For me, any sensible discussion of Iran must accept a number of facts. I will set these out as Set A and Set B. Both sets are true. But ideologues of the right routinely discount Set A, while ideologues of the left routinely discount Set B. That is why most debate on Iran is inane.
Set A
Iranian Islamic fundamentalism allied to fierce anti-Americanism was born from CIA intervention to topple democracy and keep in power a ruthless murdering despot for decades, in the interests of US oil and gas companies
Iranian anti-Americanism was fuelled further by US support for US friend and ally Saddam Hussein who was armed to wage a murderous war against Iran, again in the hope of US access to Iran’s oil and gas
The US committed a terrible atrocity against civilians by shooting down an Iranian passenger jet
Iran is surrounded by US military forces and has been repeatedly threatened to the extent that the desire to develop a nuclear weapon is a reflex
There is monumental hypocrisy in condemning Iran’s nuclear programme while overlooking Israel’s nuclear weapons
Set B
Iran is governed by an appalling set of vicious theocratic nutters
Iran is not any kind of democracy. It fails the first hurdle of candidates being allowed to put forward meaningful alternatives
Hanging of gays, stoning of adulterers, floggings, censorship and pervasive control are not fine because of cultural relativism. Iran’s whole legislative basis is inimical to universal ideals of human rights.
Iran really is trying to develop a nuclear weapons programme, though with some years still to go.
There are two very good articles on the current situation in Iran. One from the ever excellent Juan Cole. I would accept his judgement on the elections being rigged.
http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/class-v-culture-wars-in-iranian.html#comments
The other from Yasamine Mather, which puts it in another perspective.
http://www.hopoi.org/articles/elections%20June%202009.html
I am not optimistic about the outcome of the popular protest.
I love this thread. It explains why I seem to have no ideology. Listen, one interesting thing I heard:
1) Iran is trying to take over the role of the IMF in Pakistan:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=188595
And has been for some time, if you look.
And no, lwtc247, Islam and democracy, egalitarianism, etc. are not fundamentally in conflict, indeed, quite the opposite. What you’re saying is exactly what right-wing Uber-Zionist nutters like Daniel Pipes et al claim.
The US empire and the regressive ‘Islamist’ armies feed off each other – not surprisingly, since the second was created, not by God, but by the good old US of A! Oh, with a little help from their friends (correction, their slaves), the Pakistan military and the Saudi Monarchy.
‘Alive, Son of Awake!’ (‘Hayy Ibn Yaqzan’)
Ibn Tufail, 1105-1185, Al Andalus
having said that (and I’m sure eddie will agree) I am utterly horrified & sickened by events on the ground. I presume everyone has read Fisk?
sorry, those two posts sound stupid
Congratulations on getting past 300. Is that a first on this site?
Events on the ground are hard to guage due to the crackdown on reporting. It is hard to know whether the images are recent or old. The Guardian suggests a huge power struggle is ongoing within the regime. Those on the streets appear to be a hardcore of protestors and the authorities seem to be stoppping any gatherings. If I was there I doubt I would be brave enough to risk the wrath of the Revolutionary Guard.
There is obviously brutality going on on the ground. I’ve seen some very nasty mobile phone video – one tonight on Channel 4 News. (Assuming it’s all correctly time-stamped etc.)
I’ve just read this:
“Wearing Green for Iran? What About the People of Iraq and Afghanistan?”
http://tinyurl.com/m38khk
“The recent outpouring of support from Americans for Iranian citizens ranges from the sincere to the premeditated. For every post of Twitterific solidarity from a well-intentioned American, there is a wily Jonah Goldberg spouting empty platitudes about needing to preserve freedom by _____ (we can only assume invading Iran.) Everyone seems outraged that an authoritarian power would dare to steal an election, though Americans seemed widely unconcerned when this happened in Azerbaijan in 2003 and Egypt in 2006.
There was also little outrage from Americans when police beat citizens in Agri/Kurdistan as they tried to protest election results.
In fact, if one searches the database over at Human Rights Watch for “election fraud,” page after page of reportedly stolen elections comes up. But the citizens of Kenya, Nigeria, Thailand, Colombia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Armenia aren’t the citizens exploitive politicians and Americans choose to care about.
Not only are citizens’ rights to free and fair elections being violated in many countries most Americans couldn’t even locate on a map, but the U.S. is also currently killing innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan right this very moment, and Americans aren’t Twittering to stop that injustice.
In Afghanistan, over 3,000 civilians have died from U.S. and NATO airstrikes alone (and Human Rights Watch emphasizes this is an extremely conservative figure.) HRW states, “civilian deaths from U.S. and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007.” The total figure of Afghans killed during the invasion is unknown, but figures range from 7,500 to 20,000 dead (when factoring indirect consequences such as civilians later dying from severe wounds.)
In Iraq, the figures have reached a genocidal level with around 655,000 civilians having been killed (conservative figures state 81,174 – 88,585 civilians have died in Iraq, though these figures seem extremely low.)
Today’s New York Times briefly returned to the issue of the Civilians We Don’t Care About. U.S. military officials ensure us that they are working super, super (pinky swear!) hard not to kill Afghan civilians. Commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal said airstrikes will only be used to prevent Americans and coalition troops from being overrun, which he’s totally psyched about because all of those pesky civilian deaths have been undermining the American-led liberty parade mission.
Of course, the NYT also reports that the United Nations found “the number of Afghan civilians killed in 2008 was 40 percent higher than in 2007,” so McChrystal has a long way to go before anyone ever accuses him of being compassionate toward civilians.
While the reports of Afghan and Iraq civilian deaths have been sparse, the news of Pakistani deaths has almost been nonexistent, but the numbers of dead there are also startling with U.S. drones having killed at least 687 civilians.
The civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan don’t seem to count anymore. While it’s nice American citizens are expressing concern for a possibly stolen election in Iran, it would be equally heartening to see this degree of media attention turned toward the countries where the U.S. military kills innocent men, women, and children every day with taxpayer dollars.”
[Allison Kilkenny co-hosts Citizen Radio, the alternative political radio show. G. Gordon Liddy once told her her writing makes him want to vomit, which is the greatest compliment she’s ever been paid, ever.]
@technicolour
It’s not a *huge* step from some of the police tactics in these islands to what we’re watching (or getting snippets of) from Iran.
The use of Tasers, for example, is a worrying development. They are said to be ‘non-lethal’. But they have been shown to be lethal in certain circs.
http://tinyurl.com/ayvtst (Amnesty)
Yes, tasers are nasty.
Here is Kissinger threatening military action against the Iranian government if they don’t accept our pal Mousavi as the rightful victor in the recent election (in spite of the fact Ahmedinejad obviously won)
http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime
“CIA, Iran and the Election Riots – June 14, 2009″…
http://tinyurl.com/lodzdy
Hmmmm…
tinyurl.com/nay9hu
“These credentials should have disqualified Dreyfuss from saying anything about the events in Iran. Nothing this man writes has any credibility.”
“The real question is: how has an individual of this character surfaced as the Nation’s correspondent in Tehran and its principal commentator on international affairs?”…
http://tinyurl.com/n7qlpk
“What Actually Happened in the Iranian Presidential Election?”
“A Hard Look at the Numbers”…
tinyurl.com/mwff7v
I do not think that a man who considers it clever to use expressions such as “theocratic nutters” should ever have been granted an ambassadorship to the Middle East, Mr. Murray.
A Hard Look at some more reliable numbers.
“In two conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of
more than 100% was recorded.
If Ahmadinejad’s victory was primarily caused by the increase in voter
turnout, one would expect the data to show that the provinces where
there was the greatest ‘swing’ in support towards Ahmadinejad would
also be the provinces with the greatest increase in voter turnout. This
is not the case.
In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that
Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, all former
centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former
reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two
groups.
In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and
Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas.
That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim
that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces
flies in the face of these trends.”
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf
eddie
Read what the link above say’s…
“On the other hand, there was only one poll carried out by a western news organization. It was jointly commissioned by the BBC and ABC News, and conducted by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion (CPO) of the New America Foundation. The CPO has a reputation of conducting accurate opinion polls, not only in Iran, but across the Muslim world since 2005. The poll, conducted a few weeks before the elections, predicted an 89 percent turnout rate. Further, it showed that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide advantage of two to one over Mousavi.”
What Actually Happened in the Iranian Presidential Election?
A Hard Look at the Numbers
by Esam Al-Amin June 22, 2009
CounterPunch
Since the June 12 Iranian presidential elections, Iran “experts” have mushroomed like bacteria in a Petri dish. So here is a quiz for all those instant experts. Which major country has elected more presidents than any in the world since 1980? Further, which nation is the only one that held ten presidential elections within thirty years of its revolution?
The answer to both questions, of course, is Iran. Since 1980, it has elected six presidents, while the U.S. is a close second with five, and France at three. In addition, the U.S. held four presidential elections within three decades of its revolution to Iran’s ten.
The Iranian elections have unified the left and the right in the West and unleashed harsh criticisms and attacks from the “outraged” politicians to the “indignant” mainstream media. Even the blogosphere has joined this battle with near uniformity, on the side of Iran’s opposition, which is quite rare in cyberspace.
Much of the allegations of election fraud have been just that: unsubstantiated accusations. No one has yet been able to provide a solid shred of evidence of wide scale fraud that would have garnered eleven million votes for one candidate over his opponent.
So let’s analyze much of the evidence that is available to date.
More than thirty pre-election polls were conducted in Iran since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main opponent, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, announced their candidacies in early March 2009. The polls varied widely between the two opponents, but if one were to average their results, Ahmadinejad would still come out on top. However, some of the organizations sponsoring these polls, such as Iranian Labor News Agency and Tabnak, admit openly that they have been allies of Mousavi, the opposition, or the so-called reform movement. Their numbers were clearly tilted towards Mousavi and gave him an unrealistic advantage of over 30 per cent in some polls. If such biased polls were excluded, Ahmadinejad’s average over Mousavi would widen to about 21 points.
On the other hand, there was only one poll carried out by a western news organization. It was jointly commissioned by the BBC and ABC News, and conducted by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion (CPO) of the New America Foundation. The CPO has a reputation of conducting accurate opinion polls, not only in Iran, but across the Muslim world since 2005. The poll, conducted a few weeks before the elections, predicted an 89 percent turnout rate. Further, it showed that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide advantage of two to one over Mousavi.
How did this survey compare to the actual results? And what are the possibilities of wide scale election fraud?
According to official results, there were 46.2 million registered voters in Iran. The turnout was massive, as predicted by the CPO. Almost 39.2 million Iranians participated in the elections for a turn out rate of 85 percent, in which about 38.8 million ballots were deemed valid (about 400,000 ballots were left blank). Officially, President Ahmadinejad received 24.5 million votes to Mousavi’s 13.2 million votes, or 62.6 per cent to 33.8 per cent of the total votes, respectively. In fact, this result mirrored the 2005 elections when Ahmadinejad received 61.7 per cent to former President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s 35.9 per cent in the runoff elections. Two other minor candidates, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezaee, received the rest of the votes in this election.
Shortly after the official results were announced Mousavi’s supporters and Western political pundits cried foul and accused the government of election fraud. The accusations centered around four themes. First, although voting had been extended several hours due to the heavy turnout, it was alleged that the elections were called too quickly from the time the polls were closed, with more than 39 million ballots to count.
Second, these critics insinuated that election monitors were biased or that, in some instances, the opposition did not have its own monitors present during the count. Third, they pointed out that it was absurd to think that Mousavi, who descended from the Azerbaijan region in northwest Iran, was defeated handily in his own hometown. Fourth, the Mousavi camp charged that in some polling stations, ballots ran out and people were turned away without voting.
The next day, Mosuavi and the two other defeated candidates lodged 646 complaints to the Guardian Council, the entity charged with overseeing the integrity of the elections. The Council promised to conduct full investigations of all the complaints. By the following morning, a copy of a letter by a low-level employee in the Interior Ministry sent to Supreme Guide Ali Khamanei, was widely circulating around the world. (Western politicians and media outlets like to call him “Supreme Leader” but no such title exists in Iran.)
The letter stated that Mousavi had won the elections, and that Ahmadinejad had actually come in third. It also promised that the elections were being fixed in favor of Ahmadinejad per Khamanei’s orders. It is safe to assume that the letter was a forgery since an unidentified low-level employee would not be the one addressing Ayatollah Khamanaei. Robert Fisk of The Independent reached the same conclusion by casting grave doubts that Ahmadinejad would score third ?” garnering less than 6 million votes in such an important election- as alleged in the forged letter.
There were a total of 45,713 ballot boxes that were set up in cities, towns and villages across Iran. With 39.2 million ballots cast, there were less than 860 ballots per box. Unlike other countries where voters can cast their ballots on several candidates and issues in a single election, Iranian voters had only one choice to consider: their presidential candidate. Why would it take more than an hour or two to count 860 ballots per poll? After the count, the results were then reported electronically to the Ministry of the Interior in Tehran.
Since 1980, Iran has suffered an eight-year deadly war with Iraq, a punishing boycott and embargo, and a campaign of assassination of dozens of its lawmakers, an elected president and a prime minister from the group Mujahideen Khalq Organization. (MKO is a deadly domestic violent organization, with headquarters in France, which seeks to topple the government by force.) Despite all these challenges, the Islamic Republic of Iran has never missed an election during its three decades. It has conducted over thirty elections nationwide. Indeed, a tradition of election orderliness has been established, much like election precincts in the U.S. or boroughs in the U.K. The elections in Iran are organized, monitored and counted by teachers and professionals including civil servants and retirees (again much like the U.S.)
There has not been a tradition of election fraud in Iran. Say what you will about the system of the Islamic Republic, but its elected legislators have impeached ministers and “borked” nominees of several Presidents, including Ahmadinejad. Rubberstamps, they are not. In fact, former President Mohammad Khatami, considered one of the leading reformists in Iran, was elected president by the people, when the interior ministry was run by archconservatives. He won with over 70 percent of the vote, not once, but twice.
When it comes to elections, the real problem in Iran is not fraud but candidates’ access to the ballots (a problem not unique to the country, just ask Ralph Nader or any other third party candidate in the U.S.) It is highly unlikely that there was a huge conspiracy involving tens of thousands of teachers, professionals and civil servants that somehow remained totally hidden and unexposed.
Moreover, while Ahmadinejad belongs to an active political party that has already won several elections since 2003, Mousavi is an independent candidate who emerged on the political scene just three months ago, after a 20-year hiatus. It was clear during the campaign that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide campaign operation. He made over sixty campaign trips throughout Iran in less than twelve weeks, while his opponent campaigned only in the major cities, and lacked a sophisticated campaign apparatus.
It is true that Mousavi has an Azeri background. But the CPO poll mentioned above, and published before the elections, noted that “its survey indicated that only 16 per cent of Azeri Iranians will vote for Mr. Mousavi. By contrast, 31 per cent of the Azeris claim they will vote for Mr. Ahmadinejad.” In the end, according to official results, the election in that region was much closer than the overall result. In fact, Mousavi won narrowly in the West Azerbaijan province but lost the region to Ahmadinejad by a 45 to 52 per cent margin (or 1.5 to 1.8 million votes).
However, the double standard applied by Western news agencies is striking. Richard Nixon trounced George McGovern in his native state of South Dakota in the 1972 elections. Had Al Gore won his home state of Tennessee in 2000, no one would have cared about a Florida recount, nor would there have been a Supreme Court case called Bush v. Gore. If Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards had won the states he was born and raised in (South and North Carolina), President John Kerry would now be serving his second term. But somehow, in Western newsrooms Middle Eastern people choose their candidates not on merit, but on the basis of their “tribe.”
The fact that minor candidates such as Karroubi would garner fewer votes than expected, even in their home regions as critics charge, is not out of the ordinary. Many voters reach the conclusion that they do not want to waste their votes when the contest is perceived to be between two major candidates. Karroubi indeed received far fewer votes this time around than he did in 2005, including in his hometown. Likewise, Ross Perot lost his home state of Texas to Bob Dole of Kansas in 1996, while in 2004, Ralph Nader received one eighth of the votes he had four years earlier.
Some observers note that when the official results were being announced, the margin between the candidates held steady throughout the count. In fact, this is no mystery. Experts say that generally when 3-5 per cent of the votes from a given region are actually counted, there is a 95 per cent confidence level that such result will hold firm. As for the charge that ballots ran out and some people were turned away, it is worth mentioning that voting hours were extended four times in order to allow as many people as possible the opportunity to vote. But even if all the people who did not vote, had actually voted for Mousavi (a virtual impossibility), that would be 6.93 million additional votes, much less than the 11 million vote difference between the top two candidates.
Ahmadinejad is certainly not a sympathetic figure. He is an ideologue, provocative, and sometimes behaving imprudently. But to characterize the struggle in Iran as a battle between democratic forces and a “dictator,” is to exhibit total ignorance of Iran’s internal dynamics, or to deliberately distort them. There is no doubt that there is a significant segment of Iranian society, concentrated around major metropolitan areas, and comprising many young people, that passionately yearns for social freedoms. They are understandably angry because their candidate came up short. But it would be a huge mistake to read this domestic disagreement as an “uprising” against the Islamic Republic, or as a call to embark on a foreign policy that would accommodate the West at the expense of Iran’s nuclear program or its vital interests.
Nations display respect to other nations only when they respect their sovereignty. If any nation, for instance, were to dictate the United States’ economic, foreign or social policies, Americans would be indignant. When France, under President Chirac opposed the American adventure in Iraq in 2003, some U.S. Congressmen renamed a favorite fast food from French Fries to “Freedom Fries.” They made it known that the French were unwelcome in the U.S.
The U.S. has a legacy of interference in Iran’s internal affairs, notably when it toppled the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. This act, of which most Americans are unaware, is ingrained in every Iranian from childhood. It is the main cause of much of their perpetual anger at the U.S. It took 56 years for an American president to acknowledge this illegal act, when Obama did so earlier this month in Cairo.
Therefore, it would be a colossal mistake to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs yet again. President Obama is wise to leave this matter to be resolved by the Iranians themselves. Political expediency by the Republicans or pro-Israel Democrats will be extremely dangerous and will yield serious repercussions. Such reckless conduct by many in the political class and the media appears to be a blatant attempt to demonize Iran and its current leadership, in order to justify any future military attack by Israel if Iran does not give up its nuclear ambition.
President Obama’s declarations in Cairo are now being aptly recalled. Regarding Iran, he said, “I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.”
But the first sign of respect is to let the Iranians sort out their differences without any overt ?”or covert ?”interference.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14052
eddie recommends a document on Iran presented by ‘Chatham House’.
Chatham House is a mouthpiece of British Intelligence.
How on earth could simple eddie be so in touch with this outlet for UK/globalist propaganda.
Only fools could trust such a source, ……..or eddie, come to that.
Yes, Chatham House is an organ for spies. ‘Chatham House’ Rules’ are bunkum but seem to have become generalised. Every second meeting I go to, it’s ‘Chatham House Rules-this’ and ‘Chatham House Rule-that’. It’s the new corporate mantra. Let’s tear ’em up, folks!
Maybe someone’s already posted this link – if so, my apologies for being tedious. It’s an account of the UK’s central role in the 1953 coup in Iran. Lobster mag is a very serious and analytical mag, it doesn’t have any time for crank theories.
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm
MJ
Came across this,thought you might like to read it?…
http://tinyurl.com/lkxsnu
“Whatever the truth it will out in the end”…so it is said.
I sent the piece posted by ‘no-name’ (are you the same person as lwtc247?) to an Iranian pal of mine in Iran who is, as far as I know, very anti-imperialist and who over recent years in fact has tended to defend Ahmedinejad and certainly is very loyal to the Islamic Republic. This pal got back to me, saying that much of the substance of the piece was a translation of the speech given on Friday by Ayatollah Khameini.
This does not negate its portrayal, but is interesting to know, and it wasn’t stated in the article that the writer was drawing widely on the speech.
There is already so much dis- and mis-information circulating on the web that I feel it is imperative that all such sources be stated openly.
It’s not no-name’s fault; I have no idea whether or not they know Persian. One would have to know Persian and to have listened to the speech to have been able to pick up the connection. Otherwise, one would just take it at face value.
The tenebrosity intensifies.
dreoilin, I agree some of the deliberate repression (May Day, Kingsnorth, city climate camp) has been appalling, though never quite as bad as the Battle of the Beanfield. I really think that if the CIA did sponsor this one they must be kicking themselves. The sight of so many brave people acting against a regime prepared to use guns gives me courage & inspiration, and I’m not alone. Of course also agree about Tasars: what has happened to those policemen in Nottingham? They should be in jail.
This is one aspect the sort of thing I meant by ‘unforseen effects’ in a post awhile back. One wonders whether the refinery workers in Lincolnshire also have been inspired by the Iran protests. An interesting and somewhat ironic symmetry.
It will also be interesting over time to note the tone of media coverage of the refinery workers and compare it with that of foreign protests. Remember the Miners’ Strike?
George Dutton,
re http://tinyurl.com/lkxsnu
This kind of revelation is, it seems, part of the occult cycle that secret societies and the criminals who inhabit them use to further enhance their power.
The slow drip-drip of damning revelations is always played out after high crimes have been committed by the shadow powers that are the real power behind the state.
The same happened with the Kennedy assassination, The King assassination, The Robert F Kennedy killing…..eventually it becomes clear to all that official story that was first impressed on the public of ‘The Lone Nut’ is obvious nonsense, but it seems to late to do anything about, the fire in the public’s belly has gone, the presiding legal powers (who are controlled anyway) do nothing….
…..and the reputation and invulnerability of the criminal degenerates in control is enormously enhanced while those that cry out for justice suffer further inevitable demoralisation.
George Dutton,
PS that doesn’t mean that these people will get away with it forever.
No name (KevinB?)
Is there any organisation in the UK that is not part of British Intelligence, in your view? The Brownies perhaps? The fact that the Institute for International Affairs has a good worldwide reputation is obviously meaningless to you. If their analysis came down in favour of your views would you suddenly be quoting them as a reliable source?
George Dutton
And here is an article that questions the poll you refer to. So the jury is still out.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/06/about_those_iran_polls.html
Suhayl, well, OK re miners, but the Lincolnshire refinery protests sound like a misguided misdirected attack on foreign workers, don’t they? I haven’t read much further, but will do. I wonder how well they’re being reported, in fact.
Oh right, technicolour, that’s interesting, if that’s so then it’s divide-and-rule again, in the absence of an organised and lucid oppositional dynamic, i.e. an organised Left with some sharp teeth left!
Btw, Caius and Gonville College, Cambridge has an excellent international reputation, is an aesthetically beautiful place and is filled with hyper-intelligent people, and some of the professors there actively recruit for the SIS.
Sing, in castrato: Hosannah in excelsis!
Chatham House is an instrument of imperial foreign policy.
Sing again!
Now I shall put on The Electric Prunes’ ‘Mass in F Minor’. I need to be out there.
eddie
What the Washington Post article tells us is that Ahmadinejad would have won by a very comfortable margin if not a landslide victory. Makes you think eddie WHY would they have wanted/needed to commit election fraud?.
Problem is eddie you have been in New Labour too long and judge everyone by New Labour standards. Iran eddie is not a banana republic…USA (Diebold)or should that read…”banana” democracy like the UK…
http://tinyurl.com/4h3724
We should get our own voting system sorted out before talking about other countries voting results.
refinary protests is really a protest by lazy english workers agasint entitled italian and other european workers. high time that enlgand be kicked out of european union-sadluy EU has been infiltrated by enlgish scumbags. and thier agents.
Steady on, my good man. You’re upsetting my cucumber sandwiches!
George Dutton – Wa??! The article tells us nothing of the kind, except that the polls are unreliable. You are another victim of whataboutery. It’s a common condition on here and the only cure is a dose of reality counselling. Sunlight helps. Perhaps you would enlighten me – when did the UK or the US have post-election riots on the streets and people being shot by plain clothes militia? That kind of moral or political equivalence is not helpful. For a start 400+ candidates were rejected in Iran. In the UK we allow anyone to stand.