The conservative party won the election in Greece last Sunday and around the world, economists and other people involved with the world’s money heaved a collective sigh of relief.
If another party had won the election, many people were predicting that Greece might stop using Euros as its currency. That move would likely have affected many countries around the world including those in Europe and North America.
However, the conservative New Democracy party is now in charge in Greece. The Syriza party (which doesn’t believe in accepting money—bailouts—to help Greece’s economy) came in second and the Socialist PASOK party came in third.
The leader of the New Democracy party is Antonis Samaras. He said his party will help Greece to improve in terms of employment, justice and security.
Samaras has a long road ahead of him in terms of improving Greece’s economy and there is no guarantee that his government will stay with the Euro. However, economists are more optimistic than they have been about the situation.
The New Democracy party is trying to form a coalition government. In this case, it means they will ask another party to join forces so they have more votes in Parliament.
Greece’s economy has been poor. In 2010 the country accepted loans from European countries in order to bolster its banks and its economy. The country also cut back on the money it spends on social programs—it implemented “austerity measures.” Those austerity measures meant that the government couldn’t spend as much as it normally would have on things like education and healthcare; many people’s salaries and pensions were also reduced.
By Jonathan Tilly
Today’s article explains that the New Democracy party is viewed as a savior of Greece by many. But how much of an impact can a government actually make? Can a government prevent war? Improve life for its citizens? Prevent an economic crisis? Explain your answer.
Reading Prompt: Demonstrating Understanding
How might Greece, Europe, and the world been affected if The Syriza party or the PASOK party been elected. Explain your thinking.
Demonstrate understanding of a variety of texts by summarizing important
ideas and citing supporting details (OME, Reading: 1.4).
Demonstrate understanding of increasingly complex texts by summarizing
important ideas and citing a variety of details that support the main idea (OME, Reading: 1.4).
One of the many jobs of a writer is to describe ideas, events, people, places, things, etc. The way an author chooses to describe any of these things makes a big difference for readers. Depending on the situation, authors may choose to describe their subjects with a few or with lots of detail. A metaphor is a special way of describing. When an author uses a metaphor, they are using a non-literal comparison to tell about their topic. For example, in the sentence below “heaved a collective sigh of relief” is a metaphor because it is a non-literal comparison to the mood of the people involved.
“The conservative party won the election in Greece last Sunday and around the world, economists and other people involved with the world’s money heaved a collective sigh of relief.”
As a writer, when are the appropriate situations to describe something with just a few details, a lot of details, or with a metaphor? Why?