Germany becoming ungovernable, constitutional changes realistic?

[Francesca R]

You´re thinking of Italy, for example, aren´t you? (my apologies to any Italian forum members there might be...)

Italy is one of the most striking examples of revolving-door administrations, but I think almost all European democracies suffer more early (ahead of schedule) changes of prime minister / dissolutions of parliament than Germany does.

The advantage of the grand coalition is that there is no strong opposition who can ruin things by simply blockading everything out of spite. Both parties have an incentive to make things happen, because then they can take credit for the good stuff that happens, and lay blame for it on their partner.

I see it as a disadvantage that there is no credible opposition in such eventualities, and a de-facto one-party state (like Japan) which undermines democracy and government IMO.

 

[mrbaracuda]

I beg to differ. Koch is a racist. Outside his party he did not have much support for his campaign. Some support, yes, for example from the NPD, which is the most successful Nazi party in Germany in the moment.

So what makes him a racist? The support of the NPD?

Playing the "criminal foreigner card" was exactly why the CDU had the bad result in Hessen. That is not even disputed in the CDU. You can read the election analysis here.
The analysis is of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, which is very close to the CDU, so definitely not a left source. Scroll down to the bottom of page 5. (It´s a pdf)

The election result matched the predictions one week earlier, see page 46 of your KAS-PDF. I'll read the whole thing later. To blame only one part of the agenda that only got on about a month before the election for the loss of 12% is too far-fetched in my opinion though.

Criminal statistics: Hessen had quite the biggest rise of youth criminality in Germany during the time of his reign , which made his campaign ring hollow.

A rise of 14-18 year old criminals, yes. That's probably why he tackled the laws for the base, the younger ages. Those 14-18 year old criminals are probably mainly repeat offenders. (ETA) What made part of his campaign ring hollow in my opinion was that he picked this up as part of his agenda so late and his unpopular solutions, not the rise in criminality. After a short look over the KAS paper I think it agrees.

 

[mrbaracuda]

it means we can choose amongst more than two turds.

So which "turd" do you usually vote for?

 

[mrbaracuda]

Helmut Kohl staying in power for 16 years might not have been for the best of the country, but it did prove that we´re governable.

The Green Party was very weak during the Kohl-era. Now the Green Party is as strong as the FDP, which helped the CDU/CSU so far and the newcomer is The Left Party. So you can't really compare that with today in my opinion.

 

[ZeeGerman]

So what makes him a racist? The support of the NPD?



The election result matched the predictions one week earlier, see page 46 of your KAS-PDF. I'll read the whole thing later. To blame only one part of the agenda that only got on about a month before the election for the loss of 12% is too far-fetched in my opinion though.



A rise of 14-18 year old criminals, yes. That's probably why he tackled the laws for the base, the younger ages. Those 14-18 year old criminals are probably mainly repeat offenders. (ETA) What made part of his campaign ring hollow in my opinion was that he picked this up as part of his agenda so late and his unpopular solutions, not the rise in criminality. After a short look over the KAS paper I think it agrees.

I wouldn't call him a racist, but he is definitely a reckless opportunist (he is also a 1st degree arsehole), who cares about exactly one thing - himself staying in power. His pushing the "we have too many juvenile immigrants offenders" right after the incident in Munich was nothing than a blatant attempt to turn the election to his favor after the SPD gained on him more and more. He did the same the elections before when he campained heavily against the immigration law (being proposed by the Red-Green federal government) and thankfully he fell flat on his nose this time. Did I mention that he is a 1st degree arsehole? Never mind. Not that I like the flip-flopping of the SPD about possible cooperations with The Left. If they don't get rid of Kurt Beck (another 1st degree arsehole) soon, the SPD might as well call it a day and quit. We've had enough of overweight, self-pleased "Pfälzer" (for our non-German fellas: I'm referring to Helmut Kohl ) calling the shots in Germany for the next 50 years if you ask me.

While I don't see how an additional party in the system would render us ungovernable, I'd be in favor of something like this:

After an election, the parties have 2 months time to form a coalition capable of forming a government with an >= 60% majority.
If that fails, a runoff between parties >20% in the 1. election takes place with winner takes it all.

Additionally, no more than two terms for any given chancellor (I really like that about the US system).

Zee

 

[egslim]

While you're right that the voters decide, it's unthinkable to form a coalition with certain parties because of what you call mentality. It's not just the mentality, it's the whole party program and not enough points both can agree on. Now imagine three parties or even four trying to establish a coalition.

In the Netherlands we currently have a coalition between socialists, centre-right christian democrats and a small, conservative christian party. Cooperation between the first and third of those three is crazy, but they're pulling it off.
Before that we had coalitions between socialists and free market liberals with a smaller democrat party thrown in. They lasted for quite some time.

It's a matter of mentality, because the central issue has to be the election result, not the party program. The latter can be compromised on during negotiations, no matter how painful. The first is set in stone.

As for your "fact of life": the CDU talking to the Green Party is difficult because the CDU for example wants to maintain brown coal plants or deepen the Elbe that leads into Hamburg, so bigger ships can access the harbour. The Green Party is against both. I'm curious as to how their talks will turn out.

Then they can either maintain brown coal plants and not deepen the Elbe, or vice versa. Neither party will be happy with either, but politics is the art of compromise.

 

[Georg]

So what makes him a racist? The support of the NPD?

Poor choice of words, I admit. I should have called him a lying demagogue with right wing leanings instead. Or what zeegerman said in the rant-box.
And I certainly would rethink my position if it was supported by the Nazis.

The election result matched the predictions one week earlier, see page 46 of your KAS-PDF.

So? I thought his campaign started earlier, so the figures were already down and therefore I do not understand your argument. We´d have to see the polls before and after he started the campaign to see if that was the reason why the CDU lost so much.

I'll read the whole thing later. To blame only one part of the agenda that only got on about a month before the election for the loss of 12% is too far-fetched in my opinion though.

Surely not the whole 12 %, I agree, but: 3 or 4 % more, I´m too lazy to look it up now, and Koch could have formed a government with the FDP.
Without his campaign he probably would be Ministerpräsident with a majority in the parliament right now. I admit not being too sad that he isn´t, though...

snip

(ETA) What made part of his campaign ring hollow in my opinion was that he picked this up as part of his agenda so late and his unpopular solutions, not the rise in criminality. After a short look over the KAS paper I think it agrees.

Yep.

And I´m all for a system with more than two parties, because it means we can choose amongst more than two turds.

So which "turd" do you usually vote for?

The greens. No, not because I think they are brilliant, but because they don´t smell as bad as the others.

 

[Damien Evans]

It's a fine balance. Too few big parties are bad as well.

I think Australia has a pretty decent balance, but I'd like to see the democrats back in parliament again and that nutcase Steve Fielding out.

 

[mrbaracuda]

It's a matter of mentality, because the central issue has to be the election result, not the party program. The latter can be compromised on during negotiations, no matter how painful. The first is set in stone.


Then they can either maintain brown coal plants and not deepen the Elbe, or vice versa. Neither party will be happy with either, but politics is the art of compromise.

We'll see. I mean, they accomplished something similar by forming the grand coalition SPD + CDU before about two years ago, but it will get more difficulty with more parties and the big parties losing voters, which we as in Germany are not really used to have. I also don't think Germany'll become ungovernable in the sense of not accomplishing anything, but just very difficulty to govern with too many interests conflicting.

Poor choice of words, I admit. I should have called him a lying demagogue with right wing leanings instead. Or what zeegerman said in the rant-box.
And I certainly would rethink my position if it was supported by the Nazis.

Well, I think it's clear that your ideology is playing a major role here. Not only, but clearly your last statement seems to stem from it.

So? I thought his campaign started earlier, so the figures were already down and therefore I do not understand your argument. We´d have to see the polls before and after he started the campaign to see if that was the reason why the CDU lost so much.

Seit 2006 erreichte die CDU in der Sonntagsfrage bei Umfragen konstant Werte um
die 40 Prozent, blieb also deutlich hinter dem Ergebnis der Landtagswahl 2003 zurück.
Unmittelbar vor der Wahl hat sie schwach an Unterstützung eingebüßt und lag
in Umfragen zwischen 38 und 39 Prozent.

Summary

Since 2006 the surveys attested about 40% would vote the CDU in the surveys held on Sundays with the question "What would you vote if the election was to take place next Sunday?"

Surely not the whole 12 %, I agree, but: 3 or 4 % more, I´m too lazy to look it up now, and Koch could have formed a government with the FDP.
Without his campaign he probably would be Ministerpräsident with a majority in the parliament right now. I admit not being too sad that he isn´t, though...

Thus apparently the criminal (foreign) youths part did not affect the outcome by more than 1%. Which is reassuring, although it looks as if the propaganda worked on you and ZeeGerman when you whip out "lying demagogue" and "racist" without thinking too much.

The greens. No, not because I think they are brilliant, but because they don´t smell as bad as the others.

Well I guess now I know why you call someone a racist without backing your statement up in any way.

 

[ZeeGerman]

...although it looks as if the propaganda worked on you and ZeeGerman when you whip out "lying demagogue" and "racist" without thinking too much.

Although I used strong words in a rant box, I explicitly stated that I would not call him a racist. I didn't call him a lying demagogue either.

So I would appreciate if you refrained from putting words in my mouth.

Additionally, the amount of thinking I put into posting on this board is clearly not assessable to you.


Zee

 

[mrbaracuda]

Although I used strong words in a rant box, I explicitly stated that I would not call him a racist. I didn't call him a lying demagogue either.

So I would appreciate if you refrained from putting words in my mouth.

Additionaly, the amount of thinking I put into posting on this board is clearly not assessable to you.


Zee

Next time I'll include "reckless opportunist" and "1st degree arsehole" to cover your amount of thinking then. Sorry I left you out and mainly addressed Georg, not you and that you didn't notice that.

 

[ZeeGerman]

Next time I'll include "reckless opportunist" and "1st degree arsehole" to cover your amount of thinking then. Sorry I left you out and mainly addressed Georg, not you and that you didn't notice that.

I noticed that you put words in my mouth.
You might also rethink the purpose of a rant box in an internet forum.

Zee

 

[mrbaracuda]

I noticed that you put words in my mouth.
You might also rethink the purpose of a rant box in an internet forum.

Zee

I'll say it again: I was first and foremost addressing Georg. I included you because of your rant box, since propaganda aims at emotions and well, your rant box was not much else.

I did not put words in your mouth, you're trying to put words in my mouth now, that being that I say you said something you didn't.

 

[ZeeGerman]

I'll say it again: I was first and foremost addressing Georg. I included you because of your rant box, since propaganda aims at emotions and well, your rant box was not much else.

I did not put words in your mouth, you're trying to put words in my mouth now, that being that I say you said something you didn't.

Fine, let's drop the issue of who put what where.
Still, you seem to think that my rant is evidence of me not thinking too much.

I'll tell you what: Let's keep the 1 degree arsehol out of the dicussion, because that's opinion, not argument (that's why it's in the rant box).
But a reckless opportunist? Even a liar? Did he or did he not lie about what he knew at what point in time in the "Spendenaffaire" (affair over party donations)?
Did he not proclaim himself as the "brutalstmöglicher Aufklärer" "most possble brutal investigator" before he was called on his lie?
By your own words, he did try to "capitalize on an event that took place shortly before Christmas, where a retired ~80 years old man was almost beaten to death by a Turk and a Greek, because he told them not to smoke in the smoke free subway." although "Hessen is one of the safer states in terms of criminal statistics" and although it took place in Munich, Bavaria. That's what I call an opportunist and the longer I think about it the firmer my position gets. Was it reckless or not to risk to damage the already difficult problems we have with questions regarding immigration and integration. Was it not reckless to "overlook" that those criminal youths are mostly born here in Germany and thus the problem of juvenile crime is not so much about the ethnic origin but the social status of the offender?


Zee

 

[mrbaracuda]

Fine, let's drop the issue of who put what where.
Still, you seem to think that my rant is evidence of me not thinking too much.

I'll tell you what: Let's keep the 1 degree arsehol out of the dicussion, because that's opinion, not argument (that's why it's in the rant box).
But a reckless opportunist? Even a liar? Did he or did he not lie about what he knew at what point in time in the "Spendenaffaire" (affair over party donations)?
Did he not proclaim himself as the "brutalstmöglicher Aufklärer" "most possble brutal investigator" before he was called on his lie?

We're talking about the Länderwahl in Hessen here, not that affair.

By your own words, he did try to "capitalize on an event that took place shortly before Christmas, where a retired ~80 years old man was almost beaten to death by a Turk and a Greek, because he told them not to smoke in the smoke free subway." although "Hessen is one of the safer states in terms of criminal statistics" and although it took place in Munich, Bavaria. That's what I call an opportunist and the longer I think about it the firmer my position gets.

It's not like I disagree. I don't care much about Koch, but what I care about is that the problem has been addressed, which other parties don't do, at least none I know of other than the extreme-right parties I ignore. In the KAS-paper the issue was called a "slumbering issue" and had a great resonance not only in Hessen but throughout the country.

Was it reckless or not to risk to damage the already difficult problems we have with questions regarding immigration and integration. Was it not reckless to "overlook" that those criminal youths are mostly born here in Germany and thus the problem of juvenile crime is not so much about the ethnic origin but the social status of the offender?

I don't get the first part. Risk to damage problems?

As for the latter, it is a problem of ethnic origin and the social structure of that ethnic origin. Turks and other groups with a muslim background, even if they themselves are not (very) religious, represent a growing majority in the statistics for juvenile offenders and other criminal activities the Spiegel mentions. Their mentality plays a major role in my opinion, thus it's not their social status, even though it can attribute to their behaviour. I can't hear this crap about "Germans have to do more for their integration" anymore, in case you're going to come up with that.

As you might have noticed, we don't need integration summits for other migrants but the Turks and other groups with a muslim background.

 

[Georg]

Well, I think it's clear that your ideology is playing a major role here. Not only, but clearly your last statement seems to stem from it.

Huh? Care to explain which ideology that would be? So far I was not aware that I am following any........
To conclude that because I do not like Koch is a bit far fetched in my opinion.
But I´m sure you are able to back it up better........

Thus apparently the criminal (foreign) youths part did not affect the outcome by more than 1%.

Let´s see: The polls had the CDU around 40% before the campaign started. They got 36,8 % at the election. That´s a difference of more than 3%. Only a difference of 1 or 2% regarding the polls, but if they lose 1 or 2% in only some weeks and the trend continues it is not a surprise they lose another 1% between the last poll and the election, right? With 40%, they would have been able to form a government with the FDP (9,4%), no? He did shoot himself in the foot, and yes, it´s a good thing that playing with fire did not work out for him this time.

Which is reassuring, although it looks as if the propaganda worked on you and ZeeGerman when you whip out "lying demagogue" and "racist" without thinking too much.

Both expressions were used by me only, credit where credit is due. ZeeGerman deserves the credit for "1st degree arsehole", a term that is appropriate for Koch, but that of course is a matter of opinion.
And I admitted that "racist" was a poor choice of words, didn´t I? As for demagogue, you don´t think his campaign was demagogic?


We´ll have to agree to disagree on that one, then.
As for lying, that´s a proven fact.. If you are not able to admit that, that would be a hint that it´s not actually me who is ideology driven.

Georg

The greens. No, not because I think they are brilliant, but because they don´t smell as bad as the others.

Well I guess now I know why you call someone a racist without backing your statement up in any way.

I admitted that it was a poor choice of words, didn´t I?
I said that I did not find the greens brilliant, didn´t I?
Since you defend Koch and dislike the greens so much, how does it fit in your world view that the CDU in Hessen would form a coalition with the FDP and the greens? An idea, besides my dislike for Koch, I´m not in principle opposed to? Who of us is ideology driven again?


So, keep on guessing, maybe someday you will score and be right.
Not this time, though.......

 

[Georg]

We're talking about the Länderwahl in Hessen here, not that affair.

BS. I didn´t say he was lying in this election process. I said he is a lying demagogue. The point still stands.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Huh? Care to explain which ideology that would be? So far I was not aware that I am following any........
To conclude that because I do not like Koch is a bit far fetched in my opinion.
But I´m sure you are able to back it up better........

You tell me which that is. It certainly doesn't seem to correspond with positions of the CDU. And you vote the Green Party for a reason, don't you?

That aside, your last statement struck me as silly. Let's say the NPD wants more green energy and supports the Green Party. Should they "rethink their position" because of the NPD support? Sorry, but that statement is inane.

Let´s see: The polls had the CDU around 40% before the campaign started. They got 36,8 % at the election. That´s a difference of more than 3%. Only a difference of 1 or 2% regarding the polls, but if they lose 1 or 2% in only some weeks and the trend continues it is not a surprise they lose another 1% between the last poll and the election, right? With 40%, they would have been able to form a government with the FDP (9,4%), no? He did shoot himself in the foot, and yes, it´s a good thing that playing with fire did not work out for him this time.

Over the course of 2 years they were at 40% and one week before the election took place they were between 38 and 39%. In any case, it's not the landslide loss you perceive it as, nor can I personally blame the end result solely on one part of his agenda.

Both expressions were used by me only, credit where credit is due. ZeeGerman deserves the credit for "1st degree arsehole", a term that is appropriate for Koch, but that of course is a matter of opinion.
And I admitted that "racist" was a poor choice of words, didn´t I? As for demagogue, you don´t think his campaign was demagogic?

Yes, you admitted it, but you still said it and did not take it back, but maintain the "lying demagogue" comment. And no, I don't think it was demagogic from what I could gather over here in NRW. Care to explain what you perceived as demagogic(, except for maybe the "vote The Left = vote communists" which in my opinion was rightfully added with the piggyback-KPD members entering many state parliaments by running on The Left's lists)?

As for lying, that´s a proven fact.. If you are not able to admit that, that would be a hint that it´s not actually me who is ideology driven.

I'm sure we both have lied in our life before. Does that make us a liar for life? Be my guest and point out what this has to do with his campaign and the connection to your claim he's a demagogue. A lying one at it.

I admitted that it was a poor choice of words, didn´t I?
I said that I did not find the greens brilliant, didn´t I?
Since you defend Koch and dislike the greens so much, how does it fit in your world view that the CDU in Hessen would form a coalition with the FDP and the greens? An idea, besides my dislike for Koch, I´m not in principle opposed to? Who of us is ideology driven again?

You are apparently. Me too, of course, but I can differentiate. Can you? Although you admit that it was a "poor choice of words", you got out the "demagogue" + liar-factor again.

And how a coalition of those three fits into my world view? They should go for it. I'm not opposed to this idea, nor the idea of the CDU forming a coalition with the Green Party in Hamburg. I'm secret tree hugger, but for example don't agree with the Green Party's energy policy, because it will render Germany very dependant on foreign energy.

As for Koch: I don't feel like I'm defending him, I just don't accept statements like "racist" or "lying demagogue" without any basis for such remarks.

So, keep on guessing, maybe someday you will score and be right.
Not this time, though.......

 

[mrbaracuda]

BS. I didn´t say he was lying in this election process. I said he is a lying demagogue. The point still stands.

Well then support it, because I can't figure out why he's a (lying) demagogue. Though it seems to fit the Green Party mentality to call people demagogues and racist for no good reason.

And no, not BS. We are talking about the election, although we should come back to the original topic. Why else the KAS-paper etc, if we're not talking about the election in Hessen? If you want to talk about Koch, I'm not too interested.

 

[Georg]

You tell me which that is.

No. You made the claim, you back it up or you should take it back. To assert that I follow an ideology without being able to even name it is stupid.

It certainly doesn't seem to correspond with positions of the CDU. And you vote the Green Party for a reason, don't you?

Ah, everyone not following the CDU follows an ideology? Is that it?
That´s funny. The reason why I vote green has been told: They smell less than the other turds. How is voting for a party the same as following an ideology?

That aside, your last statement struck me as silly. Let's say the NPD wants more green energy and supports the Green Party. Should they "rethink their position" because of the NPD support? Sorry, but that statement is inane.

No, it is not. "To rethink" does not automatically mean the same as "to change". And to have support by Nazi-scumbags surely is a reason to rethink one´s position. Da evil joos agree:

"Das Niveau des Wahlkampfes von Herrn Ministerpräsident Roland Koch unterscheidet sich kaum noch von dem der NPD", sagte der Generalsekretär des Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland, Stephan Kramer. Er warnte davor, Vorurteile gegenüber Ausländern zu schüren. Es gebe bereits "erste Anzeichen, dass vor allem die NPD und andere rechtsextreme Gruppen die Debatte nutzen". Kramer nannte es unverantwortlich, wenn Politiker hier mit dem Feuer spielen. "Wir brauchen scheinbar keine Programme gegen Rechts, sondern Erziehungs- und Ethikkurse für einige Politiker", kritisierte er.

But they are also ideology driven, I guess?

Over the course of 2 years they were at 40% and one week before the election took place they were between 38 and 39%.

And another week later another 1% down. How does that contradict what I say? Hint: It doesn´t.

In any case, it's not the landslide loss you perceive it as, nor can I personally blame the end result solely on one part of his agenda.

I did not say landslide loss, stop building strawmen.
Again: With the 40% of the polls before he started the campaign, he would have a majority with the FDP.

Yes, you admitted it, but you still said it and did not take it back,

for the gazillionth time: I said it was a poor choice of words. How is that different from taking it back? Don´t be childish.

but maintain the "lying demagogue" comment. And no, I don't think it was demagogic from what I could gather over here in NRW. Care to explain what you perceived as demagogic(, except for maybe the "vote The Left = vote communists" which in my opinion was rightfully added with the piggyback-KPD members entering many state parliaments by running on The Left's lists)?

I do maintain it, because that´s what he is, see below.

I'm sure we both have lied in our life before. Does that make us a liar for life? Be my guest and point out what this has to do with his campaign and the connection to your claim he's a demagogue. A lying one at it.

Some strawmen again:
Show me where I have said "liar for life". Can you?
Show me where I have said he was lying in this campaign. Can you?
I said he is a liar, and I backed it up. Do you admit that?
As for the demagogue part:

Demagogie betreibt, wer bei günstiger Gelegenheit öffentlich für ein politisches Ziel wirbt, indem er der Masse schmeichelt, an ihre Gefühle, Instinkte und Vorurteile appelliert, ferner sich der Hetze und Lüge schuldig macht, Wahres übertrieben oder grob vereinfacht darstellt, die Sache, die er durchsetzen will, für die Sache aller Gutgesinnten ausgibt, und die Art und Weise, wie er sie durchsetzt oder durchzusetzen vorschlägt, als die einzig mögliche hinstellt." Nach Martin Morlock, (1977): Hohe Schule der Verführung. Ein Handbuch der Demagogie. Econ Verlag: Wien/Düsseldorf, S.24

or in English:

Demagogy (also demagoguery) (Ancient Greek δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.

quotes are from wiki.

I´d say his campaign regarding the foreign youth criminals fits this definition very well.

You are apparently.

Again, which ideology?

Me too, of course, but I can differentiate. Can you? Although you admit that it was a "poor choice of words", you got out the "demagogue" + liar-factor again.

Yes, because that description fits well, as explained above.

And how a coalition of those three fits into my world view? They should go for it. I'm not opposed to this idea, nor the idea of the CDU forming a coalition with the Green Party in Hamburg. I'm secret tree hugger, but for example don't agree with the Green Party's energy policy, because it will render Germany very dependant on foreign energy.

Wow, we agree on some things! Whom do you vote for, by the way?

As for Koch: I don't feel like I'm defending him, I just don't accept statements like "racist" or "lying demagogue" without any basis for such remarks.

Basis explained above. He is a liar and a demagogue.