YF-23 posted:

This is not a good attack on directly elected politicians because it hinges on the problems America and Britain have, which is that each electoral district only elects a single representative. As such it is criticism on FPTP and single-rep districts than anything else. In Greece for instance each district elects a number of representatives depending on its population. The district I was born in/vote in elects three, the district where I live (for my studies) elects only one, and the second Athens district, the biggest in the country, elects 42. We still have the problem with the 50 extra seats awarded to the first party, but I quite like the multi-rep districts we have and wouldn't want elections to be based on party lists.

quote:

In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a (a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress).

quote:

One in four French voters are ready to support the far-right National Front in next year's European elections, a new poll shows.

A survey of voting intentions for the May 2014 election found the party could win more support than the government and the main opposition party.

It is the first time in French political history that the Front National, led by Marine Le Pen, has headed a poll for a national vote.

The pollsters Ifop found 24% of the 1,893 French voters questioned said they intended to vote for the anti-European Union, anti-immigration National Front, while 22% said they would vote for the centre-right Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) and 19% for the governing Socialist party.

"For the first time in a poll on voting intentions in an election of a national character, the [National Front] is clearly ahead," Ifop said.

The boost for the party comes just 10 days before the second round of a byelection in the canton of Brignoles, in the Var, southern France, in which the National Front candidate gained 40.4 % of votes in the first round.

Soviet Commubot posted:

Speaking fascism in Europe, this is pretty terrifying:


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/french-polls-surge-support-national-front

Jedit posted:

"Il n'ya pas de noir dans le Tricoleur
Rejoindre le Front National!"

Welcome to Britain in 1979. We're not fascist (yet).

Soviet Commubot posted:

Speaking fascism in Europe, this is pretty terrifying:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/french-polls-surge-support-national-front

Nyandaber Z posted:

Well it's hard to tell how the actual elections will turn out, as medias love some fearmongering and shock in their front pages, and talking about the FN is a failproof way to go in this way. However it's not exactly surprising people would be turning to the FN, considering both UMP and PS failed a lot lately, on top of various scandals involving major figures. The terrifying thing is that moderate parties seem still clueless about the whole situation and are more concerned about defending their place in the system rather than the issues of the french people. I don't know where France is going, but poo poo is going to happen if UMP/PS don't get their act together.

Ardennes posted:

Eh, I would say the FN at least on social matters to significantly to the right of Thatcher.

Jedit posted:

I think there's a word missing from this sentence, but I don't know where.

Also I wasn't talking about Thatcher, but the British National Front. The French verse I put up was a rough equivalent to one sung by the NF back in the day, which ran "There ain't no black in the Union Jack/Join the National Front!"

Riso posted:

The problem of the established parties is not only that they often refuse to address concerns of the people, like immigration, but that they also give up their original values to chase after the ever elusive center for more votes until they become completely exchangeable.

Riso posted:

The problem of the established parties is not only that they often refuse to address concerns of the people, like immigration, but that they also give up their original values to chase after the ever elusive center for more votes until they become completely exchangeable.

Orange Devil posted:

It has a lot to do with the (temporary) death of ideology in politics. Liberalism became so dominant that ideology became a dirty word and instead everyone convinced themselves that the way forward was simply a matter of looking at all the facts and picking the scientifically best thing to do, conveniently forgetting that the "best" thing relies entirely on your definition of what a good society looks like, your vision of the future, if you will. Parties stopped articulating such visions entirely beyond platitudes of things being "better", ie. in the future we want better education, better healthcare and a better jobmarket, vote for us! Unfortunately, literally loving everyone wants this. Then, when they invariably start to fail to deliver, out come the far right parties who are, it appears, the only ones not afraid to present an ideological vision statement and define "better" in radically different terms than the parties of the status quo do. Although to be fair, they need to obfuscate or equivocate on some of their points, as they can't come out and say just how far they're willing to go to deal with the immigrant/non-white people "problem", so instead they have to talk about reducing immigration, kicking out criminals and self-deportation. Meanwhile, the (traditional) socialist parties are increasingly defined as conservative parties, as they are against the "obvious and correct" ways forward all the center-liberal parties push. But instead of presenting a vision based on a radically different ideology in socialist terms, they fight for maintaining pensions at 65, keeping workers rights where they are rather than making firing people easier, keeping the healthcare coverage we have and so on and so forth. What they don't do is propose pension at 55, a 30 hour workweek, more healthcare coverage for cheaper and raising taxes, especially on the rich, significantly to pay for it and I have never in my life heard a politician of any party talk about the workers owning the means of production.

The average voter ends up presented with only 2 real options, the status quo in various flavours, which they determine isn't working, and a radical right alternative. People start either voting radical right, or stop voting.

Riso posted:

Liberalism as dominant ideology? Is this the American definition of liberalism?

Because wherever I look in Europe I see ever expanding welfare states. The only time any reforms are done to slow the process, is out of necessity to keep the existing system working.

That is not liberal ideology, that is pragmatism in action.

Riso posted:

Liberalism as dominant ideology? Is this the American definition of liberalism?

Because wherever I look in Europe I see ever expanding welfare states. The only time any reforms are done to slow the process, is out of necessity to keep the existing system working.

That is not liberal ideology, that is pragmatism in action.

Ambrose Burnside posted:

How do I get to Bizzaro Fantasy Europe, is it via wardrobe or secret fractional train platform?

QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:

European social welfare states by and large ceased expanding in the 1970s

quote:

Which European states have been expanding their welfare programmes?

Riso posted:

Austria for example only recently introduced a basic income of sorts, and European states always find new ways to subsidise families.

Riso posted:

Kreisky expanded the state so much debt went from 28 to 600 billion. But thanks for playing.

Nyandaber Z posted:

Well it's hard to tell how the actual elections will turn out, as medias love some fearmongering and shock in their front pages, and talking about the FN is a failproof way to go in this way. However it's not exactly surprising people would be turning to the FN, considering both UMP and PS failed a lot lately, on top of various scandals involving major figures. The terrifying thing is that moderate parties seem still clueless about the whole situation and are more concerned about defending their place in the system rather than the issues of the french people. I don't know where France is going, but poo poo is going to happen if UMP/PS don't get their act together.

QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:

Let us not forget Karl-Marx-Hof, planned in 1963 and completed in 1967: the "fortress and Ringstraße" of the Proletariat. This architectural monument is an unmistakeable physical reminder of Austria's first tentative experiments with the social state. The complex was badly damaged in the fighting between socialists and austrofascists during the 1974 Civil War:

LP97S posted:

What the in name of gently caress are you talking about ?

Riso posted:

Kreisky expanded the state so much debt went from 28 to 600 billion. But thanks for playing.

Riso posted:

Austria for example only recently introduced a basic income of sorts, and European states always find new ways to subsidise families.

TCT posted:

Can any one from France give a rundown on why Hollande is doing so bad?
Is it just a media beat up, getting blamed for poo poo that's not his fault, or is he just not a good leader?

QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:

Orange Devil posted:

Wilders is inviting Le Pen to Dutch parliament to talk about forming a united front against the pro-EU people. He's also thinking about including Vlaams Belang, Lega Nord and UKIP.