|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 09 2018 04:41 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 04:30 Big J wrote:On October 09 2018 04:11 Artisreal wrote:On October 09 2018 03:22 Big J wrote:On October 09 2018 02:51 Artisreal wrote:On October 09 2018 02:47 Big J wrote:On October 09 2018 02:22 TheDwf wrote:On October 09 2018 01:47 Big J wrote:
I don't believe we have 12 years anymore. This is a conservative bullshit statement because the truth would be too inconvenient. The ship has sailed. The forecasts of the last years seem to indicate that we are going for 3-4 degrees, 2-3 if immidiate action is taken and conservatives are killed in the thousands to make political change possible. The thing is, if we say "it's fucked anyway" (and of course it already is to some extent), people will use this argument to justify further inaction. In French we have a very relevant idiom for this: Après moi le déluge. Literally, "after me the flood" ... There is the same saying in German: "Hinter mir die Sintflut." I agree with your sentiment, but really, everyone that should know how grim the situation is knows about it. They are responsible, they should pay the price, like the good capitalists they are. The price I want imposed on them for trying to gas me is rather high from my personal point of view. I personally buy a tiny bit of gas and coal each year for cooking, heating and the occasional BBQ, that's literally all the possessions that I have control over and from which I could reduce CO2. Are you being sarcastic? Voting is the first thing that comes to mind. Second transportation, third food, fourth consumption, fifth travel, sixth compensation, seventh missionary action; just to name a few. But I suspect you're being rather sarcastic. Nope, I am not being sarcastic at all. Eating beef is not the problem (it is actually a solution), raising the cattle is. And I don't raise cattle. I don't give a damn about stupid belief in market forces. If I (and many others) don't eat beef then the investor will change the price (e.g. through less wages), the conservative parties the taxes and subventions, or the central bank the money supply. It is not in the hands of the consumers. They do not have enough money to make an impact. We live in capitalism, it's the personal responsibility of those that produce. Sorry if it is inconvenient to live in capitalism in this question and therefore holding the full, personal responsiblity over every machine you own. I'm not gonna take the blame for something that I have to accept in every other question as well, when it is convenient for them. While I don't understand your reasoning why eating beef is the solution, I find the perspective you give interesting, albeit I cannot agree with it. There are many examples where the power of the people changed the course of corporate action. Be it with dangerous chemicals in outdoor wear or gmo plants on our fields. Or even the phasing out of nuclear and lignite coal energy production. Well, eating the cattle makes it go away. An eaten cattle cannot fart. But you are right, since I don't make the decision to kill it - and it really is killing the cattle, not eating the cattle which helps -, my eating doesn't improve the status quo. Doesn't make it worse though either. On October 09 2018 04:11 Artisreal wrote:
What you implicitly state is that without voting in the right people into government, this will only stay the drop in the ocean and not become a massive wave. Environmental protection is driven by legislation every since. I mean, factually if we are precise it is not voting the right people into government, it is just creating the social contracts - whether they are laws or not is irrelevant - that reduce the production. And buying less may be a drop in the ocean because we do *some form of social contract* in the right direction, with many drops in the ocean having some weigth. But our main institution to create general social contracts - so called laws - is institutional politics. So yes, it is a question of legislation for the most part. I think that this line of reasoning is an immense copout. Unless you are emperor of the world, you don't have the power to completely change everything everyone does. Everyone has limited power. If you find an issue important, do what is in your power to help alleviate it, and encourage other to do so. Instead, you choose to find some other person who is responsible ("the capitalists"), and wallow in your inability to affect change at the level as those, and at their perceived inaction. So you can feel better because you have identified the guilty party, and it is not you, and don't actually have to change any of your behaviors. You chose the behavior that requires the least effort of you, instead of one that has a possibly larger effect on the whole. You could choose not to ride a car. You could choose to consume less stuff. You could choose to consume different stuff that has less of an effect. But that would require that you actually do something and change something about yourself, instead of pointing at someone else and say "it is their fault". Yes, you will not solve climate change on your own. But you could choose to do things that are within your power to try to have an effect. Stating that you "do not believe in market forces" is once again a copout to enable you to consume whatever you like without having to consider the ethical ramifications of anything, because you can not change the supply chain that led to that product, because it is all in the past. That is easy. Harder would be to actually think about what you consume, and possibly change your behavior. Which would effect the world, because market forces do actually exist, and stuff that is bought less will also be produced less in the future, while stuff that is bought more will be produced more.
Individual efforts are needed, of course, but the global system matters much more than what persons can do
One also has to consider that society isn't even built to allow some individual efforts. Example: you live 40 kilometers away from your job and there's no train to go there, what you're going to do? 4 daily hours of bike? lol
|
there's also the feeling(in most cases brought on by proof) that what one does(when actually doing something to alleviate <problems>) gets shit on by the aforementioned "capitalists", rendering ones efforts redundant.
it's Sisyphus all over again.
the heading, direction, path, be it ideological, moral or practical should always start/come from the top while its implementation should be left(mostly; within some guidelines) to the ones on the bottom else everything one does, its success/worth/meaning, is luck based; it's exactly like playing the lottery hopping it sticks.
sure, some win occasionally but trying to guilt-trip people for not playing that lottery is at least arrogant ...
|
Exactly. Plus whoever pollutes the most should provide the most effort, it's common sense. Individuals should do what they can at their level, but it's clear that industries/big companies, banks and States are the main perpetrators
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 09 2018 15:28 xM(Z wrote:
the heading, direction, path, be it ideological, moral or practical should always start/come from the top while its implementation should be left(mostly; within some guidelines) to the ones on the bottom else everything one does, its success/worth/meaning, is luck based; it's exactly like playing the lottery hopping it sticks.
sure, some win occasionally but trying to guilt-trip people for not playing that lottery is at least arrogant ...
This works if the nation-state has a culture of civic duty and the larger economic entities within said state prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term profit.
Of course, if either applied we wouldn't be in the midst of another credit bubble.
On October 09 2018 19:00 TheDwf wrote:
Exactly. Plus whoever pollutes the most should provide the most effort, it's common sense. Individuals should do what they can at their level, but it's clear that industries/big companies, banks and States are the main perpetrators
And since all 3 are interconnected in the modern globalist economy, whoever breaks ranks first risks the most blowback. Unfortunately it largely falls onto the state to take that leap.
|
(Image here if you don't see the tweet.)
Insignificance, erasure and disappearance, the destiny of all social-democrat parties which surrendered. At the next elections, even a boring GroKo might not be possible...
Do German Greens have a unified stance on economic and social aspects?
|
The Greens are just good at being green and nothing else, which makes them unpalatable in the same way AfD are unpalatable to me.
Their social stance is liberal, which I appreciate, but often they out-left the left.
I still vote for them, because I think climate change is the biggest issue today, but I do so with a reluctance I've never had before, because they're so far left on the migration issue.
Oh, and their politics are much better than their rhetoric, which is the closest you'll get to real world Trigglypuff.
|
It's a party and they have a full program, yes. I find the drop off support for the "conservative" CDU/CSU interesting. They really need a change of leadership and I guess in these times it's not really viable to play the "I am good with the USA" card, which our minister of health played by going to Washington.
|
What about their stance on austerity? Any investments in their program, outside of ecological stuff I mean?
|
From a quick skim of their 2017 bundestags party program, there are investments into social stuff (childcare, cheap apartments for rent etc...), fiber broadband, public transportation and bike paths.
You can find that party program here, though i don't know how well it google translates:
https://www.gruene.de/programm-2017.html
As far as i know, they are not an austerity party. The greens are pretty decidedly (democratic!) leftwing on most social and economical topics.
The state elections here in Bavaria next Sunday (and the aftermath) will be really interesting, as the CSU will almost certainly lose their absolute majority in the first time in basically forever.
Apparently, possible coalitions (if we assume that no one wants to coalition with the AfD) currently are mostly CSU + greens, which might work if they split ressorts pretty hard. They definitively won't find a consensus in a lot of areas, but they might be able to go with "Okay, greens get basically free hand with this and that area, meanwhile CSU does that and that". Don't know if that is very plausible.
Another possibility is a coalition of everyone but CSU and AfD (Greens, FDP, SPD and Free Voters), however that might be politically even more questionable, as the Free Voters apparently don't fit very well with the others (I honestly don't exactly know what their program is). Or we might have a minority government, which i don't think is something that we had in the BRD before.
I really, really hope that this doesn't turn into a horrible chaotic mess. We need a good way for democratic parties to rule even though we have 15% or so right-wing populists in every election now. If this leads to more chaos, AfD will thrive even more.
|
I'd be moderately sceptical about the weakness of the CSU in the polls. People in Bavaria like their stability and I think they'll come out a little bit stronger than expected because many people will have their doubts about strengthening the AfD come election day. That said they've pretty much lost the absolute hold they historically had and a coalition with the Greens would be really interesting to watch play out.
On October 11 2018 22:11 TheDwf wrote:
What about their stance on austerity? Any investments in their program, outside of ecological stuff I mean?
They are not an austerity party, but their most successful politicians, especially in the German South are economically moderate candidates like Kretschmann. If they pivot to the centre on economic issues and keep their social and green profile they have a real shot of carving out a large constituency in the south.
It should be noted that the civic engagement during the refugee situation was extremely strong in Bavaria, they pretty much led the effort nationwide, and a good portion of CSU voters was among those people and they've been alienated by Seehofers anti-Merkel politics.
|
I see, thanks.
Any Spanish people to give some insight on the PSOE/Podemos deal which just happened?
|
Spain10132 Posts
On October 12 2018 07:30 TheDwf wrote:
I see, thanks.
Any Spanish people to give some insight on the PSOE/Podemos deal which just happened?
It's a pact between both to guarantee that the PSOE will govern until their legislature expires and no early elections will happen (contrary to the belief of some people had around here about Podemos backstabbing the PSOE and some fancy stuff). The budget increases social spending, some labor reform and put an end to austerity policies. It needs the votes of the Catalonian independentists to pass the budget and then they will have to negotiate with Brussels.
|
On October 12 2018 20:02 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 07:30 TheDwf wrote:
I see, thanks.
Any Spanish people to give some insight on the PSOE/Podemos deal which just happened? It's a pact between both to guarantee that the PSOE will govern until their legislature expires and no early elections will happen (contrary to the belief of some people had around here about Podemos backstabbing the PSOE and some fancy stuff). The budget increases social spending, some labor reform and put an end to austerity policies. It needs the votes of the Catalonian independentists to pass the budget and then they will have to negotiate with Brussels.
Cool, thanks.
Who got credit for this pact? I suppose Podemos pressured the PSOE, or was Sanchez already planning to move away from "centrist" stuff?
What are the negotiations for Brussels for? They won't break any "golden rule" such as 3% deficit, or?
|
Spain10132 Posts
On October 12 2018 20:34 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 20:02 Godwrath wrote:On October 12 2018 07:30 TheDwf wrote:
I see, thanks.
Any Spanish people to give some insight on the PSOE/Podemos deal which just happened? It's a pact between both to guarantee that the PSOE will govern until their legislature expires and no early elections will happen (contrary to the belief of some people had around here about Podemos backstabbing the PSOE and some fancy stuff). The budget increases social spending, some labor reform and put an end to austerity policies. It needs the votes of the Catalonian independentists to pass the budget and then they will have to negotiate with Brussels. Cool, thanks. Who got credit for this pact? I suppose Podemos pressured the PSOE, or was Sanchez already planning to move away from "centrist" stuff? What are the negotiations for Brussels for? They won't break any "golden rule" such as 3% deficit, or?
That depends on the media you read. Podemos has been pressuring the PSOE about it, but being completely honest Sanchez has been trying to get away from the centrist label for quite some time (it doesn't help that the centrist wing on his party despise him).
About Brussels yeah the usual about their phobia to deficits, according to the government and Podemos since there are changes to taxation as well they should be able to make their targets but Brussels is skeptic about it. We will see.
|
On October 13 2018 01:33 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 20:34 TheDwf wrote:On October 12 2018 20:02 Godwrath wrote:On October 12 2018 07:30 TheDwf wrote:
I see, thanks.
Any Spanish people to give some insight on the PSOE/Podemos deal which just happened? It's a pact between both to guarantee that the PSOE will govern until their legislature expires and no early elections will happen (contrary to the belief of some people had around here about Podemos backstabbing the PSOE and some fancy stuff). The budget increases social spending, some labor reform and put an end to austerity policies. It needs the votes of the Catalonian independentists to pass the budget and then they will have to negotiate with Brussels. Cool, thanks. Who got credit for this pact? I suppose Podemos pressured the PSOE, or was Sanchez already planning to move away from "centrist" stuff? What are the negotiations for Brussels for? They won't break any "golden rule" such as 3% deficit, or? That depends on the media you read. Podemos has been pressuring the PSOE about it, but being completely honest Sanchez has been trying to get away from the centrist label for quite some time (it doesn't help that the centrist wing on his party despise him). About Brussels yeah the usual about their phobia to deficits, according to the government and Podemos since there are changes to taxation as well they should be able to make their targets but Brussels is skeptic about it. We will see.
Thanks. The extra spending does not even seem overly ambitious, but even mere social-democrats measures became too much for EU bureaucrats...
Big J, I read that the 60 hours week was causing some troubles within the ÖVP-FPÖ government?
|
On October 14 2018 06:16 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2018 01:33 Godwrath wrote:On October 12 2018 20:34 TheDwf wrote:On October 12 2018 20:02 Godwrath wrote:On October 12 2018 07:30 TheDwf wrote:
I see, thanks.
Any Spanish people to give some insight on the PSOE/Podemos deal which just happened? It's a pact between both to guarantee that the PSOE will govern until their legislature expires and no early elections will happen (contrary to the belief of some people had around here about Podemos backstabbing the PSOE and some fancy stuff). The budget increases social spending, some labor reform and put an end to austerity policies. It needs the votes of the Catalonian independentists to pass the budget and then they will have to negotiate with Brussels. Cool, thanks. Who got credit for this pact? I suppose Podemos pressured the PSOE, or was Sanchez already planning to move away from "centrist" stuff? What are the negotiations for Brussels for? They won't break any "golden rule" such as 3% deficit, or? That depends on the media you read. Podemos has been pressuring the PSOE about it, but being completely honest Sanchez has been trying to get away from the centrist label for quite some time (it doesn't help that the centrist wing on his party despise him). About Brussels yeah the usual about their phobia to deficits, according to the government and Podemos since there are changes to taxation as well they should be able to make their targets but Brussels is skeptic about it. We will see. Thanks. The extra spending does not even seem overly ambitious, but even mere social-democrats measures became too much for EU bureaucrats... Big J, I read that the 60 hours week was causing some troubles within the ÖVP-FPÖ government?
They have a bunch of troubles, but they are very strict about their communication, so the public doesn't hear much. It's the opposite of the last SPÖ-ÖVP government, in which the ÖVP was provoking 24/7. They really know how to play it...
60-hour week has caused some problems in both parties but the current hot topic is the lift of the smoking ban.
We had a petition which got 887.000 signatures to ban smoking in bars and the ÖVP is not amused about that concession. On the other hand the FPÖ has been very publically for binding referendums after successful petitions for decades, but they don't want to do it now.
But since the SPÖ is self-destructing, losing their former progressive party leader Christian Kern and immidiately going back to being more conservative than the conservatives the government probably will be winning in the polls in the next weeks.
|
But that petition has no binding power, right?
First estimations in Bavaria. The CSU and the SPD would both lose more than 10 points compared with 2013, Greens and AfD would progress.
|
My take on Bavaria stuff, and some interesting statistics i found:
Interesting stats first, personal opinion afterwards:
Very important for my decision:, top to bottom:
School and Education
Affordable Housing
Climate and Environment
Refugees and Asylum
![[image loading]](https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/bilder/uvchart-lhtrsxqwhibb-101~_v-videowebl.jpg)
Reason for my decision:
Left: I like my party
Right: I dislike all other parties
![[image loading]](https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/bilder/uvchart-urfslhprtoce-101~_v-videowebl.jpg)
Who is at fault for the status of the CSU
![[image loading]](https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/bilder/uvchart-dtqmlotlldmr-101~_v-videowebl.jpg)
My personal thoughts: Very glad that the CSU total majority is gone. Also the AfD didn't get as many votes as i had feared.
Apparently everyone in the CSU blames Seehofer, so i assume he will be gone pretty soon. This has pretty much been expected, and is a good thing.
The SPD seems to be crashing completely, probably due to federal stuff. If they want to stay relevant, they need to change a lot. Big coalition clearly doesn't work for them.
Freie Wähler are weird, and i have basically no idea what they stand for. They basically don't exist in northern germany, where i am from. Apparently they are kinda moderate-conservative? With a bit of a focus on local issues? Probably mostly elected because people wanted to get off the CSU or SPD, but didn't like to go left or far right.
Apparently the FDP barely got in with 5.1% estimated at the moment.
Greens are clearly the big winners. I don't know how much of that is due to people caring more about green issues, and how much is simply SPD voters wanting to vote for the party closest to the SPD which is not the SPD.
Basically, my guess is that a lot of SPD voters went to the greens, and a lot of CSU voters went towards AfD.
Söder (who will probably still rule, because the CSU still is by far the strongest party) apparently wants to try to get a coalition with the Freie Wähler going. I am not certain if they will have enough seats though, but they probably will. I still hope that the greens will be involved in government, but they don't really fit with the hard conservative CSU. An "Everyone but CSU and AfD" coalition will not be possible, and i hope very much that the CSU doesn't coalition with the hard right populists. That would be very bad.
I am very happy about the "reason for my decision" statistic i posted above. Clearly a lot of people value topics other than migrants more highly. So maybe the parties can finally start talking about something else and set other topics.
|
@Simberto:
Green voter gains: +210k from SPD, +200k CSU, +140k nonvoters.
So the Green gains are only partially due to the SPD failure.
Also CSU+FW has clearly enough to rule (104 or 105 out of 200 seats), but admittedly the FW have never been able to really vote uniformly since most of their MPs are elected on local stuff and less on their big common agenda. So they are kinda unreliable. Let's see how this changes when they get in power.
CSU+AfD and CSU+Greens won't happen.
e: Also one has to mention that the CSU significantly outperformed the predictions. Again the "look how terrible the conservatives are doing" 24/7 media story caused a decent bump in the conservative voter mobilization, raising the total turnout quite a bit and saving the conservatives from total collapse.
In the forecasts, anything but CSU+Greens required at least 3 parties to rule. Now there are 4 possible 2 party coalitions.
|
Add me to the list of people happy to see Seehofer crashing and burning. I don't even dislike the CSU but that man needs to be out asap so that people can move on.
A bit sad that the SPD keeps losing even though I've never voted for them (and probably never will). But I do agree with Simberto's take on it, that grand coalition is really hurting them. Even more so than the CDU. Another grand coalition next election cycle would probably be really bad. People want something that's at least a bit different. Feel like SPD in the opposition would do much better but they have the FDP to blame for that (and people still don't like them for that move)
Also, really happy to see Greens getting a really strong result.
So tbh, job well done people in bavaria. Maybe aside from AfD getting this much but you can't have everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
