World Politics

[PalmTree]

For Plamtree did Wildkers(?) make minister or not? Media reports that besides Wilkers the party might not hold many candidates to lead the party, should he leave?

I read Wilders is even willing to make concessions in order to join the coalition. His PVV is the third biggest party, so I think it would be hard to form a majority without him.

Plus, the dutch government is still being formed, so it's too early to tell if Wilders will be made minister or not.

The results of our elections are with an understatement rather difficult... being a country where most ot the time more than 2 parties are necessary to get a majority in the parliament there has to be a lot of compromising between the parties to develop a governmentagreement...

The "winner" of the elections is the VVD... a slightly liberal partie , considered "right" (we have a distinction between "right" and "left" and "conservative" and "progressive" and "liberal") they got 31 of the 150 available seats.

the pvda (slightly "left" and considered mildly progressive) got 30 seats, the PVV from Wilders got 24 seats .

the christen democrats (in history almost always the 1st or 2nd partie lost dramatically (from 41 to 21 seats)

It is in our sytem usual for the largest partie to start the negotiatons for the forming of a coalition... i.c the vvd.... (it's also custom to start the negotiations with the "winners" i.c. pvv (from 9 to 24 seats)

In short they have 3 possibilities (actually 5, but a minority coalition or new elections aren't wise or desirable)

1) go over "right"... vvd, pvv and cda (the christen democrats) they would have 76 seats ... the smallest majority...plus the fact that pvv is a very compromising partie with their view at the islam plus the fact that cda is not keen on this coalition (they also lost significant amount of seats)

2) go over "left"... the `progressive`solution )it´s called overhere `purple plus`... that means vvd, pvda, d66 ( liberal) and groen links (a environment, slight progressive and "left" partie) they would have ca 83 seats.... but the opinions on how certain problems (economic crisis, health, etc) should be handled are very different...

3) a coalition of national unity .. vvd, pvda and cdA to ensure some kind of stability......but this would mean a coalition with two former coalition partners (pvda and cda) they lost seats.... and it would be ignoring the message from over 1.5 milion people who voted the pvv... which in my opinion is a vote out of unhappiness with the way things go...


there are some interesting days ahead for the netherlands....

(it's btw very difficult to explain some of the dutch complex political system in english...)

@hush.. how is it for you in belgium? I read in the newspaper today that it seems the flamish separatist partie is likely going to win??

 

[_Hush_]

^Well, tomorrow is D-Day. N-VA is likely to win these elections, but they're not the radical separatist party. Their goal is confederalism (two states governing separate from eachother but still act as one country). Because of the recent disagreements with the Walloons, I think lots of Flemish have had it with this kind of politics, and will vote for a more flemish oriented party. But N-VA is however the alternative for Vlaams Belang (the radical separatist party, not to mention completely racist). They're less aggressive in their tone, and at least have more common sense than Vlaams Belang.

I don't exactly disagree with N-VA, though I'm not a big fan of them either. CD&V (Christian-Democrats) already proved they can't handle it, so they're not getting my vote. Neither is Vlaams Belang or Lijst Dedecker (Populist liberal party) due to too right. Groen! (green party) are wussies to my taste. SpA (your PvdA, socialists) is making promises they can never keep up and Open VLD (liberals) began this whole mess in the first place. That leaves me with very, very few options

And I still have no bloody clue who to vote for

And you're right. It's really hard to explain the system in English. I once attempted to explain our Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde problem, but failed. Miserably :lol:

 

[Ducky]

The Swedish People have their own Party? How many Swedes live in your country? And what about the Sames (they spred over Norway, Sweden and Finland)

They are not Swedish, they are Swedish-speaking Finns. They plan to change the party name to be better. [since Finland is bilingual]
Only 5% of Finns speak Swedish as their first language.

The Sami people have some of their own Sami Parliament
http://www.samediggi.fi/index.php?lang=english
But they still kind of are under the parliament when it comes to non-sami things.

We do have one sami in Parliament, he is member of Centre Party

 

[Desertwind]

President Obama is going to meet with the BP executives this week to find out how and when this gigantic oil spill will be fixed. Poor guy, maybe he should put on some swim fins and go down and cap it himself:scream:

OBAMA PLANS 4th TOUR OF GULF OIL SPILL

http://www.aolnews.com/category/politics/ scroll down a ways~

 

[Ajbuckly]

It seems as if Europe in generel are "turning" more and more right - winged....National parties everywhere going foreward and left-winged parties ??? And we are not even speaking as far left as the Communists

 

[talkingtocactus]

It seems as if Europe in generel are "turning" more and more right - winged....National parties everywhere going foreward and left-winged parties ??? And we are not even speaking as far left as the Communists

yeah i think europe is drifting to the right at the moment, but in europe it tends to go in cycles anyway so it'll probably drift back again fairly soon. and tbh compared to american right wingers, even our mainstream right parties (certainly here in the uk) aren't *that* right wing. just as an example, our conservative party aren't as far right as they used to be, and they definitely support keeping the nhs and keeping it free for everyone to use, which is really quite a left leaning policy. i think even the most hardened right wingers in this country are very proud of the nhs (for all its flaws) and there'd be uproar if they tried to get rid of it.

but there does seem to be a rise in nationalist parties and stuff, which is a worrying trend :S

i think the problem here is everyone in mainstream parties is going for the centre ground - because we are all bourgeois now, there isn't the old class divide like there used to be so conservatives and socialists are meeting in the middle quite a bit - which means there's a section of society that's left out a bit, and the nationalist parties appeal to those. i think changing the situation is down to the mainstream parties: if they keep refusing to address the issues that people on the margins are worried about (particularly immigration) they will just give the nationalist parties fuel to work with.

 

[Ducky]

It seems as if Europe in generel are "turning" more and more right - winged....National parties everywhere going foreward and left-winged parties ??? And we are not even speaking as far left as the Communists

I agree. Same here.

But I've seen some improvement with Left Wing in here, not Social Democrats.
Of course Left Wing isn't too far left like it used to be but still.

 

[Ajbuckly]

I think some of it has to do with the Blair effect -


A bunch of libarel parties liked the ideas formed by Giddens and the New Labour Party and adopted the thoughs as theirs. At least that happened here. But I am still wondering the rise of Jean - Marie Le Pen, Jorg Haider and Wilkers and so forth. Some af them might be a bit more modest but Le Pen is not far from the Ultra - right. As far as I know.....In generel I still wonder why people who live in a free democratic country seeks to alter that either in caos as the anercists(?) or the facists.

 

[Desertwind]

OBAMA:BP AGREES TO PAY $20 BILLION... well whoopee, it's about time they do something about this horrific mess:scream:

http://www.aolnews.com/

 

[talkingtocactus]

I think some of it has to do with the Blair effect -


A bunch of libarel parties liked the ideas formed by Giddens and the New Labour Party and adopted the thoughs as theirs. At least that happened here. But I am still wondering the rise of Jean - Marie Le Pen, Jorg Haider and Wilkers and so forth. Some af them might be a bit more modest but Le Pen is not far from the Ultra - right. As far as I know.....In generel I still wonder why people who live in a free democratic country seeks to alter that either in caos as the anercists(?) or the facists.

i think a LOT of it is to do with the blair effect. the problem is that mainstream parties of every denomination are all going for the centre ground these days, and are so personality driven as opposed to policy driven (which was definitely something spearheaded by blair); which also means that (a) they all have remarkably similar policies and (b) to avoid losing that crucial centre vote, they avoid addressing issues that people really do care about, for fear of pissing off the wrong people. new labour here is a classic example - since blair came to power, and then brown, immigration has been a BIG deal. and the main parties are just not giving any answers - labour have fannied about for years trying to avoid giving any firm answers on this topic, and although the tories are marginally more clear, they're not much.

personally i don't see immigration as a massive problem, i'm in favour of it broadly, although y'know, the uk is a very very small place so i guess there has to be some kind of limitation there. but i'm in a minority i think, a lot of people really really care about it, and if they're not getting any coherent policy or answers to their questions from the elected leaders, it's only natural that they should start feeling more alienated about it. it doesn't help that many people believe that immigrants are getting preferential treatment in terms of housing and benefits - which really isn't true, in a factual sense, but the press are very good at twisting these things and tbh the kinds of people who have those kinds of views are likely to be reading certain elements of the press, and those elements like to whip up these things (for instance, someone who was naturally inclined to be anti-immigration would be more likely to read the right leaning press, say, the daily mail (or as i like to call it "the daily hate"!) or the express, which are papers renowned for sharing those views).

the problem then is that when the public get into a tense state of mind over these issues - and in the case of the right wing drift i think immigration is the key one - and the main parties just try to pretend that there's no problem at all, by sticking their heads in the sand, then the opportunity is there for the more right wing parties to swoop in and attract people precisely because they are addressing these issues. the fact that they address them with barely disguised racial hatred is irrelevant - people are so sick of being ignored that they will listen to anyone that appears to be answering their questions and can be persuaded by the most spurious of arguments - and this, as i'm sure you can remember, is pretty much how hitler got into power, and it's most certainly how the BNP (who, prior to their recent rebranding, were a neonazi, racist, violent NF offshoot - and they still are, they just pretend not to be) have got more power in this country, and how the vile, hateful little man that is nick griffin has become more popular. sure the BNP will never be mainstream (i hope!) but their popularity has definitely risen. i suspect it's a similar story across europe.

*and breathe*

 

[PalmTree]

but the press are very good at twisting these things and tbh the kinds of people who have those kinds of views are likely to be reading certain elements of the press, and those elements like to whip up these things (for instance, someone who was naturally inclined to be anti-immigration would be more likely to read the right leaning press, say, the daily mail (or as i like to call it "the daily hate"!) or the express, which are papers renowned for sharing those views).

Indeed, press and all kinds of media do influence, one way or another, It's so easy for them to create a hype.... and before you know it everyone is stating it as if it is their own true opinion.... The power is definitely more present these days.... I think there's a lack of "neutral" political discussion programs...

the problem then is that when the public get into a tense state of mind over these issues - and in the case of the right wing drift i think immigration is the key one - and the main parties just try to pretend that there's no problem at all, by sticking their heads in the sand, then the opportunity is there for the more right wing parties to swoop in and attract people precisely because they are addressing these issues.

exactly... this is also the problem in the netherlands... maybe nowadays has been a problem.. but the main parties realized it too late that there's indeed a problem with immigration....

btw today the so called "informateur" (someone who is been selected by our queen to investigate the possible coalitons for a new government) informed our queen that a coalition over "right" (vvd, cda and the pvv (Wilders)) is probably not possible due to too many differences between the parties....
tomorrow he will announce which is the next coalition to be investigate...

 

[Ajbuckly]

Hi guys and gals


Today I have 2 questions for you.

Am I the only one suprised and worried about the sum of money used by politician for mediatraning? In the end are we voting for the politician or the spindoctors words?

How would you tackle this dilemma:

Respect for the religion of others and the mutilation of young somali girls?
Freedom of speach (aka print the drawing of Mohammed) or respect the religion and not say or draw what you want?

We are - in my country - seeing the politic imunity(?) for a member of parliment being expelled so he can be prosecuted for a racist remark. And trust me ....he was so rude and racist so I am very fine with that. (He makes me mad) As you have guessed right winged. BUT .....on the other hand we have muslims who wants the flag altered as it has a cross.

 

[talkingtocactus]

Am I the only one suprised and worried about the sum of money used by politician for mediatraning? In the end are we voting for the politician or the spindoctors words?

no - politics is becoming increasingly (over the last 10 years or so and getting more) about personality over policies. tony blair's probably the worst offender but because he was so charismatic everyone wants to copy that. it makes me really sad and quite angry - it shouldn't be about personality, it should be about whether you can run the damn country efficiently!

about your politician and the popular attempt to revoke his immunity; i think that makes sense: broadly i'm all for freedom of speech, and i think usually if people are offended then they have the option to not listen. but i think there are exceptions - personally i think certain words are inherently offensive (and worse, actively harmful/detrimental to certain people in society) and therefore should be avoided as far as possible. also, i think for politicians it's a different ball game - if you are in that profession, surely it's bloody obvious that you have to use tact and sensitivity? unless you are in fact representing a party that holds racially offensive views, in which case you'd probably say stuff like that anyway, but if you are in a mainstream party, you're in the public eye, you're a representative of the people and frankly you should have more sense than to start being offensive.

as for these dilemmas:

Respect for the religion of others and the mutilation of young somali girls?
Freedom of speach (aka print the drawing of Mohammed) or respect the religion and not say or draw what you want?

with great difficulty!! i've had this discussion elsewhere many a time and i just always end up going round and round in circles. it's a really tough one. i think it's even been touched on in this thread at some point.

i dunno; even though freedom of choice/press/religion/speech/etc are pretty much sacred for me, i personally have massive issues with religion generally and if i had a magic wand i'd ban the lot of it outright. it does go against my other beliefs (in quite a major way - i struggle with this) but i can't help it. it's like my emotional response and my rational response will never quite agree on this.

for me the most important ethical/moral code is Mill's harm principle - obviously it's flawed (as are all of these codes) but in principle i think it works well. and by that principle the two dilemmas are quite different i think. female circumcision and any mutilation of anyone is blatantly doing someone direct harm and therefore i think should be stopped. however, whether it's possible to leave the religion be but stop only that aspect is debatable, i guess most members of the religion would claim that it's an important part of it. i think that probably goes beyond religious ethics though, and into humanitarian ones.

as for the cartoons - personally i thought the reaction to their publication far exceeded any kind of rationality - i realise that depicting mohamed is offensive to muslims, but to threaten physical violence and/or murder over those pictures does seem a tad much. christianity puts up with all kinds of offensive stuff, certainly in the british press, it's often a subject of mocking and ridicule, but they just kinda get on with it. i remember at the time of the cartoons a lot of british christian bigwigs said that getting all worked up about it only made things worse and that just letting people take the piss while quietly getting on with doing what they believe to be right was a much better reaction - and i'm inclined to agree.

hmm so yeah, basically i'm sitting on the fence

 

[Ajbuckly]

Hi Lisa

Please explain:

basically i'm sitting on the fence
Mill's harm principle

I get the point of the your post and find myself struggling to find " resolve".


Wearing a "Nicap?" should be a choice but forcing girls to wear it is not right. But we are back at the values in life.

Who is to determine what is a good life and being a "good" human/person?

 

[talkingtocactus]

Please explain:

basically i'm sitting on the fence
Mill's harm principle

hello! do you mean literally explain or just what i meant on a personal level? here's the literal definition of each anyway - i hope that's what you meant, if not, sorry!

harm principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle (which although flawed is still, for me anyway, one of the single most important principles in philosophy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_on_the_fence

I get the point of the your post and find myself struggling to find " resolve".

well yes, so am i, and that's the problem! i just think these issues are so big and difficult to get through that i don't think it's really possible to have one clear cut answer to them. as i said my emotional response is just to ban religion and everything related to it, but i know that's unrealistic and also rather reactionary. because in generally i like to be a rational, non-reactionary person, i can't really justify my emotional response and therefore i have to actually think about the problems involved and when i do that, tbh, i can see sense in arguments on both sides, which leaves me completely undecided. it's great!

Wearing a "Nicap?" should be a choice but forcing girls to wear it is not right. But we are back at the values in life.

i agree - but the problem comes when you analyse how far a choice is really a choice - and it's one that's hard to answer because you could go around in circles for ever! maybe a woman chooses to wear one because of the strength of her faith - surely she should be allowed to make that choice? but on the other hand the niqab isn't a fundamental tenet of islam, it's not compulsory, and no doubt the imposition of it on a wider scale has been implemented by men, so is her choice really her choice, or just the bearing of years of societal judgement? it's a really hard one to answer! that's why i'm still on the fence

the only thing i would say - and this goes for ALL religions (and, for the record, atheism too) - is that no child should be made (or indeed nicely asked) to wear any religious symbols - hijabs, crosses, whatever. religion should be a personal choice and children that are brought up in a single faith environment just don't have the resources to make that decision for themselves. in the same way as they don't have the capability to make an informed decision about sex before having sex education, really. it's all about making up your own mind and if a particular belief is shoved down your throat from birth (even if it is in a nice, gentle, parental way) then it's impossible to be objective about it. sorry, that was slighly OT.

Who is to determine what is a good life and being a "good" human/person?

well, that's what philosophers have been trying to work out for several thousand years!! even though i'm obviously in the philosophy major league, i don't have an answer yet :lol: