Re: Swiss elections and referenda - New Federal Councilor(s) election 7 December

[parochial boy]

This weekend is also the 50th (yes 50th) anniversary of women's suffrage in Switzerland - so there has been a lot of commemoration of the event over the weekend, as well as soul searching over why it was that it took so long exactly (discussed before, but long story short whatever combo you want, of direct democracy, the particularities of the Landsgemeinde tradition, a society that was just astonishingly conservative until the social revolutions kicked off in the 1960s and so on....).

Voting rights being a theme then, the Conseil des États surprisingly passed the first stage of reducing the voting age to 16, opening the way to a constitutional amendment, and that rarest of things, an obligatory referendum.

Courtesy of Wikipedia, here is the map of the actual vote on women's suffrage as when it happened, will waste no time in pointing out that my home canton voted yes by over 90%, not our fault we share the country with barbarians.



Also, out of psephological interest - RTS came up with a list of votes since 1971 in which women actually made the difference between a vote passing of failing. They have been consistently more progressive, but not always, since day one.

Notably, women's votes prevented a restriction of abortion rights in 1978, passed the original law against racial discrimination, and stopped us privatising electricity.

[parochial boy]

Notably, women's votes prevented a restriction of abortion rights in 1978, passed the original law against racial discrimination, and stopped us privatising electricity.

??
I searched "abortion referendum Switzerland 1978" and I found a vote that was rejected 31-69. Pretty difficult that a majority of men voted in favour.

Ha! Looks like good old RTS made a mistake. It was this one. From 1977

And even worse, I didn't read the text of the initiative - apparently women actually blocked abortion from being legalised in that particular vote (or more specifically, legalise it at the federal level, it was already legal in certain cantons by that point). In my defence, it was a long time before I was born, the article didn't go any details on what it was about, and this has long since ceased to be an issue that gets any particular attention

[parochial boy]

Bump to talk about the elections coming up on the 7th of March in Valais and Solothurn. It was really at these two elections 4 years ago that the first signs of green-left gains started to display themselves rather than being mere continuations of the 2015 results, so they could give an interesting indication of what Covid era developments really look like.

Valais

Current parliament (130 seats total):
PDC (including CSP Oberwallis) - 55 seats
PLR - 26 seats
UDC - 23 seats
PS (including PCS Valais Romand, and "entremont autremont") - 18 seats
Greens - 8 seats

Current government is 3 PDC, 1 PLR, 1 PS

The Valais is a bilingual canton, famous for it's mountains, ski resorts and a very, very strong local identity centred around the perception of the locals as being chauvinistic, red neck, alcoholics with a penchant for the mullet. These days, the traditionally rural canton has developed a strong industrial economy, in particular centred around chemicals and pharmaceuticals (Moderna's Covid vaccine is being manufactured in the Oberwallis town of Visp).  But with that said, in practice, the stereotype is true the canton has a long tradition of what might be called "caudillismo", as in, very strong bloc votes for notable local figures, such as long time FC Sion president and notorious big mouth Christian Constantin.

This still applies notably in the German speaking Oberwallis, which maintains an intense bloc vote and remains deeply conservative and religious, and reknowned for its indecipherable dialect. In contrast, the francophone lower Valais has gone through significant social changes in recent years, in part thanks to the immigration of Vaudois commuters to the lower Valais, meaning that it has become secularised and politically diverse and increasingly resembles the rest of Romandie in it's political outlook.

Unsurprisingly, the gap between the uniform german speaking vote and the splintered francophone vote is the source of regular tensions - in particular francophone politicans regularly complain at the disproportionate influence of the german speaking minority. German speakers make up less than one quarter of the canton's population (and declining), but have two of the five ministers and it was their bloc vote that stopped Mathias Reynard from being elected to the Conseil des États in 2019, having finished first in the Valais Romand, he won practically zero votes in Oberwallis and ended up missing out by a margin of under 1%. This cantonal (dis)unity is then further undermined by the social changes of recent years - lower VS's increasing connection to the Arc Lémanique as well as the opening of the Lötschberg basis tunnel that has turned Oberwallis towards Bern's sphere of influence, meaning that there have been increasing calls in recent years to split the canton into two half-cantons like the Basels or Appenzells.

8 candidates standing for the Conseil d'État: 3 from the PDC (including incumbents Christophe Darbellay and CSPO's Roberto Schmidt), 2 Greens (why?) and one a piece from the PLR (incumbent Frédéric Favre), UDC (Oberwalliser Franz Ruppen) and the PS (high profile Conseiller National Mathias Reynard).

The big question is whether of not the Christian Democrats hold on to the governmental majority that they have never before lost. In practice, it looks hard, as UDC Franz Ruppen be elected as he benefits from the Oberwallis (german speaking) bloc vote, and isn't an offputting clown in the way former UDC minister Oskar Freysinger was. This means a likely three way fight between Reynard, Favre and the PDC's Serge Gaudin for the remaining two seats. Favre benefits from incumbancy and Reynard is very popular in the francophone Valais, so the odds aren't great. That said, the bourgeois parties have a vocalised desire to restore an entirely bourgeois government, and francophone Reynard won't benefit from the Oberwallis vote that allowed his predecessor, the retiring Esther Waeber Kalbermatten, to be elected, so nothing is certain.

In the parliamentary race, obviously the PDC will remain largest party, the question being the degree of the losses. Although historically dominant, they have been struggling in the canton recently, losing one of their seats at the federal election and then having awful communal elections last year. The Greens fancy their chances at gains, and the newly formed Valais GLP would like to enter the parliament. Of minor note is the strange role played by the Christian Social part(ies) in the canton - the CSPO in German Speaking Valais is joined at the hip to the Christian Democrats  - sharing lists and alliances, while the Francophone PCS is equally closely linked... to the Socialists. Linguistic differences and all.

Solothurn

current parliament:
FDP - 26 seats
PS - 23 seats
CVP - 20 seats
SVP - 18 seats
Greens - 7 seats
GLP - 3 seats
BDP  - 2 seats
EVP - 1 seat

current government: 2 - PDC, 1 - PS, 1- PLR, 1 - Green.

Yes, astonishingly little SVP strength for a Swiss German canton.

Solothurn is an old industrial canton centred along the river Aare valley. In some superficial ways historically similar to Aargau, except more catholic and less turned towards Zürich. It is home to industrial centres like the watchmaking town of Grenchen as well as very conservative rural ones like the Thal district in the Jura moutain range. But, of particular relevance is the ages old rivalrly between the two largest towns, the bourgeois, merchant town of Solothurn, and the very proletarian railway town of Olten. Olten is Switzerland’s main railway hub and as such has had a huge political signficance over the course of its history.  The FDP was actually founded in the town, and it's working class history has made it a hotspot in the development of left wing movements such as the Grütli society, the Socialist party and sparking the 1918 general strike. These days, both towns are actuall solidly left wing - although Solothurn has a generally arty reputation, hosting the Journées de Soleure film festival, while Olten has a reputation, for, well, not being very attractive. Incidentally, "Je suis sur Soleure" is an old French Swiss expression that means "I am drunk", for whatever reason.

Politically, as hinted, the canton is pretty representative of the western plateau, not urban but with a number of mid sized towns, and therefore relatively less conservative than what you find further east. The UDC are still noticeably weak, being only recently formed in the canton (because catholicism), and therefore have room to grow; with the FDP being unusually strong for German Switzerland, in part down to the historical links.

There are seven candidates standing for the government: the two left wing incumbents as well as FDP incumbent Remo Ankli, meaning a four way fight for the CVP's two vacated seats between two CVP candidates, the FDP's Peter Hodel and SVP's Richard Aschberger, who would like to finally break the UDC's inability to get elected to the canton's executive. Of note in both this case, and for the parliamentary election, is the fact that the FDP and SVP do not ally with each other in Solothurn, whereas they regularly form right wing list connections elsewhere. This could change depending on how badly both parties continue their electoral declines.

In some other news. Vaud is having communal elections the same weekend, which means, noticeably, in Lausanne, Switzerland's most left wing city. The PLR would like to win a second seat in the city executive, which seems far fetched, but might be a possibility owing to the collapse of the Green-Socialist alliance. The Greens fancy their chances at replacing the PS as the dominant party in the city, which obviously soured relations between the two.

In Geneva's special election, the presumed favourite to win back a left wing government majority, Green Fabienne Fischer, managed a spectacular own goal in mentioning that she was "Not sure" about being vaccinated against Covid. Cue media outrage and a hasty backtrack on her part, but the damage is done, assuming more than about 10 people payed any attention in the first place. That said, the situation remains what it is, the two major candidates of the right are the tainted Pierre Maudet, and Cyril Aellen, generally perceived as being a bit too right wing. So, who knows, Green Liberals probably fancy themselves now.

[parochial boy]

Final rounds of referendum polling have been relsease from both Tamedia and SSR SRG/ GFS.Bern:

Burqa ban

Tamedia are at:
Yes - 59%
No - 40%

GFS.bern at:
Yes - 49%
No - 47%

So, uh, a rather unusual situation where the pollsters completely disagree. Either it will be very close... or it won't. I would expect a 'yes' vote at this point in time, to be honest, the campaign hasn't really incited passions at all. I think I've two irl conversations about the vote, and in both cases the consensus was that people weren't going to bother voting about what they mostly perceived as a non-issue, so take what you want from that.

Interesting to see that normal service has been resumed on the linguistic side, looking like a bigger No vote in Romandie now.

E-ID law

Tamedia are at:
Yes - 42%
No - 56%

GFS.bern at:
Yes - 42%
No - 54%

In practice, this has turned entirely into a campaign about the role that the private sector would have in the provision of these E-ID's. So in that respect, it was a massive backfire from the the government to try and privatise the process. Had they just kept it under public control it would have never been an issue

Free trade with Indonesia

Tamedia are at:
Yes - 52%
No - 42%

GFS.bern at:
Yes - 53%
No - 41%

Very little public interest in this one. It's almost as if people have other things on their minds or something...

[parochial boy]

Not politics related really, but the French language public broadcaster, RTS has managed to provoke a pan-francophonie storm but officially adopting "langage épicène" as part of its style guide. That is, it's coverage will no longer use the "generic masculin" or "heteronormative" language - which has provoked un-e vrai-e tollé-e (sorry) and outrage over the broadcaster's bias in choosing to use neutral language. You know, how the same people who claim that it is incomprehensible at the same time as passionately defending words like "hypokhâgne" with it's pointless circonflex and two instances of a letter that isn't even pronounced in French.

Anyway, just a point to show how grammatical gender is actually a source of controversy in languages that use it (cf "latinx"); but also interesting that it would happen in Switzerland at a time where there is an increasingly vicious reaction against écriture inclusive going on over the border in France. With that in mind, the Swiss have always been more relaxed about how rigid use of language needs to be than the French are.

I'm actually not particularly bothered about it at all. But it has the advantage of annoying people who annoy me. And it makes a nice change to see the French media getting pissed off at the Swiss for actually being too progressive for once.

In other news, the UDC have been going off on one about Covid - we now live in a Socialist Dictatorship apparently (source - Christoph Blocher). A point deemed mad enough that even Guy Parmelin (the UDC federal councillor and president this year; and also possibly the least populist member of a right-wing populist party anywhere in the world) had to criticise his own party for their excesses. Then we got the spectacle of death threats being sent to two of the female federal councillors that turned out to originate from a facebook group that had a certain Andreas Glarner as an admin. Glarner being someone I have mentioned before, never far from a racist statement, or three, he claimed to have never heard of the group. That he was an admin of.

Anyway, on to Super Sunday. I'm going skiing, so expect that by the the time I'm get home I will be legally obliged to simultaneously wear and mask and show my face at all times-

[parochial boy]

The face covering ban looks like it will pass about 51-49%, and, rather unusually down to Romandie actually supporting it by more than the Swiss Germans. The map is absolutely mad at the moment - the largest 'Yes' vote in the country is in the Jura, which is usually the most left-wing canton alongside Geneva including on these sorts of questions; whereas it got rejected in Appenzell Ausserrhoden, which is usually one of the most hysterically conservative cantons. So I suspect the real reason this got passed is the overbearing influence of France on the mindsets of the French Swiss.

Still, barely passing when the minaret ban passed comfortably, despite the latter being a much less justifiable proposition probably does show how much mindsets in the country have moved on in the last 12 years.

The E-ID law going down in flames is not out of privacy concerns - it was a rejection of the E-ID's being managed by the private sector. So something of a rejection of neoliberalism that stretched across the linguistic divide.

Full results by commune available at https://www.predikon.ch/ and a map by canton here

Will write something about the cantonal votes and elections later - but Geneva has taking a step towards having a left wing majority for the second time in its history.

[parochial boy]

Generally speaking, I'm not convinnced by the logic that if men are forcing women to cover their faces, we should be punishing the women themselves for it. Paradoxically, that seems similar to the Saudi Arabian attitude towards rape.

Are there any attempts to get that reversed?

Not at the moment. It would require a whole constitutional change, which isn't really anyone's priority at the moment. Swiss Muslims are on the whole not very religious (per the official data, they are less religious than Swiss Christians, on average) and for the most part and particularly interested in building any.

Long post on the local results:

Overall, stability seeming to be the order of the day:

Valais
Conseil d'État results:
Roberto SCHMIDT (PDC) 62'031 votes
Christophe DARBELLAY (PDC) 56'331
Mathias REYNARD (PS) 51'539
Frédéric FAVRE (PLR)   50'199
Serge GAUDIN (PDC) 45'452
-----
Franz RUPPEN (UDC) 44'734
Brigitte WOLF (Green) 31'567
Magali DI MARCO (Green) 30'721

131'408 votes total, so no-one reaches an absolute majority and no-one is elected in the first round. Looks like the second round will be a competition between the UDC and PDC candidates as to whether the former make a return or the latter lose their governing majority for the first time ever. Dissapointing for the UDC as Ruppen was expected to make the top 5 easily.

Grand Conseil:
PDC (with CSPO) - 48 seats (-7)
PLR - 27 seats (+1)
UDC-  22 seats (-1)
PS and friends - 20 seats (+2)
Greens - 13 seats (+5)

Percentages also to be confirmed.

An all time low for the Christian Democrats and an all time high for the left, who actually make even bigger gains than the 6 extra seats they won in the 2017 election that marked the very first sign of the green wave.

The left's gains all happening in the francophone Valais, continuing its rapprochement with the rest of French Switzerland.

Solothurn
Regierungsrat:
Remo Ankli (FDP) - 50'010 votes (elected)
Brigit Wyss (Greens) - 47'537 votes (elected)
Susanne Schaffner (PS) - 42'733 votes (elected)
Sandra Koly Altermatt (CVP) - 37'506
Thomas Müller (CVP) - 32'536
----
Peter Hodel -32'350 (FDP)
Richard Aschberger - 25'453 (FDP)

38'980 set as the majority, so there will be a CVP v FDP battle for the two remaining seats

Kantonsrat:
FDP - 22 seats (-4)
SVP - 21 seats (+3)
CVP -  20 seats (nc/-2 including the BDP's two seats)
SP - 20 seats (-3)
Greens - 10 seats (+3)
GLP - 6 seats (+3)
EVP - 1 seat (nc)

More pain for the liberals, decent for the SVP, unchanged continuation of trends regarding the left and the Green Liberals.

Will update percentages once they come out

Geneva
Fabienne Fischer (Greens) - 38'626 votes
Pierre Maudet (independent) - 29'275
Cyril Aellen (PLR) - 20'129
Yves Nidegger (UDC) - 17'045
Michael Matter (PVL) - 12'322
Morten Gisselbaek (Labour) - 6'407

Majority set at 64'734 so a second round required, most likely Maudet v Fischer. The PLR are standing down and the UDC haven't decided whether to keep Nidegger in. Overall, another disaster for the liberals, but schocking strong result for Maudet - a little bit of name recognition, plus (sigh) his recently developed "bad boy image.

Communal elections
Lots going on, but in the main decentish for the left. Despite the Green-Socialist break up, Lausanne looks like it will keep its 6-1 left wing majority: 3 PS, 2 Greens, 1 POP vs 1 PLR (pending a second round).
In the communal council, the Greens and Ensemble à Gauche surge, meaning the left now hold a collective 66 of the 100 seats (from 61 previously). Gains coming from the UDC, who due to a split see their delegation halved from 12 to 7 - while the PLR and the PVL hold steady.

Yverdon-les-Bains, Vaud's fairly down market (you know, relatively, this is still Switzerland) industrial second town, looks set to re-elect a left wing majority government, at the expense of the PLR, who lose one of their seats. The PS and Greens also win 53 out of 100 seats in the communal council, handing the left a majority for the first time since 1977 - coming at the expense of UDC losses.

Vevey also gets a left majority, but sticks out by making the radical left "Décroissances alternatives" the largest party, with Yvan Luccarini of the same party finishing first place in the race for the municipal government - raising the possibility that the home of Nestlé and Charlie Chaplin becomes one of a handful of towns in the country to be led by a Communist. Also 12 seats in the communal council going to "En Avant Vevey", a slightly unusual group who appear to be a populist right wing party for immigrants who hate other immigrants.

Aacross the border - Fribourg gets a 4-1 split in favour of the left (2 Socialist, 1 Green, 1 PCS and 1 PDC), the Greens gaining a seat with, again, the PLR getting kicked out.

[parochial boy]

Graubunden in opposition wtf



Why is Francophone Switzerland anti-free trade while German and Italian Switzerland pro?

Cynical answer is that Graubünden is popular with Gulf tourists. But actually, it isn't the most popular destination for them, compared to, say, the Berner Oberland - which voted yes, although with a surprisingly restrained margin given what it is normally like. The actual popular tourist towns of Lucerne (already quite left-wing) and Interlaken (not left wing) did actually vote no.

That said Graubünden has been distinctly more progressive than its neighbours in recent years; eg on the multinationals, anti-discrimination law, paternity leave and so on it has consistently been about 5% or so left of the likes of St Gallen. Why that is, I can only guess, possibly the existence of Romanche speakers makes them a bit more sensitive to minority rights. But anway, in this case, that difference was probably enough to push it into 'No' territory.

For the free trade, the referendum was entirely fought around the issue of palm oil - so this was a 'No' based on environmentalism rather than scepticism of free trade.

Normally, you'd expect Romandie to be a bit more in favour of international openness. Obviously it has always been the most in favour of special case that is European integration, but the last vote we had on a non-EU trade issue was an initative demanding, funnily enough, that all trade agreements would automatically have to go to a referendum. In that case, French Switzerland voted more heavily against the initiative that Swiss Germans did.

So all in all, this was more about the content of the agreement than any particular attitudes towards the idea of Free Trade overall. Switzerland having a very export oriented economy means there are very few people explicitely in favour of protectionist trade policies. Even the UDC campaigned heavily in favour of the agreement.

edit - Graubünden was also a relatively late joiner to the confederation; and therefore has a history and historical sociology that is somewhat different to the old cantons in Ost and Zentralschweiz. Ie, lacks some of the historical factors (longstanding political autonomy namely) that make those places particularly conservative.

Is there a constitutional check on referendums in Switzerland? Like, say there was a seriously egregious attack on a minority's civil liberties via referendum, can they appeal to courts, or is the people's decision final?

When the initiative goes through the parliamentary scrutiny phase, it can be declared invalid and cancelled for a variety of reasons - one of these is that it violates the "nromes impératives" ('universal norms/law' I guess is the best Engish translation). This has actually happened in the past, in 1996 the initiative 'for a resonable asylum policy' was annulled on the basis that it would break the fundamental human right to seek and claim asylum

[parochial boy]

Surprised the burka ban is passing only 51-49. You normally expect this kind of question to be the one that very easily wins if the past decade of European politics taught me anything tbh

The depressing thing for me is that it probably would have actually failed had it not been for the toxic French debate on "Islam" seeping over the border. Sometimes I wonder if the MCG didn't have the right sort of attitude towards les frouzes 😏

But otherwise... yeah, Switzerland is probably one of the more open minded European countries with regards to immigrants these days. Almost certainly the only one that has actually become more open towards them. Which, well, imagine telling that to someone 20 years ago, but here we are.

Do you think that if the free trade referendum had been opposed along the lines of skepticism to free trade/criticism of the working conditions free trade can sometimes result in, it could have been rejected? Or do you think that the environmental line was actually more effective for the "No" campaign?

Well the referendum was launched explicitely with palm oil as the motivation, the the attitudes of the actual people running the campaign were always such that it was going to be their main focus. Although that said, it is telling that the campaign was headed by a winemaker, which is probably the single industry that benefits from the most protectionist trade policies in the country (and the tariffs everyone else sticks on it in retaliation is the principle reason that you can't buy Swiss wine outside of Switzerland, true story).

That said, like I said, too many people's jobs are directly dependent on exports for protectionism to be a winning argument. The advantage of Swiss industry- watchmaking, precision instruments, high end chemicals and pharmaceutics; is that is naturally "protected" by the fact that it is too high tech and specialised to be possible to do in lower income countries. Which makes people a lot less worried about having their jobs being delocalised. Put it simply, Rolex aren't going to move their production abroad because they are simply too reliant on the "swiss watch" image as central to their brand.

Making it about working conditions would have made it a re-run of the multinationals vote, which I think was too exhausting of a topic for people to be willing and ready to go through it again.

[parochial boy]

Any guess as to why Switzerland has become more friendly towards immigration as most of the rest of Europe has taken the opposite direction?

In part, Switzerland basically went through in the 1980s-2000s what much of Europe is going through now. That is, a prolonged economic crisis exacerbated by austerity politics, desindustrialisation, the fall out of not joining the EEA in 1992 and the implementation of the bilaterals, big influxes of refugees from the wars in Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka, all of which contributed to a pretty intense identity crisis in the country during that period, and led people into the arms of far right parties like the UDC. Over the last decade, the country has been reasonably prosperous and succesful, so that angst has relaxed and political attention has moved on.

Nowadays, well, trends you are seeing elsewhere like the "white working classes" increasingly voting  for centre or far right parties, well, that happened in Switzerland 20 years ago. The process is more or less complete and the UDC have pretty much maxed out among those people (in stark contrast to elsewhere in Europe, one of the take aways from the last federal election was the Socialists doing relatively worse in the cities, and relatively better in small towns in the countryside).

There is also a huge generational divide, something like a 30% gap between the under 35s and over 60s if you believe the polling on the burqa ban. As in, there is a huge difference between young people who are generally well educated, comfortable with the multicultural society they grew up in, and particularly worried about issues like climate change - which is something people my age have physically seen before our eyes as we have grown up; versus older people, who are essentially as conservative as ever.

In that case, is there any chance they reverse the limitation on the Swiss passport by descent they passed several years ago? I know you said it was uncontroversial because nobody would want a garbage undesirable like me to enter your country, but I guess there's always hope.

I meant that side of things was uncontroversial because the fact that there are Swiss-Americans is mostly seen as a sort of curiosity and not much more. So it's different to like Italy or Ireland where there are still points of attachment and a cultural sympathy to the diaspora. I know that the Operation Libéro guys have made points about making the conditions easier in the past, and a couple of cantons have also relaxed their conditions.

I think there will be moves to change the naturalisation process in the future, because the process is still a complete mess inherited from the completely insane way it was done in the not to distant past (ie, local municipalities having referendums of whether or not accept people's applications, people being rejected for using the wrong colour bin bags, the mess caused by women being stripped of their nationality for marrying foreigners). There is still quite a lot of quite frankly disgraceful stuff in the past that everyone sort of agrees needs to be fixed. The trouble is, any move to do that would have to go through parliament. There probably is a majority to do that at the moment, but, knowing the speed at which things move here, it's not going to be for tomorrow.

Always happy to have more left wing voters here though So if you can prove your grandmother lost her nationality through marriage, there might be a way to appeal that, or a least, it probably will become and option in the future.

Do the MCG even have any influence these days? I thought they were toast having lost all their seats nationally.

Mauro Poggia is still in the cantonal government, and would probably get a third term if he stands again in 2023, but the extent to which he has anything do with the rest of his party is debatable. His main "achievments" in government have consisted of picking fights with the private healthcare system and a big operation to give legal residence to illegal immigrants, neither of which is exactly the sort of thing you would expect of a right-wing populist politician.

I think the party are all but dead other than that, and will probably get kicked out of the cantonal parliament in 2023. Eric Stauffer has dissapeared from view after his last two electoral disasters. But, well, this is Geneva, which has a tendency towards the bizarre and ridiculous in its politics, so I wouldn't count it out.

[parochial boy]

Some second rounds on the 28th March - in Valais the two Greens dropped out, so it's a 6 way race for the 5 seats as expected. In Geneva PLR Cyril Aellen and PVL Matter both dropped out of the second round (neither endorsing anyone so far), as did the far-left candidate, but... the UDC's Nidegger is still in, and refusing the idea of the only alternatives being Fischer and Mauset, the PDC entered a candidate of their own, Delphine Bachmann into the race. Result, the right is totally divided, while the left is united around Fischer, looking good for the eventual left wing majority.

Also on the 28th of March, in what is the absolutely-definitely-finally-cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die final chapter of the 'question Jurassienne' (see here, or here, or here) the Bernese town of Moutier is voting, once again, on whether or not to switch from the canton of Bern to the canton of Jura - a repeat of the 2017 referendum in which it voted by 51.3% to make the switch, before the vote was controversially cancelled citing irregularities that as it turned out may not have actually been true. Anyway, it is impossible to predict, and tense, and may not actually wind up closing the book on what has been the only real linguistic conflict in the country's modern history*.

* As a quick recap, the (french speaking) canton of Jura was attached to (german speaking and protestant) Bern after the congress of Vienna. In the mid 20th century a separatist movement in the Jura, demanding their own canton, not independence (even Swiss ethnic conflicts somehow manage to be lower stakes than everywhere else in the world), emerged, which became vaguely violent culminating in a terrorist attack actually killing someone. In the 1970s, a series of referendums eventually led to the catholic north of the Jura separating to form its own canton, while the protestant south remained within Bern. The town of Moutier being a special case whose industrial past led to it having a catholic majority, despite being situated within the protestant south Jura, remained in Bern. Despite the town voting to switch. Since then, a number of plebiscites have confirmed the town wanting to move, but its surroundings not wanting to, leading to the 2017 vote, repeated in two weeks, over the town itself's future

[parochial boy]

Final results from Moutier, where a police presence, supporters of the two sides being physically separated, international observers and bizarre levels of tension. Vaguely surreal for a little industrial town in the hills:

Yes - 54,9%
No - 45,1%

 A 375 vote margin. Meaning Moutier will join the Jura. Clear, much clearer than anyone could have expected. The Bernese might fight this, the cantonal government having cast doubts about the electoral register, but seems to be hopeless given the margin.

And that might just close the Question Jurassienne.

https://twitter.com/_6pri1_/status/1376202917582102530


Meanwhile, in the various local elections, much to celebrate for the left

In Geneva
98% in with results as follows:

Fabienne Fischer (Green) - 41,7% (elected)
Pierre Maudet (ind) - 33,7%
Delphine Bachmann - 13,5%
Yves Nidegger (UDC) - 11,2%

Meaning that the government of Geneva now consists of 2 Socalists, 2 Green, 1 Radical-Liberal, 1 Christian Democrat and 1 MCG; or, for the second time in history the canton will be governed by a left wing majority.

Also meaning that now the left is in the majority in 4 out of six Romand cantons. Only the bilingual Fribourg and Valais breaking the pattern.

Valais
Roberto Schmidt (PDC) - 46,1%
Franz Ruppen (UDC) - 42,2%
Mathias Reynard (PS) - 40,9%
Frédéeric Favre (PLR) - 40,6%
Christophe Darbellay (PDC) - 36,3%
------
Serge Gaudin (PDC) - 31,0%

Also a historic first. For the first time ever the Christian Democrats will no longer have the absolute majorityin the cantonal government. Courtesy of a huge Oberwallis mobilisation in favour of its two candidates, but also, somewhat uniquely calls from the two other minority parties (PLR and PS) to overthrow the PDC majority.

Glarusalso re-electing to a Socialist to it's cantonal government at it's partial election, marking a return of the left to the government. The government is now 2 FPD, 1 PBD (Centre), 1 SVP, 1 SP

Finally in Vaud, second rounds confirm the results of the first round. Sweeping left wing gains across the cantons towns, winning majorities almost across the board. Of special note are the clear double left majority in the traditionally very bourgeois resort town of Montreux (of the jazz festival) and in the downmarket Lausanne suburn of Renens, which elects a exclusively left wing municipal government - a very unusual feat anywhere in the country.

[parochial boy]

And because there never is a point in time where there isn't some form of electoral campaign going on, coming up is the cantonal election in Neuchâtel❤️ and the 13th June federal votation.

Starting with the latter, there are another 5 objects to be voted on

1. Popular Initiative «  No subsidies for the use of pesticides and prophylactic antiobiotics». Pretty obvious - bans subsidies to farmers using either of those things, the idea being to reduce the environmental impact of both things (eg contaminated water sources, biodiversity, insect population collapse). Supported by the left and the "we swear we aren't left wing" GreenLiberals

2. Popular Initiative «  For a Switzerland without artifical pesticides ». Just bans them outright. Klar, oder? Obvious point of note here is the opposition from the pharma and chemical industries which are big cheeses (I'm so funny, lol) in the Swiss economy and who would be somewhat adversely impacted. The initiative was launched by a grassroots organisation in Neuchâtel, which is relevant for the next bit. 

3. Referendum on the Covid Law. Was a law passed in December extending the Federal Council's emergency powers until the end of 2021 and making it easier to push through the various economic support. The referendum itself is an anti-vax one against the government making the vaccination obligatory. Which it hasn't done. So we're voting on whether to hara-kari the entire economy over a thing that never even happened

4. Referendum on the CO2 Law. Which is a law to introduce various taxes on carbon emissione (notably a pretty hefty one on plane tickets) with the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50% (on 1990 levels) by 2030. Opposed for the UDC for predictable reasons - "it's too expensive, will destroy the economy, and by the way we already pollute far less than everyone else", but in an unholy alliance also opposed by the Fridays for the Future movement because it doesn't go far enough. You just can't win (it will win).

5. Referendum on the Anti-terror law. Referendum coming from the left on civil liberties grounds. The main idea is that is outlaws Islamic State and Al Qaeda, outlaws travel abroad for terrorism related activities and reinforced international co-operation. The issue is the various other stuff that includes the right to impose house arrest on suspects or a definition of terrorism that includes non-violent civil disobediance.

Had enough?

Well here is the Neuchâtel cantonal election on the 18th April

At the moment the Conseil d'État consists of 3 Socialists and 2 PLR

The Grand Conseil is
PLR - 43 seats
PS - 32 seats
Greens - 17 seats
UDC - 9 seats
Parti Ouvrier Populaire (the local name for the Communist 'Labour party') - 6 seats
PVL - 4 seats
PDC - 2 seats
SolidaritéS (trotskyists) - 2 seats

Neuchâtel is, like its northern neighbour of Jura, one of those delightful exceptions to the 'global trends' theory of lazy political journalism.

Take, if you will, the town of Le Locle - an small odl time industrial power house that went through an economic crisis in the 70s, mass unemployment and poverty. Today it has a population of 10'000 that is ageing, declining, because it is 1000m above sea level it is always cold, and regularly gets rated as the single worst place to live in Switzerland. How do you expect such a place to vote these days?

Well the answer is the Communists come first, the Socialists second and the Greens third - and the UDC at less than half their national level. It may have followed the Romandie trend on the burqa, but also voted by over 70% to outlaw discrimination against LGBT people, voted to ban the export of armaments and by a 66% margin against limiting immigration. This isn't "economicalle left, socially right" - this is "economically left, socially left" and more and more so.

So overall, Neuchâtel is Switzerland's most electorally left wing canton. Full stop. Or not, it's a little more complicated.

The canton splits into two very culturally and economically distinct, rival regions. "En haut" and "en bas". "En Haut" means the Jura mountain range, particularly the towns of Le Locle and La-Chaux-de-Fonds. It is very industrial, focussed on the watchmaking industry, and very working class. . While "en bas" means the shores of Lake Neuchâtel, traditionally bourgeois and artisan, but with a big "free thinking" tradition, in particular around the town of Neuchâtel itself, which as a centre of the printing industry that was francophone but outside France (it was Prussian at the time), became a major centre for the publication of revolutionary tracts at the time of the French revolution.

These days, there is an especially big regionalist sentiment in the mountains. They generally feel left behind and ignored by the more prosperous lakeside. For instance, the proposed closure of La Tchuaux's hospital has been an ongoing hot topic. The region also feels cut off from the rest of the country - a new trainline linking la Tchaux and Neuch has been under construction... for a long time.. the existing one being slow and constantly broken - and poorer and, as mentioned, the weather stinks. This sentiment is generally manifested in a strong vote for the Communist POP. It's an urban, relatively speaking, region after all. Once you get into the countryside it changes somewhat. For instance, the UDC do big up reasonably big scores in the Val-de-Travers, reknowned for being the homeland of absinthe. Probably no connection.

In contrast, Neuchâtel town and its suburbs are enjoying a booming economy based on the university, but also the high-tech precision instruments and pharma industries. Despite this though, the canton has seen population decline in recent years. It has the country's highest taxes, so people tend to flee to the neighbouring villages of Fribourg and Vaud, with booming populations, and then to commute back into the canton itself.

As for the election itself: in the race for the government, two of the PS's ministers, Monika-Marie Hefti and the popular Jean-Nat Karakash are not standing for re-election, while the other three incumbents are. Therefore, the big fight is for the two open seats, and in particular over the ability of the PS, or the left more widely, to hold on to their majority. There are 21 candidate in all, including a series of no hopers from the far left, but inreality, the PS will likely hold on to at least one of the two, with the final one being a Green v PLR v PS fight, even in the PVL would like to play the spoiler based on their strong federal and communal election results in the canton.

In the parliament, as things stands the combined left are one seat away from an overall majority. Of note though, is that the electoral system is changing, with the old 115 seat parliament and regional constituencies being replaced by a single 100 seat one. In all likelihood, this will benefit the smaller parties, so the POP, SolidaritéS, PVL and Centre will all hope to make gains (which could be somewhat misleading in the case of the Centre).

As for the specifics, he PLR and PS will likely continue their pattern of losses, even if the PS feel buoyed by this weekend's results. The Centre are basically not relevant in a protestant canton and the UDC are in a state in the canton, having suffered a massacre at the cantonal elections in 2017 and again at the federals in 2019 as a result of various scandals and a lack of any credible personnel in the canton.

Big gaing are likeliest for thehe Greens and Green Liberals. Not only did both make huge stride in 2019 (and the last cantonal election), but Neuchâtel is also a canton with a big ecologist tradition (see earlier). The canton is actually the cradle of the Swiss Green Party, or of one of the predecessors to it, which was born out of the anti-motorway-construction movement. In that respect, probably even one of the first places in the world to develop Green politics at an electoral level. Which holds true to today, political ecology is a major force in the canton - the two ecologist parties combined over 30% of the vote two years ago, and will likely come out of the election even further reinforced.

And after that, it is done until the Autumn votes and cantonal elections in Fribourg. The September vote willl probably include one on gay marriage + artificial insemination for lesbian couples. There are signature collections underway, with the submission deadline being on the 10th April, so probably more news soon.

[parochial boy]

Slightly related to the Moutier question, why did Laufen voted to join Basel-Land instead of Solothurn?

A few reasons really. One part is historical, in so far as Laufen had historically been part of the diocese of Basel, and only really separated from the city politically speaking in 1815.

But beyond that, it seemed to make a lot more sense to join Baselland - as economically speaking Laufen looks towards Basel much more than anywhere else. Basel the city is much closer and more accessible from Laufen than Solothurn town is, and is a much bigger and more prosperous economic pool. Even when you just think of BL, it is still principally an urban/suburban canton that is very closely linked to the city.

At the time Solothurn was also pretty decidedly reluctant to have Laufen join it, not wanting to offend the Bernese authorities. So that kind of sealed the deal

[parochial boy]

And quick mention of an old theme, because the delay is only a week away - there have been a few reports (eg here), that the anti-gay marriage referendum has been struggling to get get the 50'000 required signatures. At the half way stage, they were some way short of having the 25'000 signatures that would have meant them being on track - and it's not clear things have picked up since. Even various local SVP wings have called against signing the referendum, which is not exactly making out that there is a huge deal of enthusiasm about having a vote on this subject.

They'll still almost certainly make it (cf earlier posts about "buying" signatures), but struggling to get even over the relatively low barrier that is the 50k mark does not exactly bode well for the eventual campaign.

[parochial boy]

There will be a referendum in the end. Signatures collected, being verified and the symbolic blabla with the boxes outside the palais fédéral will be on Monday. Most likely the vote is in September or November, with the yes campaign already promising to turn the country into a rainbow sea. Guess the goal is to beat Ireland's 62%

Anyway, amusing side note when it was revealed that the 'No' campaign's application to open a bank account with the co-operative bank Raiffeisen was rejected. The bank not wanting to be associated with them and not wanting the potential negative publicity. The no campaign then duly took the bank to court, trying to sue them under the laws protecting people from discrimination according to their sexual orientation. Precisely the same law that they had campaigned against in a referendum last year. Vague "you couldn't make it up territory" (they lost the case of course, because, among other things, "being against gay marriage" is not actually a sexual orientation)

[parochial boy]

Of vague interest today are emerging calls from Romand UDC politicians for the party to abandon right-wing populist themes and move towards a more consensul, centrist positioning. Similar to the old Bourgeois-artisans-independents party that was the UDC's predeccesor.

This is coming in light of the UDC's ongoing losses in French Switzerland - with deep losses in last month's communal elections coming on top of 2019 federal election were they only finished up as the fourth largest party in Romandie. Various, admittedly always more moderate, figures in the party figure that the UDC's traditional thematics are now completely out of touch with the public mood - and that the knee jerk, anti-statist reactionary line that works in German Switzerland is both a vote loser in Romandie, but also a tactical failure in so far as it is making alliances with the rest of the right impossible.

On a related note, this weeks political news has been a very bitter falling out between the UDC and PLR. In essence, Marco Chiesa called for the urgent lifting of Corona measures, making it clear that unless the PLR came on board in support of "a genuine bourgeois outlook", they would happily remove on of the two PLR Federal Councillors - probably in favour of the allegedly no different Green Liberals. The PLR unsurprisingly took this badly, claiming that the UDC don't have the monopoly on what "bourgeois politics" are and that if they want to be an opposition party then they hardly need to be represented on the Federal Council.

This won't change anything short term, but could have repercussions in 2023 as it is likely that one or both parties will lose even more (at the moment). Further strengthening of the two ecologist parties would then increase pressure to remove one of the PLR or UDC's federal councillors, especially in order to end the unrepresentative right-wing government majority

[parochial boy]

Yeah, the magic formula is entirely informal.

Basically, how it works is the Federal Council is elected by the parliament for a four year term every four years; and the elected members of parliament are expected to only vote for candidates from the right parties in order to keep the formula intact. Once the term is started, it is essentially impossible to force a Federal Councillor out of office - they can resign, and there have been cases of Federal Councillors resigning due to political pressire. But in practice, no, the UDC won't be able to force anyone out until 2023 at least.

As for the magic formula itself, the idea right now is two representatives from the 3 largest parties and one from the fourth. Obviously the Greens becoming the fourth party in 2019 pretty much ruined that, so there now is a fair degree of uncertainty about how the thing should work going forward (nothing changed after 2019 on a very Swss "let's not rock the boat, see if this is a flash in plan" logic that was also applied to the UDC before they got their second seat).

Right now, it's, I guess, fairly well accepted that if anyone should lose a seat it should be either the PLR or UDC - because it doesn't make sense to have a right wing majority when they don't have a majority of the electorate. That in turn raises an argument as to who should get the 7th seat - the Greens? In which case the left would be overrepresented. The GLP? In which case it seems ridiculous to give the 6th party a seat while the fourth is left out. Or should both the PS and PLR lose a seat and the Greens and Green Liberals gain? Or introduce 2 new seats? Lots of different options

Anyway, suffice to say, if the results of 2023 hold the pattern of 2019, then the magic formula is essentially broken anyway, and how it structures itself going forward will be a pretty big discussion. In the extreme case, you could even get a complete breakdown where partes just vote for the candidates they want on purely partisan basis, or various parties team up to keep other parties or candidates in or out. Each councillor is elected individually based on winning a parliamentary majority, meaning that in practice, knocking out one or two UDC federal councillors would require at least the GLP-left bloc coming to some sort of agreement with the Christian Democrats (far from impossible); while knocking out a PLR federal councillor in favour of a Green or Green-Liberal would mean the UDC coming to an agreement with the GLP-left bloc, which is a little bit more far fetched.

Although that said, very probably there will be some sort of consensus-compromise in the end. Almost no chance that the whole thng breaks down and we start getting government formations like you see in the rest of the world. The political environment is too culturally geared towards compromise, even the opposition parties have demonstrated that they know how to play the game, and this isn't likely to change in the future

[parochial boy]

Neuchâtel

In the Conseil d'état race, no-one gets a first round majority meaning a race for all five seats on the 9th of May. TFull results:

1. Alain Ribaux (PLR) -  42,7%
2. Laurent Favre (PLR) - 42,4%
3. Laurent Kurth (PS) - 38,8%
4. Florence Nater (PS) - 32,1%
5. Crystel Graf (PLR) - 28,9%
-----
6. Frédéric Mairy (PS) - 26,8%
7. Roby Tschopp (Les Verts) - 26,7%
8. Lionel Rieder (PLR) - 24,1%
9. Cédric Dupraz (Parti Ouvrier Populaire) - 13,8%
10.Sarah Blum (POP) - 13,7%
11. Brigitte Leitenberg (Vert'libéraux) -13,3%
12. Nathalie Schallenberger (Le Centre) - 13,3%
--- other ---
14. Grégoire Cario (UDC) - 12,1%

Overall, the PLR now fancy there chances of overturning the left majority at the second round on the 9th May. Crystel Graf has an 800 vote margin over the following duo, but it will be narrower assuming either Tschopp or Mairy and the plethora of far left candidates step down for the second round. The bigger question is which of the two stand in the second round - the Greens had very much been expecting to get elected, so for Tschopp to be edged out (by 70 votes) of 6th place by Mairy is a bit of a bad surprise for them. Analysis so far has been that they overplayed their hand (refused a joint list), and that selecting an old man probably didn't help a party whose electorate is usually quite sensitive to questions of equal representation. Notably Graf, the PLR's surprise overperformance, is a 35 year old woman, and the election had turned around the issue of the potential lack of female representation on the council.

In the Grand Conseil, similar patterns to what has happened elsewhere, with the exception of the PS getting punished in the mountains for their ongoing role as bad guys in the La Chaux-de-Fonds hospital saga.


PLR - 29,9% (-3,4%)
PS - 19,7% (-3,9%)
Greens - 18,3% (+3,4%)
Green Liberals - 8,2% (+3,8%)
UDC - 8,1% (-3,4%)
Parti Ouvrier Populaire - 7,7% (-0,5%)
Le Centre - 4,0% (+1,3%)
SolidaritéS - 2,4% (+1,0%)
"Apéro pour tout le monde"* - 1,0% (+1,0%)
Evangelical party - 0,7% (+0,7%)

The PLR win 32 seats (-11); PS 21 (-11); Greens 19 (+2); UDC, POP, PVL get 8 each (-1, +2, +4 respectively) and 4 for the Centre (+2) - seat changes not really comparable given the smaller parliament and move to a single constituency

Self-inflicted pain for SolidaritéS who fall short of the new 3% threshhold, but also impressively bad for the UDC to now be in single figures. To put in context, eight years ago they were at close to 20% in the canton and had representation in the government - the disaster of 4 years ago was explained by a series of local scandals, and therefore a one off - but to carry on losing on top of an already bad results is really quite something.

In other news, a signature collection has been started for another universal basic income initiative. Because as the UDC have aptly demonstrated, there is absolutely no reason you can’t vote repeatedly on the same topic

* translates roughly as "drinks for everyone", not an anti-lockdown party, but more one of those fabled "economically left, culturally right" types - where "culturally right" seems to mostly mean wanting to kill criminals. Also an eletorate of less than 1'000 people, so, you know, don't actually worry about them. Him.

[parochial boy]

There's been some polling from both GFS and Tamedia ahead of June. The two initiatives having about 10 point leads, the CO2 law a 15ish point one, and th Covid and anti-terror laws are 30+ points ahead. So far so predictable, the iniatives will fail and the referendums will pass, even if there is space for some doubt on the CO2 one.

The stranger thing though, is that while the campaign is largely completely under the radar, it appears to be actually generating a lot of heat in the countryside. There have been a spate of poster-vandalism attacks, culiminating in a trailer sporting 'No' posters being set on fire in the Vaudois countryside at the weekend. This in itself, might go someway to explaining why, despite the general public lack of interest, these agriculture themed initiatives keep happening. These are the fourth and fifth iniatives with an agricultural theme in three year - with another two coming up soon. Most people don't care, but the people who do... really do.

In another news, the EU framework agreement appears to be crashing and burning after Guy Parmelin went to Brussels and failed to get any new measures on the three things that are causing the issues - the salary protection/posted worker directives, state aid, and social aid for EU citizens. Although the EU seem to think that they offered some compromises on the first two, which the Federal Council disagrees with. Who knows. Anyway, commentators all reckon the thing is basically dead - so it will be accepted and pass a referendum within the next 3 year undoubtedly.

What all this has done is create a big fight within the, of course, the Socialists. The leadership, backed by the Trade Unions, are against the deal owing to the aforementioned issue on salary protection. Whereas, the membership and a large chunk of the parliamentary group, being overwhelmingly Europhile, is very much in support on the agreement. So lots of fights, threats to defect to the Green Liberals etc, etc... All good fun

[parochial boy]

Anyway, it's now confirmed. The referendum on the legalisation of gay marriage (including access to artificial insemination for lesbian couples) will take place on the 26th of September.

It will be joined by the Juso's "99% initiative", which would tax revenues generated from capital (ie dividends, interest) at 150% the rate at which revenues generated from work are taxed.

[parochial boy]

It will be joined by the Juso's "99% initiative", which would tax revenues generated from capital (ie dividends, interest) at 150% the rate at which revenues generated from work are taxed.

Will you vote for this?

Definitely, although it's really not as radical as presented, as it still doesn't bring in a genuine tax on capital gains/capital that should exist. In any case, it doesn't have a hope in hell because of the all encompassing "IT WILL CRASH THE ECONOMY!!!" tag line and because it is a pretty compllicated topic that is very easily misrepresented. I have already seen it described as a "150% tax rate on dividends and interest" which is... absolutely not what the proposition is.

[parochial boy]

It's also nearly meaningless to try and work out an average tax rate for the country as a whole in any case. Assuming you are middle class family struggling by on a meagre million francs a year, the effective tax rate you pay will vary by a factor of 5 depending on whether you live in Ausserschwyz or in the Jura.

Even if you want to try an "average" tax rate - all of Suisse Primitive has risibly low tax rates.  That's 5 out of 26 cantons, but barely 4% of the population, but a much larger portion of the millionaires. And that's before even talking about the forfaits fiscaux which are the real way that foreign billionaires come to avoid paying tax on their income earned outside of Switzerland...

With that in mind, spare a thought for the wealthy expats who move to Schwyz for the low tax rates and then discover to their horror how trollishly xenophobic the locals are

[parochial boy]

Not especially important news - but I'm posting it, because I've ranted about it other threads before, and it brings me joy to compare us to our reactionary western neighbours. Anyway, French Swiss schools have decided that they will begin teaching the reformed (ie simplified) French spelling, as well as to introduce and encourage "elements of gender neutral  language". As in, stark contrast the the French banning it - and proof number 465 that French Switzerland is now actually a wholly more progressive place than France is. What a world we live in.

In other news - the referendums are on Sunday. It's looking pretty grim for the CO2 law, down to a bad turnout in the cities, or, more accurately, a bigger turnout in right wing rural areas. Principally down to the emotion over the agricultural initiatives in the countryside, whereas the campaign has gone completely under the radar in the cities. I've only started seeing posters in the last week or so. Which, considering when people usually vote here, is about the equivalent of starting an electoral campaign on election day in any other country.

Finally, the framework agreement got cancelled - generating a huge outcry. I've no desire to dwell on it, but it is principally a huge political failure on the part of the Federal Council - who went and negotiated the thing without input from the social partners, and so only discovered their concerns with it once it was already too late. Also, Ignacio Cassis being out of his depth, that is noteworthy too. Since then, there has been a huge reaction about how to save it - the PS are now talking about applying for membership of the EU, others are discussung an initiative to join the EEA. And the UDC want another initiative against the SRG-SSR (public broadcaster), who they claim are biased. Despite the fact we already had a vote on the same thing - three - years ago which the UDC lost by a 50 point margin. Always new and innovative solutions to important and pressing issues with them.

[parochial boy]

Not especially important news - but I'm posting it, because I've ranted about it other threads before, and it brings me joy to compare us to our reactionary western neighbours. Anyway, French Swiss schools have decided that they will begin teaching the reformed (ie simplified) French spelling

How is onion spelt under this?

It's the 1990 reform - so mostly means removing the redundant circonflexe from words like flûte and îlot. But yes, it does include the option to write "ognon". No-one is going to be penalised for using the old spellings though, so it's all thoroughly acceptable in practice.

And when you consider that the Swiss Germans straight out went and deleted the eszett from their spelling nearly a hundred year ago, it's not all that radical in comparison.

Edit - if you are particularly nerdy, the full list of new spellings is available here