[DE] German elections 2021

[Lohrenswald]

I kinda don't believe in such a thing as the centre-left and centre-right

like I'd maybe just call SPD right-wing with all they do

I dunno, I'm going to think more about this. Can't deny it's an effect of my relatively extremist views lol

in any case, my idea keeping within the current framework is there should be more willingness for minority governments. Say I had voted for SPD this election, I'd rather see them going at it alone than with CDU (or FDP)

 

[Buktu]

So if you take SPD and CDU, I'd be more enclined towards SPD. But seeing them ready to work with CDU tells me they dodn't really believe in what they stand for, or that they care about it. They're compromising with ideological oppenents. they're sellouts, you see

What is the alternative though? Not getting anything to say in the government at all? You dont get a single thing you want that way.
On the other hand in a compromise you get some of your most important ideas passed. In fact you fight hard to get these things in a compromise so you must really believe in them and care about them alot.
Sometimes different parties have the same ideas anyway. And no one is forced to go into a coalition at all. So if CDU and SPD can't agree on important points for both parties they won't govern together. For example the FDP did cancel the talks about a coalition with CDU/CSU and Die Grünen after the last election in 2017.

Since I learned about these cross-political coallitions being normal in germany, my opinion of the german people has fallen dramatically.

Seems about right to blame every single german for the voting system here which most can't influence at all

besides the 5 % limit which is rubbish and tbh anti-democratic

The 5% limit is not perfect at all but it still has its uses. Adding to what @The_J already mentioned it also prevents an even bigger parliment. If a party gets 0,01% of the votes without any limit it has to get at least one seat. The SPD did get 25,7% of the votes this time which is 2570 times more than 0,01%. So in order to keep it fair the SPD had to get 2570 seats, the CDU 2250 and so on. (There are 598 regular seats, this time increased to 735 from overhang and compensation mandates.)

Say I had voted for SPD this election, I'd rather see them going at it alone than with CDU (or FDP)

Whats the point of this though? The other parties still can vote all of your ideas down. So in order to get what you want you need to give something to them as well which are basically just the same compromises that you make in a coaltion anyway.

 

[Zardnaar]

What is the alternative though? Not getting anything to say in the government at all? You dont get a single thing you want that way.
On the other hand in a compromise you get some of your most important ideas passed. In fact you fight hard to get these things in a compromise so you must really believe in them and care about them alot.
Sometimes different parties have the same ideas anyway. And no one is forced to go into a coalition at all. So if CDU and SPD can't agree on important points for both parties they won't govern together. For example the FDP did cancel the talks about a coalition with CDU/CSU and Die Grünen after the last election in 2017.



Seems about right to blame every single german for the voting system here which most can't influence at all



The 5% limit is not perfect at all but it still has its uses. Adding to what @The_J already mentioned it also prevents an even bigger parliment. If a party gets 0,01% of the votes without any limit it has to get at least one seat. The SPD did get 25,7% of the votes this time which is 2570 times more than 0,01%. So in order to keep it fair the SPD had to get 2570 seats, the CDU 2250 and so on. (There are 598 regular seats, this time increased to 735 from overhang and compensation mandates.)



Whats the point of this though? The other parties still can vote all of your ideas down. So in order to get what you want you need to give something to them as well which are basically just the same compromises that you make in a coaltion anyway.

5% is there for a reason. Once upon a time the Nazis got 2.7% and got seats. It filters out the bad faith extremists. Also government's need to be stable.

We've got the same rule here.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Living in a country where governments elected by a minority of the population can have a majority in the legislature I'd much rather have a proportional system.
It occurs to me that a benefit of the system is that once a reform is agreed on and passed by a broad coalition it is less likely to get overturned as soon as a new government gets in.

 

[uppi]

In a funny side story about what left and right means in politics, the parties are now debating about who gets to sit where in the Bundestag. The Linke is obviously happy to sit on the left as is the AfD sitting on the right. But the FDP who were sitting left of the AfD and right of the CDU want to move one place to the left (right of the Grüne, left of the CDU)

 

[Snowygerry]

Living in a country where governments elected by a minority of the population can have a majority in the legislature I'd much rather have a proportional system.
It occurs to me that a benefit of the system is that once a reform is agreed on and passed by a broad coalition it is less likely to get overturned as soon as a new government gets in.

This yes, we look in amazement at your "2-party" systems, one day your government is "left" the next day it's "right" and in the end it makes no difference at all

 

[Lohrenswald]

What is the alternative though? Not getting anything to say in the government at all? You dont get a single thing you want that way.

You point out yourself the possibility of stopping things in parliament later on (Bund day, whatever)

On the other hand in a compromise you get some of your most important ideas passed.

I mostly see smaller coallition partners having to reneg on what they care most about. Here just now the leftmost party that wanted to be in government didn't get enough from the other to, and decided it was bigger chance to get the things done in opposition, which I agree with.
The result is that a minority government is comming up within a couple of weeks

Sometimes different parties have the same ideas anyway.

That is true, but I think that means they sometimes should just join
I don't respect CSU

And no one is forced to go into a coalition at all. So if CDU and SPD can't agree on important points for both parties they won't govern together.

My issue then with SDP is that they have done this
I guess I would think similar of CDU if I was rightist

Seems about right to blame every single german for the voting system here which most can't influence at all

Yea I get it. I tbh think most countries aren't democratic.
But the thing with germans is I've seen people like you defending it, and nobody having been mad at it

The 5% limit is not perfect at all but it still has its uses. Adding to what @The_J already mentioned it also prevents an even bigger parliment. If a party gets 0,01% of the votes without any limit it has to get at least one seat. The SPD did get 25,7% of the votes this time which is 2570 times more than 0,01%. So in order to keep it fair the SPD had to get 2570 seats, the CDU 2250 and so on. (There are 598 regular seats, this time increased to 735 from overhang and compensation mandates.)

sounds good to me lol

in any case it doesn't need to be so extreme. there is infact bigger difference between 5 % and 0,01 % than between 100 % and 5 %, so there can be a cutoff way lower

Whats the point of this though? The other parties still can vote all of your ideas down. So in order to get what you want you need to give something to them as well which are basically just the same compromises that you make in a coaltion anyway.

In something like a SPD-CDU coallition I do see this as preferable. You could pull support from different sectors

and sometimes It's better to do nothing than doing it half-assed

5% is there for a reason. Once upon a time the Nazis got 2.7% and got seats. It filters out the bad faith extremists. Also government's need to be stable.

AFD clearly has made this point moot

 

[Drakle]

AFD clearly has made this point moot

But the German system works at keeping the AfD irrelevant. They get whatever vote share they get ... And then they get ignored as everybody else sorts out a coalition. And their numbers have fallen back anyway.

Even if German party leadership didn't explictly rule out the AfD ever forming government, their best shot would be as a junior party to the CDU. Their vote share isn't enough for them to be the ruling party, and Die Linke isn't squeezing the other ideological pole like the earlier Communists did. Making it far easier to form governments that exclude the AfD.

In a two party system however, the radical right wingers, being more energetic and fanatical can hijack the right wing party. Then they inherit all the voters who are right wing, and while personally not extreme, don't switch to the left party because of negative partisanship or being rusted on or whatever. Putting a fascist in charge.

The Nazis after all, never won a majority, or in a fair system have a majority of parliamentarians vote their dictor ship through. It was a mess of bad rules, extra legality and thug politics.

As a better example of how coalition governments can get rid of a bad leader that a two party system could not. Bibi in Israel. Israel is a very right wing political system. If you plug in the parties from left to right, the right has been winning elections for decades. If it were a two party system, Likud vs Labour for example, Likud would win every time, despite the fact that some right wingers disliked him. But in a proportional system, the right wingers who disliked him, could be in a different party that is still right wing but opposed to Bibi. It took a while but he was out.

 

[Buktu]

You point out yourself the possibility of stopping things in parliament later on (Bund day, whatever)

This is the case for a minority government IF most/all of the opposition agree to stop it. That is by no means the case. And also the SPD declining a coalition with the CDU/CSU does not mean germany will get a minority government. There could be a Jamaika coalition this time for example.

I mostly see smaller coallition partners having to reneg on what they care most about. Here just now the leftmost party that wanted to be in government didn't get enough from the other to, and decided it was bigger chance to get the things done in opposition, which I agree with.
The result is that a minority government is comming up within a couple of weeks

It's their fair option not to go into a government but into the opposition if they don't get enough of what they want. It does not mean they get more of their stuff though. How should that work? If there are more parties that agree with more of their ideas they could maybe get another majority government from this. But then they are not in the opposition again. And since they failed to get partners for their ideas chances are high that alot of their ideas get canceld.
Ofc the can try to gain votes in the opposition to be part of a government after the next election but then again nobody can say how the next election will go and you had to wait a few years for this to happen.

That is true, but I think that means they sometimes should just join

It's more efficent though to have a coalition. You decide on alot of ideas before hand and don't have to negotiate everytime again. Also you can potentially miss out on deals this way resulting in less of your ideas getting through.

I don't respect CSU

That is your opinion and you have every right to have it. And you are also free to support another party than the SPD after they made a coalition with the CSU. But imo it is not a valid argument against the current system. In another system there was the chance that CDU/CSU got enough seats to rule without a coalition which - from what your posts say - would have been even worse in your eyes.

My issue then with SDP is that they have done this
I guess I would think similar of CDU if I was rightist

This is again not an argument against the system. It is an arugment why you don't want to support the SPD anylonger.

Yea I get it. I tbh think most countries aren't democratic.

So what is your idea to get all the countries democratic again if free, secret and equal votes are undemocratic?

But the thing with germans is I've seen people like you defending it, and nobody having been mad at it

Well I have every right to defend a working system if I like it. Infact I prefer the german system to some others I know for example the one from the USA or GB.
If you have better ideas feel free to explain and elaborate them. If I like them more than the current ones I am all for a change.

sounds good to me lol

Sounds good on paper maybe (not for me though). But make it even more extrem, found your own party and get a single vote for it. Now there must be one seat in the parliament for everyone who voted to keep the ratio. So you end up with more than 60 million seats. At this point you can even make a vote for every decision/law to come which is highly impractical and would slow down everything so much that you would get nothing done.
And even with a cutoff you include way more votes than a winner takes it all vote where a party with less than 50% of the votes can have an absolute majority by a high margin (and more than 50% of the votes can be left out).

in any case it doesn't need to be so extreme. there is infact bigger difference between 5 % and 0,01 % than between 100 % and 5 %, so there can be a cutoff way lower

That's why I said 5% is not perfect. It could also be somewhere lower. But a cutoff in general is needed imo.
(Also 100-5=95 which is more than 5-0,01=4,99 so the difference between 100 and 5 is way higher (around 19 times). The ratio from 5 to 0,01 is way higher though (500 compared to 20 from 100 to 5) which increases the rate with which the parliament growth faster the lower you have the cutoff.)

In something like a SPD-CDU coallition I do see this as preferable. You could pull support from different sectors

On the other hand you can also fail to get enough support for even one single idea and end up with nothing. A coalition brings stability here because you already negotiated which ideas you want to get passed - which you can with a majority.
So in the end it comes down to the parties to decide if they can get enough support from different ideas to get their ideas through or if they prefer the reliablity (and ofc additional things like ministerial posts) a coaltion brings.
Again no party is ever forced into a coalition it is always their free choice. It's your good right to stop supporting parties doing coalitions you don't want and start supporting others. But a paryt joining a coalition you don't like does not mean the system at whole is nothing but bad.

and sometimes It's better to do nothing than doing it half-assed

The key word here is SOMETIMES. You are right sometimes it's better to do nothing instead of something half-assed. But then again sometimes it is better to do a little bit instead of nothing.
So it is again up to the parties to decide here what fits their ideas most.

 

[Lohrenswald]

You make some pretty good points, I'm going to let you have the final say on most of them

actually gonna adress drakle first because it's a point I kinda need to make before "moving on"

The Nazis after all, never won a majority, or in a fair system have a majority of parliamentarians vote their dictor ship through. It was a mess of bad rules, extra legality and thug politics.

I really don't like bringing up nazis in german politics much. I feel the takeaway is often wrong, and that it's also kind of insensitive towards germans to keep bringing it up, but:
It was coalition government politics that got the nazis into power
The reason AFD is isolated as it is today is because of the knowledge with regards to how it went with the nazis, and not anything systemic about the electoral system, is what I contend

super minor nitpicky thing

The ratio from 5 to 0,01 is way higher though (500 compared to 20 from 100 to 5) which increases the rate with which the parliament growth faster the lower you have the cutoff.)

that is what I meant
maybe it comes to me to think like that because of my field or whatever

So what is your idea to get all the countries democratic again if free, secret and equal votes are undemocratic?

So the first thing is the "again" point. I don't think we've ever been there

To use a super easy example here is that most people are against eu membership (like 80 % or so opposed), while the majority of representatives are in favour. Now they don't act on it because of public opinion, but it shows to me that something doesn't work.

Also something something capitalism
The thing is I'm really stupid, and only good at seeing flaws in things rather than find solutions

One Idea is to eliminate the whole concepts of terms. So rather than being elected for a term, a representative can be elected and unelected at any time (as I'm stupid, I did not think of this on my own)

A weaker point then is I think Switzerland is more democratic than most other countries. I kinda despair a bit in realising most countries try to do basically the same democracy template, which switzerland predated, and I think it's stronger for not having been influenced by it. For example one thing I'm envious of is that there popular referendums are considered above the constitution (yes I think constitutions are undemocratic lol)

 

[mitsho]

One Idea is to eliminate the whole concepts of terms. So rather than being elected for a term, a representative can be elected and unelected at any time (as I'm stupid, I did not think of this on my own)

„Right to Recall“ as this is known - see California for a recent example. The problem here is that you create lame ducks and that it takes time. First you have to collect signatures - and then a vote. If you had a „digital democracy“ where the citizens had an easy way to vote regularly without much organising beforehand, it‘d maybe be doable, but then you lose the phase of public deliberation beforehand which is a very important part of democracy. No, fixed terms are a very good thing.

The reform proposal that probably would fit your idea much more is „Drawing the Members of Parliament by Lot“. Mini-Publics have been shown to be able to reach better consensus than the elected career politicians. You would need to combine them with another decision level or expert commission (as in: the current politicians or referendums for the big important stuff), but the basic idea is: if your members of parliament are chosen by random from the population, they represent the population best - the technocratic knowledge can be inputted into the political system by another way.

A weaker point then is I think Switzerland is more democratic than most other countries. I kinda despair a bit in realising most countries try to do basically the same democracy template, which switzerland predated, and I think it's stronger for not having been influenced by it. For example one thing I'm envious of is that there popular referendums are considered above the constitution (yes I think constitutions are undemocratic lol)

Actually no, they just change the constitution. Or rather: popular initiatives change the constitution, referendums are ways to veto a law that the two chambers of parliament said yes to before. Those laws often are about financing, so that is where the decision on big infrastructure projects come in. As it is quite easy to gather signatures, we often end up with stuff that definitely doesn‘t belong into a constitution though.

Two things you should know about Swiss Democracy though: First, it‘s painstackingly slow - four sessions of parliament a year, two chambers, the need to do a „Vernehmlassung“ by the public (to prevent a referendum), a possible referendum and a system where most of the things are implemented by the cantons means that laws can take 5 years to write without much problems. A lot of the big questions have been debated over for 20 years or so. But yes, once a decision is taken - it‘s a good one that the poulation stands behind.

And secondly, the left in Switzerland has never gotten above 33 % or so - ever. They never had a majority, they never were able to change stuff in the way they want. I‘m not sure you‘d find that appealing. It can get very frustrating losing those referendums one after the other. Just saying.

 

[Buktu]

So the first thing is the "again" point. I don't think we've ever been there

Fair point.

To use a super easy example here is that most people are against eu membership (like 80 % or so opposed), while the majority of representatives are in favour. Now they don't act on it because of public opinion, but it shows to me that something doesn't work.

Can you elaborate this further? I mean this sounds kind of democratic to me. If 80% don't want to be part and your parliament does not join the EU they do what most people want don't they?
I mean sure it would be great if they could act according to their own oppinion but if they just did what 4/5 of your people don't want it would not be democratic at all.

Also something something capitalism

The hyper capitalism we have now is truely a problem for most people. On the other hand pure socialism (in all those communist countries) didn't work well either (and was even less democratic in my eyes as well). So we need something inbetween.

The thing is I'm really stupid, and only good at seeing flaws in things rather than find solutions

To be fair solutions to these problems are not easy at all. If they were easy we already had them.

One Idea is to eliminate the whole concepts of terms. So rather than being elected for a term, a representative can be elected and unelected at any time (as I'm stupid, I did not think of this on my own)

This is a hard one. It is however highly impractical to this date. Basically I can agree to what @mitsho said. The idea itself is not too bad. Additional to his post I have the following points. How many votes should be enough to have another election? Less than 50%? Then all the parties who did not get the seat would try to get more elections all the time. More than 50%? Then there would be basically no usecases in areas where one party has more than 50% of the votes (in germany there are nearly no areas iirc but for example in two party systems this can be the case more often). Then again in the german system direct seats do not matter too much (unless it is really close with the second votes) because in general the second (party) votes dictate how man seats you get. The whole thing is quite complex and it's too late for me to explain it in detail (it's my brothers birthday so I also had some wine as well today). Also how will you treat second votes in general since they are not about a single representative?
And even IF these elections switch up majorities it means that the parties had to make new coalitions which might have other ideas than the previous ones which leads to some ideas getting stopped/changed on their way and others getting (re) startet. In short it will mean less efficency in the government and less laws/ideas getting passed in the end.
Another point is that some votes might lose the interested to vote if they had to do it every other weekend (, month or whatever short period of time you want here). This will in the long run help extremist parties (like the NPD or MLPD) to gain votes since their followers are quite motivated to vote repeatedly compared to less extremist citizens (which most people are, at least here in germany).

A weaker point then is I think Switzerland is more democratic than most other countries. I kinda despair a bit in realising most countries try to do basically the same democracy template, which switzerland predated, and I think it's stronger for not having been influenced by it. For example one thing I'm envious of is that there popular referendums are considered above the constitution (yes I think constitutions are undemocratic lol)

Popular votes are a good thing in general! The thing is - again - that they are highly impractical if you want them for every decision a state makes. I would like to see votes on really important topics on the one hand like the brexit one in GB for example (even though I didn't like the outcome and maybe even some pro brexiteers don't like it anymore these day but thats another topic). On the other hand votes like this, especially close ones, can divide a country (again look at GB). And also alot of people don't see all the consequences by the time of the vote because important decision are often very complex.
For things like that I would like a vote to start thinking and prepairing stuff in the brexit example negotiate a deal on how to leave the EU with the EU and then let the people vote again if they agree to found solution. After all those years where they discussed all the questions most people got a better understanding of the situation.
If it is a simpler question (for exmaple if you should legalize weed) one vote can still be enough.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Actually no, they just change the constitution. Or rather: popular initiatives change the constitution, referendums are ways to veto a law that the two chambers of parliament said yes to before. Those laws often are about financing, so that is where the decision on big infrastructure projects come in. As it is quite easy to gather signatures, we often end up with stuff that definitely doesn‘t belong into a constitution though.

Two things you should know about Swiss Democracy though: First, it‘s painstackingly slow - four sessions of parliament a year, two chambers, the need to do a „Vernehmlassung“ by the public (to prevent a referendum), a possible referendum and a system where most of the things are implemented by the cantons means that laws can take 5 years to write without much problems. A lot of the big questions have been debated over for 20 years or so. But yes, once a decision is taken - it‘s a good one that the poulation stands behind.

And secondly, the left in Switzerland has never gotten above 33 % or so - ever. They never had a majority, they never were able to change stuff in the way they want. I‘m not sure you‘d find that appealing. It can get very frustrating losing those referendums one after the other. Just saying.

I was afraid to get the switzerland facts wrong tbh

On the last point, I'm sort of aware of it, but I'm sort of seeing the left losing everywhere all the time. Even here where they supposedly won, it's clear now it's more a "centrist" victory.
I feel the left has only been losing things my whole life.

And also alot of people don't see all the consequences by the time of the vote because important decision are often very complex.

The hope is on my part that if it becomes like the normal, people at large will become more intelligent to these things by having to deal with them. When there were debates about women's right to vote, some people talked about how they didn't have thoughts on political matters, which can be countered with that they would see a point to if they couldn't vote. And so I kinda think of this as a same thing.

Kinda undermining that by leaving it here since I don't have much more intelligent to add. I also have real life things going on that bother me.
I kinda mean to let all the things you two wrote now as the final note on those points, and not like trying to dodge them by commenting other things. Right now, those things are the only things I can figure commenting on.

Not to mention I've kinda derailed the talk about this specific election

 

[innonimatu]

And secondly, the left in Switzerland has never gotten above 33 % or so - ever. They never had a majority, they never were able to change stuff in the way they want. I‘m not sure you‘d find that appealing. It can get very frustrating losing those referendums one after the other. Just saying.

One of the big things for the left has been democratic control over the state, and that goes back to the early campaigns for the right to vote in England, France etc.

Switzerland certainly took a long tome to enfranchise women and younger people, so there should have been a job for the left there. But on the other hand the local-level decision making and the multiple checks on what was enacted from above did away with the need for democratic control of the top structures of the state didn't it? When even citizenship is decided locally, those who wanted to engage in politics get some way to do it probably, and feel less "need" to organize as a left-wing group to take on the state structures? Less grand-plan political goals, more micro-involvement and engagement "pacified" swiss politics? Say, how economically unequal, to look at one measure of what agitated politics in the continent, was Switzerland before recent immigration?

 

[Zardnaar]

I think "the left" is a lot more popular online than irl.

There's also an age divide with older voters skewing towards the right/center. And the boomers outnumber the other generations and vote in the highest numbers.

The more extreme left probably no more than 10% of the vote 15% max.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I think "the left" is a lot more popular online than irl.

There's also an age divide with older voters skewing towards the right/center. And the boomers outnumber the other generations and vote in the highest numbers.

The more extreme left probably no more than 10% of the vote 15% max.

Such a vague term. More extreme left. What does that actually mean?
Even in the 2019 General Election led by the most left-wing leader since George Lansbury and with the worst result since the 1930s Labour still got 40% of the vote.

 

[Buktu]

Even in the 2019 General Election led by the most left-wing leader since George Lansbury and with the worst result since the 1930s Labour still got 40% of the vote.

This is way off topic now but where did you get these numbers? They got 202 out of 650 seats didnt they? That are 31,1%. Also they got 32,1% in the popular vote. They got 40% in the popular vote in the 2017 election with Corbyn in charge though.

Anyway since the UK has a the winner takes it all system it is quite hard to tell how many people are extrem left just by the vote results because if you want to vote left you basically have one option to do so. 567 seats were taken by the two major parties and another 68 were taken by local parties (like the SNP in Scottland or the DUP in Northern Ireland). This leaves 15 seats (11 of them are taken by the Lib Dems, which I don't consider a small party) for other parties.
So unless you have a strong left local party you can vote for there is only Labour left. Ofc you can give your vote to a small party but infact that even lowers the chance for a left representative. A little example for this: Let's say there are 100 votes in your local area. 50 vote for Tories, 49 for Labour and the last vote is yours. If you vote Labour there will be a draw (and Idk what happens in that case tbh) with 50:50. But if you vote for a small left party it will be a Tory victory with 50:49:1.
This leads to a broad spectrum of political ideas in the same party in countries with simmilar systems (like in the USA for example).

 

[AmazonQueen]

This is way off topic now but where did you get these numbers? They got 202 out of 650 seats didnt they? That are 31,1%. Also they got 32,1% in the popular vote. They got 40% in the popular vote in the 2017 election with Corbyn in charge though.

Anyway since the UK has a the winner takes it all system it is quite hard to tell how many people are extrem left just by the vote results because if you want to vote left you basically have one option to do so. 567 seats were taken by the two major parties and another 68 were taken by local parties (like the SNP in Scottland or the DUP in Northern Ireland). This leaves 15 seats (11 of them are taken by the Lib Dems, which I don't consider a small party) for other parties.
So unless you have a strong left local party you can vote for there is only Labour left. Ofc you can give your vote to a small party but infact that even lowers the chance for a left representative. A little example for this: Let's say there are 100 votes in your local area. 50 vote for Tories, 49 for Labour and the last vote is yours. If you vote Labour there will be a draw (and Idk what happens in that case tbh) with 50:50. But if you vote for a small left party it will be a Tory victory with 50:49:1.
This leads to a broad spectrum of political ideas in the same party in countries with simmilar systems (like in the USA for example).

Got the figure from Wikipedia, probably misread it.
Still, 32% of people were prepared to vote for a party led by a politician depicted as an anti-Semitic Marxist ideologue.
Liberal Democrats, Greens, Change UK and nationalist parties were all competing with Labour. Party loyalty in the UK is way down on the post-War era when Labour and Tories took almost all the seats with the Liberals getting a handful.

 

[Drakle]

The SPD - Greens - FDP coalition seems to be taking shape.

https://twitter.com/patrickjdo/status/1448984942499741719

Well that was fast.
SPD gets 12€ min. wage & commitments on housing.
Greens get coal exit 2030.
FDP: no tax increases & preserving debt break. ⁦
@OlafScholz⁩ says financial leeway is there. Now comprehensive talks begin…

All of these seem either good or fine, except preserving the debt break. Germany is underinvesting in terms of public funds, and it has a small debt load, with very low-interest rates. It should be spending to bring the coal exit forward, mass housing build, and hell cut some taxes. The FDP is really boxing the budget in from both ends by saying no tax increase, or debt spending. They could get a win for their principles and let everybody else get what they want.

It's not like Germany is anywhere near the southern Eurozone countries. But Northern Europeans seem fairly austerity-minded.

But I'm not a German or the FDP so that's just my thoughts.

 

[Joij21]

I'm sort of seeing the left losing everywhere all the time. Even here where they supposedly won, it's clear now it's more a "centrist" victory.
I feel the left has only been losing things my whole life.

Because the left needs a makeover to appear to heterosexual people. Too much of the left is obsessed with LGBTQ issues and an LGBTQ identity. Also cisgender males are outright demonized so you end up only kinda having a chance with cisgender females. However they too can get demonized for being cisgender.

Can't exactly win when queers make up less than 5% of the population anyway.