU) - it's never that simple.

Really? And where are your statistics. Where is your proof? On what version of reality are you basing this assertion on? Your experience? That YOU or your friends rarely vote on single issues?

Try presenting reasons rather than spouting off your opinion on the motives of MILLIONS of people you do not know and don't understand if you want your opinion-presented-as-gospel-truth to be taken any more seriously than deluded rantings.

For the record I have no opinion on that. I haven't seen any evidence to support either a pro or anti assertion. I am simply sick to death of inane overgeneralisations presented as fact.

Show me that voters rarely vote on single issues, for until you do, it would seem the existence and popularity of such single issue parties as The Greens, Nuclear Disarmament Party, Shooters Party, No Self Government Party (which earned enough votes to govern in a coalition govt. in Canberra, Australia) prove you wrong. [/QUOTE]So let me get this straight - are you saying that if the Nuclear Disarmatment Party advocated child sex in addition to banning nuclear weapons, that people would still have voted for it?

One issue can take part in the decision making process - but it rarely settles it.

By the way, I don't recall Austrialia making an application to join the EU - but we will consider it if you really want [/QUOTE]Post your stats or retract your assertion. The onus of proof is on you, as you made the assertion.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: And as you can see, in the Core Values of the British Green Party, environmental issues only take TWO of their 10 main Core Value Points. They are not 'single issue' parties:

This is irrelevent. I mentioned "The Greens" which initially were an Australian single issue party, before diversifying, not the European Green Party, which I posted as being a "narrow issue party".

Furthermore your view flies in the face of opinions like this:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves
largess out of the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tyler, 18th Century Scottish historian

Which would make the single issue of "What's in it for me" the ONLY reason voters vote the way they do.

You are wrong because as usual you have presented no statistics, no history, no analogies or comparitive examples. Only a sociological opinion presented as fact. As ever you do, as always you will it seems.

[ 03-17-2004, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]