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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:49:06 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Re: Swiss elections and referenda - New Federal Councilor(s) election 7 December
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17
Author Topic: Re: Swiss elections and referenda - New Federal Councilor(s) election 7 December  (Read 52467 times)
Omega21
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,869


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #300 on: March 07, 2021, 03:52:42 PM »

Switzerland really putting the dêmos and κράτος in Democracy.

Such a wonderful country, and one of the only ones with a real, unspoiled Democracy, as it was meant to function in the first place.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #301 on: March 07, 2021, 03:53:41 PM »
« Edited: March 07, 2021, 06:16:12 PM by 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
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #302 on: March 07, 2021, 04:12:16 PM »


No big deal.

Like Zell am See, where I live, there are some Swiss tourism towns there which are flooded by Arab/Gulf tourists in the 100.000s every summer before Covid.

We have become used to them. You cannot enforce these bans anyway, because they are moneyed tourists who pay the fines when police stop them and ask the women to remove their niqabs. Then they briefly remove the face veil until the police is gone and minutes later they are fully veiled again ... that’s why voters in tourist towns actually voted no, while the French areas outside Genf voted mostly yes because they are intimidated by the French Muslims and recent terror there.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #303 on: March 07, 2021, 06:05:24 PM »

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
Logged
njwes
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 532
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #304 on: March 07, 2021, 06:34:24 PM »

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?
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #305 on: March 07, 2021, 07:04:54 PM »

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.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #306 on: March 07, 2021, 07:44:29 PM »

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.
.

Any guess as to why Switzerland has become more friendly towards immigration as most of the rest of Europe has taken the opposite direction?
Logged
Omega21
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,869


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #307 on: March 07, 2021, 08:24:20 PM »

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.
.

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

Random uneducated guess here, but I assume not taking in the same insane amount of refugees like Austria did probably didn't allow for as much of a resurgence in right-wing politics like here (FPÖ and ÖVP's shift under Kurz).

Had they taken in 100,000 plus in 2015, I assume the landscape would be different today.
Logged
Crane
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,080


Political Matrix
E: -8.16, S: 3.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #308 on: March 07, 2021, 10:29:13 PM »

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.

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.
Logged
beesley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,140
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #309 on: March 08, 2021, 05:41:59 AM »



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 😏


Do the MCG even have any influence these days? I thought they were toast having lost all their seats nationally.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #310 on: March 08, 2021, 07:40:47 AM »

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 Tongue 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.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,564


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #311 on: March 08, 2021, 02:45:22 PM »

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.

Nestlé might not be keen on that, but I can't imagine Chaplin would have minded.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #312 on: March 12, 2021, 07:13:33 AM »

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
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #313 on: March 28, 2021, 11:05:04 AM »
« Edited: March 28, 2021, 12:08:45 PM by 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.




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.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #314 on: March 29, 2021, 11:30:03 AM »

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.
Logged
Logical
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,697


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #315 on: April 02, 2021, 05:22:44 AM »

Slightly related to the Moutier question, why did Laufen voted to join Basel-Land instead of Solothurn?
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #316 on: April 02, 2021, 07:55:43 AM »

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
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #317 on: April 03, 2021, 10:32:34 AM »

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.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #318 on: April 10, 2021, 03:31:53 PM »
« Edited: April 10, 2021, 04:00:44 PM by 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)
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #319 on: April 13, 2021, 06:19:43 AM »

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
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,280
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #320 on: April 13, 2021, 07:48:58 AM »

Two different parties having an argument over who is truly representing a "bourgeois" political outlook sounds... very Swiss.
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #321 on: April 13, 2021, 10:11:21 AM »
« Edited: April 13, 2021, 11:33:19 AM by Alcibiades »

What is the procedure these days for deciding on the composition of the Federal Council? I know there used to be the Zauberformel - is something like that still in effect, or is it just based on the whims of the various parties? Is there any real chance of the SVP actually removing an FDP member? This seems like the kind of thing which might spark outrage from others, especially if it’s randomly done in between elections.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #322 on: April 13, 2021, 10:41:07 AM »

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
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #323 on: April 18, 2021, 01:59:18 PM »
« Edited: April 18, 2021, 05:25:16 PM by 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.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #324 on: May 12, 2021, 02:13:05 PM »

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
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.081 seconds with 12 queries.