Home / Culture and Society / Elections Herald New Political Landscape in Europe

Elections Herald New Political Landscape in Europe

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It’s hard to find adjectives strong enough to describe the losses which left-leaning socialist and labor parties face in the current European elections. To call it a debacle might be understatement. The European left has crashed and burned and the region faces a complete political paradigm shift with some very unexpected results. Never has a dominant political ideology suffered such an overwhelming rebuke and rejection from the voters since the era of revolutions when autocracy was cast out in favor of representative government. The final results are due tonight, but early reports leave only the question of the degree by which the left will be devastated Europe-wide.

The first indicator came several days ago when news of the result of the EU parliamentary election in the Netherlands was leaked, revealing that radical libertarian Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party had catapulted from being a fringe party to the second largest party in the nation, gaining 4 seats in the EU parliament and likely breaking up the ruling coalition, forcing the Christian Democrats to look for new support to remain in power and making concessions to the Freedom Party and their anti-immigrant, anti-EU agenda.

Britain already set the pattern for electing representatives to the EU parliament who were hostile to the body in which they are serving. The Netherlands will now be sending 4 more troublemakers to join British libertarian firebrand Daniel Hannan, and similar results are expected in other European countries including Ireland, Britain and Spain. Countries which recently elected more conservative governments like Poland, France and Germany are expected to see less radical change, but will likely still experience growth in conservative and libertarian parties. The fuil results of the EU parliamentary election will be announced Sunday evening.

This EU parliamentary election is an indicator of things to come in the internal politics of European nations, as demonstrated by Saturday’s devastating defeat for Britain’s Labour Party in local council elections. Labour, which used to dominate local council governments, has lost 300 seats and no longer controls any local councils at all. Labour’s loss has been described as being “wiped off the electoral map” in Britain, and in the EU election they are expected to come in behind virtually every party of any note, including the radical UK Independent Party.

These results will lead to shakeups in the governments of many European nations in the next few months. In combination with financial scandal and the resignation of 6 of his ministers, this change in the balance of power will likely lead to the replacement of Gordon Brown as Britain’s prime minister. In other nations there may be similar changes in the political landscape with conservative leaders and policies taking the forefront. If the current trends do not change, the next internal elections in many nations will probably produce dramatic political realignments.

The surge to the right in Europe is being driven by dissatisfaction with the economy, anger over immigration, fear of terrorism, high unemployment, dismay at the poor quality of healthcare and increasing popular alienation from the remote and unresponsive bureaucracy of the European Union. Voters want more local control, more national autonomy, restrictions on immigration and governmental reform. Whether newly empowered conservatives and small-government, anti-EU parties will find solutions for these problems remains to be seen.

Ironically, as President Obama tours Europe and talks with the leaders of various nations, those leaders may no longer be in power the next time he visits. As he moves America farther left politically the rest of the world seems to see their answer in moving in the opposite direction.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

Dave Nalle is Executive Director of the Texas Liberty Foundation, Chairman of the Center for Foreign and Defense Policy, South Central Regional Director for the Republican Liberty Caucus and an advisory board member at the Coalition to Reduce Spending. He was Texas State Director for the Gary Johnson Presidential campaign, an adviser to the Ted Cruz senatorial campaign, Communications Director for the Travis County Republican Party and National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has also consulted on many political campaigns, specializing in messaging. Before focusing on political activism, he owned or was a partner in several businesses in the publishing industry and taught college-level history for 20 years.
  • Dave,

    Please don’t report such things; you may force me to accept the absurd notion that there is, in fact, a God and that She looks after our best interests.


  • Ruvy


    This is no surprise at all to me. Could you give details of the German EU seats and Länder elections, if you have them?

  • Lumpy

    Returns are starting to be reported now. Looks like the terrorist appeasing socialists are out in Spain. A good start.

  • Ruvy,

    This just in; can you at least pretend to be surprised?


  • Ruvy

    Dan, I’m stunned! Shocked! I couldn’t believe what I was reading!! My hair stood up on the back of my neck!!!

    (Will that do for pretense, Dan? I read all this shit on Arutz Sheva about 13 hours ago)

  • Ruvy

    Actually, I’m collecting a whole pile of links to talk about a topic you’ve never seen me discuss before – how America is putting the screws to the Jews.

    You’ll be stunned and shocked! You’ll be surprised!! The hair will stand up on the back of your neck!!!

  • In the real world, as opposed to various fevered imaginings, the balance of the parties is nothing like as apocalyptic.

    Party Votes MEPs
    +/- % % +/- Total
    EPP +1.4 35 +2 228
    Socialists -3.4 23 -15 147
    Liberal +0.6 10 -7 65
    Green +2.0 8 +14 45
    No Group +0.4 12 +18 41
    Left +0.8 6 +4 35
    UEN -0.4 2 -6 17
    Ind/Dem -1.4 1 -11 8

  • Christopher, of course, minimizing the utter debacle for leftists Europe-wide. In reality left parties were crushed in every major country except Greece.

    For lots of results see this article. Even in Spain it was almost a 5% victory for (relative) conservatives over the socialists.

    And Ruvy, in Germany the Free Democrats surged ahead, with 11%, almost doubling their results in the last election. Looks like they gained most of those seats from the Christian Democrats, even though the Christian Democrats still smashed the hell out of the Socialists who seem to have lost support to the Greens.

    That pattern is pretty similar in other countries. Centrist parties are losing votes to more radical parties on the right and the left, while the general trend is somewhat more conservative, which is good for conservative coalition governments like Merkel’s in Germany and bad for leftist coalitions like Brown’s in England.

    Oh, and Chris can also be proud that the BNP managed to get someone elected to office for the first time in history.


  • Ruvy, You’ll be stunned and shocked! You’ll be surprised!! The hair will stand up on the back of your neck!!! Quite probably so; that’s one of the few remaining places close to my head where I still have hair.


    PS I read Arutz Sheva daily as well; I thought you might be more receptive to something from what we fondly call the Main Stream Media.

  • That’s right Dave, printing actual results is “minimizing the utter debacle for leftists Europe-wide”, which I could care less about, whilst your little wonkfest fantasy is hard-headed political realism.

    Why on earth would I be proud of the fact that the BNP managed to get someone elected to the European Parliament? Or is it just you lashing out like a temperamental tart when your bubble is burst? Tragic and trivial isn’t a pretty combination.

  • Ruvy

    Main Stream Media.

    Dan, is that where some overpaid prima donna pulls down his zipper, whips out his schlong and pisses in your face the main stream of ideas from the ruling cliques that we’re supposed to swallow – like say, Sky News, the BBC, or MSNBC?

    You know us Jews up in the mountains don’t get hold of real facts too often….

  • Ruvy

    That’s right Dave, printing actual results is “minimizing the utter debacle for leftists Europe-wide”, which I could care less about, whilst your little wonkfest fantasy is hard-headed political realism.

    You shouldn’t bait poor Christopher like that, Dave. I’m ashamed of you! Just because Europeans can’t stand it when someone other than a European calls a political trend in Europe (they ain’t that different from me, for all their damned pretensions), doesn’t mean you should hold red kippers in front of his face like one does to a chihuahua for him to bark at….

    Just ‘taint nice….

  • Chris, how was my bubble burst? Your figures don’t contradict anything I was saying. They bear out exactly what I wrote in the article and in subsequent comments.

    I only bait you because it’s fun to see you get all snippy.


  • STM

    It’s a foregone conclusion that Britain will have a Conservative Party government after the next UK general election.

    Brown is deeply unpopular, and the fallout from the MPs expenses scandal virtually ensures that some of the smaller parties will have a say in Britain’s next parliament.

    The New Labour experiment is over; the “New” Conservative (they are now painting themselves as more middle-of-the-road than Right), and only just to the right of New Labour, which moved from the Left to the centre.

    Whether that’s true in the case of the Conservatives remains to be seen, but they are certainly a walk-up start next time around.

    In the meantime, the right has made its presence right across Europe.

    The BNP, the UK’s far-right “respectable” party has won two European parliament seats and is already using it (in media interviews) to push its anti-Islam, anti-immigration stance.

    Basically, they are saying the UK is “full-up” and it’s time to “shut the door” (their words, not mine).

    It IS, however, an indication that people are not so fed up with the Left (which in Europe can be a very conservative voice on issues such as immigration and job protection in the face of foreign workers) but on open borders, protections for asylum seekers and illagal immigrants and multiculturalism generally.

  • Ruvy and Dave, it comes as no surprise at all to see two people who start from completely different perspectives on the world share the personality quirks of an overwhelming belief in their own world views and a complete indifference to facts that contradict those arrogant and pompously delivered prejudices. It is beautifully ironic though.

    That you both also share a revealingly childish obsession with trying to characterise me as snippy is nothing but yet more fantasy projection on your part and quite divorced from, you know, reality. Congratulations on such fine displays of projection though, well done!

  • Ruvy


    Chris is definitely snippy. I begin to see the fun zing has in trying to bait me.

    Chris, aside from being pompous, tendentious, lacking a sense of humour, and being unable to see another point of view, you’re a great guy with an open mind. I’ll even credit you with teaching me the use of these 12 letter multi-syllabic attempts at characterization. In fact, you remind me an awful lot of a Geordie who lives in our humble village. I try to stay on his good side. He’s a big wheel here.

    Oh, that’s right, you’re a big wheel at BC. Maybe I better stay on your good side, too.

  • Ruvy, I love this new technique of yours whereby you accuse other people of the very qualities you bring to this site every single time you turn up. It’s a complete failure mind you, as nobody is being fooled except yourself…

  • Ruvy

    Ruvy, I love this new technique of yours….

    Well, Chris this ol’ Jewboy in the mountains aims to please.

    At your service, guv’na!

  • Dave,

    “As he moves America farther left politically the rest of the world seems to see their answer in moving in the opposite direction.”

    Without America? It’s rather hard to visualize.

  • STM

    Dave: “As he moves America farther left politically the rest of the world seems to see their answer in moving in the opposite direction.”

    Actually, you guys aren’t being strictly truthful here.

    American politics is so far to the right even when it’s “left” (please, don’t confuse namby-pamby, wet, chardonnay-drinking American liberalism with the Left. It ain’t left … It’s just liberalism), by the time you finally catch up with everyone else who’s allegedly moving to the “right”, we all might meet in the middle somewhere.

    Now, wouldn’t that be nice?

  • STM

    The problem I see with hard-core American liberals is that they’re too nice, in that condescending we know better than you kind of way.

    What’s wrong with wanting UHC, industrial arbitration for workers’ rights and conditions, job protection, decent wages set in stone through the courts, etc etc etc AND sticking up for yourselves and tearing terrorists a new set of aresholes.

    I’ll never understand American liberals (or American conservatives for that matter, who always want to take their bat and ball and go home if you don’t agree with them), and how everything has to be boxed in and ticked off like a set of requirements that entitles you to be part of one camp or another, but nothing in between.

    That’s the problem with America today: too much black and white and not enough exploration of the vast grey area in between.

  • You’re quite right, Stan. I didn’t want to open up the issue of America’s political position relative to the rest of the world because it would require a whole additional article just to explain some of the differences.

    The truth is that many of these “conservative” parties are not what most americans would consider conservative. For example, on issues other than immigration Geert Wilders is quite liberal by American standards.

    The same is true of a lot of other European political parties. They combine issues and concerns differently than we do. In Europe you’ll find major parties which are socially conservative and very far left on economic issues, which is a totally unfamiliar idea to most Americans, except perhaps Joe Lieberman. And in Europe opposition to immigration often goes hand in hand with storng unionism — which is a combination which makes a great deal of sense and which I think exists here in the US in the grassroots, but which none of our parties really seem to get.

    But we can definitely say that there is a move to the right on certain key issues in Europe, particularly immigration and economic policy.


  • Brown is deeply unpopular, and the fallout from the MPs expenses scandal virtually ensures that some of the smaller parties will have a say in Britain’s next parliament.

    If they do, it will be because of some banner local issue. Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system pretty much ensures that lunatics like the BNP don’t get anywhere near any sort of power that counts.

    Britain uses PR at the European elections, which gives smaller and ‘issue’ parties like the UKIP and the BNP more of a shout. Nevertheless, the BNP’s poll numbers actually went down this time around, and they only got seats because Labour’s vote collapsed so spectacularly.

    And Stan’s correct: the Tories aren’t exactly classically right-wing these days, having had to reinvent themselves as a populist party following their own electoral implosion in the 90s. They’re actually farther left than the supposedly centrist Lib Dems on a number of issues nowadays.

    The diagnosis is less that Europe is moving to the right than that it’s moving away from the integrationist, free immigration model.

    Dave’s right on one thing, though: By the time this here discussion has run its course, Gordon Brown may very well no longer be prime minister.

  • I knew there was something wrong with Dave’s picture. Thanks for clarifying this, STM.
    BTW, in one of your comments you attributed a statement to me that wasn’t mine. I only cited it in order to retort.

  • Baronius

    I’ve heard it argued that in Europe, the government-leftist parties split from the moderate parties after WWII.

    I don’t know my way around those European parties. You guys have noted that the Right in Europe is to the left of the US Right, but there are also some crazy elements in the European Right that Americans don’t have to contend with. I mean, monarchists? Really? There are parties in Europe that embody SJ’s worst fears about American right-wingers.

    An American friend of mine is infatuated with the BNP. I think my buddy’s been accused of racism so many times (for opposing quotas) that he doesn’t realize that the BNP is racist racist. No wonder Euroelites look down on the US when they hear that we elect conservatives.

  • I think my buddy’s been accused of racism so many times (for opposing quotas) that he doesn’t realize that the BNP is racist racist.

    He’s been taken in. Being horrendously fooled by UK politics seems to be an occupational hazard of being American. (Case in point: the thousands of Irish-Americans who supported the IRA because they thought they were freedom fighters rather than vicious murdering terrorists.) The BNP split from the unabashedly racist National Front in the 1980s, and after a few years of infighting and thuggery decided to become respectable. But, as old JC once said, ‘By their deeds you shall know them.’

  • STM

    Baron: “there are also some crazy elements in the European Right that Americans don’t have to contend with. I mean, monarchists? Really?”

    Baron, you know that I’m a Labor voter, right, and my politics would be way left of what a liberal might understand in America? I’m also a monarchist, I also believe we should be belting up on terrorists and standing up for ourselves.

    I realise Americans find it hard to get their heads around this but being a monarchist in the British tradition doesn’t mean wanting to be ruled by a King or Queen.

    It means quite the opposite, so please persevere and read on.

    Britain (and we inherited their system like the Candians) stopped being an absolute monarchy in 1688, when power switched to the elected representatives of the people through Parliament.

    (In the unfortunate American experience of monarchy, King George was an abberration … he meddled illegally in Parliament through his little cliques by setting up intrigues and blocs. It’s quite possible there’d have been no revolution but for him, as parliament at the time was leaning towards granting Americans self-government).

    A monarch in a British-style constitutional monarchy now assumes only an executive role – a rubber stamp bound by law and convention not to meddle in the affairs of government. They have no power, but can exercise special powers in a crisis if required. That is why, when we have a government crippled by numbers in the upper house, the governor general can sack the government and call a new election. It happened here in the 70s. In the election, a new government was appointed by the people. In effect, the monarch or their representative is bound by law and convention to the will of the people.

    They are head of state but not head of government, and the people run the country, through their elected representatives, not the monarch.

    Britain was also the first of the modern liberal democracies (despite having a monarch) and is acknowledged as such by historians. Because our experience is different to yours, it doesn’t make it worse.

    It’s a system that’s worked UNBROKEN since 1688. I say if something’s not broke, don’t fix it.

    That’s why I don’t want a republic here. I’d hate to see power cede to someone in an executive position (like a US president) who might not be so bound by law and convention as a monarch.

    The difference is between us: the President’s administration (often it’s an oligarchy, as we have seen, and NOT directly elected) is of major importance in the US and basically runs the country (like an old-style monarch with executive power), even though a prez is directly elected, while the elected government as a whole as expressed through the will of the people runs countries like Australia, Canada and Britain.

    All our cabinets and ministers are elected, unlike the US.

    Simply, if a party don’t get the number of seats required in the house to govern, they don’t govern.

    So Baron, an understanding of monarchists and the thinking behind it is key here.

    I understand it seems like an anachronism, and sometimes I feel the same way, but it works and it works really well.

    Basically, today, the monarchs are in service of the people, not the other way around.

    They fulfil that role perfectly, despite all their annoying foibles.

  • Baronius

    D – It isn’t like he’s contributing to them.

    We complain sometimes about the difficulties of political labelling, that “liberal” or “conservative” mean different things than they used to. But that’s nothing compared to the Atlantic divide. We say “right-wing free market” and you hear “death-camp free market”.

  • Baronius

    STM – No offense intended. You’d have to admit that an American monarchist would be outside the mainstream, though.

  • STM

    Yes, Baron, that would be bizarre indeed.

    But the truth is Canada, Britain, NZ and Australia aren’t that different as societies to the US. Very similar. Same freedoms, same values.

    So I contend that had there been no revolution and George Washington had become the first American Prime Minister rather the first prez, America would be near identical to how it is today (possibly just with less guns).

    Food for thought ….

  • STM

    Here’s a great example of what I’m talking about when I’m talking left, and how different the divide is outside America.

    This from Spain’s El Mundo daily newspaper:

    “The traditional parties of the left should ask themselves why, in the midst of crisis, just when free market theories appear to be most challenged, people continue to prefer liberal recipes.”

    Note use of the world liberal in there, when considered in opposition to the left.

    It gives some indication of where American liberals sit on the political spectrum. That is, from where I sit, not neccessarily to the left.

    To me, George Bush was ultra-right. But at least you knew where he stood and what he stood for.

    With American liberals, sometimes I just can’t tell. It all seems so wishy-washy.

    No wonder those on the “right” in America sometimes find liberalism annoying and the preserve of far too many pseudo-intellectuals who prefer navel gazing and fence sitting to actually doing something.

    Also, hilariously, in Australia the party of the right is called the Liberal Party.

    Yet when you look at their policies, they’re about on a par with the Democrats.

  • STM

    Roger: “I only cited it in order to retort”

    Sorry, Rog, I did realise that afterwards.

  • With American liberals, sometimes I just can’t tell. It all seems so wishy-washy.

    This is because America’s “liberals” are not actually liberal at all, as illustrated by your observation that many European liberal parties are right-leaning.


  • Jordan Richardson

    This is because America’s “liberals” are not actually liberal at all

    Quoted for truth.

    Jesus Christ, I can’t believe I just did that…

  • You mean “a page from Clavos’ book”?

  • Baronius

    STM – The parties are different because all the institutions are different. The unions in 1980’s Poland were anti-government. The church governed parts of Italy. The military has always played a role in the politics of France. We can’t compare the political parties that developed in response to the wildly different relationships in those countries.

    Frankly, I’m surprised the EU works as well as it does.

  • Frankly, I’m surprised the EU works as well as it does.

    I’m not. It’s been run by the Germans for decades. (The French think they run it, and the Germans have seen no reason to disabuse them of that notion.)

    But Germany has been losing its stranglehold a little bit of late, and things consequently seem to be unravelling.

  • Compared to some European countries, British politics is blissfully simple.

    The Italian national pastime, for example, is to strive to make politics as unmanageably complicated as possible, in spite of numerous efforts to simplify it.

    Irish politics consists of several parties, all with exactly the same general philosophy, trying to convince the electorate and themselves that they’re different.

    German politics constantly has one eye on the past. It’s relatively stable, but they’re constantly watching themselves, terrified of relapsing.

    French politics is just unfathomable.

  • Baronius

    National politics has a way of conforming to the old stereotypes – but those stereotypes originaly evolved from the cultures, so it makes sense.

    Italian politics has always been contentious. No other culture would have produced The Prince and The Divine Comedy. French culture leans toward the airy, theoretical, and pretentious. And dare I say that complaining and fighting are Irish mainstays?

    The EU is still green. Its first real test has been the financial crisis. I’m kinda surprised that they rallied around Iceland. They could have just as easily thrown up barriers and sunk the whole project. But in these election results we may be seeing the consequences of their policy decision.

  • Bliffle

    Is there a whites-only party in UK that elected an MP?

  • Baronius

    Bliffle, I think I can answer this question. If I’m wrong, I hope our BC Brits will correct me.

    The recent election was for local offices and MEP’s, Members of the European Parliament. The British National Party (see earlier comments) won two seats. This isn’t as fascist as it sounds, because (a) there are 700+ MEP’s, (b) the Labour party is in the midst of a Mark Foleyesque collapse, and (c) the real increases were in the Eurosceptic parties. But the BNP votes do indicate an increasing anti-immigration sentiment and a sense that the socially-acceptable British parties have lost touch.

  • The BNP won three local council seats (in addition to the handful they already held) and two European Parliament seats. The big deal about the European seats is that this is the first time the party has won seats in a national election. They only did so because the Euro elections use proportional representation. They don’t have a cat in hell’s chance of winning a Westminster seat unless one of their candidates finds a hot-button local issue to campaign on. There are a few current MPs – among them George Galloway, friend of the Senate Committee on Investigations – who won their seats that way.

  • Baronius

    Dread, the Brits have a different relationship between the local and national government, right? So what are the local councils equivalent to (if anything) in the US system? Back in the 1930’s, a few US cities elected Socialist Party mayors, but it never became a viable national party. Is that what the BNP is today?

    I’ll say this: the more the “proper” parties and press unite against the BNP, the more appealing it’s going to look to the dissatisfied.

  • Baronius,

    Just like in the US, Britain has different levels of local government (despite the efforts of Margaret Thatcher, who thought some of the levels were redundant and tried to get rid of them).

    At the bottom there are local councils of various types, which would be equivalent to city councils over here, although usually with more members. The larger cities are divided into boroughs with their own councils which have similar responsibilities.

    At the next level there are county councils (or unitary authorities, which govern large cities and/or amalgamations of neighboring counties) and which try to produce some sort of coherent regional policy.

    It can be a bit more complicated than that, but in general there’s less overlap than with the American system, so you don’t tend to get several different bodies all trying to do the same thing (you won’t often, for instance, see a city cop, a sheriff and a state trooper all chasing the same suspect).

    At the next level up, obviously there’s no equivalent to the State level of government (us not being a federation and all). Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do have devolved assemblies and first ministers, but with far, far less power than the US states and their governors.

    As for the BNP, it’s becoming alarmingly more viable by the day. Its growing popularity doesn’t exist in a vacuum. There was a vigorous fascist party in the UK in the 1930s, led by Oswald Mosley, which could have got close to power had Hitler not decided to put the kybosh on them by going to war. There isn’t, at the moment, any obvious equivalent threat that would defuse the BNP’s message.

    It would be interesting to discuss what led to the decline of socialism in the US and why the party was unable to build on its success in the ’30s.

    I think it’s less a question of the mainstream parties uniting against the BNP than of them defanging it by listening to the public and learning the lessons of the past.

    They’re harmless enough as a local and regional fringe party. But if the BNP ever came to power nationally, believe me, they would govern with a level of incompetence that would make Brown’s and Major’s governments look like political masterpieces.

  • Baronius

    From the little that I understand, you’ll never see a police officer chase a suspect at all in England. When people don’t feel safe, they blame foreigners. (To be honest, I’m not that sure about you). That’s Psych 001. So is the fact that throwing eggs at a party leader is going to make your side look like the bullies. I mean, how lousy do you have to be at politics to make the fascists look sympathetic?

  • Bar,

    The primary reason you’ll rarely see a British cop chasing a suspect is that they’re smarter than their American brethren and thereby able to anticipate the suspect’s moves better…

    The secondary reason is that British cops are trained to believe that they’re not John Wayne (some can take a bit of convincing); as opposed to cops stateside, who are trained to believe that they are.


  • Bliffle

    No need to chase suspects: radio waves travel faster than cops.

  • Hush, Bliffle. No need to deprive an American cop of an excuse for a good ol’ car chase and shootout. 😉

  • Jeannie Danna

    Bliffle, I understand you have been commenting on BC for a long time. Do you see people treating each other this way alot?

  • Jeannie Danna

    These people suck.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Bah, we’ve got your asses all beat. In Canada, we chase our bad guys down on horses. Suck it, monkeys.

  • Baronius

    Jeannie, what treatment are you talking about? Considering we’ve got liberals, conservatives, a theocrat, a monarchist, and a Canadian commenting here, I think we do a good job of communicating intelligently and peaceably.

  • She’s apparently referring to her own behavior Baronius.

  • Bliffle

    I ignore all personal comments on BC. Lately, there seem to be more of them, which compounds the scanning problems of the new format.

    The purpose of criminal pursuit should be to panic the criminal into making poor escape choices, like running up a blind alley instead of joining a crowd, which would seem better cover.

  • STM

    Jordan: “Bah, we’ve got your asses all beat. In Canada, we chase our bad guys down on horses.”

    Shit eh, the cops mount up on dirty great red kangaroos down here (they stick the flashing lights on the head and the tail), or emus if they can ever round any up.

    And instead of shooting people, Aussie cops just knock ’em out with one punch.

  • STM

    But unlike the US, no one gets tried in a kangaroo court 🙂