European Politics

My thoughts, with a parallell from the Norwegian election campaign (although involving a different type of party): For some time it seemed the Green party (the environmentalists, whose sister party in Germany has been established for many years) would beat the 4% limit and win several seats in the Parliament. However, the last two weeks of the campaign saw many return to the Liberals or to the Socialist Left party. Among the established parties, these are the two who put environmental issues highest on their agenda.

The point is that there needs to be a really strong incentive for people to vote for a typical protest party. When it comes to the day of election, many will instead vote for one of the established parties, unless they disagree strongly with them. Therefore, gallups will often show higher numbers for these parties than the actual election result.
 
I am reading that lots of Germans feel safe with Merkel. She stands for a solid economy. Export has increased, unemployment has decreased.
Probably a huge victory coming up.
 
More of a question, if it seems a certainty that one party will win the election, would that encourage people to vote more for fringe parties since their major party is going down.

To use your example, if it seems the largest left party will lose, someone might vote Green (or I suppose the opposite if it looks like they will win big to give them a bigger negotiating block in the coalition)

or

Does the fact that the elections are not winner take all like the US Presidential elections over ride that and keep people with the major parties?
 
Forostar said:
I am reading that lots of Germans feel safe with Merkel. She stands for a solid economy. Export has increased, unemployment has decreased.
Probably a huge victory coming up.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no doubt that Merkel will win. Four more dark years coming up. The statement that export has increased and unemployment has decreased is being parroted by everyone, but it is a gross over-simplification, and much of it is not her achievement.


bearfan said:
More of a question, if it seems a certainty that one party will win the election, would that encourage people to vote more for fringe parties since their major party is going down.

To use your example, if it seems the largest left party will lose, someone might vote Green (or I suppose the opposite if it looks like they will win big to give them a bigger negotiating block in the coalition)

or

Does the fact that the elections are not winner take all like the US Presidential elections over ride that and keep people with the major parties?
Click to expand...

That is a subject of dispute among analysts, and I can't really tell what is more likely.
 
I am hearing a lot on the minimum wage. Or rather: the lack of it, in Germany. Merkel wants to keep it this way.
 
Forostar said:
I am hearing a lot on the minimum wage. Or rather: the lack of it, in Germany. Merkel wants to keep it this way.
Click to expand...

Minimum wages are a flagship demand of the social democrats and leftists. Conservatives and liberals, i.e. those in the government right now, prefer a system in which wage politics are left to employers. But there is much more to it than that. There has been a drastic increase of temporary work with low wages and terrible conditions, which is responsible for the good employment rates. The export rates are so good because products are produced and sold cheaply, which again causes poor work conditions. Thing is, most of the problems were caused by the social democrat Schröder administration, so all the criticism from that camp comes across to me as hypocritical. I've got the problem that I neither want the Merkel administration to continue, nor do I want a Steinbrück administration.
 
This is essentially what is happening in the UK too. Employment levels look not bad, considering the recessions(s) --but living standards have fallen (& continue to fall), wages are static, energy & food prices have rocketed, many people are working part-time when they need to work full-time, people are working zero-hour contracts, working conditions have taken a total kicking in some sectors, etc.

Most of the recent good economic news is good London (& the S. East) news i.e. growth, the return of salary increases (& bonuses), the housing market picking up, etc. It's not happening in many other parts of the UK.
 
Last edited:
I heard Steinbrück has good contacts with PvdA (Dutch social democratic party; "my" party ;-), because that is a party that came back from next to nothing (after falling down immensely since the rise and death of Pim Fortuyn). Looks like it didn't help much yet. Maybe some years later, who knows.
 
Perun said:
Minimum wages are a flagship demand of the social democrats and leftists. Conservatives and liberals, i.e. those in the government right now, prefer a system in which wage politics are left to employers. But there is much more to it than that. There has been a drastic increase of temporary work with low wages and terrible conditions, which is responsible for the good employment rates. The export rates are so good because products are produced and sold cheaply, which again causes poor work conditions. Thing is, most of the problems were caused by the social democrat Schröder administration, so all the criticism from that camp comes across to me as hypocritical. I've got the problem that I neither want the Merkel administration to continue, nor do I want a Steinbrück administration.
Click to expand...
You may find a party hypocritical because someone did something some decades ago, but if you long for changes why not vote for a party that stands for important things you wish from a political party. There is no perfect political party (there's always something that can be disliked), but who knows there's one that fits the best to a society you'd like, compared to others.

Would you say which parties have appealing elements in their programs? Does each party have some? Or are there big differences?
 
Forostar said:
You may find a party hypocritical because someone did something some decades ago,
Click to expand...

What I talked about wasn't decades ago. It was a reform package decided on in 2002 (the article is incomplete and imbalanced, but it's better than nothing), and most of the people who had a hand in it or voted for it in parliament are still in the leading ranks of the social democrat party. The package is widely held to be responsible for Germany's good performance in the last couple of years, but as I said, there is a very big dark side to it, a dark side I believe could and should have been avoided. Fact is, the reforms were neither social, nor democratic. The social democrats claim the downsides are Merkel's fault, but they were inherent to the system they created, and everybody knows that. That is hypocrisy.

but if you long for changes why not vote for a party that stands for important things you wish from a political party. There is no perfect political party (there's always something that can be disliked), but who knows there's one that fits the best to a society you'd like, compared to others.
Click to expand...

Because there is no party I believe in, and none that proposes the changes I want. There is no party which has performed in a manner that makes me trust them. It's not like I haven't believed in individual parties or politicians in the past, and it's not like I haven't observed their performances in government and opposition. Of the five parties currently in parliament, I trust not a single one to do the right thing, and act the way I think is right. I do not feel comfortable with the thought of giving any of them my vote.

Would you say which parties have appealing elements in their programs? Does each party have some? Or are there big differences?
Click to expand...

Almost all parties have elements in their programs that appeal to me, but I believe those that are important to me will be compromised when it comes to staying in power. It's happened in the past. But it's not just the parties. It's the politicians. There is currently not a single politician in Germany who has a shot at a high office whom I trust. I simply do not think they would do a good job in what they are applying for - many have proven in the past that they don't. The party I have chosen to vote for, for the sole sake of not being a non-voter, will probably not be represented in parliament according to polls. I wish they would, if only because they are the only ones I don't think of as dangerous, destructive or downright evil. Their program is mostly harmless, quite naive and utopic, and there are a few points I strongly disagree with, but I still think they could do good work in the opposition if they tried hard.
 
The compromising element can be frustrating indeed. Coalitions always ruin ideals that were in the party program. Who knows the party you're going for could gain some more support in the future.
 
I thought it would be easier to find a party to go with when you have potentially up to 7 that might get representation versus here where the max is 2 parties.

One question, is there much, if any, cooperation between parties from different countries (for example the Social Democrats in Germany versus parties similar to it in surrounding countries) or is it seen as a bit of a taboo to get involved in the politics/elections of another country.
 
bearfan said:
I thought it would be easier to find a party to go with when you have potentially up to 7 that might get representation versus here where the max is 2 parties.

One question, is there much, if any, cooperation between parties from different countries (for example the Social Democrats in Germany versus parties similar to it in surrounding countries) or is it seen as a bit of a taboo to get involved in the politics/elections of another country.
Click to expand...

Party cooperation across country borders is common. Maybe not so much in implemented policies, but for exchange of ideas and inspiration. I think the biggest parties in Norway (the Norwegian Labour Party (social democrats) and the Conservative Party) have close relations with their sister parties across western Europe.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
The Independence vote is next year though (2014); with the E.U. "in/out" referendum, the Conservative Party propose putting to the British people, scheduled for 2016/17 --as the article mentions. So if the Independence vote (which is first) comes back yes, Scotland will have to negotiate it's own relationship with Europe anyway i.e. application to the E.U. (Or at least, so it's assumed --nobody really knows.) But if you mean, what will happen if the Scottish people vote no and (later) the UK votes to leave Europe, then --who knows? Not much is being said, by either camps, of what will happen to Scotland if the vote comes back no i.e. will we still grind on to "devo max" &/or into a sort of federalist UK. But, yes, the UK could vote to leave (including Scotland) --which would (apparently) be against Scottish public opinion. (Therefore, in answer to your last question: it couldn't --assuming it was still part of the UK & the UK had voted to leave.) I just can't imagine the UK voting to leave though.
Click to expand...

Just replying to myself, as you do...;)

Well, it's exactly one year to this day/date (18th Sept.) to the Scottish Independence Referendum. Not sure what I think is going to happen. Still can't imagine the canny majority voting yes...
 
And today Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's deputy First Minister (surely 'Second' Minister?), said that people who don't want independence are "wrong" and that we're as bad as people who said that women shouldn't get the vote. Loving the Bertrand Russell-style argument there Nic!
 
Yeh, the fairly transparent angle that the SNP are taking right now is: if we can convince female voters (to vote for independence), then the vote really will swing in our favour. Seems like a reasonable assumption to make, based on how few (from these random polls they take) woman say they'll vote yes.

I think the problem is: loads of people, when asked right now, are obviously going to be undecided or say "no"; which is interpreted as they'll vote no. I'm not so sure. And of course it works the other way too: people who are quite adamant they'll vote "yes" are going to waver at the ballot box. It doesn't really matter what both campaigns say: it's still effectively a vote for the status quo vs. the unknown in most people's mind, I reckon. If that perception remains, then the vote will come back "no". The Yes Campaign have to convince the public that it's not a leap into the dark; that it's just a natural continuation from where we are (--although skipping past "devo max" on the way.) If they make that argument then the country really, really might vote "yes" --which sounds right now, frankly, incredibly surreal. I still just canny see it happening.

What's your thought Black Wizard? I get the feeling, right now, that the debate/discussion just hasn't started at all. It started politically ages ago, but the public haven't engaged yet. I just don't hear anyone talking about it, yet...
 
I think it's a terrible idea! Nobody from the nationalists has said why independence would benefit anybody yet. The main argument seems to be that we would be free from centuries of oppression from London, which is really nothing other than thinly veiled Anglophobia. There's also the oil argument but the North Sea Oil isn't going to last and you can't power a country (even a small one) on wind energy. I can't really imagine Shell and BP being particularly happy about independence either as it would probably affect business for them so I can see them moving their headquarters to Newcastle and telling Holyrood to fuck itself as the future of oil is in the north of England anyway.
 
It's true that any uncertainty or upheaval is going to unnerve business leaders & potentially scare investment off. But, the reality is, the vote is a year off & nobody has stopped investing in Scotland thus far. Plus, Shell & BP are already in Aberdeen because Aberdeen is where all the infrastructure is for the UK's oil industry; not because it's part of the UK. Heaven's, look at the countries oil companies are currently in --Scottish independence isn't going to scare them off. If anything, they'd find it easier to deal with Edinburgh than Westminster, in terms of lobbying over tax, opening up new fields, etc. An independent Scotland doesn't sound like it's going to be particularly difficult to deal with, in respect to the oil industry. But that aside, yes, I'd agree, the argument hasn't really been made. The country probably favours more devolution first; hence why the vote will probably come back "no".
 
Unsurprisingly, Merkel won the elections. Surprisingly, the Conservatives might be able to get an absolute majority, and the Liberals are out of parliament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top