(German) elections
Jonny Axelsson
I can believe the part about boring campaign. Cheers,
Jonny
4th floor
Norway
Martin Weigele
>How are the chances for the Neues Forum-linked groups (in former DDR)?
>I can believe the part about boring campaign. Cheers,
Think they'll get a small share of the votes there, around 5 % . Due to the
change of the election law enforced by the constitutional court, for
this election it will suffice to reach this quota in the territory
of the former DDR in order to get into Parliament (Bundestag).
An overall 5% quota was ruled unfair towards these new groups.
So they might make it. The bad news is that the former SED
will therefore make it as well - this wasn't needed.
In general, it seems the general belief is that people who are
good at making revolutions are not necessarily good at being government,
because critical people tend to be undecisive (In other words: A
certain stupidity is good for being a successful manager.) I don't know if
I should believe this, but to some extent it might be true.
Martin.
Gerald Siek
>How are the chances for the Neues Forum-linked groups (in former DDR)?
>I can believe the part about boring campaign. Cheers,
The results of the election on Dec. 2nd, are seperated in west- and
east-German results. Furthermore, any alliances between single
parties are allowed.
`Neues Forum', `Die Gruenen' and some more progressive parties were
combined to `Gruene - Neues Forum - Buendnis 90'
It is expected, that these groups will get about 8% votes in the
former BRD and about 10% in the former GDR.
So the chances for this parties are very good (a party must gain
at least 5% to get seats in the Bundestag)
BTW:
In Germany we say `die linken' (the left) for social-democratic or
socialistic/communist parties and `die rechten' (the right)
for conservative parties.
Is this used in English, too ?
*------------------------------------------------------*
/ Gerald Siek e-mail to: /|
/ Fr. Ebert Str. 17 / /
/ W-4790 Paderborn je...@uni-paderborn.de / /
/ Germany / /
*------------------------------------------------------* /
| "Never trust a winning team" |/
*------------------------------------------------------*
Erhard Sanio
>jon...@ifi.uio.no (Jonny Axelsson) writes:
>
>>How are the chances for the Neues Forum-linked groups (in former DDR)?
>>I can believe the part about boring campaign. Cheers,
>
>Think they'll get a small share of the votes there, around 5 % . Due to the
>change of the election law enforced by the constitutional court, for
>this election it will suffice to reach this quota in the territory
>of the former DDR in order to get into Parliament (Bundestag).
>An overall 5% quota was ruled unfair towards these new groups.
>So they might make it. The bad news is that the former SED
>will therefore make it as well - this wasn't needed.
>
To the chances of the former civil movements:
They are now united with the Green Party - and together with them, their
voters' share will most likely not differ considerably from that of the
Green Party in the West, i.e. 6-10%, which would be similar to their result
in the regional elections some weeks ago.
There are regional differences: In former East Berlin, they have good chances
to get nearly 20 % versus 5% or less in the Southeast (Saxonia).
To the sentence of the constitutional court:
The electoral law cancelled by that sentence was set up by the traditionally
ruling West German Parties and reflected their egoism without any regard of the
constitution or the principles of democracy. The Conservatives wished to
push their ally, the 1% mini-party DSU into the Parliament by all means, while
the Social Democrats wanted to keep out the PDS, the political heir of the
communist SED, by any means, though they got 15% of the votes during the
East German Volkskammer elections in March and more than 10% during the
Eastern regional elections some weeks ago. None of those parties showed
any respect of the equality of chances for the parties nor for the rights
of the voters.
To the PDS:
Nobody is compelled to love that party - it was created as the follower of
the state-party SED and needed far too long to get rid of the big fortune
inherited by that party, which seriously damaged their credibility. Anyway,
that party must have a fair chance to apply for votes and they are the only
party which has no big allies inside the political establishment of West
Germany. And that party is not identical to the old SED: that party had
2.5 million members, while the PDS has 350.000 . While it was the best for
a carreer to be member of the SED in former times, it's the worst to be
member of the PDS today.
And if enough people vote for the PDS, there is ideed "a need" that they
are represented in the Fourth Reich's Parliament. Btw., the speeches of
their chairman Gisy are likely to break the deadly boredom of normal
Parliament debates (That guy is a real PR genius (-: ).
Anyway, PDS-bashing is fashionable nowadays - which doesn't astonish me.
Beating the weakest and the outlaws while ducking towards the power is
one of the oldest German "virtues".
regards, es
Matthew Huntbach
>jon...@ifi.uio.no (Jonny Axelsson) writes:
>So they might make it. The bad news is that the former SED
>will therefore make it as well - this wasn't needed.
>
I think there would be some value in them having at least a few
people there, since a lot of matters that must be debated will
involve them and their past deeds.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
>BTW:
>In Germany we say `die linken' (the left) for social-democratic or
>socialistic/communist parties and `die rechten' (the right)
>for conservative parties.
>Is this used in English, too ?
>
left-right spectrum is essentially a measure of how Marxist a
party is. Since Marxism is no longer an important current
political philosophy, this scale is not of much use in
discussing politics today.
Matthew Huntbach
0000-Admin(0000)
wei...@bosun2.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Martin Weigele) writes:
> The bad news is that the former SED
> will therefore make it as well - this wasn't needed.
What's the bad news about this? If they get the votes, they get the
seats. That's what democracy is all about. Anyway from some points of
view parts of the 'former SED' are going to be forming the government,
parts of the 'former SED' just won 4 of the 5 recent Landtags Elections.
And 3 of the new minister-presidents are on record over a period of years
of stating that the SED was the best thing since sliced bread.
Maybe that was what you meant?
> In general, it seems the general belief is that people who are
> good at making revolutions are not necessarily good at being government,
> because critical people tend to be undecisive (In other words: A
> certain stupidity is good for being a successful manager.) I don't know if
> I should believe this, but to some extent it might be true.
>
> Martin.
The proof of your hypothesis has been before your eyes since 1982 and
is likely to be there for the next four years.
billp
=============================================================================
Bill Potter : {pyramid,unido}!pcsbst!distel!billp
PCS GmbH :
D8000 Muenchen : You can't sink a RAINBOW
=============================================================================
Dominik Tebarth
> Nobody is compelled to love that party - it was created as the follower of
They were not created, they switched their name,didn't they?
> And that party is not identical to the old SED: that party had
> 2.5 million members, while the PDS has 350.000
not identical???? it is the hard core !
> While it was the best for
> a carreer to be member of the SED in former times, it's the worst to be
> member of the PDS today.
well,no problem for a die-hard stalinist....
> And if enough people vote for the PDS, there is ideed "a need" that they
> are represented in the Fourth Reich's Parliament. Btw., the speeches of
> their chairman Gisy are likely to break the deadly boredom of normal
> Parliament debates (That guy is a real PR genius (-: ).
speaking of Reich exactly unmasks your point:
Goebbels also was a big entertainer in the german
Reichstag who broke the deadly boredom then.
Dominik Tebarth SNI Berlin
alain cedelle
In France they say the origin of the left-right denomination comes from the
Parisian revolutionary assembly of 1789, when aristocrats sat on the right side
and 3dr-state and 'progressist' deleguees on the left.
Is there similar 'national' stories for U.K. or Germany ?
By the way, Matthew, in 1789 Marxism didn't still exist, but there was already
'leftist' people reclaiming a more equitable distribution of wealth.
If Marxism is no longer an important political philosophy, there certainly
still remains a great job for this more equitable distribution of wealth, in
every country and between countries.
A.C.
Martin Weigele
This is a good point. I didn't consider it.
But anyway, to all my critiques: I didn't say they
should be exluded from the election at any cost. It meant to say they
don't DESERVE to be in the new Bundestag.
However, the danger of these (former SED, now PDS) people should
not be underestimated: They still have a lot of SED money stolen from the
people, and their gifted leader (Gysi) is playing his flute subtedly
to seduce the politically naive by trying to make the German government
responsible for the economic desaster of the east caused by 40 years of
rule by his fellow party members. [That's not to say that in the former
West, there are only good guys, but this is really outrageous].
Martin
Magnus Kempe
: If Marxism is no longer an important political philosophy, there certainly
: still remains a great job for this more equitable distribution of wealth, in
: every country and between countries.
What is wealth, and who creates it? Where does it come from?
Who is to distribute, and by what right? How would you "distribute" my car?
What is more equalitable? By whose standard? How is it justified?
Thanks for your illuminating answers.
-- M. Kempe
ANT THE RANT
>In article <1990Nov18.1...@uni-paderborn.de> je...@uni-paderborn.de (Gerald Siek) writes:
>>BTW:
>>In Germany we say `die linken' (the left) for social-democratic or
>>socialistic/communist parties and `die rechten' (the right)
>Yes, and it's just as out-of-date in English as well. The
>left-right spectrum is essentially a measure of how Marxist a
>party is.
oi! it predates Marxism by quite some time. It's also very logical for it
to be used in quite a few countries, as the left/right divide dates from
the French revolutionary assembly (or maybe even before then). It refers
to which side of the speaker the deputies sat- left or right. I'm sure
it's nothing to do with Marxism, but REFORMISM, or maybe even pro/anti
monarchist. So what is so out of date, eh?
--
______________the Rant
/ ) _/_
/--/ __ /
/ (__/ <_<__
Scholem Slaughter
>
> In France they say the origin of the left-right denomination comes from the
>Parisian revolutionary assembly of 1789, when aristocrats sat on the right side
>and 3dr-state and 'progressist' deleguees on the left.
>
> Is there similar 'national' stories for U.K. or Germany ?
>
> By the way, Matthew, in 1789 Marxism didn't still exist, but there was already
>'leftist' people reclaiming a more equitable distribution of wealth.
>
I believe that in fact the origin of ALL left/right comparisons is what
has been explained above. At least that is what I heard on a current-
affairs programme the other day. Although I thought that they set
up the Estates General before the real start of the revolution.
up the National Assembly in France before July 14t
--
sch...@maths.tcd.ie or "In a realist faith does not arise from a
sslu...@vax1.tcd.ie is miracle, but the miracle from faith."
Scholem Slaughter F. M. Dostoyevsky (1821-1881)
Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland. (Just to keep up with all the intellectuals)
Matthew Huntbach
Yes, indeed, the "left-right" usage predates Marxism. But this
is where it has got into trouble. The meaning "left=reformist,
redistributist" has got mixed up with "left=Marxist". This
occurred during those decades when it was commonly believed
Marxism was the only possible way to redistribute wealth and
power.
So "left" and "right" can be used to mean two different things.
Clever Marxists have made use of the confusion to brand anyone
who is reformist and redistributist, but non-Marxist as
"centre" and then condemned them as wishy-washy
sit-on-the-fence types. Clever Conservatives equally brand
anyone who is redistributist and reformist as "left-wing" and
hence link them to Marxism and all the terrible things that
have been done in the name of Marxism.
The absurdity of the "left-right" usage has been shown up when
political commentators have tried to apply it to the current
situation in the USSR. Hard-line Leninists are often described
as "left-wingers" whereas all they are out to do is to defend
their own privilege, so in French revolution terms they are
right-wingers.
This is what I mean by the "left-right" spectrum being out of
date. Isn't it better to talk about "reformist v. conservative"
or "wealth distributor v. wealth concentrator"? Then it is much
more obvious what one is talking about.
Matthew Huntbach
Erhard Sanio
>In article <14...@netmbx.UUCP>, sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
>> Nobody is compelled to love that party - it was created as the follower of
>> the state-party SED.......
>
> They were not created, they switched their name,didn't they?
>
>
for any democratical left-wing thought and condemned the state-party ideology.
One could doubt their honesty - anyway, there is obviously no way for them to
win a majority in parliament.
>> And that party is not identical to the old SED: that party had
>> 2.5 million members, while the PDS has 350.000
>
> not identical???? it is the hard core !
or convinced Marxists, i.e. people who are willing to suffer prosecution for
their conviction. I hold much more respect for those people than for the mem-
bers of the former "Block parties (CDU, LDPD - now liberals - etc.) who assert
to have been genuine democrats all the time while collaborating with the
SED regime.
>> While it was the best for
>> a carreer to be member of the SED in former times, it's the worst to be
>> member of the PDS today.
>
> well,no problem for a die-hard stalinist....
>
As it was no problem for all the opportunists (nearly 2 million) to leave the
party, because it hindered the carreer.
>> And if enough people vote for the PDS, there is ideed "a need" that they
>> are represented in the Fourth Reich's Parliament. Btw., the speeches of
>> their chairman Gisy are likely to break the deadly boredom of normal
>> Parliament debates (That guy is a real PR genius (-: ).
>
> speaking of Reich exactly unmasks your point:
> Goebbels also was a big entertainer in the german
> Reichstag who broke the deadly boredom then.
Obviously you missed my point perfectly. To the first: There was another guy
of known low intelligence and complete lack of diplomacy who compared a cer-
tain politician to Mr. Goebbels. Further on, Mr. Gysi is fighting to form a
modern left-wing party out of the PDS, something Germany would have an urgent
need of, IMHO, as there is none in that country. The SPD is a second conserva-
tive party and no real alternative to the real conservative party CDU, the
"liberal" FDP is some kind of trade union for the upper middle class without
any political concept except "low taxes for our electors". The Greens are
environmentalists and have their merits, here, but they are unable to really
integrate left-wing thought. So, a real left-wing party would be an enrichment
of the political life of Germany. It may still be doubted if the PDS will be
able to fulfill that role. If so, it wouldn't be bad.
regards, es
>
>Dominik Tebarth SNI Berlin
Jack Jansen
>However, the danger of these (former SED, now PDS) people should
>not be underestimated: They still have a lot of SED money stolen from the
>people, and their gifted leader (Gysi) is playing his flute subtedly
>to seduce the politically naive by trying to make the German government
>responsible for the economic desaster of the east caused by 40 years of
>rule by his fellow party members. [That's not to say that in the former
>West, there are only good guys, but this is really outrageous].
Sorry, but I would agree with Gysi here. 15 months ago, the DDR was
a reasonably prosperous state, with an industry that was fairly
competitive (and by far the most advanced of the whole eastern block).
There were a lot of scenarios to gradually merge east and west, while
preserving everything in the DDR that was worth preserving. Kohl,
however, decided that the DDR should go into the union as a beggar,
not as a partner (albeit one less well-off). So, he thoroughly crushed
the DDR before the reunion. Note that he wasn't alone in this: the
new west-owned companies did their share. After all, if every
chain of supermarkets refuses to buy eastern produce you only have
to wait a couple of months before the farmers go broke. That'll enable
you to buy some really fine farmland at a really low price.
No danger in easterners buying the land before you (even if they
have the money): you just refuse to buy there produce again, and wait
another couple of months.
It makes me sick.
--
--
Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen
zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: ja...@cwi.nl
dan dooft het licht | Uucp: hp4nl!cwi.nl!jack
--
--
Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen
zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: ja...@cwi.nl
dan dooft het licht | Uucp: hp4nl!cwi.nl!jack
Magnus Kempe
: This is what I mean by the "left-right" spectrum being out of
: date. Isn't it better to talk about "reformist v. conservative"
: or "wealth distributor v. wealth concentrator"? Then it is much
: more obvious what one is talking about.
"Reformists" do not universally agree on the kind and degree of
reforms they wish. "Conservatives" do not universally agree on
what to conserve.
Do "Wealth distributors" want to distribute somebody else's wealth,
or their own wealth? Do "Wealth concentrators" want to coerce other
people into concentrating the latter person's wealth in the former
person's pocket, or do they want to concentrate their own wealth in
their own pocket?
Some standard of classification is needed; your proposed standard is
useless. Sorry.
-- M. Kempe
Martin Weigele
>Sorry, but I would agree with Gysi here. 15 months ago, the DDR was
>a reasonably prosperous state, with an industry that was fairly
>competitive (and by far the most advanced of the whole eastern block).
Apparently you have never been in the DDR, nor have you talked to
people who left the place before the wall came down.
Martin.
Paul Johnson
Does Labour sit on the Speaker's left or right, and is this because
they are Labour or because they are the Opposition? I know the
independants and Liberal Democrats sit on the cross benches.
Second, I did hear Boris Yeltsin, the reformist Soviet politician,
described as "left wing" as opposed to Nickolai Rischcoff (sp?) the
"right wing conservative" Soviet PM.
Paul.
--
Paul Johnson UUCP: <world>!mcvax!ukc!gec-mrc!paj
--------------------------------!-------------------------|-------------------
GEC-Marconi Research is not | Telex: 995016 GECRES G | Tel: +44 245 73331
responsible for my opinions. | Inet: p...@uk.co.gec-mrc | Fax: +44 245 75244
Alain Cedelle
Allo Magnus ! it has been a long time ...
Do you find it reasonable, Magnus, to live with such a wealth, and
such a big car, while some of your neighbours are starving ??
You may claim "Don't touch my car!!", the increasing social problems will
raise the probability for your car beeing stolen.
Increasing inequalities have direct consequences upon the increasing
unstability, violence and political extremisms of our societies.
Don't you see it is also *your* interest, to reduce those inequalities ?
especially when you want to keep your car ?
Redistribution of wealth is not only a question of right, it's also a question
of surviving for entire societies. This is an idea I had recently pointed out
in a posting about European Comunity: if EEC wants to exist and to develop, it
must have a policy of Assistance towards the 'poorer' regions/countries. This
principle is valid for every type of community, and at large for the planet
itself.
On the planet, one person upon three is starving. Poverty is increasing even
inside our western countries.
> Thanks for your illuminating answers.
You problably don't see any of my small light, cause you have been already
greatly illuminated by your own beliefs.
A.C.
Magnus Kempe
: Do you find it reasonable, Magnus, to live with such a wealth, and
: such a big car, while some of your neighbours are starving ??
Why are they starving?
: You may claim "Don't touch my car!!", the increasing social problems will
: raise the probability for your car beeing stolen.
Is that the justification? "X, Y and Z want to steal cars and food, so let's
distribute it all before they really start stealing...", is that it?
You haven't answered any of my specific questions:
What is wealth, and who creates it?
Who is to distribute, and by what right?
What is more equalitable? By whose standard? How is it justified?
: Redistribution of wealth is not only a question of right, it's also a question
: of surviving for entire societies. [..] if EEC wants to exist and to develop,
: it must have a policy of Assistance towards the 'poorer' regions/countries.
: This principle is valid for every type of community, and at large for the
: planet itself.
Well, how about showing that your universal principle is valid?
"Any community, if it is to survive, must assist poorer communities."
And then, please expand on this 'question of right', because I don't understand
what you mean.
: On the planet, one person upon three is starving.
Once more: why are they starving?
I'm still waiting for your illuminating answers.
--
Best Premises, mag...@elcgl.epfl.ch
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
our ennemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
josef Moellers
[ stuff deleted about "left" and "right" ]
>Yes, indeed, the "left-right" usage predates Marxism. But this
>is where it has got into trouble. The meaning "left=reformist,
>redistributist" has got mixed up with "left=Marxist". This
>occurred during those decades when it was commonly believed
>Marxism was the only possible way to redistribute wealth and
>power.
[ more stuff deleted ]
Well, that's what happens to a lot of popular phrases: they change their
meaning: PC, gay.
--
| Josef Moellers | c/o Siemens Nixdorf Informatonssysteme AG |
| USA: molle...@nixdorf.com | Abt. STO-XS 113
| !USA: molle...@nixdorf.de | Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring |
| Phone: (+49) 5251 104662 | D-4790 Paderborn |
josef Moellers
>ja...@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes:
Jack is not referring to political freedom, nor is he comparing east
Germany to west Germany. He is merely comparing the economic situation
in the GDR before the wall came down and after. And from what I see (and
hear), he's absolutely right!
Again, I'm neither commenting the political situation (i.e. lack of
democracy, but dictatorship instead) nor am I comparing the eastern
block with the western block!
Christian Taube
>Parisian revolutionary assembly of 1789, when aristocrats sat on the right side
>and 3dr-state and 'progressist' deleguees on the left.
>
> Is there similar 'national' stories for U.K. or Germany ?
In Germany, yes. There was a similar distribution of representatives
in the first german national parliament in 1848.
Is this only an accident or what? And even more astonishing, why was
this concept so successful?
Chris.
--
Christian Taube, ISA GmbH, Azenbergstr.35, D-7000 Stuttgart 1, Germany
SubNet: da...@womble.stgt.sub.org Voice: *49/711/227690
Domain: ta...@isa.de BITNET: taube%isa...@unido.bitnet
UUCP: ta...@isaak.uucp or ...!{uunet!unido,pyramid}!isaak!taube
Douglas Chisholm
>Two things. First, does anyone know what the Houses of Parliament do?
>Does Labour sit on the Speaker's left or right, and is this because
>they are Labour or because they are the Opposition? I know the
>independants and Liberal Democrats sit on the cross benches.
>
the traditional place of the opposition parties,
The Liberal Democrats and others also on the left as they
are not the party of government.
I presume if there was ever a coalition government the minority party(s)
involved would sit on the government benches.
Douglas.
Joe
!!!! CAUTION !!! NET LIZARD !!!!
>-- M. Kempe
A few months ago we had a long dialog on the network between Magnus
and everyone else, which ended with Magnus insulting everyone who did
not agree with him (i.e. everyone). To be fair everone else was insulting
him.
Magnus is an adherent of a "philosphy" which is called Objectivism which
among other things rejects relativity and quantum physics because they are
not "objective".
The tone of the above is typical of Magnus: others views are "useless",
standards are needed, and by golly given half a chance Magnus is willing to
supply them. Might I caution the unwary not to reply, so that we can
avoid a repetition of the previous debate.
_____ _ _
/ / / /
/_ _ / / /_ / / _ _
__/(_)_(-_ / / /(-_/_/_(_)_/ )_
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Joe Mellon, |
| Siemens Nixdorf Informationsysteme, |
| 55 Pontanusstrasse, 4790-Paderborn, uucp : mello...@nixpbe.uucp |
| Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Tel : (Deu)- 5251 - 146478 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Helmut Wolters
Sorry, but I would agree with Gysi here. 15 months ago, the DDR was
a reasonably prosperous state, with an industry that was fairly
competitive (and by far the most advanced of the whole eastern block).
Sorry, but this is definitely wrong. The economy of DDR would have
collapsed in very few years. I recommend you to visit Leipzig, one of the
richest cities of Germany before WWII. And then tell me if you call that
city 'reasonable prosperous'. (Don't tell me about war destruction -
look at the houses that were unaffected by the war).
There were a lot of scenarios to gradually merge east and west, while
preserving everything in the DDR that was worth preserving. Kohl,
however, decided that the DDR should go into the union as a beggar,
not as a partner (albeit one less well-off).
No, Sir. I am not a friend of Kohl at all, and I would have agreed with
these statements one year ago. But not KOHL decided, but the people of
the DDR decided to get rid of EVERYTHING of the old system. And
knowing about the situation there in the last 40 years, though I might not
agree, I can understand them.
After all, if every
chain of supermarkets refuses to buy eastern produce you only have
to wait a couple of months before the farmers go broke. That'll enable
you to buy some really fine farmland at a really low price.
No danger in easterners buying the land before you (even if they
have the money): you just refuse to buy there produce again, and wait
another couple of months.
Here you are right (IMHO). This is a big actual problem of all free economy
systems - just the former DDR is hit very hard by it now. Here politics
should try to rule with this problem (didn't I mention I'm not a friend of
Kohl :-)
But don't cite people like Gysi to solve that - before the big change the
situation was IN ALL ASPECTS MUCH WORSE than even with all these bad things
that happen now!
--
Helmut Wolters
Plankgasse 27, W-5000 Koeln 1, Germany
phone : +49 (221) 133563
e-mail: H...@IKP.Uni-Koeln.DE (internet)
Erhard Sanio
>ja...@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes:
>
>>Sorry, but I would agree with Gysi here. 15 months ago, the DDR was
>>a reasonably prosperous state, with an industry that was fairly
>>competitive (and by far the most advanced of the whole eastern block).
>
>people who left the place before the wall came down.
>
are rather impolite as well. I don't believe that Jack wanted to defend
the Honecker regime.
Anyway, the economic disaster we can admire now, has been predicted by a lot
of people before the introduction of the monetary union as an unevitable
consequence of that measure (.. among others, I refer to my own postings
about that subject).
What's going on now, is a giant keynesian program heating the boom in the
old FRG while ruining and deindustrialising the former GDR. Though figures
about the emigrees from the East aren't published anymore, there are obviously
more now than before the monetary union and the reunification.
Meanwhile, the load on all public budgets is enormous (nobody knows exactly,
how much, only that it's much more than officially conceded). And regardless
the ongoing mass emigration, unemployment in the East is rising.
Another consequence of the hasty and unprofessional measures is the unclear
property situation. Due to purely ideological reasons, the West German govern-
ment insisted in the reestablishment of all property rights existing before
the foundation of the GDR. On the other hand, they couldn't simply cancel any
property transaction during the last 40 years in the GDR.
Therefore lots of conflicting property claims exist and abhor investors: it
would be stupid to buy a company or some real estate without any safety about
the validity of that transaction.
Anyway, as the government which caused that chaos is most likely to be reelec-
ted, one could conclude that Germany gets what it deserves.
regards, es
Jorma M{ntyl{
>> Nobody is compelled to love that party - it was created as the follower of
>> the state-party SED.......
>
> They were not created, they switched their name,didn't they?
>
>
>> And that party is not identical to the old SED: that party had
>> 2.5 million members, while the PDS has 350.000
>
> not identical???? it is the hard core !
If you really claim that SED=PDS why has then the relations between parties
then changed? When SED was lead by Erich Hoenecker both Social Democrats
and CDU et al. had close relations and cooperation with SED, both on the
German level as well as on the international level. Are G.Gysi and PDS
worse than SED? Or was SED perhaps better than PDS?
>> While it was the best for
>> a carreer to be member of the SED in former times, it's the worst to be
>> member of the PDS today.
I think the main reason for the boring election-campaign is that everybody
knows that it does not matter wether the winner is Kohl/CDU or SPD/Lafontaine.
In my country they are already in the same government, as they were in East
Germany. We have elections here in March 1991 and I'll be very surprised
if the % of voters is more than 70%; I think it will be less than 70%. Of
course there can be surprises but I cannot se any reasons for that.
#Jorma Mantyla
#Univ. of Tampere, Finland
#tij...@uta.fi
Erland Sommarskog
>The absurdity of the "left-right" usage has been shown up when
>political commentators have tried to apply it to the current
>situation in the USSR. Hard-line Leninists are often described
>as "left-wingers" whereas all they are out to do is to defend
>their own privilege, so in French revolution terms they are
>right-wingers.
My newspaper describes Yeltsin as "left" and people like
Ligachev as "right". I recall a fuzz over in talk.politics.
soviet where someone accused someone else for using "newspeak"
when he placed Yeltsin on the left.
Indeed, things are slightly more confusing these days than
in 1789.
--
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - som...@enea.se
"Handlar Hanssons halta h|na har haft hosta hela halva h|sten"
Matthew Huntbach
>"Reformists" do not universally agree on the kind and degree of
>reforms they wish. "Conservatives" do not universally agree on
>what to conserve.
>
>
>Some standard of classification is needed; your proposed standard is
>useless. Sorry.
>
meaningful than "left-right".
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
>In article <7...@puck.mrcu> p...@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>>Two things. First, does anyone know what the Houses of Parliament do?
>>Does Labour sit on the Speaker's left or right, and is this because
>>they are Labour or because they are the Opposition? I know the
>>independants and Liberal Democrats sit on the cross benches.
>>
>Labour sit on the Speakers Left,
>the traditional place of the opposition parties,
>The Liberal Democrats and others also on the left as they
>are not the party of government.
Labour only sit on the left because they are in the Opposition.
If there were a Labour government, Labour would sit on the
right and the Conservatives on the left.
There are no crossbenches in the House of Commons, thus Liberal
Democrats sit on the Opposition benches (cross-benches do exist
in the House of Lords though). There are also no Independents
in the House of Commons (apart from one of the Ulster
Unionists, also one of the Labour MPs has now switched to the
SNP but for a while was an Independent).
Matthew Huntbach
Richard Tobin
What is Magnus Kempe, and where has he been hiding these last few months?
-- Richard
--
Richard Tobin, JANET: R.T...@uk.ac.ed
AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.a...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
Magnus Kempe
: Magnus [...] among other things rejects relativity and quantum physics
: because they are not "objective".
First point: I do not "reject relativity and quantum physics".
Second point: what is the relationship between your allegations and politics?
Last point: how about arguing about the *subject* of this thread of messages:
the classification of political ideologies and parties? I have given short
explanations of why I consider the "reformist"/"conservative" dichotomy
useless -- and pointed out that "wealth distribution" and "wealth concen-
tration" do not clearly indicate who does what. Now, if you disagree with
my arguments, please explain why, i.e. argue. Ad hominems are not valid
arguments.
ANT THE RANT
>>Two things. First, does anyone know what the Houses of Parliament do?
>>Does Labour sit on the Speaker's left or right, and is this because
>>they are Labour or because they are the Opposition? I know the
>>independants and Liberal Democrats sit on the cross benches.
ok, firstly there are two houses of Parliament.
there are govt benches and opposition benches in the Commons (elected)
there are govt, opposition and cross benches in the Lords (appointees,
hereditaries and Church leaders, also 3 Law lords/Judges)
The govt sits on the right of the speaker, the oppostion on the left
and in the Lords neutral Lords/Bishops etc. sit in the middle.
Liberals/Unionists/Nationalists sit with the oppostion unless actually in
govt, when they sit on the other side. Unionists USED to sit with Tories
until the split in 1970(?).
Speaker is a sitting MP elected by Parliament as first event after a General
election, then becomes neutral, dep. speakers remain party- aligned.
any help??
what's the practise in other countries- I know Germany and EC have horseshoes
??????
Olaf Schlueter
> > While it was the best for
> > a carreer to be member of the SED in former times, it's the worst to be
> > member of the PDS today.
>
>
So you think that this hard core is still believing in a kind of
"Endsieg" (final victory) like the 150% nazis during the last
days of WWII. I consider this a flat joke. Is it really so
difficult to understand that the theory of socialism has a certain
kind of fascination because of its idealistic view about what man
could be (which would work perfectly if there are no people like
- sorry - you, who only care about themselves; this is not really
a reproach, since capitalism demands you and me to be this way, and it's
my fault to have more problems with that than you). GDR has been
animal farm. Which party will the pigs join now ?
> > And if enough people vote for the PDS, there is ideed "a need" that they
> > are represented in the Fourth Reich's Parliament. Btw., the speeches of
> > their chairman Gisy are likely to break the deadly boredom of normal
> > Parliament debates (That guy is a real PR genius (-: ).
>
> speaking of Reich exactly unmasks your point:
> Goebbels also was a big entertainer in the german
> Reichstag who broke the deadly boredom then.
>
I think we should stop that. There is no one in political business
who is comparable to Goebbels or any other nazi. Not even
Riesenhuber (who is nationalist, not a nazi).
Furthermore I wish to add, that we should get used to a broader
spectrum of political meanings and partys in Germany. The consense
is no longer that tight as it has been ten years ago. I think
Berlin is the best example of how different life in Germany can
be - and the best choice for the capital city.
> Dominik Tebarth SNI Berlin
Mfg,
--
Olaf Schlueter, Sandkuhle 4-6, 2300 Kiel 1, FRG, sch...@oski.toppoint.de
+ Besonders lernt die Weiber fuehren! Es ist ihr ewig Weh und Ach,
+ so tausendfach, aus Einem Punkte zu kurieren,..
! We have to pay for incoming mail, so don't reply or keep short !
Alain Cedelle
>: Do you find it reasonable, Magnus, to live with such a wealth, and
>: such a big car, while some of your neighbours are starving ??
>
>Why are they starving?
>
They have not enough food to eat. No money to buy food, no job to 'make'
money.
Is'nt it surprising !
>: You may claim "Don't touch my car!!", the increasing social problems will
>: raise the probability for your car beeing stolen.
>
>Is that the justification? "X, Y and Z want to steal cars and food, so let's
>distribute it all before they really start stealing...", is that it?
There is a 'slight' difference, because you cannot precisely say "X wants to
steal...". X certainly wants to live in decent conditions, and when the X'es
are more and more numerous, you have to face this reality.
>You haven't answered any of my specific questions:
> What is wealth, and who creates it?
There are several theories about 'Creation', some people might even think that
wealth comes from God. And no doubt you have your own Theory, that explains
everything.
My point was certainly not to discuss this kind of philosophical subject, and
to answer such questions.
I only tried to show you the unstabilizing gap, between rich and poor. If you
don't understand this every-day's reality, i suggest for you a visit in
Vaulx-en-Velin, or in some other typical European suburb.
>: Redistribution of wealth is not only a question of right, it's also a question
>: of surviving for entire societies. [..] if EEC wants to exist and to develop,
>: it must have a policy of Assistance towards the 'poorer' regions/countries.
>: This principle is valid for every type of community, and at large for the
>: planet itself.
>
>Well, how about showing that your universal principle is valid?
> "Any community, if it is to survive, must assist poorer communities."
A better formula would be:
"Any community, if it is to survive, must achieve it's own balance, in
all domains, especially in the economic and social ones."
The generalization beeing valid for the planet with the growing notion of
Worldwide human community.
>And then, please expand on this 'question of right', because I don't understand
>what you mean.
As i said, my comments were not about this 'question of right'. I'm not sure
there may be something to expand, and I'm not sure you might be able to
'understand' something about it, in the same way that, in 1789, the right-wing
aristocrats were certainly unable to understand the 'questions of right'
advanced by the left wing people.
A.C.
bob nutter
[stuff deleted...]
|> Liberals/Unionists/Nationalists sit with the oppostion unless actually in
|> govt, when they sit on the other side. Unionists USED to sit with Tories
|> until the split in 1970(?).
|>
the same side as the Tories (the right) closest to the Speaker?
Whether this is due to shortage of space or other reasons I don't know...
bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bob nutter, computer officer | "They're *all* Gods!", she cried.
UMIST dept of computation | "-You've got to wash up the
po box 88 manchester m60 1qd uk | whole bloody lot!"
tel:+44 61 200 3386 | -Ivor Cutler, `Bad Eye'
email:b.nu...@umist.ac.uk |
Matthew Huntbach
>Liberals/Unionists/Nationalists sit with the oppostion unless actually in
>govt, when they sit on the other side. Unionists USED to sit with Tories
>until the split in 1970(?).
>
of the Conservative Party. A breakaway group left in protest at the
Conservative government's attempts to set up a power-sharing
executive in NI, and the Unionist vote transferred almost
entirely to this breakaway group. There was also a NI Liberal
Party which disappeared because no-one voted for it, but
remained in theory as an integral part of the UK Liberal Party
until 1988.
These are useful points to remember next time someone suggests
the solution to the NI problem is to have the UK parties put up
candidates in elections there. They used to, but NI people
didn't vote for them.
Matthew Huntbach
Bertil Jonell
>Which party will the pigs join now ?
The pigs will always join the party that will bring them closest to power.
That is why there are a lot of pigs in any party that have been to power for
more than, say, 15 to 20 years. That time is enough for the pigs to notice that
that party is going to stay for a long time, join it and work upwards through
the ranks. It's all really an example of "power corrupts".
The last ones to be trusted with power should be those who seek it.
>Olaf Schlueter, Sandkuhle 4-6, 2300 Kiel 1, FRG, sch...@oski.toppoint.de
-bertil-
--
"Words on the net aren't usually worth the paper they are written on."
Matthew Huntbach
>Errrm, don't the LSD (or whatever they're called this afternoon *:^) sit on
>the same side as the Tories (the right) closest to the Speaker?
>
parties on the other. If there was any shortage of space, it
would be on the Tory side, not Labour's.
BTW what is the party that governs the UK called this
afternoon? Conservative? Tory? Unionist? Conservative and Unionist?
Conservative and National Liberal?
And what is the largest opposition party called this afternoon?
Labour? Socialist? Labour and Co-Operative?
Matthew Huntbach
ANT THE RANT
amongst ourselves as to the answer to the question:
In article <7...@puck.mrcu> p...@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) wrote
>>>Two things. First, does anyone know what the Houses of Parliament do?
>>>Does Labour sit on the Speaker's left or right, and is this because
>>>they are Labour or because they are the Opposition? I know the
>>>independants and Liberal Democrats sit on the cross benches.
In article <73...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ele...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Douglas Chisholm) wrote:
>>Labour sit on the Speakers Left,
>>the traditional place of the opposition parties,
>>The Liberal Democrats and others also on the left as they
>>are not the party of government.
In article <30...@sequent.cs.qmw.ac.uk> m...@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
>Labour only sit on the left because they are in the Opposition.
>If there were a Labour government, Labour would sit on the
>right and the Conservatives on the left.
>
>There are no crossbenches in the House of Commons, thus Liberal
>Democrats sit on the Opposition benches (cross-benches do exist
>in the House of Lords though). There are also no Independents
>in the House of Commons (apart from one of the Ulster
>Unionists, also one of the Labour MPs has now switched to the
>SNP but for a while was an Independent).
Well, *I* say this:
there are no independents in the Commons *BECAUSE* there are no crossbenches.
Independent in that not part of the Official Opposition is different.
Only Labour and the Liberal Democrats can use the Official Opposition time
for their bills, the others have to use private mambers bills. These
are basically back- bench bills on Fridays, only 6/year get passed.
The SNP, the Welsh party I can't spell (PC), the 3 Unionist parties and
the SDLP from Northern Ireland, and the 3 independent Social Democrats, and
I suppose the Independent Labour member from Scotland, all sit on the
opposition benches in the Lords and Commons alike (as far as I can tell).
The cross benches in the Lords are for non- political members such as the
Archbishops, the Law Lords, hereditary Peers etc.
Sian Fein (is that correct splg? I've not seen it on TV for sooo long...)
member, Gerry Adams (?) does not take his seat in Westminster; he refuses
to admit that an English Parliament can rule any part of Ireland.
NOW! does anyone disagree with me?
Has anyone anything to add?
Has this helped the original questioner?
and what do other countries do?
oh, and if you DON'T read this article, please email me :-) :-) :-)
Matthew Huntbach
>Well, *I* say this:
>
>there are no independents in the Commons *BECAUSE* there are no crossbenches.
>
>Independent in that not part of the Official Opposition is different.
>Only Labour and the Liberal Democrats can use the Official Opposition time
> are basically back- bench bills on Fridays, only 6/year get passed.
>
only "the Government" and "the Opposition". It says nothing
about what political parties may constitute these groups. Thus
even Lib.Dem. access to official opposition time is only a
courtesy given by Labour - and has had to be fought for to
exist at all. As "Leader of the Opposition" Neil Kinnock ought
to speak for all opposition parties - that's what he is paid to
do. Of course, he doesn't even attempt to do this. The reality
is there is no constitutional provision at all for third parties
in the UK.
Another abuse of the constitution is the position of government
whips. Their job is to ensure MPs of the government party vote
for the government's line. In my opinion they are doing a party
job, and should therefore be paid from party funds. However,
the government whips officially hold the otherwise meaningless
titles of "Lords of the Treasury" for which they get paid a
largeish salary from state funds.
Matthew Huntbach
Jeremy Duncan Russell
>The UK constitution is based around the notion that there is
>only "the Government" and "the Opposition".
The UK does not have a constitution. The whole political system is
based purely on convention.
>Matthew Huntbach
--
Jeremy D. RUSSELL - Lab TIM3/IMAG INPG - e-mail : rus...@archi.imag.fr
Matthew Huntbach
>In article <31...@sequent.cs.qmw.ac.uk> m...@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>
>>The UK constitution is based around the notion that there is
>>only "the Government" and "the Opposition".
>
>The UK does not have a constitution. The whole political system is
>based purely on convention.
>
control various aspects of government. When it is said that
"the UK does not have a constitution" it is meant that these
various acts are not gathered together into one body, and have
arisen piecemeal. However, you are right to say that much of it
is based on convention, and the conventions are certainly based
on the notion that there are only two political groupings.
Matthew Huntbach
Richard Caley
In article <31...@sequent.cs.qmw.ac.uk> m...@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>The UK constitution is based around the notion that there is
>only "the Government" and "the Opposition".
The UK does not have a constitution. The whole political system is
based purely on convention.
Constitution:[n]
[irrelevant definition...]
Mode in which state is organised; body of fundamental
principles according to which a State or other organisation
is governed.
We definitely have one. The place all too organised and Maggie was
fairly strong on governing.
Most of it is also written, contrary to what is often stated. What we
don't have is a single document with it all in one place.
Not that it would do us any good if we had one, the nearest we have is
the acts of Union and a certain not so lamented icecream whipper
openly ignored the act of union of Scotland and England when she
brought in the Poll Tax.
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.cstr