Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They turned a blind eye to Rosa Luxemburg being murdered, and they tried to appease Conservative elements that loathed and despised them, and were hell-bent on destroying them.

That is not a measure of success in any book.

Blind eye in what sense? Luxemburg and the SPD had a very public break. And the events that led to her execution were approved by the SPD leader itself to stop a new revolutionary wave. So how would that in any way be termed as turning a blind eye?

Also appease the Conservative elements is a very subjective view. The SPD enjoyed quite some succes in the Weimar period. The conservative elements were more concerned about the KPD than the SPD.

Also none of that provides any measurement for succes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Viktor von Domm wrote:

I'm assuming these coalition talks take comparably long right now because everybody is already trying to figure out a game plan for the next election, and nobody is happy with what they're seeing.

and also i am thinking that after that whole time the big coalition will form and rule...but no one can say for how long...it is at it´s best an uneasy alliance...and we´ve seen crumbling coalitions leading to early new elections....this scenario is in my view the most likely one...

Thete is a clear advantage to majority government at times. It may have its faults but least you get one that's ready to take power normally inside a few days to a week to get thr cabinet roles set up and decided.

UK system has faults but that is a clear advantage.
Most of the time we get a majority however slim.

This doesn't really matter though, because as long as no new government is formed the old government just stays in place. So speed of setup really doesn't matter that much for the functioning of the country or power from not having a new one yet.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They turned a blind eye to Rosa Luxemburg being murdered, and they tried to appease Conservative elements that loathed and despised them, and were hell-bent on destroying them.

That is not a measure of success in any book.

Blind eye in what sense? Luxemburg and the SPD had a very public break. And the events that led to her execution were approved by the SPD leader itself to stop a new revolutionary wave. So how would that in any way be termed as turning a blind eye?

Also appease the Conservative elements is a very subjective view. The SPD enjoyed quite some succes in the Weimar period. The conservative elements were more concerned about the KPD than the SPD.

Also none of that provides any measurement for succes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Viktor von Domm wrote:

I'm assuming these coalition talks take comparably long right now because everybody is already trying to figure out a game plan for the next election, and nobody is happy with what they're seeing.

and also i am thinking that after that whole time the big coalition will form and rule...but no one can say for how long...it is at it´s best an uneasy alliance...and we´ve seen crumbling coalitions leading to early new elections....this scenario is in my view the most likely one...

Thete is a clear advantage to majority government at times. It may have its faults but least you get one that's ready to take power normally inside a few days to a week to get thr cabinet roles set up and decided.

UK system has faults but that is a clear advantage.
Most of the time we get a majority however slim.

This doesn't really matter though, because as long as no new government is formed the old government just stays in place. So speed of setup really doesn't matter that much for the functioning of the country or power from not having a new one yet.

And depending on the political shift you could end up with a total dud place hold stuck on cruise, as the old was voted out and thius has no real "saction" to change anything as now technicaly no legitimate, they gopt voted out.
Thus now your stuck in cruise for months unable to make large changes or take actions bar mantinign status quo.

Only one who can erffect change are still trying to form, months later.

thats a fail.

Apparently, CDU/CSU and SPD are already at each other's throats again over the results of the last talks. There's accusations of trying to weasel sentences into the coalition papers, or removing lines secretly. I'm highly sceptical anything harmonic and efficient will come out of another big coalition if this is their starting point.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This doesn't really matter though, because as long as no new government is formed the old government just stays in place. So speed of setup really doesn't matter that much for the functioning of the country or power from not having a new one yet.

And depending on the political shift you could end up with a total dud place hold stuck on cruise, as the old was voted out and thius has no real "saction" to change anything as now technicaly no legitimate, they gopt voted out.
Thus now your stuck in cruise for months unable to make large changes or take actions bar mantinign status quo.

Only one who can erffect change are still trying to form, months later.

thats a fail.

That's why you should plan ahead and not let every policy end the day of the elections. The sitting government can take care of business perfectly well and also take care of pressing matters if needed.

But this is normal practice and would be expected and prepared for in countries with these systems.

Also the UK has a similar problem then no? As the UK parliament gets dissolved when the election campaign starts, while in Germany it just stays in place until replaced by the new one. So really all the UK does is shift the 'holding' pattern to before the election.

In the UK system is the election period is strictly time limited, and the result is known the day after the election.

The Queen then invites the leader of the largest party to form a government.

The largest party usually has an absolute majority in the House of Commons, but, the last three general elections in the supposedly decisive UK system resulted in a coalition government, then a goverment with only 36% of the vote, and most recently a minority government clinging on to power by the help of a few Ulster Unionists who give their support thanks to a massive additional grant to their region.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the UK system is the election period is strictly time limited, and the result is known the day after the election.

The Queen then invites the leader of the largest party to form a government.

The largest party usually has an absolute majority in the House of Commons, but, the last three general elections in the supposedly decisive UK system resulted in a coalition government, then a goverment with only 36% of the vote, and most recently a minority government clinging on to power by the help of a few Ulster Unionists who give their support thanks to a massive additional grant to their region.

Oh, the election results were known the day after, too, in Germany. It's just that the "usual" didn't happen and there was an obvious coalition like in earlier years - it was a lot of SPD/Greens or CDU/FDP back then. With votes being so split up between CDU/CSU, SPD, Greens, FDP, Lefts, AfD and smaller parties, there's no "obvious" go-to team-up. There might be some parallels between UK and Germany that way, the classical election results with one strong party seem to be gone for now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the UK system is the election period is strictly time limited, and the result is known the day after the election.

The Queen then invites the leader of the largest party to form a government.

The largest party usually has an absolute majority in the House of Commons, but, the last three general elections in the supposedly decisive UK system resulted in a coalition government, then a goverment with only 36% of the vote, and most recently a minority government clinging on to power by the help of a few Ulster Unionists who give their support thanks to a massive additional grant to their region.

True, but parliament is dissolved while the election campaign takes place, so the government can't turn to parliament for pressing matters until all of them are replaced. Meanwhile in Germany the old government can always go to the new parliament in need. While systems such as Germany take longer to set up a new government but not parliament, the old and new ones replace each other almost instantly, but in the UK that is only true for the government.

So viewed like that the government 'gap' in Germany might be longer while the one in the UK is bigger for a shorter period.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This doesn't really matter though, because as long as no new government is formed the old government just stays in place. So speed of setup really doesn't matter that much for the functioning of the country or power from not having a new one yet.

And depending on the political shift you could end up with a total dud place hold stuck on cruise, as the old was voted out and thius has no real "saction" to change anything as now technicaly no legitimate, they gopt voted out.
Thus now your stuck in cruise for months unable to make large changes or take actions bar mantinign status quo.

Only one who can erffect change are still trying to form, months later.

thats a fail.

That's why you should plan ahead and not let every policy end the day of the elections. The sitting government can take care of business perfectly well and also take care of pressing matters if needed.

But this is normal practice and would be expected and prepared for in countries with these systems.

Also the UK has a similar problem then no? As the UK parliament gets dissolved when the election campaign starts, while in Germany it just stays in place until replaced by the new one. So really all the UK does is shift the 'holding' pattern to before the election.

True. But we also tend to have a faster turn around once election done. They tend to be stabilised quicker once ready to go.

The holding patten is for 6 weeks yes, but we have both replaced and both ready to roll in 6 weeks.

Germany seems to have a parliment but... 3 months for a government to agree seems a very long time. As said. UK formed a coalition in under a week. Twice.

Not months.

Taking over a year gets plain stupid let's be honest though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Apparently, CDU/CSU and SPD are already at each other's throats again over the results of the last talks. There's accusations of trying to weasel sentences into the coalition papers, or removing lines secretly. I'm highly sceptical anything harmonic and efficient will come out of another big coalition if this is their starting point.

At what point does Germany cut off and tell them to put up and shut up if cannot?

Just wondering what the limit is?

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This doesn't really matter though, because as long as no new government is formed the old government just stays in place. So speed of setup really doesn't matter that much for the functioning of the country or power from not having a new one yet.

And depending on the political shift you could end up with a total dud place hold stuck on cruise, as the old was voted out and thius has no real "saction" to change anything as now technicaly no legitimate, they gopt voted out.
Thus now your stuck in cruise for months unable to make large changes or take actions bar mantinign status quo.

Only one who can erffect change are still trying to form, months later.

thats a fail.

That's why you should plan ahead and not let every policy end the day of the elections. The sitting government can take care of business perfectly well and also take care of pressing matters if needed.

But this is normal practice and would be expected and prepared for in countries with these systems.

Also the UK has a similar problem then no? As the UK parliament gets dissolved when the election campaign starts, while in Germany it just stays in place until replaced by the new one. So really all the UK does is shift the 'holding' pattern to before the election.

True. But we also tend to have a faster turn around once election done. They tend to be stabilised quicker once ready to go.

The holding patten is for 6 weeks yes, but we have both replaced and both ready to roll in 6 weeks.

Germany seems to have a parliment but... 3 months for a government to agree seems a very long time. As said. UK formed a coalition in under a week. Twice.

Not months.

Taking over a year gets plain stupid let's be honest though.

Sure, the UK is faster as a result of the FPTP system. It would honestly be odd if that wasn't the case if one or two parties run the show. But getting a very significant chunk also makes any potential negotiations easier in FPTP because it is easier to agree to certain demands and one is obviously the major partner.

Meanwhile the German system requires at least two to three parties. Negotiations between multiple and less unequal partners takes time. Certainly when they are politically not as close on the left-rightish policies. So negotiations just take longer. Three months isn't that long in a non-FPTP system, because the vote, interests and power are more divided.

Taking over a year is very silly, but it happens as just negotiating for months is preferable to new elections for most parties. Certainly because there is no guarentee that next election the result is going to be more clear.

While the UK gets things done faster, most people in systems of proportional representation wouldn't change their system for one that basically boils down to just two unappealing choices. Its a tradeoff between choice and speed.

Also as far as I'm aware there is no time limit to coalition talks.

There is no limit. They could basically waste the whole 4 years on it, meanwhile the old CDU/SPD coalition remains in place as acting government.

Certainly because there is no guarentee that next election the result is going to be more clear.

Chances are that it would be worse what with the SPD basically dying in the polls now.

There is no particular reason to think that forming a government quickly is better.

If the nation was in a state of crisis, such as war, then obviously it makes a difference, but that isn't the case here.

Looking at the long term results, it is pretty obvious that Germany is in many ways a more successful country than the UK. It's hard to say from that example that PR and dickering around to form governments is detrimental.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is no particular reason to think that forming a government quickly is better.

You can't think of any particular reason why allowing the old government to remain in power after it has been voted out of office is a bad thing?

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is no particular reason to think that forming a government quickly is better.

You can't think of any particular reason why allowing the old government to remain in power after it has been voted out of office is a bad thing?

The political landscape hasn't changed all that much on the grand scheme of things (actually the new coalition in the works looks very much like the one it will be replacing)

It's up to the new government to provide a stable parliamentary majority after all.

I would agree with that.

The outgoing government isn't going to suddenly transform itself into a dictatorship, or make a load of shoddy international treaties, or something, because the population simply would not accept it and nor would foreign powers.

In the meantime, the civil service and ministers carry on with business as normal.

We've had this situation in a number of countries a number of times, and things have panned out as I describe.

Apologies to the Mods if this violates any Forum rules with regard to necromancy or whatever, but I thought I'd boost this thread up, rather than start a new thread, as new developments have happened in Germany.

SPD have agreed new coalition with Merkel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43276732

So a few questions for German dakka members or any other German politics expert:

1. Is the AfD the official opposition?

2. I don't know how German broadcasting works with regard to political parties, but here in Britain, the opposition get more air time and the right to reply to government initiatives. So again, does that mean the AfD will get more TV time, and hence, more exposure?

What do you think of the AFD?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
What do you think of the AFD?

The greatest thing to happen to Europe since the Mongols paid us a visit. It will be a great day for Germany if they are ever elected to government, because it will usher in a golden age for the German nation...

Ok, I'm being sarcastic, and perhaps some people think that my support for Brexit equates to supporting AfD. It does not.

You can be left-wing like me, and be anti-EU.

But none the less, the AfD is just a symptom of the malise affecting the Left all over Europe from Spain to italy, to the UK, to Germany...

It's abandonement of the working-classes, its obession with the poison of identity politics, and its inability to present solitions to problems, has lead to the re-emergence of the right.

AfD's success does not surprise me in the least.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies to the Mods if this violates any Forum rules with regard to necromancy or whatever, but I thought I'd boost this thread up, rather than start a new thread, as new developments have happened in Germany.

Nah, you're good.

Thanks for the response DINLT, you may be surprised to know I agree with you on some things there.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies to the Mods if this violates any Forum rules with regard to necromancy or whatever, but I thought I'd boost this thread up, rather than start a new thread, as new developments have happened in Germany.

SPD have agreed new coalition with Merkel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43276732

So a few questions for German dakka members or any other German politics expert:

1. Is the AfD the official opposition?

2. I don't know how German broadcasting works with regard to political parties, but here in Britain, the opposition get more air time and the right to reply to government initiatives. So again, does that mean the AfD will get more TV time, and hence, more exposure?

1. "official" Opposition ?
Is there more than One flavor?

2. ARD+ZDF guarantee "the correct" view upon things
So we don't Need any competing POV.

3. The Big Crash is on its Way ....

 1hadhq wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies to the Mods if this violates any Forum rules with regard to necromancy or whatever, but I thought I'd boost this thread up, rather than start a new thread, as new developments have happened in Germany.

SPD have agreed new coalition with Merkel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43276732

So a few questions for German dakka members or any other German politics expert:

1. Is the AfD the official opposition?

2. I don't know how German broadcasting works with regard to political parties, but here in Britain, the opposition get more air time and the right to reply to government initiatives. So again, does that mean the AfD will get more TV time, and hence, more exposure?

1. "official" Opposition ?
Is there more than One flavor?

2. ARD+ZDF guarantee "the correct" view upon things
So we don't Need any competing POV.

3. The Big Crash is on its Way ....

If anything like UK system, Largest opposition is Official, gets a degree of funding and also forms a shadow cabinet to challenge party or parties in power.

all others are Opposition, one is considered the main though,

not sure on rest.

Slightly surprised by this...,

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/angela-merkel-claims-no-go-areas-exist-germany-090315792.html

She admiting, when she was one who was proclaiming no real problems? It was her big thing to open up Germanny?

Not a anti refugee position, but i mean something has, or had not happened, it cannot be both. its not Shrodinger.
this seems a total 180 from her position a few years ago.

The study, published in January, used data from Lower Saxony, a state where 90 percent of the crime rise was attributed to male migrants.

Wow. Is that a real number?

Hard to know, since "attributed" is a real word which means that the figures could be entirely made up.

It would be good to get the opinion of our German members who could read the research in the original language.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Hard to know, since "attributed" is a real word which means that the figures could be entirely made up.

It would be good to get the opinion of our German members who could read the research in the original language.

Without a link something like that thrown in is pretty useless. Like you said, it can entirely made up, or the 90% attributed could be on a rise of only a few percentages.

Without even seeing the research, even if the 90% statement is true, the thing that matters is how many on a 100.000. Of course crime goes up with more people, but is the increase excessive when considering the 'German' base number? Shame they don't link it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Hard to know, since "attributed" is a real word which means that the figures could be entirely made up.

It would be good to get the opinion of our German members who could read the research in the original language.

Without a link something like that thrown in is pretty useless. Like you said, it can entirely made up, or the 90% attributed could be on a rise of only a few percentages.

Without even seeing the research, even if the 90% statement is true, the thing that matters is how many on a 100.000. Of course crime goes up with more people, but is the increase excessive when considering the 'German' base number? Shame they don't link it.

I just saw that and thought well, it was surprising to hear from the woman who did champion and issue the invitation to shelter those fleeing the war.

Not judging it, as likely get thread locked but more the nature that that is quite the 180

And, I used yahoo as I deemed to a more reliable source than daily mail or RT. Who would probbly have stats and everything but I doubt Dakka would entirely agree with my choice of media sources.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Hard to know, since "attributed" is a real word which means that the figures could be entirely made up.

It would be good to get the opinion of our German members who could read the research in the original language.

Without a link something like that thrown in is pretty useless. Like you said, it can entirely made up, or the 90% attributed could be on a rise of only a few percentages.

Without even seeing the research, even if the 90% statement is true, the thing that matters is how many on a 100.000. Of course crime goes up with more people, but is the increase excessive when considering the 'German' base number? Shame they don't link it.

I just saw that and thought well, it was surprising to hear from the woman who did champion and issue the invitation to shelter those fleeing the war.

Not judging it, as likely get thread locked but more the nature that that is quite the 180

And, I used yahoo as I deemed to a more reliable source than daily mail or RT. Who would probbly have stats and everything but I doubt Dakka would entirely agree with my choice of media sources.

It was only surprising to hear because you're seemingly reading more into what she said. She talked about preventing no go areas in relation to crime, not a word about immigrants or muslims as is frequently the context used for no go zones. So you can link what she said to the refugee influx, but that wasn't her context so to speak. It was not admitting they exist or speculating about reasoning beyond crime.

Oh the question wasn't about reliability. I can totally believe one research concluded the 90% thing, while on the other hand also saying it can still be small/insignificant when considering the 'German' base level.

 kronk wrote:

The study, published in January, used data from Lower Saxony, a state where 90 percent of the crime rise was attributed to male migrants.

Wow. Is that a real number?

I know in finland there are months where immigrants are less likely be involved in crime per 1000 than locals. Inclduding as a victim

For what its worth, trying to find the study I saw this on Reuters, key part:

Violent crime rose by about 10 percent in 2015 and 2016, a study showed. It attributed more than 90 percent of that to young male refugees.

It noted, however, that migrants settling from war-torn countries such as Syria were much less likely to commit violent crimes that those from other places who were unlikely to be given asylum.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime/violent-crime-rises-in-germany-and-is-attributed-to-refugees-idUSKBN1ES16J

So maybe we can drop the refugees=crime for now. As it seems mainly driven by asylum seekers versus Syrian/Iraqi refugees from the 2015-2016 wave.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


So maybe we can drop the refugees=crime for now.

We both know that's never going to happen.

1. Is the AfD the official opposition?

It's the leader of the opposition, but that doesn't mean much.

2. I don't know how German broadcasting works with regard to political parties, but here in Britain, the opposition get more air time and the right to reply to government initiatives. So again, does that mean the AfD will get more TV time, and hence, more exposure?

Probably not, because the opposition does not matter that much.


As to the 90% number. I haven't read the link, but I guess they got the number from the Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen. If those guys claim that number, I would believe it; it might even be too low, given the association of that institute with Christian Pfeiffer, an ex-Minister of Justice and SPD-member.

You can be left-wing like me, and be anti-EU.
But none the less, the AfD is just a symptom of the malise affecting the Left all over Europe from Spain to italy, to the UK, to Germany...
It's abandonement of the working-classes, its obession with the poison of identity politics, and its inability to present solitions to problems, has lead to the re-emergence of the right.
AfD's success does not surprise me in the least.

I agree with this. Germany does not have a left-wing political option that is EU-critical, though. The AfD's success is not the illness, it's a symptom. Social Democracy is dying, mostly because they offer no solutions to problems that people actually care about because they don't ask the right questions and ignore the ones they hear because they don't like them, as they're ideologically "wrong". I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that many of the leaders in politics today haven't worked a single day outside of the ivory tower, particularly the salon lefties. They come from saturated homes - both parents are teachers, that's common -, study politology or something useless (Andrea Nahles, very high up in the SPD's chain of command, wrote her thesis on the function of catastrophe in serialised pulp love novels...) for 20 semesters and go right into party functions. The leadership of the worker's party is devoid of workers or even people from a family that had common workers in it at least one generation ago, that is not a recipe for success.