terrorism
- Thread starter kakuma
- Start date
which in a sense is interesting... as all the parties know, the war is incredibly unpopular in all strata of society... so why didn't Howard stand against it, when it was a clear vote winner? much as I dislike Howard for his part in the criminal justice bill, and indeed the conservative party, I thought he missed a trick there...Ninjaboy said:
in fact, if I remember rightly, not even the greens made a firm stand on an anti-war ticket... though I am willing to be corrected if my shambling memory proves incorrect...
absolutely. like any warfare, linear or otherwise...
ganjaboy said:
Think it through. Yes, the Spanish Government was voted out because of the lie, but why did they lie in the first place, despite the obvious evidence. Because they feared they would be voted out, especially as the Spanish premier was just playing politics with his support for the invasion. There was no practical/rational reason why the Spanish needed to have troops there.
JHE
.
I agree with your explanation of why PP lost that election. That is, Govt ministers were (rightly) perceived to be lying through their teeth for electoral advantage. However, I disagree with you on two other things.RHOQ said:
1. Before the atrocity in Madrid, the govt did not fear that it would lose the election due to its policy on Iraq. That policy was certainly unpopular (80 - 90% disagreed with it), but that was not going to lose them the election. Polls indicated that PP would win again. Often foreign policy does not determine how people vote.
2. I think the govt had a different motive for maintaining their line that the atrocity had been committed by ETA. PP was perceived as the party that took the strongest line against ETA and its supporters. If people believed that ETA had killed about 200 people in Madrid, that would work in PP's electoral favour.
JHE said:
Yeah, exactly, before the bombs went off. Spain does have a PR system, so it wouldn't have surprised me if a few bombs had turned anti-war sentiment/apathy in to anti-Government votes. Despite the pro-war position of both major UK parties, I doubt the Labour Government would have survived the 2005 GE under PR.
JHE said:
That would imply that ETA was a live issue at the election. I don't know enough about the Spanish election, but as evidenced by the speedy withdrawal of Spanish troops post election, it wouldn't surprise me if the opposition party ran on an anti-war ticket. Therefore a link between a terrorist attack and Government policy in Iraq would have been a live, election turning issue. In that context the ETA story makes sense as a delaying tactic to put off any legitimate questions until after the election. Energising the anti-Basque core vote would also have been a benefit.
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
ETA were an issue in the election in the sense that the Spanish people discovered that Aznar's goverment had been entirely dishonest in trying to Blame ETA for the Madrid Bombs and in doing so deflect any blame for inciting an attack by Islamic extremeists.
It wasn't the strength of the anti-war arguments put forward by Zapatero that won him the election. It was the conservatives botching the response to the bombing that had the effect of persuading the electorate that they could not be trusted.
So I think it would be innacurate to say that the Spanish voted for the Socialists because they were anti-war and people were intimidated by the bombings.
It wasn't the strength of the anti-war arguments put forward by Zapatero that won him the election. It was the conservatives botching the response to the bombing that had the effect of persuading the electorate that they could not be trusted.
So I think it would be innacurate to say that the Spanish voted for the Socialists because they were anti-war and people were intimidated by the bombings.
inflatable jesus said:
Your not addressing the substantive point of why the lie. I stated earlier that the Government was kicked out because it was cynically using the tragedy to hold on to power. We're both asserting different reasons as to why the Government felt its position to be threatened enough in order to make such a crass political move. The fact that troops were withdrawn rather quickly from Iraq after the elction supports my assertion that the anti war vote must have been an ongoing electoral factor, and that the Gov was uncertain how the attacks would play into that at the ballot box. Its a matter of speculation what would have happened if they hadn't had lied and been caught. But what we know from their decision to lie was that their judgement (not mine) was that the bombs would have had a negative effect on their vote. They did not anticipate the nation rallying behind the Government, as one would expect. The only context in which they would rationally conclude that is in the context of unpopular war, and their assessment that the bombs would make the war a live electoral issue to their disadvantage.
Similar threads
