5 ms·

For context: Losing this vote was intended. The government already fell apart in November, so this is the next formal step towards new elections.

by ximm 2y ago

bamboozled 2y ago
Yeah I think the title is a bit too hyperbolic considering the situation. I guess it’s about the Russian invasion and aggression, but Schulz has been hopeless for Ukraine so it shouldn’t sound so tragic.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Schulz has been hopeless for Ukraine so it shouldn’t sound so tragic. Oberfeldwebel Hans Schultz was known mostly for turning a blind eye to the prisoners' various doings at Stalag 13 (to whom he was known simply as "Schultz"). Having proved himself hopeless in that capacity, it's not surprising that he'd be hopeless for Ukraine as well. Something tells me you may be thinking of the current German Chancelllor, Olaf Scholz. https://hogansheroes.fandom.com/wiki/Hans_Schultz https://hogansheroes.fandom.com/wiki/Hans_Schultz
- WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
  I think the proper way to say would be "it shouldn't sound much more tragic than it already is". What's there in the meantime before the elections? Would they appoint some kind of interim ministers? Which of course would not do anything at all to stir whatever policy currently there is, because they are not supposed to have any initiative. Also, "what if AfD wins?". Situation normal, all fucked up...
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    Yeah my thoughts exactly. Better to just get the election done and move on.
dghughes 2y ago
And an election was scheduled in March anyway.
- Tomte 2y ago
  No, in October was the regularly scheduled date. Now an election is planned for February, but technically it depends on the president dissolving parliament, and is not certain. In practice, it is though.
  - dghughes 2y ago
    I see, I saw the chart and 02-03 I thought that was the reg scheduled election date.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
American news outlets just love to use the click-baity word "collapse" when it comes to parliamentary systems not being able to form a government. Technically I guess it's true, but this is not exactly a rare occurrence in parliamentary systems, and since we don't really have an equivalent event in American federal government (the lengthy process to elect a Speaker of the House last year was probably the closest we've come), I think most American readers interpret "collapse" as something much more dire than it actually is.
- gruez 2y ago
  >and since we don't really have an equivalent event in American federal government (the lengthy process to elect a Speaker of the House last year was probably the closest we've come), No. The closest is when the federal government shuts down because of the debt limit, which has happened multiple times. It's also arguably more impactful compared to a government "collapsing" (ie. new elections called).
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Disagree. In a parliamentary system, the executive roles (e.g. prime minister and his cabinet) all come from parliament - there is not the same separation of executive branch and legislative branch like there is in the American system. So when no party or coalition in parliament has a majority, there is essentially no "executive branch" and new elections must be called. In the US, again that can't happen because the executive branch is fully separate, and even within Congress it rarely happens because we only have 2 major parties. So the situation where the House couldn't elect a Speaker due to the problems cobbling up a majority vote, which then froze any other work the House could do, is most analogous in my opinion. Debt limit standoffs are a completely separate process, and the impacts they have are nothing like what happens in a parliamentary country when a government can't be formed.
    - MagnumOpus 2y ago
      Nitpick: in a parliamentary democracy, the executive functions just fine in times of a lame-duck government (Just like in a presidential democracy like in the US right now.) What does not work is the legislative function - which in a parliamentary democracy usually works in tandem with the executive which has the parliamentary majority. But countries can work for years without legislators pushing through sweeping reforms…

For context: Losing this vote was intended. The government already fell apart in November, so this is the next formal step towards new elections.

by ximm 2y ago

For context: Losing this vote was intended. The government already fell apart in November, so this is the next formal step towards new elections.

bamboozled 2y ago

Yeah I think the title is a bit too hyperbolic considering the situation. I guess it’s about the Russian invasion and aggression, but Schulz has been hopeless for Ukraine so it shouldn’t sound so tragic.

aguaviva 2y ago
Schulz has been hopeless for Ukraine so it shouldn’t sound so tragic. Oberfeldwebel Hans Schultz was known mostly for turning a blind eye to the prisoners' various doings at Stalag 13 (to whom he was known simply as "Schultz"). Having proved himself hopeless in that capacity, it's not surprising that he'd be hopeless for Ukraine as well. Something tells me you may be thinking of the current German Chancelllor, Olaf Scholz. https://hogansheroes.fandom.com/wiki/Hans_Schultz https://hogansheroes.fandom.com/wiki/Hans_Schultz
WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
I think the proper way to say would be "it shouldn't sound much more tragic than it already is". What's there in the meantime before the elections? Would they appoint some kind of interim ministers? Which of course would not do anything at all to stir whatever policy currently there is, because they are not supposed to have any initiative. Also, "what if AfD wins?". Situation normal, all fucked up...
- bamboozled 2y ago
  Yeah my thoughts exactly. Better to just get the election done and move on.

dghughes 2y ago

And an election was scheduled in March anyway.

Tomte 2y ago
No, in October was the regularly scheduled date. Now an election is planned for February, but technically it depends on the president dissolving parliament, and is not certain. In practice, it is though.
- dghughes 2y ago
  I see, I saw the chart and 02-03 I thought that was the reg scheduled election date.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

American news outlets just love to use the click-baity word "collapse" when it comes to parliamentary systems not being able to form a government. Technically I guess it's true, but this is not exactly a rare occurrence in parliamentary systems, and since we don't really have an equivalent event in American federal government (the lengthy process to elect a Speaker of the House last year was probably the closest we've come), I think most American readers interpret "collapse" as something much more dire than it actually is.

gruez 2y ago
>and since we don't really have an equivalent event in American federal government (the lengthy process to elect a Speaker of the House last year was probably the closest we've come), No. The closest is when the federal government shuts down because of the debt limit, which has happened multiple times. It's also arguably more impactful compared to a government "collapsing" (ie. new elections called).
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Disagree. In a parliamentary system, the executive roles (e.g. prime minister and his cabinet) all come from parliament - there is not the same separation of executive branch and legislative branch like there is in the American system. So when no party or coalition in parliament has a majority, there is essentially no "executive branch" and new elections must be called. In the US, again that can't happen because the executive branch is fully separate, and even within Congress it rarely happens because we only have 2 major parties. So the situation where the House couldn't elect a Speaker due to the problems cobbling up a majority vote, which then froze any other work the House could do, is most analogous in my opinion. Debt limit standoffs are a completely separate process, and the impacts they have are nothing like what happens in a parliamentary country when a government can't be formed.
  - MagnumOpus 2y ago
    Nitpick: in a parliamentary democracy, the executive functions just fine in times of a lame-duck government (Just like in a presidential democracy like in the US right now.) What does not work is the legislative function - which in a parliamentary democracy usually works in tandem with the executive which has the parliamentary majority. But countries can work for years without legislators pushing through sweeping reforms…