Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[MonkeyHead]

I suspect it is a symptom of anything run by a group of people all looking out for thier own intereststs, where every decision ends up being a compromiseor least objectionable solution - like the phrase says, "designed by committiee". Probably always has been this way, too, save for when some large issue acts as a unifying goal. We just happen to be more aware of it over the last decade thanks to 24 hour media.

[t. fortsorter]

I most certainly do not wish to brag, but I do not make a dysfunctional form of government~
A bit uncaring, maybe! or too reactionary in matters of political plurality than some would have wished, but with me at the heed, who could possibly wish for all the political parties my presence overthrew, haha~
Please remember this during your country's next election, coup d'état, revolution or other form of change of current ruling class! I'll ensure to return the favor~

[XXSockXX]

So an article that presents an interesting, if slightly dangerous idea.
It presents a problem that has become systemic of the US and Australia, I'm just wondering do people feel that this 'political vetocracy' is also as strong across Europe. Any opinion?

Actually I think in Germany we have quite the opposite right now. There barely is any parliamentary opposition left to face the current grand coalition, so the government can do whatever it wants. Since the political spectrum in Germany is (for historical reasons) quite narrow compared to other countries, the policy differences between the big parties are more in details than in ideology (essentially we're all social democrats), which makes compromises easier. This culture of consensus can be very frustrating for voters, because a lot of opinions are not represented by any relevant parties anymore. Polls showed though that the majority of voters did want a grand coalition, so this government is more of a compromise for the politicians involved, not a sign of political division among the voters.

On an European level this might be different, but that is not a real government, but a constant negotiation between countries with wildly varying interests.

[Helgoland]

Okay, but look at the cabinet Merkel II - that was non-governance par excellence! Their only domestic achievement that comes to mind is the step away from nuclear power, and that was just a tactical move by Merkel.

[Loud Whispers]

But they look funny! And talk funny, dress weird, and don't believe in the same things I do!
Therefore they should die. QED.

There is the theory that Homo Floriensis was driven to extinction by Homo Sapiens pissed off that they were having their kids kidnapped, so they set them all on fire.

[XXSockXX]

Okay, but look at the cabinet Merkel II - that was non-governance par excellence! Their only domestic achievement that comes to mind is the step away from nuclear power, and that was just a tactical move by Merkel.

That is true, I just think our political dysfunction lies elsewhere, not in the "vetocracy" the article describes, which is more of a thing in US politics (and in Australia too apparently, I don't know much about that). There is no big divide between opposition and government or between the big parties in Germany and thus not the described backlash of the voters. In fact voters were pretty happy with Merkel. She has moved the CDU more and more to the left, so that the differences to the SPD are smaller than ever. By making the opposition's positions her own, she has effectively eliminated any desire for big leadership changes. On the other hand that's what I find problematic, if you for example happen to think the step away from nuclear power was a huge mistake, there is no party you can vote for.
Our dysfunction is much more in a general cluelessness of politicians, which translates to blind activism whenever an issue comes up. Ministers try new stuff that goes nowhere or fails hilariously, while Merkel herself remains quite passive and - like Kohl before her - sits everything out while remaining on top. Of course the complete lack of ideas and charismatic leadership on the opposition side has helped her a lot. On the left, the SPD still has not recovered from Schröder's Agenda 2010, the Greens are useless now without their pet issues and Die Linke is still a highly suspicous and incompetent bunch of populists. On the right, the FDP never managed to shed their "rich people's party" image and may be gone for good on a federal level, while the AfD gets portrayed as extremists and will not be a threat for now, except perhaps in the coming EU parliament elections, but anything further remains to be seen.

[Helgoland]

Yeah, exactly - Merkel, Merkel über allem, so to speak. It should be interesting to see though what happens when she's gone in 2017 - will von der Leyen survive the Ministry of Defense, and become her successor? Will the CDU do a shift to the right? Will the SPD finally become more centrist again after the leftism we've been seeing during the past campaign?
Will we, perhaps, see Steinbrück make a comeback?

[XXSockXX]

I dunno. Currently there is really no obvious successor for Merkel. Von der Leyen is probably too polarizing, we'll see how she'll do in the Ministry of Defense, just because she produced an army of children doesn't mean she can manage an actual one, with all the problems the Bundeswehr has. Like 10 years ago I would have thought of Wulff as a potential successor, but we all know how that turned out. I think the CDU might have to move a little back to the right in the future, to not disenfranchise their voter base.
The SPD lacks a potential chancellor too, Steinbrück was a compromise, he was never reallly accepted by the left wing of the party and in 2017 he'll be too old and probably too tired of politics. Gabriel lacks the charisma and Steinmeier isn't gonna try again. Not sure if the SPD is gonna be more centrist, they'll have the problem of distinguishing themselves as a minor partner in the coalition.
The absence of the FDP in the future might make things interesting. They probably could make a comeback, since they still have a voter base and market liberalism isn't represented much currently, but 4 years is a long time and they'll certainly get less votes if it looks like they're not gonna make it.
The Greens will have to fill in for the FDP on occasion (except in economic policies obviously) and maybe that's where their future lies, now that they don't have any more issues they "own".
At least I don't think there will be a red-red-green coalition in 2017, Die Linke is still not a party one can govern with. Since there was an actual right-of-centre majority in the election that is not reflected in parliament and won't be in terms of policies, it will be interesting what happens with the AfD. They might of course dissappear quickly, but if they manage to stay on course not getting taken over by far-righters and if the other parties stop branding them as extreme, they too could fill the hole that has been left by the FDP (and by the right wing of the CDU).

[Loud Whispers]

Why is the step away from nuclear power a good thing? All it did was force Germany to be reliant on coal power.

[XXSockXX]

Because nuclear power is incredibly unpopular. That's the only reason. Popular belief is that we'll be much better off without it, we can make do with green energy and the whole world is gonna follow our example. Now, the last two things are obviously not true, but it will take time for people to realize that. Since energy is getting more and more expensive and since we do indeed rely more on coal, which isn't environment-friendly at all, opinions could change, but anti-nuclearism is really a deep felt sentiment here.
BTW the nuclear opt-out was already a done deal before Merkel, it was just supposed to happen later (in 2030 I think?), when technology was ready. Merkel initially wanted to extend that time, but completely switched sides (with popular opinion) after Fukushima. Another example of the blind activism I mentioned earlier, we are not technologically ready to lose nuclear energy (yet), but the people want it, so we just do it.

[XXSockXX]

It's not like that. There aren't really any people publicly defending nuclear energy. If you need an American analogy, it's like advocating government funded abortions in the Bible Belt.
There is of course a lot of dissent about how we'll manage energy in the future, but it's clear that nuclear isn't an option anymore.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, a while back, vaccines were considered unpopular in America.

Uh, no. The anti-vaccination demagogues are and have been a weak minority for the appreciable past. While they got stronger in the early zeros, they have never been strong overall.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I was thinking more along the lines of the cold war-ish period. There were government posters showing vaccines and a few other things as evil, soviet ideas.

*facepalm*
No, there were not. The image you are undoubtedly thinking of was published by the Keep America Committee, who were another stupid "family" group. Here's some other publications of theirs, to give you an idea.

The US government strongly supported vaccination during the Cold War. Essentially all governments did. They'd have been crazy not to. Healthy citizens work harder than sick and dead citizens. How do you think smallpox got eradicated? The US and USSR worked together through the WHO to make that happen.

[Max White]

Historically, the more likely a population is to be in contact with a given virus, the more they will be accepting of vaccination. Humans aren't all together that irrational.
It is only recently now that people don't fully realize just how bad some of these things are that they feel they don't need protection from it.

[10ebbor10]

Because nuclear power is incredibly unpopular. That's the only reason. Popular belief is that we'll be much better off without it, we can make do with green energy and the whole world is gonna follow our example. Now, the last two things are obviously not true, but it will take time for people to realize that. Since energy is getting more and more expensive and since we do indeed rely more on coal, which isn't environment-friendly at all, opinions could change, but anti-nuclearism is really a deep felt sentiment here.
BTW the nuclear opt-out was already a done deal before Merkel, it was just supposed to happen later (in 2030 I think?), when technology was ready. Merkel initially wanted to extend that time, but completely switched sides (with popular opinion) after Fukushima. Another example of the blind activism I mentioned earlier, we are not technologically ready to lose nuclear energy (yet), but the people want it, so we just do it.

Also interesting, before the government announced it's nuclear phase-out, support for continuing nuclear power and installing new plants was at 70% ((that was 2007)). The latest numbers, just before the Fukushima disaster, put it at a 44% for, 44% against equal split, showing once more that people will follow government policy , rather than vice versa.

But yeah, Germany isn't ready for the Energiewende, which has so far been a complete failure. Reliance on coal is higher than ever, with old, polluting plants being put back into service, as cleaner gas plants go bankrupt(Intermittent production hours cause them to run at a loss). Most of Germanies hydro-energy storage facilities have gone bankrupt as well. Meanwhile, massive power disbalance in country is putting strain on the networks of neighbouring countries, which are all taking steps to install measures allowing them to disconnect their networks at moment notice. Additionally, the coal power is actively sabotaging renewable efforts in other countries, because when the windpower does work, all the coal powerplants start to export their power dirtcheap, undercutting cleaner powersources in other countries.

Also, energy prices in Germany are at an all time high, while the energy itself is cheaper than ever due to overcapacity.