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

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…