France warns about blocking resolution on Iraq war

B-Mann I don't think it is a complete 180 degree swap left for right between the US right and European Right, but it may be close, and there are differences....or so my education by our friends from the EU has ledme to believe

[Skunk]

We're not THAT different, what's right is right.

Nonsense. If the democrats ever set up shop in the Netherlands they would be considered to be right-wing (only just short of far-right). Mainland European thought is several places to the left.

Here in the Netherlands (for example) we had a right-wing politician by the name of Pim Fortuyn. Most of the policies he advocated (including immigration) were a VERY WATERED DOWN version of current US and UK policies - for that he was labeled a 'right wing extremist'.

If it wasn't for the fact that he was assassinated, you'd have to laugh...

[Skunk]

Even if I didn't understand some of it, I was still impressed!

As an englishman (now a naturalised Dutchman) I can tell you that the system is inferior to the US/UK political system - there are many drawbacks - the most important is that the proportional representation system here produces very weak government and a lack of accountability.

For example - there is no direct representative for the area that you live in - so local issues do not get a 'champion' in parliament. So when someone decides to build a chemical factory in your area - there is no single person to be held accountable.

Then there is the issue of 'backroom deals'.The coalition government has to do deals with other parties in order to get them to agree to work with each other. This means that, before the election, each party has a manifesto (which of course determines how you vote). After the elections - the parties more or less tear up the manifesto as they bargain with each other to form a government) - thus your vote more or less counted for nothing since the policy which you voted on has been bartered away.

Then you have a cabinet which contains ministers of different parties. So for example, the Prime Minister, Defence Secretary, Social Security Secretary, Health Secretary could be be left wing party members - while the Finance minister, Education Minister are right wing, etc. etc.
So what happens when the Social Security Minister decides to up the unemployment benefit? - He is told to 'go jump in a lake' by the Finance Minister' who holds the purse strings...

And in practice, whenever there is a big issue to be decided, parliament and cabinet will debate endlessly for days, weeks and months on end - and when they finally agree on a very watery series of measurements to tackle whatever problem they were discussing, the problem has already either solved itself - or increased to such a severity that the agreed measures will have no effect.

By then of course, it's already time for a new election. Not surprisingly, voter apathy is quite high with statements like: "It doesn't matter who you vote for - they'll all be back - just in different seats".

Florida voters aside - thank your lucky stars - the US system may not be perfect - but it could be a lot worse!

[Ronn_Bman]

[quote]Originally posted by Skunk:

Florida voters aside - thank your lucky stars - the US system may not be perfect - but it could be a lot worse!

[img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Skunk: As an englishman (now a naturalised Dutchman) I can tell you that the system is inferior to the US/UK political system - there are many drawbacks - the most important is that the proportional representation system here produces very weak government and a lack of accountability.

I have to disagree with you on that count. 'Proportional governments' can be weak but can just as well be strong. accountability is still on the individual level when fx. government ministers fail or at party level at party level at elections.

For example - there is no direct representative for the area that you live in - so local issues do not get a 'champion' in parliament. So when someone decides to build a chemical factory in your area - there is no single person to be held accountable.

This is why I like the Danish way of doing it. We have proportional representation in individual constituencies. That means the first few (2-4) seat are given to the candidates who get the most votes. The remaining seats in parliament are then given out proportionally. So candidates are still accountable where they live which can lead to MP's from the same area of the contry working on regional issues together despite differing political standpoints.

Then there is the issue of 'backroom deals'.The coalition government has to do deals with other parties in order to get them to agree to work with each other. This means that, before the election, each party has a manifesto (which of course determines how you vote). After the elections - the parties more or less tear up the manifesto as they bargain with each other to form a government) - thus your vote more or less counted for nothing since the policy which you voted on has been bartered away.

Every political system have 'backroom deals'. It's part of politics. And a party which strays too far from it's manifesto can count on being punished by the voters.

Then you have a cabinet which contains ministers of different parties. So for example, the Prime Minister, Defence Secretary, Social Security Secretary, Health Secretary could be be left wing party members - while the Finance minister, Education Minister are right wing, etc. etc. So what happens when the Social Security Minister decides to up the unemployment benefit? - He is told to 'go jump in a lake' by the Finance Minister' who holds the purse strings...

I must confess that I don't know how coalitions are built in NL, but in DK caolition aren't usually that wide (last one that wide was in the 70's). Instead parties make coalition with parties of similar (but not identical) political views - and make compromises.

And in practice, whenever there is a big issue to be decided, parliament and cabinet will debate endlessly for days, weeks and months on end - and when they finally agree on a very watery series of measurements to tackle whatever problem they were discussing, the problem has already either solved itself - or increased to such a severity that the agreed measures will have no effect.

I bit pessimistic view I think.

By then of course, it's already time for a new election. Not surprisingly, voter apathy is quite high with statements like: "It doesn't matter who you vote for - they'll all be back - just in different seats".

And you think that is differnt in USA, Skunk? Voter-participation is around 50% and nearly every encumbant wins (they are reqocnized and thus have it easier raising money.) This means "they'll all be back - in the same seats"

Florida voters aside - thank your lucky stars - the US system may not be perfect - but it could be a lot worse!

I don't see how.

[Skunk]

I'm quoting personal experiences of the Dutch system - rather than other 'proportional representation' systems. And it is an accurate description of the Dutch political system...

Other countries probably have better systems (they CAN'T be any worse!)

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: And you think that is differnt in USA, Skunk? Voter-participation is around 50% and nearly every encumbant wins (they are reqocnized and thus have it easier raising money.) This means "they'll all be back - in the same seats" You show a bit too much cynicism, the repulican wins in 94 and again in 2002 show just how wrong you are about incumbents being immune. The system works, yea there are deals and incumbents have an advantage, however it very much could be worse. We could have an Ayatollah or a presidente for life or a an honest to goodness imperial senate.... quote: Florida voters aside - thank your lucky stars - the US system may not be perfect - but it could be a lot worse!

I don't see how.see my above examples [/QUOTE]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: quote: Originally posted by Dreamer128: Schroder, during the ellections, has promised that Germany will not support the war in Iraq. Should he break that vow, its doubtfull he'll get re-ellected...

I saw a German poll that said over 55% of Germans would be against the war even if the UN does authorize it.[/QUOTE]btw, a more recent poll here in the Netherlands has pointed out that 89% (!) of the Dutch population is against a War in Iraq, if the UN doesn't think it's necessary. And we still have a Government who's refusing to take a clear side in this matter...

[ 01-30-2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by skywalker: Any country that is a player is worthy of being bashed. People should not be offended by bashing because, hey, every nation is a target. It certainly is worthy of comment...crying foul over it is just silly. Mark

A bit late here, but; No one will be bashing ANY country Skywalker--atleast not here. Read the rules:

-----
Be Polite: No targeting of another user by harassing or giving unwarranted attention to or attacking ones race, gender, ethnicity or country. Also, respect each person's views and questions--this includes attacks on NEW users.
-----

That goes for USA as well as France.

[ 02-04-2003, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

[skywalker]

I hope you read my posts that followed that one, Ziroc. I did post a retraction and an apology to Moiraine and anyone else who I offended.

To take this post as an example and not note the rest is simply unfair. I'm merely setting the record straight.

And, of course, you are absolutely right, nation bashing is wrong. I'd also like to make it clear that I did not bash any nation in this thread or in any other for that matter. I DO criticize America, but that's not bashing. There is a subtle difference.

Mark