politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Angela’s Ashes. Germany throws its two party system on the bon

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Angela’s Ashes. Germany throws its two party system on the bonfire

The  German state of Hessen goes to the polls this  weekend.  Hessen has been something of a swing state between the CDU and SPD. The current state assembly has the CDU in power on 38% of the vote in a coalition with the Greens  who  won 11%. The SPD leads  the opposition with 31%. But all is not well. The large national parties are worried  by the shifting ground in German  politics. A look at recent polling shows why

Read the full story here

felix

First?

Jonathan

The SPD had made a series of mistakes. By going into coalition they deny the electorate a legitimate means to vote against the government. The electorate then find other means to register a protest and we end up with Italian style chaos.

Sometimes you serve the public better from oppposition than from government. If you don’t, others will.

OldKingCole

Second. Does demonstrate the dangers of monolithic government. IIRC the CDU has been in Government pretty well consistently, in the ‘old West’ since Adenaur’s time, and I would expect that there is some degree of weariness.

Oh, and Good Morning, all.

Pulpstar

I think Merkel will go on from here, but the next government will be tricky to make up. Perhaps Jamaica.

Alanbrooke

OldKingCole said:

Second. Does demonstrate the dangers of monolithic government. IIRC the CDU has been in Government pretty well consistently, in the ‘old West’ since Adenaur’s time, and I would expect that there is some degree of weariness.

Oh, and Good Morning, all.

The government has swapped about, The last time the SPD were in power by themselves was under Gerhard Schroder. Merkel replaced him in 2005. They have been in coalition since 2013 ,

YellowSubmarine

Although the editoralising isn't to my tastes it's a great piece and it's fantastic to see Alanbrooke writing thread headers.

Angela's Ashes ? She's well into her fourth term, has been in power over 13 years and is a lame duck as she's said this is her final term. She's had an extraordinary career but has gone on too long. Many anglophone conservatives hate her and have decided her downfall will be some sort of repudiation of the EU, migration or the liberal international order in general. When really she's just stretched the electroal elastic too far. You might as well argue Thatcher's premiership was a disaster simply because it ended when in fact she was the longest serving PM of the democratic age.

Jonathan

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

Alanbrooke

YellowSubmarine said:

Although the editoralising isn't to my tastes it's a great piece and it's fantastic to see Alanbrooke writing thread headers.

Angela's Ashes ? She's well into her fourth term, has been in power over 13 years and is a lame duck as she's said this is her final term. She's had an extraordinary career but has gone on too long. Many anglophone conservatives hate her and have decided her downfall will be some sort of repudiation of the EU, migration or the liberal international order in general. When really she's just stretched the electroal elastic too far. You might as well argue Thatcher's premiership was a disaster simply because it ended when in fact she was the longest serving PM of the democratic age.

I agree, I think any leader who goes on more that 10 years is going to leave on a low, I contrast Merkel with Tony Blair who while carrying his own skeletons missed the entire financial crsis and its consequences. He can still pop up in politics but if he had had to manage the GFC his reputation would be in tatters.

DavidL

I had 2 posts disappear. :-(

In one I was asking if German Greens were as nutty as ours. I recall that they pushed for the closure of the nuclear power stations increasing reliance on Russian gas which is not a good sign. If they develop a mainstream agenda I can see them replacing the SPD completely.

fitalass

Interesting and informative article from Alan Brooke.
I was really struck by this single sentence.. "Likewise the EU project is slowly coming to a stop from lack of leadership." I also see that the Italian Government is squaring up for a row with the EU because they appear to be standing to firm on the budget they have just delivered. We live in interesting times as pressure over a range of issues grows across Europe as we head for the Brexit deadline.

YellowSubmarine

Re Brexit: May's clearly done a deal with the EU. No Deal isn't credible. No alternative deal is credible with 5 months to go. So all the current domestic nonsense is just May running down the clock until the cabinet accept the inevitable just as the EU ran down the clock until May accepted the inevitable.

Which leaves us with only two variables. #1 Will be May be toppled before she signs ? #2 Will the Commons then defy the international currency markets and risk capital flight by voting down a deal there is no realistic alternative too ?

That said I can now see May going or at least announcing a timetable for her departure quite quickly after the initial Commons votes on Brexit. She's going to absorb the most astonishing radiation dose.

Alanbrooke

DavidL said:

I had 2 posts disappear. :-(

In one I was asking if German Greens were as nutty as ours. I recall that they pushed for the closure of the nuclear power stations increasing reliance on Russian gas which is not a good sign. If they develop a mainstream agenda I can see them replacing the SPD completely.

The Greens had a bust up between radicals and realists about 2 decades ago which was a fight for the soul of the party. The Realos won. While not excluding some of the wilder policies mostly their policies are fairly mainstream, Currently they are fighting the diesel scandal on behalf of citizens while Merkel is retreating and trying to defend the car industry and its jobs,

DavidL

YellowSubmarine said:

Although the editoralising isn't to my tastes it's a great piece and it's fantastic to see Alanbrooke writing thread headers.

Angela's Ashes ? She's well into her fourth term, has been in power over 13 years and is a lame duck as she's said this is her final term. She's had an extraordinary career but has gone on too long. Many anglophone conservatives hate her and have decided her downfall will be some sort of arepudiation of the EU, migration or the liberal international order in general. When really she's just anstretched the electroal elastic too far. You might as well argue Thatcher's premiership was a disaster simply because it ended when in fact she was the longest serving PM of the democratic age. </blockquote

Those anglophone conservatives should be careful what they wish for. Germany has been a stable, reliable if somewhat frustrating partner. A collapse into weak governments there in the way @alanbrooke convincingly describes is not going to make life easier.

MikeSmithson

Alanbrooke said:

OldKingCole said:

Second. Does demonstrate the dangers of monolithic government. IIRC the CDU has been in Government pretty well consistently, in the ‘old West’ since Adenaur’s time, and I would expect that there is some degree of weariness.

Oh, and Good Morning, all.

The government has swapped about, The last time the SPD were in power by themselves was under Gerhard Schroder. Merkel replaced him in 2005. They have been in coalition since 2013 ,

@Allanbrooke Are you on Twitter? If so then what is your Twitter name that I can use when I Tweet your articles?

Jonathan

Alanbrooke said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Although the editoralising isn't to my tastes it's a great piece and it's fantastic to see Alanbrooke writing thread headers.

Angela's Ashes ? She's well into her fourth term, has been in power over 13 years and is a lame duck as she's said this is her final term. She's had an extraordinary career but has gone on too long. Many anglophone conservatives hate her and have decided her downfall will be some sort of repudiation of the EU, migration or the liberal international order in general. When really she's just stretched the electroal elastic too far. You might as well argue Thatcher's premiership was a disaster simply because it ended when in fact she was the longest serving PM of the democratic age.

I agree, I think any leader who goes on more that 10 years is going to leave on a low, I contrast Merkel with Tony Blair who while carrying his own skeletons missed the entire financial crsis and its consequences. He can still pop up in politics but if he had had to manage the GFC his reputation would be in tatters.

This golden rule applies not just to leaders. You get about 10 years in power in all senior roles. And maybe 12 years at the top of politics in total including opposition.

Brown discovered the electorate were tired with him after 10 years. Cameron was getting to the end of the road after 11 years at the top.

Current parties need to bear that in mind. Boris in particular is old news.

DavidL

MikeSmithson said:

Alanbrooke said:

OldKingCole said:

Second. Does demonstrate the dangers of monolithic government. IIRC the CDU has been in Government pretty well consistently, in the ‘old West’ since Adenaur’s time, and I would expect that there is some degree of weariness.

Oh, and Good Morning, all.

The government has swapped about, The last time the SPD were in power by themselves was under Gerhard Schroder. Merkel replaced him in 2005. They have been in coalition since 2013 ,

@Allanbrooke Are you on Twitter? If so then what is your Twitter name that I can use when I Tweet your articles?

I’m guessing no ( neither am I) we are not all as trendy as you Mike.

Alanbrooke

MikeSmithson said:

Alanbrooke said:

OldKingCole said:

Second. Does demonstrate the dangers of monolithic government. IIRC the CDU has been in Government pretty well consistently, in the ‘old West’ since Adenaur’s time, and I would expect that there is some degree of weariness.

Oh, and Good Morning, all.

The government has swapped about, The last time the SPD were in power by themselves was under Gerhard Schroder. Merkel replaced him in 2005. They have been in coalition since 2013 ,

@Allanbrooke Are you on Twitter? If so then what is your Twitter name that I can use when I Tweet your articles?

Afraid not Mike, Im a technical Luddite

DavidL

The Italian crisis is interesting. Superficially it is about a relatively trivial overspend in their budget. More fundamentally it is about the rights and obligations of a member of the Euro and the limitations of a democratic mandate. The ECB is already applying its tricks in restricting liquidity. How will the Italians respond?

Pulpstar

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/defaming-prophet-muhammed-not-free-expression-echr/1292823
Chilling.

DavidL

The reason I mention Italy is that with Greece Germany, specifically Schauble, made all the big calls and stopped it from spiralling further out of control. Idiotic bankers and incompetent bureaucrats have the capacity to make the situation much worse than it needs to be.

ydoethur

Jonathan said:

Alanbrooke said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Although the editoralising isn't to my tastes it's a great piece and it's fantastic to see Alanbrooke writing thread headers.

Angela's Ashes ? She's well into her fourth term, has been in power over 13 years and is a lame duck as she's said this is her final term. She's had an extraordinary career but has gone on too long. Many anglophone conservatives hate her and have decided her downfall will be some sort of repudiation of the EU, migration or the liberal international order in general. When really she's just stretched the electroal elastic too far. You might as well argue Thatcher's premiership was a disaster simply because it ended when in fact she was the longest serving PM of the democratic age.

I agree, I think any leader who goes on more that 10 years is going to leave on a low, I contrast Merkel with Tony Blair who while carrying his own skeletons missed the entire financial crsis and its consequences. He can still pop up in politics but if he had had to manage the GFC his reputation would be in tatters.

This golden rule applies not just to leaders. You get about 10 years in power in all senior roles. And maybe 12 years at the top of politics in total including opposition.

Brown discovered the electorate were tired with him after 10 years. Cameron was getting to the end of the road after 11 years at the top.

Current parties need to bear that in mind. Boris in particular is old news.

It is extraordinary to think that since 1979, we have had just six Prime Ministers. That's a record that compares favourably to any time since 1827 (six since 1783).

Yet since 1982, the Federal Republic of Germany has had just three Chancellors (obviously excluding Honecker and Krenz). That's an even more extraordinary record, and completely bizarre when you consider that included the New Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, reunification, several serious recessions and the great financial crash.

It does also suggest a degree of ossification, however.

Fysics_Teacher

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

That question as applied to the EU is one of the reasons I nearly voted Leave. Realising it would be a certain way of getting rid of Cameron was one of the reasons I didn’t.

DavidL

Fysics_Teacher said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

That question as applied to the EU is one of the reasons I nearly voted Leave. Realising it would be a certain way of getting rid of Cameron was one of the reasons I didn’t.

Those were the 2 central concerns for me too. I (just) ultimately tipped the other way.

ydoethur

Fysics_Teacher said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

That question as applied to the EU is one of the reasons I nearly voted Leave. Realising it would be a certain way of getting rid of Cameron was one of the reasons I didn’t.

I trust you are enjoying half term. I can't believe Staffs have left it so bloody late this year.

On your substantive point, I was never enthused by Cameron. I eventually concluded that for what were even at best marginal political gains, Leaving wasn't worth the massive economic upheaval.

I have seen nothing to make me think I made the wrong judgement. Equally, I have seen nothing that justifies repeated attempts to overturn the result.

Fysics_Teacher

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Alanbrooke said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Although the editoralising isn't to my tastes it's a great piece and it's fantastic to see Alanbrooke writing thread headers.

Angela's Ashes ? She's well into her fourth term, has been in power over 13 years and is a lame duck as she's said this is her final term. She's had an extraordinary career but has gone on too long. Many anglophone conservatives hate her and have decided her downfall will be some sort of repudiation of the EU, migration or the liberal international order in general. When really she's just stretched the electroal elastic too far. You might as well argue Thatcher's premiership was a disaster simply because it ended when in fact she was the longest serving PM of the democratic age.

I agree, I think any leader who goes on more that 10 years is going to leave on a low, I contrast Merkel with Tony Blair who while carrying his own skeletons missed the entire financial crsis and its consequences. He can still pop up in politics but if he had had to manage the GFC his reputation would be in tatters.

This golden rule applies not just to leaders. You get about 10 years in power in all senior roles. And maybe 12 years at the top of politics in total including opposition.

Brown discovered the electorate were tired with him after 10 years. Cameron was getting to the end of the road after 11 years at the top.

Current parties need to bear that in mind. Boris in particular is old news.

It is extraordinary to think that since 1979, we have had just six Prime Ministers. That's a record that compares favourably to any time since 1827 (six since 1783).

Yet since 1982, the Federal Republic of Germany has had just three Chancellors (obviously excluding Honecker and Krenz). That's an even more extraordinary record, and completely bizarre when you consider that included the New Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, reunification, several serious recessions and the great financial crash.

It does also suggest a degree of ossification, however.

We’ve had only one head of state for quite a time now...

Doing the calculation in my head, I think we’ve had female heads of state (I.e. Victoria and Elizabeth II) for more than half the time the USA has existed. I’m not sure it’s important but it is a nice bit of trivia.

ydoethur

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Alanbrooke said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Although the editoralising isn't to my tastes it's a great piece and it's fantastic to see Alanbrooke writing thread headers.

Angela's Ashes ? She's well into her fourth term, has been in power over 13 years and is a lame duck as she's said this is her final term. She's had an extraordinary career but has gone on too long. Many anglophone conservatives hate her and have decided her downfall will be some sort of repudiation of the EU, migration or the liberal international order in general. When really she's just stretched the electroal elastic too far. You might as well argue Thatcher's premiership was a disaster simply because it ended when in fact she was the longest serving PM of the democratic age.

I agree, I think any leader who goes on more that 10 years is going to leave on a low, I contrast Merkel with Tony Blair who while carrying his own skeletons missed the entire financial crsis and its consequences. He can still pop up in politics but if he had had to manage the GFC his reputation would be in tatters.

This golden rule applies not just to leaders. You get about 10 years in power in all senior roles. And maybe 12 years at the top of politics in total including opposition.

Brown discovered the electorate were tired with him after 10 years. Cameron was getting to the end of the road after 11 years at the top.

Current parties need to bear that in mind. Boris in particular is old news.

It is extraordinary to think that since 1979, we have had just six Prime Ministers. That's a record that compares favourably to any time since 1827 (six since 1783).

Yet since 1982, the Federal Republic of Germany has had just three Chancellors (obviously excluding Honecker and Krenz). That's an even more extraordinary record, and completely bizarre when you consider that included the New Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, reunification, several serious recessions and the great financial crash.

It does also suggest a degree of ossification, however.

We’ve had only one head of state for quite a time now...

Doing the calculation in my head, I think we’ve had female heads of state (I.e. Victoria and Elizabeth II) for more than half the time the USA has existed. I’m not sure it’s important but it is a nice bit of trivia.

And in all that time the ex-Colonials have never elected a female to either of their highest offices.

Perhaps a system where the chosen one is whoever emerges from the right vagina in the right order has its merits.

Aaaand, then again, I look at Henry VI and Nicholas II and think, 'perhaps not.'

DavidL

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Alanbrooke said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Although the editoralising isn't to my tastes it's a great piece and it's fantastic to see Alanbrooke writing thread headers.

Angela's Ashes ? She's well into her fourth term, has been in power over 13 years and is a lame duck as she's said this is her final term. She's had an extraordinary career but has gone on too long. Many anglophone conservatives hate her and have decided her downfall will be some sort of repudiation of the EU, migration or the liberal international order in general. When really she's just stretched the electroal elastic too far. You might as well argue Thatcher's premiership was a disaster simply because it ended when in fact she was the longest serving PM of the democratic age.

I agree, I think any leader who goes on more that 10 years is going to leave on a low, I contrast Merkel with Tony Blair who while carrying his own skeletons missed the entire financial crsis and its consequences. He can still pop up in politics but if he had had to manage the GFC his reputation would be in tatters.

This golden rule applies not just to leaders. You get about 10 years in power in all senior roles. And maybe 12 years at the top of politics in total including opposition.

Brown discovered the electorate were tired with him after 10 years. Cameron was getting to the end of the road after 11 years at the top.

Current parties need to bear that in mind. Boris in particular is old news.

It is extraordinary to think that since 1979, we have had just six Prime Ministers. That's a record that compares favourably to any time since 1827 (six since 1783).

Yet since 1982, the Federal Republic of Germany has had just three Chancellors (obviously excluding Honecker and Krenz). That's an even more extraordinary record, and completely bizarre when you consider that included the New Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, reunification, several serious recessions and the great financial crash.

It does also suggest a degree of ossification, however.

We’ve had only one head of state for quite a time now...

Doing the calculation in my head, I think we’ve had female heads of state (I.e. Victoria and Elizabeth II) for more than half the time the USA has existed. I’m not sure it’s important but it is a nice bit of trivia.

I really think it is time we considered how oppressed us poor males are. I am 57 and have never had a male head of state.

Fysics_Teacher

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

That question as applied to the EU is one of the reasons I nearly voted Leave. Realising it would be a certain way of getting rid of Cameron was one of the reasons I didn’t.

I trust you are enjoying half term. I can't believe Staffs have left it so bloody late this year.

On your substantive point, I was never enthused by Cameron. I eventually concluded that for what were even at best marginal political gains, Leaving wasn't worth the massive economic upheaval.

I have seen nothing to make me think I made the wrong judgement. Equally, I have seen nothing that justifies repeated attempts to overturn the result.

The Autum half term normally starts with the last weekend in October, so I’m surprised we are so early. We are also breaking up for Christmas a week earlier than I was expecting and restarting on the 2nd of January.

I agree with both your points in your last paragraph. Not voting to leave in the first place is a very different thing to voting to leave and then being told we can’t because it’s too difficult.

Roger

OT Interesting discussion on whether an UNELECTED politician-Peter Hain-should have the right to invoke parliamentary privilege. Strikes me as contrary to natural justice and rather a nasty publicity stunt by Hain.

On to Alanbrooke's article.....

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Really interesting article, Mr. Brooke. I wonder if German politics (with certain obvious differences) will become a bit more like Israel, with coalitions being either stable but weak and lacking a majority, or broad but unstable, with many parties involved.

Is there any appetite for changing the voting system?

DavidL

Roger said:

OT Interesting discussion on whether an UNELECTED politician-Peter Hain-should have the right to invoke parliamentary privilege. Strikes me as contrary to natural justice and rather a nasty publicity stunt by Hain.

On to Alanbrooke's article.....

I think that the answer is yes as long as we keep the ridiculous HoL. But we are not short of reasons to get rid.

Fysics_Teacher

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Alanbrooke said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Although the editoralising isn't to my tastes it's a great piece and it's fantastic to see Alanbrooke writing thread headers.

Angela's Ashes ? She's well into her fourth term, has been in power over 13 years and is a lame duck as she's said this is her final term. She's had an extraordinary career but has gone on too long. Many anglophone conservatives hate her and have decided her downfall will be some sort of repudiation of the EU, migration or the liberal international order in general. When really she's just stretched the electroal elastic too far. You might as well argue Thatcher's premiership was a disaster simply because it ended when in fact she was the longest serving PM of the democratic age.

I agree, I think any leader who goes on more that 10 years is going to leave on a low, I contrast Merkel with Tony Blair who while carrying his own skeletons missed the entire financial crsis and its consequences. He can still pop up in politics but if he had had to manage the GFC his reputation would be in tatters.

This golden rule applies not just to leaders. You get about 10 years in power in all senior roles. And maybe 12 years at the top of politics in total including opposition.

Brown discovered the electorate were tired with him after 10 years. Cameron was getting to the end of the road after 11 years at the top.

Current parties need to bear that in mind. Boris in particular is old news.

It does also suggest a degree of ossification, however.

We’ve had only one head of state for quite a time now...

Doing the calculation in my head, I think we’ve had female heads of state (I.e. Victoria and Elizabeth II) for more than half the time the USA has existed. I’m not sure it’s important but it is a nice bit of trivia.

And in all that time the ex-Colonials have never elected a female to either of their highest offices.

Perhaps a system where the chosen one is whoever emerges from the right vagina in the right order has its merits.

Aaaand, then again, I look at Henry VI and Nicholas II and think, 'perhaps not.'

Poor Henry. If his father had been less keen on fighting and had survived to bring him up properly perhaps things would have been better.

OldKingCole

Roger said:

OT Interesting discussion on whether an UNELECTED politician-Peter Hain-should have the right to invoke parliamentary privilege. Strikes me as contrary to natural justice and rather a nasty publicity stunt by Hain.

On to Alanbrooke's article.....

Peter Hain? Publicity??

SquareRoot

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT Interesting discussion on whether an UNELECTED politician-Peter Hain-should have the right to invoke parliamentary privilege. Strikes me as contrary to natural justice and rather a nasty publicity stunt by Hain.

On to Alanbrooke's article.....

Peter Hain? Publicity??

the orange windbag ?

ydoethur

SquareRoot said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT Interesting discussion on whether an UNELECTED politician-Peter Hain-should have the right to invoke parliamentary privilege. Strikes me as contrary to natural justice and rather a nasty publicity stunt by Hain.

On to Alanbrooke's article.....

Peter Hain? Publicity??

the orange windbag ?

Mr Root, please withdraw that slur on orange windbags.

Have a good morning.

Gallowgate

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

It’s not about ‘kicking out the government’ but rather influencing them towards a particular direction or policy.

It’s a lot more nuenced than our rudimental system that swings from one extreme to the other.

DavidL

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Alanbrooke said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Although the editoralising isn't to my tastes it's a great piece and it's fantastic to see Alanbrooke writing thread headers.

.

I agree, I think any leader who goes on more that 10 years is going to leave on a low, I contrast Merkel with Tony Blair who while carrying his own skeletons missed the entire financial crsis and its consequences. He can still pop up in politics but if he had had to manage the GFC his reputation would be in tatters.

This golden rule applies not just to leaders. You get about 10 years in power in all senior roles. And maybe 12 years at the top of politics in total including opposition.

Brown discovered the electorate were tired with him after 10 years. Cameron was getting to the end of the road after 11 years at the top.

Current parties need to bear that in mind. Boris in particular is old news.

It is extraordinary to think that since 1979, we have had just six Prime Ministers. That's a record that compares favourably to any time since 1827 (six since 1783).

Yet since 1982, the Federal Republic of Germany has had just three Chancellors (obviously excluding Honecker and Krenz). That's an even more extraordinary record, and completely bizarre when you consider that included the New Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, reunification, several serious recessions and the great financial crash.

It does also suggest a degree of ossification, however.

We’ve had only one head of state for quite a time now...

Doing the calculation in my head, I think we’ve had female heads of state (I.e. Victoria and Elizabeth II) for more than half the time the USA has existed. I’m not sure it’s important but it is a nice bit of trivia.

And in all that time the ex-Colonials have never elected a female to either of their highest offices.

Perhaps a system where the chosen one is whoever emerges from the right vagina in the right order has its merits.

Aaaand, then again, I look at Henry VI and Nicholas II and think, 'perhaps not.'

You think founding Eton was that bad a mistake? I think you take your distaste for Cameron too far.

matt

DavidL said:

I had 2 posts disappear. :-(

In one I was asking if German Greens were as nutty as ours. I recall that they pushed for the closure of the nuclear power stations increasing reliance on Russian gas which is not a good sign. If they develop a mainstream agenda I can see them replacing the SPD completely.

Using Russian gas is just politics - ask Schroeder. However the lack of nuclear means increased lignite in electricity generation which is just unbelievable from an environmental standpoint.

Fysics_Teacher

Gallowgate said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

It’s not about ‘kicking out the government’ but rather influencing them towards a particular direction or policy.

It’s a lot more nuenced than our rudimental system that swings from one extreme to the other.

Then what do you do if one of the parties of government is corrupt or just tired? Government is not just about policies; the people in it matter too.

DavidL

matt said:

DavidL said:

I had 2 posts disappear. :-(

In one I was asking if German Greens were as nutty as ours. I recall that they pushed for the closure of the nuclear power stations increasing reliance on Russian gas which is not a good sign. If they develop a mainstream agenda I can see them replacing the SPD completely.

Using Russian gas is just politics - ask Schroeder. However the lack of nuclear means increased lignite in electricity generation which is just unbelievable from an environmental standpoint.

I thought in Schroeder’s case it was more money than politics. Specifically his money.

Foxy

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

The democratic problem we see with Brexit, and also in @Allanbrookes excellent header, is that chucking out the government is not in itself enough. There has to be a valid and coherent alternative that commands majority support. Brexit, CDU/SPD coalition or even May vs Corbyn all demonstrate this as an issue. An unloved and lacklustre zombie carries on, stumbling from mess to disaster, kept on the move merely by the alternatives being worse. This is clearly not just a British problem, but a wider problem of democracies from France to Brazil.

Just as if Brexit collapses, there is no consensus on what happens next, in Germany if the CDU/SPD collapses there is no coherent government that can be formed.

I see this as an aspect of the fragmentation of social solidarity. A culture of individualism emerging from sixties counterculture has shredded allegiences to church, unions, political parties, civic pride and nation. It is not easy to return there.

Fysics_Teacher

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

Jonathan said:

Alanbrooke said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Although the editoralising isn't to my tastes it's a great piece and it's fantastic to see Alanbrooke writing thread headers.

.

I agree, I think any leader who goes on more that 10 years is going to leave on a low, I contrast Merkel with Tony Blair who while carrying his own skeletons missed the entire financial crsis and its consequences. He can still pop up in politics but if he had had to manage the GFC his reputation would be in tatters.

This golden rule applies not just to leaders. You get about 10 years in power in all senior roles. And maybe 12 years at the top of politics in total including opposition.

Brown discovered the electorate were tired with him after 10 years. Cameron was getting to the end of the road after 11 years at the top.

Current parties need to bear that in mind. Boris in particular is old news.

It is extraordinary to think that since 1979, we have had just six Prime Ministers. That's a record that compares favourably to any time since 1827 (six since 1783).

Yet since 1982, the Federal Republic of Germany has had just three Chancellors (obviously excluding Honecker and Krenz). That's an even more extraordinary record, and completely bizarre when you consider that included the New Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, reunification, several serious recessions and the great financial crash.

It does also suggest a degree of ossification, however.

We’ve had only one head of state for quite a time now...

Doing the calculation in my head, I think we’ve had female heads of state (I.e. Victoria and Elizabeth II) for more than half the time the USA has existed. I’m not sure it’s important but it is a nice bit of trivia.

And in all that time the ex-Colonials have never elected a female to either of their highest offices.

Perhaps a system where the chosen one is whoever emerges from the right vagina in the right order has its merits.

Aaaand, then again, I look at Henry VI and Nicholas II and think, 'perhaps not.'

You think founding Eton was that bad a mistake? I think you take your distaste for Cameron too far.

Compounded by King’s of course.

Gallowgate

Fysics_Teacher said:

Gallowgate said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

It’s not about ‘kicking out the government’ but rather influencing them towards a particular direction or policy.

It’s a lot more nuenced than our rudimental system that swings from one extreme to the other.

Then what do you do if one of the parties of government is corrupt or just tired? Government is not just about policies; the people in it matter too.

A whole new party can still be elected, it’s just the system encourages compromise. In fact its easier for a new party to rise under a proportional system than under fptp.

I can imagine a party being in power or near power for a long time breeds politicians with a lot of experience and practice rather than some of the rank amateurs we have.

NickPalmer

Another interesting piece by Alanbrooke, thanks! I broadly agree with a couple of additional notes:

* The Linke have always done well(ish) in the East since the fall of the GDR. Roughly a quarter of the GDR electorate (and their children) feel it was on the whole a good thing. But the proportion hasn't grown. The reason the Linke have grown somewhat is that they've become more popular in the West, passing the 5% threshold in most places as they shook off the purely regional party reputation.

* As in many countries, the successful movements are driven by objections to someone else. You vote AfD because you think Merkel has sold you out. You vote Green (who are explicitly pro-immigration) because you hate the AfD. Parties like the CDU and SPD who take a nuanced view - hmm, yes, immigration is a bit of a problem but we'll work on it - are seen as waffly and useless.

* The trouble with being primarily an anti-party is that you may struggle when you get into office. The fate of the LibDems in Britain is a good example - they weren't sure what their keynote policies were in 2010 despite generalised lefty rhetoric so they settled for a bunch of compromises, and many of their voters thought euuu, that's not what I voted for. I think the jury is out on what would happen if there was a CDU-Green coalition (which is perfectly plausible and has happened at state level).

AlastairMeeks

A very good piece though (because?) I disagree with chunks of it.

In particular, I don't regard Angela Merkel's move on immigration as either generous or folly. By the time she opened the doors, she was recognising the reality and taking the only practical option available to her. Whether or not you approve of vast numbers of irregular immigrants, they had already arrived in Europe, were heading for Germany one way or another and there was no way of sending them back.

Her, and the EU's, mistake on the migrants had come much earlier when it had not done as Britain done and invested much more in helping refugees on the ground in Syria. Prevention would have been far more effective than cure.

@Alanbrooke's point about the hidden significance of Angela Merkel being distracted from Brexit is an important one and one I fully subscribe to. If you want to cut a deal, you want to cut it with people who are capable of cutting a deal. You want them mentally in the room. Britain has ended up dealing with EU functionaries throughout as a result of this paralysis. This has led to far too much reliance on the EU side on process and principle and not enough on strategy and dealmaking. Both sides lose by this, but especially Britain.

DavidL

Foxy said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

The democratic problem we see with Brexit, and also in @Allanbrookes excellent header, is that chucking out the government is not in itself enough. There has to be a valid and coherent alternative that commands majority support. Brexit, CDU/SPD coalition or even May vs Corbyn all demonstrate this as an issue. An unloved and lacklustre zombie carries on, stumbling from mess to disaster, kept on the move merely by the alternatives being worse. This is clearly not just a British problem, but a wider problem of democracies from France to Brazil.

Just as if Brexit collapses, there is no consensus on what happens next, in Germany if the CDU/SPD collapses there is no coherent government that can be formed.

I see this as an aspect of the fragmentation of social solidarity. A culture of individualism emerging from sixties counterculture has shredded allegiences to church, unions, political parties, civic pride and nation. It is not easy to return there.

Yep, you don’t sound like one of those green internationalists.

Jonathan

Gallowgate said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

It’s not about ‘kicking out the government’ but rather influencing them towards a particular direction or policy.

It’s a lot more nuenced than our rudimental system that swings from one extreme to the other.

I really don’t think it’s nuanced. The wonderful thing about a democracy is being able to kick the buggers out. Historically is a rare thing and something we must never take for granted. The most important job in British politics is leader of the opposition.

Once you’ve kicked them out you can figure out what’s next

Coalitions undermine parties capability to deliver democratic change. So the electorate find another way.

OldKingCole

Foxy said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

The democratic problem we see with Brexit, and also in @Allanbrookes excellent header, is that chucking out the government is not in itself enough. There has to be a valid and coherent alternative that commands majority support. Brexit, CDU/SPD coalition or even May vs Corbyn all demonstrate this as an issue. An unloved and lacklustre zombie carries on, stumbling from mess to disaster, kept on the move merely by the alternatives being worse. This is clearly not just a British problem, but a wider problem of democracies from France to Brazil.

Just as if Brexit collapses, there is no consensus on what happens next, in Germany if the CDU/SPD collapses there is no coherent government that can be formed.

I see this as an aspect of the fragmentation of social solidarity. A culture of individualism emerging from sixties counterculture has shredded allegiences to church, unions, political parties, civic pride and nation. It is not easy to return there.

Just as if Brexit collapses, there is no consensus on what happens next,

It’s not just if it collapses. ‘After Brexit” (assuming it happens) Leavers seem to be anticipating a prosperous Britain, trading all over the world, and coping easily with all problems, without any evidence of planning for the eventuality. Remainers too seem to assume that all will be well both with our relations with our neighbours, whom we have royally pissed off, and at home with discontented and deprived Leavers.
In both cases in fact there will be some very unhappy people, both inside and outside the political bubble.

Foxy

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

The democratic problem we see with Brexit, and also in @Allanbrookes excellent header, is that chucking out the government is not in itself enough. There has to be a valid and coherent alternative that commands majority support. Brexit, CDU/SPD coalition or even May vs Corbyn all demonstrate this as an issue. An unloved and lacklustre zombie carries on, stumbling from mess to disaster, kept on the move merely by the alternatives being worse. This is clearly not just a British problem, but a wider problem of democracies from France to Brazil.

Just as if Brexit collapses, there is no consensus on what happens next, in Germany if the CDU/SPD collapses there is no coherent government that can be formed.

I see this as an aspect of the fragmentation of social solidarity. A culture of individualism emerging from sixties counterculture has shredded allegiences to church, unions, political parties, civic pride and nation. It is not easy to return there.

Yep, you don’t sound like one of those green internationalists.

Perhaps I epitomise the problem of fragmentation!

HYUFD

As the CDU/CSU and SPD lead a government of the centre inevitably the leave space for parties of the right e.g. the AfD and the left e.g. the Greens to grow

JosiasJessop

Ryanair flight man denies he's a racist:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-45988890

OldKingCole

JosiasJessop said:

Ryanair flight man denies he's a racist:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-45988890

Well, at least he’s got the guts to come forward and say something.

Unlike Michael O’Leary!

Foxy

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

The democratic problem we see with Brexit, and also in @Allanbrookes excellent header, is that chucking out the government is not in itself enough. There has to be a valid and coherent alternative that commands majority support. Brexit, CDU/SPD coalition or even May vs Corbyn all demonstrate this as an issue. An unloved and lacklustre zombie carries on, stumbling from mess to disaster, kept on the move merely by the alternatives being worse. This is clearly not just a British problem, but a wider problem of democracies from France to Brazil.

Just as if Brexit collapses, there is no consensus on what happens next, in Germany if the CDU/SPD collapses there is no coherent government that can be formed.

I see this as an aspect of the fragmentation of social solidarity. A culture of individualism emerging from sixties counterculture has shredded allegiences to church, unions, political parties, civic pride and nation. It is not easy to return there.

Just as if Brexit collapses, there is no consensus on what happens next,

It’s not just if it collapses. ‘After Brexit” (assuming it happens) Leavers seem to be anticipating a prosperous Britain, trading all over the world, and coping easily with all problems, without any evidence of planning for the eventuality. Remainers too seem to assume that all will be well both with our relations with our neighbours, whom we have royally pissed off, and at home with discontented and deprived Leavers.
In both cases in fact there will be some very unhappy people, both inside and outside the political bubble.

There is an interesting piece in the FT today on Brexit as an example of how not to do large project management, comparing it to Sydney Opera House.

https://twitter.com/TimHarford/status/1055702066193149952?s=19

Roger

A very good article again Alanbrooke.

At first I thought you were heading down the PB route of saying Merkel and Germany were going to Hell in a handcart because Merkel let in too many immigrants and (if we're lucky) they'd take the EU down with them. Fortunately the second half of your excellent piece veered in a different direction.

The Germans due to their past have a different attitude towards immigrants than we do. It wasn't just Merkel who woke up one morning and decided to invite in a lot of refugees. It was felt by most Germans (certainly in the old West) to be the right thing to do. Someting very important to most Germans.

Tha Afd are more fringe than UKIP and the Greens. I'm sorry to have to disappoint PBers like Fitalass but there's no neo Nazi takeover gong to happen any time soon and the EU is as popular as ever. (As it is in Italy incidentally).

Merkel has gone on too long. Nothing more nothing less. She's still popular consdering she's lasted longer than Maggie. As for the breakup of the EU? Nothing could be less likely.

Morris_Dancer

Meanwhile, in the EU and blasphemy news:
https://twitter.com/Evolutionistrue/status/1055534698422824960

HYUFD

YellowSubmarine said:

Re Brexit: May's clearly done a deal with the EU. No Deal isn't credible. No alternative deal is credible with 5 months to go. So all the current domestic nonsense is just May running down the clock until the cabinet accept the inevitable just as the EU ran down the clock until May accepted the inevitable.

Which leaves us with only two variables. #1 Will be May be toppled before she signs ? #2 Will the Commons then defy the international currency markets and risk capital flight by voting down a deal there is no realistic alternative too ?

That said I can now see May going or at least announcing a timetable for her departure quite quickly after the initial Commons votes on Brexit. She's going to absorb the most astonishing radiation dose.

1 May might have a No confidence v9te but she will win it, only 120 Tory MPs backed Leave out of over 300 and fewer back the ERG

2 The fact even former Labour frontbenchets like Lisa Mandy are now backing May's proposed customs union for UK and single market and customs union backstop for NI plan means the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period should pass the Commons even if the ERG and DUP oppose it.

A vote of no confidence though could then be tight but as long as the DUP do not vote with Corbyn the government should hold on and the DUP have signalled they will vote against the Deal but still back the government on confidence and supply

JosiasJessop

OldKingCole said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ryanair flight man denies he's a racist:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-45988890

Well, at least he’s got the guts to come forward and say something.

Unlike Michael O’Leary!

It's an interesting position for him to take. IMV (and I wonder if anyone disagrees), what he said was racist. Therefore to say he only said it because he was angry indicates he only says racist things when angry.

OldKingCole

JosiasJessop said:

OldKingCole said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ryanair flight man denies he's a racist:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-45988890

Well, at least he’s got the guts to come forward and say something.

Unlike Michael O’Leary!

It's an interesting position for him to take. IMV (and I wonder if anyone disagrees), what he said was racist. Therefore to say he only said it because he was angry indicates he only says racist things when angry.

No question that he certainly appears to object to her because she was ‘different’ to him. In other words, racist.

HYUFD

Roger said:

A very good article again Alanbrooke.

At first I thought you were heading down the PB route of saying Merkel and Germany were going to Hell in a handcart because Merkel let in too many immigrants and (if we're lucky) they'd take the EU down with them. Fortunately the second half of your excellent piece veered in a different direction.

The Germans due to their past have a different attitude towards immigrants than we do. It wasn't just Merkel who woke up one morning and decided to invite in a lot of refugees. It was felt by most Germans (certainly in the old West) to be the right thing to do. Someting very important to most Germans.

Tha Afd are more fringe than UKIP and the Greens. I'm sorry to have to disappoint PBers like Fitalass but there's no neo Nazi takeover gong to happen any time soon and the EU is as popular as ever. (As it is in Italy incidentally).

Merkel has gone on too long. Nothing more nothing less. She's still popular consdering she's lasted longer than Maggie. As for the breakup of the EU? Nothing could be less likely.

The EU is significantly less popular in Italy than in Germany according to the polls and the leading party in Italian polls, Salvini's Lega Nord, are not a million miles from the policies of the AfD

MaxPB

matt said:

DavidL said:

I had 2 posts disappear. :-(

In one I was asking if German Greens were as nutty as ours. I recall that they pushed for the closure of the nuclear power stations increasing reliance on Russian gas which is not a good sign. If they develop a mainstream agenda I can see them replacing the SPD completely.

Using Russian gas is just politics - ask Schroeder. However the lack of nuclear means increased lignite in electricity generation which is just unbelievable from an environmental standpoint.

Indeed, it's one thing to spend £30bn building nuclear plants, it's another entirely shut down ones that work. It was a stupid reactionary decision.

OblitusSumMe

Foxy said:

Just as if Brexit collapses, there is no consensus on what happens next, in Germany if the CDU/SPD collapses there is no coherent government that can be formed.

I see this as an aspect of the fragmentation of social solidarity. A culture of individualism emerging from sixties counterculture has shredded allegiences to church, unions, political parties, civic pride and nation. It is not easy to return there.

In that timeframe we also saw the dismantling of the post-war economic consensus and an increase in inequality. There is evidence that inequality undermines social solidarity.

If people want to bring the country together, politically and socially, then they have to do so economically.

It can be hard to be optimistic in these times, but there are signs with Osborne's increases to the minimum wage and May's announcement on allowing councils to borrow to build council houses, that the British political establishment is waking up to the necessity to heal the economic divisions before the social and political divisions become too great.

kle4

Roger said:

OT Interesting discussion on whether an UNELECTED politician-Peter Hain-should have the right to invoke parliamentary privilege. Strikes me as contrary to natural justice and rather a nasty publicity stunt by Hain.

On to Alanbrooke's article.....

There are issues to parliamentary privilege being flippantly used perhaps but there is no question for me that it applies to lords and Mps both. If the problem is unelected people don't deserve the same privileges As the elected the answer is not to have an unelected chamber not diminish the enhanced right of free speech of the unelected. For now theyvarecstill legislators and the reason for the privilege exists for both chambers.

AlastairMeeks

How much of a surprise is this?

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1055725045056786432

Fishing

DavidL said:

Roger said:

OT Interesting discussion on whether an UNELECTED politician-Peter Hain-should have the right to invoke parliamentary privilege. Strikes me as contrary to natural justice and rather a nasty publicity stunt by Hain.

On to Alanbrooke's article.....

I think that the answer is yes as long as we keep the ridiculous HoL. But we are not short of reasons to get rid.

Ridiculous things we keep in this country through inertia or faute de mieux:

1) HoL
2) Daylight savings time
3) Ridiculous planning laws
4) Northern Ireland
5) The Monarchy
6) The current PM
7) The Labour Party
8) High street shops
9) The TV licence fee
10) Absurdly designed black cabs

I'm sure there are more.

On topic, a good and interesting thread. Of course it begs the question as to what will happen when the German economy reaches the end of its good run. If there is a huge Euro crisis, or a big downturn in demand in Germany, the AfD could become the largest party.

kle4

AlastairMeeks said:

A very good piece though (because?) I disagree with chunks of it.

In particular, I don't regard Angela Merkel's move on immigration as either generous or folly. By the time she opened the doors, she was recognising the reality and taking the only practical option available to her. Whether or not you approve of vast numbers of irregular immigrants, they had already arrived in Europe, were heading for Germany one way or another and there was no way of sending them back.

Her, and the EU's, mistake on the migrants had come much earlier when it had not done as Britain done and invested much more in helping refugees on the ground in Syria. Prevention would have been far more effective than cure.

@Alanbrooke's point about the hidden significance of Angela Merkel being distracted from Brexit is an important one and one I fully subscribe to. If you want to cut a deal, you want to cut it with people who are capable of cutting a deal. You want them mentally in the room. Britain has ended up dealing with EU functionaries throughout as a result of this paralysis. This has led to far too much reliance on the EU side on process and principle and not enough on strategy and dealmaking. Both sides lose by this, but especially Britain.

Wasn't the potential folly of the refugee decision more around unilaterally doing it, thereby potentially undermining future efforts to create EU wide solutions on several things, not that in itself it was the wrong move?

kle4

AlastairMeeks said:

How much of a surprise is this?

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1055725045056786432

A classic dodge. I'm sure they totally would have been confident of success.

kle4

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in the EU and blasphemy news:
https://twitter.com/Evolutionistrue/status/1055534698422824960

I hope it's more nuanced than that first glance report suggests.

CD13

Pandering to ignorance by closing down expensively-built nuclear plants shows she was unfit to lead a play-group. I'm amazed she lasted so long.

kle4

JosiasJessop said:

OldKingCole said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ryanair flight man denies he's a racist:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-45988890

Well, at least he’s got the guts to come forward and say something.

Unlike Michael O’Leary!

It's an interesting position for him to take. IMV (and I wonder if anyone disagrees), what he said was racist. Therefore to say he only said it because he was angry indicates he only says racist things when angry.

I think the same when people justify things said while drunk.

Tissue_Price

AlastairMeeks said:

How much of a surprise is this?

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1055725045056786432

"The Mainstream Media write very bad things about us, none of which are true. Fake News. And the regulator, they're just as bad. Crooked Ipso, I call them. It's very sad. But we'll keep on fighting."

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, I'm as surprised as a man on holiday who, through a series of unfortunate coincidences, finds himself laying a wreath and paying his respects at the grave of terrorists.

BannedInParis

AlastairMeeks said:

How much of a surprise is this?

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1055725045056786432

None.

"I was present at the dropping of the IPSO complaint, but I was not involved"

Tissue_Price

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, I'm as surprised as a man on holiday who, through a series of unfortunate coincidences, finds himself laying a wreath and praying at the grave of terrorists.

Careful now, I don't think anyone was suggesting Corbyn was praying. Just paying his respects.

DavidL

Fishing said:

DavidL said:

Roger said:

OT Interesting discussion on whether an UNELECTED politician-Peter Hain-should have the right to invoke parliamentary privilege. Strikes me as contrary to natural justice and rather a nasty publicity stunt by Hain.

On to Alanbrooke's article.....

I think that the answer is yes as long as we keep the ridiculous HoL. But we are not short of reasons to get rid.

Ridiculous things we keep in this country through inertia or faute de mieux:

1) HoL
2) Daylight savings time
3) Ridiculous planning laws
4) Northern Ireland
5) The Monarchy
6) The current PM
7) The Labour Party
8) High street shops
9) The TV licence fee
10) Absurdly designed black cabs

I'm sure there are more.

On topic, a good and interesting thread. Of course it begs the question as to what will happen when the German economy reaches the end of its good run. If there is a huge Euro crisis, or a big downturn in demand in Germany, the AfD could become the largest party.

True it’s a long and quixotic list.

CarlottaVance

Jonathan said:

Gallowgate said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

It’s not about ‘kicking out the government’ but rather influencing them towards a particular direction or policy.

It’s a lot more nuenced than our rudimental system that swings from one extreme to the other.

So the electorate find another way.

I don’t know if the electorate had decided to “kick the buggers out” in Brussels - but they concluded that BREXIT was the only means at their disposal to remove them from our governance. An electorate asserting itself! What ever next?

AlastairMeeks

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in the EU and blasphemy news:
https://twitter.com/Evolutionistrue/status/1055534698422824960

I hope it's more nuanced than that first glance report suggests.

The decision was that an Austrian law prohibiting blasphemy did not infringe the right to freedom of expression. It does not require countries to have an anti-blasphemy law. Paragraph 58 of the judgment summarises the ECHR's position:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Price, amended.

Mr. Fishing, under the current system, the AfD would need an improbably enormous victory to enter government. Of course, that's not impossible (see the SNP), but it could easily lead to a situation where they're the predominant party but opposed by practically everyone else.

That could lead to a different type of political crisis. It'd seem contrary to the will of the electorate, not to mention a single party usually maintains discipline a lot more easily than a coalition. The AfD, in that scenario, could imitate Churchill's 1950 tactic of camping in the capital and voting down everything, all the time (Labour won the election but had a tiny majority, kept getting defeated, and a second election, duly won by the Conservatives, was called).

rkrkrk

AlastairMeeks said:

A very good piece though (because?) I disagree with chunks of it.

Her, and the EU's, mistake on the migrants had come much earlier when it had not done as Britain done and invested much more in helping refugees on the ground in Syria. Prevention would have been far more effective than cure.

I wonder what prevention could there have been though really short of ending the conflict earlier? The scale of the crisis was enormous.

20% of refugees left for Europe, or 10% of the overall number displaced. I wonder if that is really so high given the proximity of the conflict and the relative wealth of Europe?

Worth noting also that German funding for Syria was $680m vs. $700m for UK (2015).
The countries not pulling their weight were more France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland...
(I have some issues with the Oxfam fair share calculation)

https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bn-syria-fair-shares-analysis-010216-en.pdf

CarlottaVance

Roger said:

As for the breakup of the EU? Nothing could be less likely.

Bother! The EU breaking up is the last thing we need!

Jonathan

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Gallowgate said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

It’s not about ‘kicking out the government’ but rather influencing them towards a particular direction or policy.

It’s a lot more nuenced than our rudimental system that swings from one extreme to the other.

So the electorate find another way.

I don’t know if the electorate had decided to “kick the buggers out” in Brussels - but they concluded that BREXIT was the only means at their disposal to remove them from our governance. An electorate asserting itself! What ever next?

Well quite.

I mentioned the other day that there is a nice paradox at the heart of Brexit.

If leaving the EU is possible then we probably don't need to leave. It's clearly in our economic interest to stay and we are genuinely free to leave should that change.

However, if we discover we can't leave the EU due to all the legal/political/diplomatic constraints and shenanigans, then we weren't independent, there is a democratic deficit and the Leavers have a point.

It's unclear where we are at the moment.

Morris_Dancer

Cheers to the mod.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jonathan, if we leave yet the EU maintains significant sway over our affairs, both sides will continue to make the claims you've indicated.

another_richard

Thanks for the articles AB.

But the German economy really isn't 'booming'.

Retail sales are up 1.4% per year but down 0.1% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9282435/4-03102018-AP-EN.pdf/5efc10b6-de94-4d1a-9023-8f16b2db610a

Industrial production is down 0.5% on the year and down 2.3% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9298852/4-12102018-AP-EN.pdf/7a4a12eb-8d24-4e1e-96b4-e39a32d6784d

And construction output is up 2.2% on the year but down 2.4% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9307218/4-17102018-BP-EN.pdf/f0191114-87b2-47a6-9e92-236470a0fac0

The latest PMIs and business confidence surveys are none too pretty either.

rkrkrk

Jonathan said:

However, if we discover we can't leave the EU due to all the legal/political/diplomatic constraints and shenanigans, then we weren't independent, there is a democratic deficit and the Leavers have a point.

It's unclear where we are at the moment.

It's perfectly clear to me that a) we are able to leave b) we are going to leave.
If we decide to stay in the customs union it will be because we requested to, not because the EU forced us.

JosiasJessop

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, if we leave yet the EU maintains significant sway over our affairs, both sides will continue to make the claims you've indicated.

The idea that a massively larger trading block immediately neighbouring us won't have significant sway over our affairs is ludicrous.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, significantly surprised Austria has such a law, particularly given I think they've banned the burkha. I wonder if there'll be a political move to axe the law now.

CarlottaVance

JosiasJessop said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, if we leave yet the EU maintains significant sway over our affairs, both sides will continue to make the claims you've indicated.

The idea that a massively larger trading block immediately neighbouring us won't have significant sway over our affairs is ludicrous.

Our economic affairs quite likely, how we run ourselves as a country, much less so. And ultimately if we don’t want them to have sway over our economic affairs, then we could choose that too. But this is the grand misunderstanding of BREXIT - it’s not the economy, stupid!

DavidL

another_richard said:

Thanks for the articles AB.

But the German economy really isn't 'booming'.

Retail sales are up 1.4% per year but down 0.1% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9282435/4-03102018-AP-EN.pdf/5efc10b6-de94-4d1a-9023-8f16b2db610a

Industrial production is down 0.5% on the year and down 2.3% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9298852/4-12102018-AP-EN.pdf/7a4a12eb-8d24-4e1e-96b4-e39a32d6784d

And construction output is up 2.2% on the year but down 2.4% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9307218/4-17102018-BP-EN.pdf/f0191114-87b2-47a6-9e92-236470a0fac0

The latest PMIs and business confidence surveys are none too pretty either.

I agree that they have hit a wall fairly hard in the last few months but their government has ample fiscal flexibility to boost domestic demand. If the government wasn’t semi paralysed they might have acted already.

TheKitchenCabinet

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

Thanks for the articles AB.

But the German economy really isn't 'booming'.

Retail sales are up 1.4% per year but down 0.1% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9282435/4-03102018-AP-EN.pdf/5efc10b6-de94-4d1a-9023-8f16b2db610a

Industrial production is down 0.5% on the year and down 2.3% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9298852/4-12102018-AP-EN.pdf/7a4a12eb-8d24-4e1e-96b4-e39a32d6784d

And construction output is up 2.2% on the year but down 2.4% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9307218/4-17102018-BP-EN.pdf/f0191114-87b2-47a6-9e92-236470a0fac0

The latest PMIs and business confidence surveys are none too pretty either.

I agree that they have hit a wall fairly hard in the last few months but their government has ample fiscal flexibility to boost domestic demand. If the government wasn’t semi paralysed they might have acted already.

Philippe Legrain's book "European Spring" has an excellent chapter on Germany, which highlights how domestic consumption is so weak because of their historic labour reforms and that the German government has focused on export growth.

TOPPING

Jonathan said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Gallowgate said:

Jonathan said:

The most important question in elections is ‘who do I vote for to kick out the government’. If there isn’t a clear answer to that question you have to wonder how democratic your system is. With 5 years of coalition, Germany has muddied that question.

It’s not about ‘kicking out the government’ but rather influencing them towards a particular direction or policy.

It’s a lot more nuenced than our rudimental system that swings from one extreme to the other.

So the electorate find another way.

I don’t know if the electorate had decided to “kick the buggers out” in Brussels - but they concluded that BREXIT was the only means at their disposal to remove them from our governance. An electorate asserting itself! What ever next?

Well quite.

I mentioned the other day that there is a nice paradox at the heart of Brexit.

If leaving the EU is possible then we probably don't need to leave. It's clearly in our economic interest to stay and we are genuinely free to leave should that change.

However, if we discover we can't leave the EU due to all the legal/political/diplomatic constraints and shenanigans, then we weren't independent, there is a democratic deficit and the Leavers have a point.

It's unclear where we are at the moment.

It's very clear. We can leave any time we god damn choose; it's just that this weak, lily-livered government has decided not to impose pain and suffering on a large scale on the country. Damn them.

Beachy head is always there for anyone of a free will to jump off it should they so choose.

JosiasJessop

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, if we leave yet the EU maintains significant sway over our affairs, both sides will continue to make the claims you've indicated.

The idea that a massively larger trading block immediately neighbouring us won't have significant sway over our affairs is ludicrous.

Our economic affairs quite likely, how we run ourselves as a country, much less so. And ultimately if we don’t want them to have sway over our economic affairs, then we could choose that too.

No, both. We are no longer an island unto ourselves, but part of a larger global society that will increasingly play a large role in our lives. Brexit's not going to change that, and I'm unsure it'd be good for it to do so.

What Brexit will give us is less influence, and we'll be more likely to be swayed by the stronger international tides.

Morris_Dancer

F1: practice starts today. Once again, it's at the slightly irksome later time of 4pm (7pm for P2).

Roger

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

A very good article again Alanbrooke.

At first I thought you were heading down the PB route of saying Merkel and Germany were going to Hell in a handcart because Merkel let in too many immigrants and (if we're lucky) they'd take the EU down with them. Fortunately the second half of your excellent piece veered in a different direction.

The Germans due to their past have a different attitude towards immigrants than we do. It wasn't just Merkel who woke up one morning and decided to invite in a lot of refugees. It was felt by most Germans (certainly in the old West) to be the right thing to do. Someting very important to most Germans.

Tha Afd are more fringe than UKIP and the Greens. I'm sorry to have to disappoint PBers like Fitalass but there's no neo Nazi takeover gong to happen any time soon and the EU is as popular as ever. (As it is in Italy incidentally).

Merkel has gone on too long. Nothing more nothing less. She's still popular consdering she's lasted longer than Maggie. As for the breakup of the EU? Nothing could be less likely.

The EU is significantly less popular in Italy than in Germany according to the polls and the leading party in Italian polls, Salvini's Lega Nord, are not a million miles from the policies of the AfD

Italy are full of problems at the moment but that's nothing new. Most are cyclical and like the temperament of Italians volatile. However if you can find any who want to go back to the lira you'd be doing well.

CarlottaVance

Should be the source if some hysterical headlines:

https://twitter.com/atko1978/status/1055714818664017921?s=20

MaxPB

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

Thanks for the articles AB.

But the German economy really isn't 'booming'.

Retail sales are up 1.4% per year but down 0.1% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9282435/4-03102018-AP-EN.pdf/5efc10b6-de94-4d1a-9023-8f16b2db610a

Industrial production is down 0.5% on the year and down 2.3% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9298852/4-12102018-AP-EN.pdf/7a4a12eb-8d24-4e1e-96b4-e39a32d6784d

And construction output is up 2.2% on the year but down 2.4% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9307218/4-17102018-BP-EN.pdf/f0191114-87b2-47a6-9e92-236470a0fac0

The latest PMIs and business confidence surveys are none too pretty either.

I agree that they have hit a wall fairly hard in the last few months but their government has ample fiscal flexibility to boost domestic demand. If the government wasn’t semi paralysed they might have acted already.

Even if they had a functional government it wouldn't sign up for fiscal loosening. Germany has bought into the cult of perpetual austerity.

DavidL

TheKitchenCabinet said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

Thanks for the articles AB.

But the German economy really isn't 'booming'.

Retail sales are up 1.4% per year but down 0.1% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9282435/4-03102018-AP-EN.pdf/5efc10b6-de94-4d1a-9023-8f16b2db610a

Industrial production is down 0.5% on the year and down 2.3% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9298852/4-12102018-AP-EN.pdf/7a4a12eb-8d24-4e1e-96b4-e39a32d6784d

And construction output is up 2.2% on the year but down 2.4% over the last three months

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9307218/4-17102018-BP-EN.pdf/f0191114-87b2-47a6-9e92-236470a0fac0

The latest PMIs and business confidence surveys are none too pretty either.

I agree that they have hit a wall fairly hard in the last few months but their government has ample fiscal flexibility to boost domestic demand. If the government wasn’t semi paralysed they might have acted already.

Philippe Legrain's book "European Spring" has an excellent chapter on Germany, which highlights how domestic consumption is so weak because of their historic labour reforms and that the German government has focused on export growth.

The reason domestic demand is so low in Germany is that they have a saving habit as extreme as our love of cheap credit. This includes the government who have a comfortable surplus and the capacity to increase demand.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, quite. One can see why the US is pissed off that the Germans continually undershoot their NATO defence spending targets yet have an ongoing surplus.

Roger

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT Interesting discussion on whether an UNELECTED politician-Peter Hain-should have the right to invoke parliamentary privilege. Strikes me as contrary to natural justice and rather a nasty publicity stunt by Hain.

On to Alanbrooke's article.....

Peter Hain? Publicity??

I know. Hard to believe. Some of us remember when he had to dig up cricket pitches.....

Pulpstar

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, significantly surprised Austria has such a law, particularly given I think they've banned the burkha. I wonder if there'll be a political move to axe the law now.

I'd hope so, blasphemy laws have no place in ourtheir modern european society. Furthermore belief in some random sky fairy should never be a protected characteristic.

rottenborough

Labour drops press complaint about Jezza's Tunis holiday.

I wonder why?