Skip to main content

Kurds predominate in UK Iraq Elections

The Results of the Iraq Elections from people living outside Iraq are now available.

Margaret Thatcher introduced a system whereby people who have left the UK could vote in UK elections so that is not unique.

In the UK 28,673 people voted. 62% of those voted for list 130. I have a real struggle reading the arabic script, but I think the name of the party is something about not occupying and Kurdistan (I think the last word is Kurdistan or something like that).

19% voted for list 169 which is the main Shi'a list. In the US 32% voted for the main Shi'a list, but only 4% for Allawi's list (5% voted for Allawi in the UK).

This may shock the US State Department. The US State Department totally misunderstand the situation. The evidence of the election result is that in a secret ballot 32% of Iraqis living and working in the US have voted for a list that wants the withdrawal of occupying forces.

I cannot find an easy source of information as to which list is what and it takes me too long to translate the Arabic and work out the situation, but the message from this is quite clear.

Any student of the history of Iraq will see this as a repetition of the situation in the 1920s and 1930s.



Comments

Russell said…
List 130 is the 'Kurdish Alliance', who are expected to get over 20% of the total vote as most of the Kurds will have voted for them. I'm not sure about the occupying forces (the Kurds are are actually quite pro-U.S./U.K. because their area was removed from Saddam's control in 1992.) but I expect they do want the Kurdish region to actually be a seperate country.

It should be noted, however, that one of the 'manifesto pledges' of the Shia House, list 169, is a speedy withdraw of the foreign forces. It's been unequivocally the case since last summer that most of the Iraqis want the foreign troops to leave (I can provide polls.)

Popular posts from this blog

Why are babies born young?

Why are babies born young? This sounds like an odd question. People would say "of course babies are born young". However, this goes to the core of the question of human (or animal) development. Why is it that as time passes people develop initially through puberty and then for women through menopause and more generally getting diseases such as sarcopenia, osteoporosis, diabetes and cancer, but most of the time babies start showing no signs of this. Lots of research into this has happened over the years and now I think it is clear why this is. It raises some interesting questions. Biological youth is about how well a cell functions. Cells that are old in a biological sense don't work that well. One of the ways in which cells stop working is they fail to produce the full range of proteins. Generally the proteins that are produced from longer genes stop being produced. The reason for this relates to how the Genes work (the Genome). Because the genome is not gettin