Nothing makes your point quite as well as stealing trainers.
European Politics
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
Cat Milk Supreme
Ancient Mariner
Immigrants out, local trainers for local people!
Seriously, Dubliners probably stab other Dubliners on a daily basis but as soon as Johnny Foreigner gets in on the action its time to burn a fuckin tram. Absolute cretins.
Seriously, Dubliners probably stab other Dubliners on a daily basis but as soon as Johnny Foreigner gets in on the action its time to burn a fuckin tram. Absolute cretins.
____no5
Free Man
Baerbock hits again about Gaza ceasefire 2:37, "it doesn't help to act impulsively and say the guns must fall silent, that is not the responsibility of a politician"
Ehmmm so whose responsibility is then?
How she managed to became a leader of any party that one, let alone the foreign minister of Germany?
Ehmmm so whose responsibility is then?
How she managed to became a leader of any party that one, let alone the foreign minister of Germany?
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
Funnily enough, a Brazilian Deliveroo driver, not a far right local xenophobe, risked his life to stop the attack.
____no5
Free Man
In Greece most of the times we have one party government. But still it’s very, very, common Prime Minister to call for “party discipline” which is either you vote for the x law, or else you maybe even ousted from the party.
I wonder if in other European countries there are similar behaviors.
I wonder if in other European countries there are similar behaviors.
Yax
Ancient Mariner
Oh yes, it's absolutely so here - and to a fair degree, it's quite rightfully so, and I'm going to make the case for why it's generally the way it should work. You have a party congress for a reason, where you decide on the party stance on very specific issues (that's the way it is here) through voting on motions. If you are a member of a party (and a member of parliament, obviously), then the platform the members have voted on is what you have to abide by. You can't go all maverick because you might have a different view, because you don't only represent the constituents in area x, you also represent the party which has voted on issues during the party congress. You haven't been elected to vote freely as you like, you have been elected as a representative bound by the platform.
Let's say the opposition and the government party (or coalition) are almost tied, and there are a couple of votes difference. Why should a couple of representatives be bestowed that kind of power by essentially deciding the vote based solely upon their own personal beliefs? There is a party congress and a party leadership circle that internally vote on policy. Why should a maverick or two be able to override them as they please?
Let's say the opposition and the government party (or coalition) are almost tied, and there are a couple of votes difference. Why should a couple of representatives be bestowed that kind of power by essentially deciding the vote based solely upon their own personal beliefs? There is a party congress and a party leadership circle that internally vote on policy. Why should a maverick or two be able to override them as they please?
Last edited:
Yax
Ancient Mariner
You generally vote for the party itself though, rather than for an individual person, whether you get to write in or circle a name or not. They are carried by, and carry, the platform. To have a bunch of mavericks not bound by policy voted on in the party congress, now that's disgraceful, and to be frank, it would open for substantial lobbying, dark influence, blackmail and corruption.
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
Although there are party whips in the UK that try and keep the different MPs following the party discipline, it is not unheard of MPs to vote against the official party line. This can happen if there is, for example, significant pressure on an issue in the MP's constituency.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Well, that's really just a question of whether you want the lobbying, dark influence, blackmail, and corruption to happen at the party leadership level or at the individual representative level, isn't it?
I think George Washington got it right: "The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
Unfortunately the U.S. didn't listen to him, and neither did anyone else. The advantages of explicitly consolidating political power to achieve policy goals are too seductive, apparently.
____no5
Free Man
@Yax
My thoughts exactly. In the US & UK apparently you have the whips but I get the sense of higher freedom & institutional integrity there.
Of course with that comes corruption, lobbying and all those you mentioned but in the end each representative carries more substance and accountability. Otherwise it’s too centralized especially in countries like Greece without Senate, government ends up being an one man show. Both have pros & cons but US way is more democratic I find.
Sure, in Greece too, but I never heard a congressman in the US to be openly expelled because he didn’t vote for this or that. In Greece many times.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Yeah, I don't think there's any formal mechanism for expelling a person from a political party in the U.S. They can primary you, or choose not to spend party money to support your campaign, or if you're already a representative they can kick you out of their caucus so you can't vote for leadership positions or get committee assignments from their party, but they can't formally strip you of the party label AFAIK.
You can be expelled from elected office, like what just happened with George Santos, but they can't prevent him from saying he's a Republican or signing up to run again as a Republican.
Yax
Ancient Mariner
I certainly wouldn't want a dozen Kirsten Sinemas's in the Swedish parliament, that's for sure. When the former government here had one single parliament seat advantage, a single (ousted party maverick) representative forced hardline concessions from the rest of the majority coalition until the end of her term. That's not what the norm should be.
No, the entry point should, as it to a large extent is here anyway, a party platform voted on by its members and championed by the party leadship and its representatives (while of course policy is often internally lobbied by the leadership). Are they succeptible to lobbying etcetera? Sure, seen enough of that in the past 15 years here, but it takes a whole lot of more to lobby an entire party or the bulk of the leadership or representatives than a single, or a couple, persons in a maverick/free for all parliament. There needs to be balance of course; too heavily centralized will turn into a one man (or a small group) show, while too loose will open the door for all the Sinemas out there.
Last edited:
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
It's inconvenient for a party with a slim majority, especially if the maverick is an extremist -- but if the maverick is a centrist, then it can help to prevent a tyranny of the majority, too.
So what happens to voters in an area where none of the major party platforms reasonably represent their local interests? How can those voters hope to influence the national agenda for any of the parties if the policy positions of their potential representatives are already dictated by the national party? Elect someone who they hope will lobby internally within the party for their actual interests while still being required to do what they're told by the party brass?
I think there are also some fundamental differences in the dynamics here between multi-party parliamentary systems and a de facto two-party congressional system. Having multiple healthy parties that have to forge temporary governing coalitions to claim power, and having those coalitions be relatively easy to dissolve, would seem to make it easier to change tack on policy at a macro level based on the will of the people. And if you have multiple party choices, maybe forcing members to toe the party line is less of a problem because voters have a broader array of choices, and they can go with whatever party most represents their biggest concerns of the moment. But it also makes governance more chaotic.
With a de facto two-party majority rule system, whichever party takes control of a part of the government will generally hold it until the end of the term unless there are extenuating circumstances that force a special election that makes the chamber change hands mid-term. This theoretically makes governance more stable during a term, but it also reduces voter choice, so you either need broader-based parties with a larger diversity of views, or you at least need to allow room for mavericks to represent places whose interests don't conform to the national party's platform. In the U.S. the polarization of the two major parties over the past 30-odd years has made things particularly difficult because the major parties' platforms contain elements on both sides that are anathema to a large cross-section of voters, which drives disengagement from the process and a lot of "vote for the person you hate the least" rather than voting for the candidate whose positions you support the most, because you aren't offered a broader range of choices. When the parties were broader you could at least participate in the primaries and get some reasonable policy diversity at that level before locking in for the general election, but these days both sides are so heavily litmus-tested that a primary usually only decides how extreme the candidate will be about the party's predetermined platform. But every once in a while you'll get a maverick candidate playing to underserved policy positions and they'll manage to break through, which I think is important.
This also ties into so-called "pork barrel" amendments to legislation, where one representative essentially demands funding for some unrelated local priority in order to get them to vote for some larger bill. I used to think this was disgusting, but as I've aged I've realized that in a chamber with literally hundreds of representatives, no one is going to take the time to listen to your arguments about why you need national money to support a local initiative, so you'll never have any hope of making something like that happen on the merits, and your only option is to use your leverage on close votes to get what your constituents need. So I guess it's still disgusting, but also absolutely understandable from a pragmatic perspective; and if you were simply required to vote along a party line on every bill, these sorts of things would go completely unserviced.
As with most things, there are no perfect solutions.
Yeah, you can 'lose the party whip' here, which is pretty much being kicked out of the party.
I see the point of preventing it descending into chaos and making sure some legislation gets through, but I think it gets used too much, often on political goals that have been over prioritised and blown out of all proportion.
I see the point of preventing it descending into chaos and making sure some legislation gets through, but I think it gets used too much, often on political goals that have been over prioritised and blown out of all proportion.
____no5
Free Man
This is huge.
If there is a window for “some” abuse we know that eventually it will be blown out of the proportion, so I’m in for the US way. At least there the lobbies must work larger number of representatives and more often to get their legislation done. Which is effectively, more democracy.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
What do you guys make of this? I had no idea the EU was moving to have their own cryptocurrency, er, I mean, "digital money." The guy claims that EU authorities lied about being able to use it as freely as cash in terms of privacy and anonymity. Given it leaves a record on the blockchain it can technically be traced at any moment. Full video below:
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Since the beginning of your life, since the beginning of the Party, since the beginning of history, the war has continued without a break, always the same war.
Azas
Hermit at the End of the Universe
I wonder how is Your faith doing regarding russia, Iran, North Korea, China, Nigeria, Syria?
