#1 Show me a Euro voter who will vote against the welfare state ...
If it were only that simple. This election was about getting rid of that rancid scandal-ridden circle of ex-communists that held power for the last 16 years. They did nothing for the country but fill their pockets.
Ironically, Tusk actually fought against communism. So why did he lose? He got the so-called kiss of death: the backing of the ex-communists. Why? Because the other candidate threatens to make life hard for the ex-commies as payback for all those nasty scandals.
On the other hand, this other candidate, Kaczynski, who also didn't like communists, is an economic socialist (in other respects he is a conservative). As the article mentions, he promises a welfare state, and lower taxes at the same time (except for the upper income bracket). He expects the rich to pay for his promised social safety net. Assuming this is a good idea, there's a slight problem with his plan: there's not that many rich people in Poland in the first place. It's also the rich people who tend to provide jobs.
All this is not lost on the Polish people, and the lack of a real choice in this election was evidenced by the lowest voter turnout ever. Even so, I would have given Tusk the benefit of the doubt, on purely economic grounds, and in spite of the ex-commies' support for him. But the people want blood, I guess. |
Warsaw's conservative Mayor Lech Kaczynski won Poland's presidential runoff vote Sunday, sealing the rise of a party headed by his twin brother that pledges to uphold Roman Catholic values and strong welfare state protections. Kaczynski, who appealed to older and poorer voters with promises to protect social safety protections that have eroded somewhat in the 16 years since the collapse of communism, defeated pro-market legislator Donald Tusk.