This thread is for discussing politics, political science, and other politics-related topics in a general, non-country/region-specific context. Do mind sensitive topics, especially controversial ones; I think we'd all rather the thread stay free of Flame Wars.
Please consult the following threads for country/region-specific politics (NOTE: The list is eternally non-comprehensive; it will be gradually updated whenever possible).
- For Asian countries, see the following:
- For East Asian countries, see East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...
.
- For North Korea, see North Korea
.
- For China, see Official China Discussion Thread
.
- For North Korea, see North Korea
- For the Philippines, see Philippine Politics
.
- For South Asian countries, see The South Asia Politics, News, and Analysis Thread
.
- For Southeast Asian countries, see Southeast Asia Politics Thread
.
- For East Asian countries, see East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...
- For Australia, see General Australian Politics Thread
.
- For Europe as a collective whole, see European Politics Thread
- For Eastern Europe as a whole, see Eastern European Politics
.
- For Finland, see Finnish politics
.
- For France, see French Politics
.
- For Germany, see German Politics Thread
.
- For Ireland, see Irish Politics Thread
.
- For Poland, see General Polish Politics/Other Issues Thread
.
- For Russia, see The General Russia Thread
.
- For the United Kingdom, see British Politics Thread
.
- For Ukraine, see War in Ukraine
.
- For Eastern Europe as a whole, see Eastern European Politics
- For the Middle Eastnote and North Africa in general, see General Middle East & North Africa Thread
.
- Discussion regarding Israel and Palestine is banned indefinitely and their thread
was locked accordingly.
- For the Arab Spring specifically, see The Arab Spring
.
- For Turkey, see Turkish Politics
.
- For Iran, see Iran Discussion
.
- Discussion regarding Israel and Palestine is banned indefinitely and their thread
- For Northern Americanote ...
- Discussion regarding the United States of America is banned and its thread
was locked accordingly.
- For Canada, see Canadian Politics
.
- Discussion regarding the United States of America is banned and its thread
- For Latin America, see The Latin America thread (VE, BR, AR, CU, MX...)
.
- For Argentina, see Argentine Politics Thread
.
- For Venezuela, see Venezuela and the Chavez Legacy
.
- For Argentina, see Argentine Politics Thread
- For the South Caucasusnote , see South Caucasus thread
.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 25th 2025 at 9:51:19 AM
The phenomenon of the "Third-Way", where Center-Left parties embraced Neo-Liberalism and moved sharply to the right on economics (and possibly other things) seems to have been a fairly common phenomenon in Europe and North America.
I think a lot of that has to do with the "success" of Regan and Thatcher in countering the economic crises of the 70s and 80s, and the collapse of the USSR.
After thinking on it, I feel if you're living in a democracy (Not a dictatorship), there will be parties of the left nature and parties of the right nature. Simply by the law of large numbers, occasionally a right leaning party will win. While I can't say I'm happy that those laws have been implemented, if what you say about sweden is true, the situation is not at all unsalvageable and a healthy democracy can pull it back.
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the midIt’s worth noting that Third-Way parties did make some pretty sizeable leaps in some areas, in the U.K. we say expansion of government spending on central issues (like schools and the NHS) alongside the privatisation/contracting out of a lot of government services. We got the minimum wage, civil partnerships, the equalities act, devolved government, reduced child poverty, better parental leave (maternity and paternity) and more.
I stand to this day that the Tony Blair of 1997 would be ashamed of the Tony Blair of 2020.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAfter thinking on it, I feel if you're living in a democracy (Not a dictatorship), there will be parties of the left nature and parties of the right nature. Simply by the law of large numbers, occasionally a right leaning party will win. While I can't say I'm happy that those laws have been implemented, if what you say about sweden is true, the situation is not at all unsalvageable and a healthy democracy can pull it back.
This is one way it could be framed. Or alternatively, it can be said that nowhere is truly safe for social democracy. In the grand scheme of things, social democratic capitalism has been a blip in the history of capitalism. I think we should seriously consider the possibility that it's nothing more than an abberation.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangTrue enough. But with progressive candidates pushing more against the neoliberal status quo it's not inconceivable that we could go even further and start seeing the Left once again questioning capitalism.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangConsidering my posts it's highly questionable whether that actually does have precedent behind it. Regardless, of course, a specific alternative would need to be provided. No one has claimed otherwise.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 10th 2020 at 9:55:01 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThis has been on my mind for a while ever since the matter of Mainland China and the amount of concessions it gets from the world has become more and more glaring.
Is it time to rethink the concept of sovereignty?
Going by Oxford Cambridge's definition, sovereignty is the power of a country to control its own government, something that in paper most countries enjoy today as the UN has various mechanisms to prevent the violation of international law.
In practice however, we have seen more and more countries being forced to act as vassals of great powers out of economical need, the push for global free markets resulted in more poverty and less local industries in the countries of the Third World, and as the matter of the Uyghur's Genocide in China has gained more notoriety, instead of outcry we hear mostly silence from our authorities.
So returning to the original question, should we take another look at what we call "sovereignty" so that it can better reflect the reality of our world? Because by this point there are a lot of nations, my own included, which can't call themselves truly sovereign when economical powers shackle the ability of a country to seek its own way to happiness.
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.That's certainly a reasonable concern. But I don't think some updated concept of sovereignty would be particularly likely to improve things. Great powers dominate smaller countries because of the power disparity between them. The only way to get around that would be for smaller powers to band together in supranational unions, which I'm hardly opposed to (as an internationalist I think that would be far superior to nationalist isolation) but would ultimately require subordinating their individual sovereignty to the collective good.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
What do you mean with "lame-duck" and the answer is yes, other countries also leave a time for the sitting president to continue ruling before passing the torch to the winner
![]()
That means nothing for Foreign Policy
Edited by KazuyaProta on Sep 22nd 2020 at 11:34:32 AM
Watch me destroying my country
Belgium had a lame-duck goverment for over a year, I think. Things can take months in the Netherlands as well, because once the election results are in, there's this big negotiation between all the parties to form a coalition government.
Sometimes those negotiations run smoothly and we've got a new government within a few weeks. Sometimes it becomes this big fight that lasts months.
I thought Belgium had no government, rather than a lame-duck one?
Could the previous Parliament still pass new laws?
Edit: So it seems the Prime Minister stayed on, but the old parliament didn’t?
Edited by Silasw on Sep 22nd 2020 at 4:48:43 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSo the executive stayed the same until a new one had been picked via a coalition being formed. So it’s similar to the situation in the US, but the big difference being that a US President stays on even once their replacement has been selected, while with coalition caretakers once a new PM has been picked it’s an instant(ish) switch.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranFor places such as belgium and the netherlands, the difference between lame duck and no government is basically the same. Until a new coalition is formed capable of ruling, only minimal power exists to keep the country running. If the coalition resigns, they are a lame duck until the election. Lastly, new policies are rarely pushed through close to an election, meaning the government can be a lame duck too.
If everyone really thinks humanity is “inherently good” and not “inherently bad”, answer me this.
What are the actual flaws of an anarchist society?
Because saying that “oh, we’d just kill each other instantly” would prove that latter point.

Well, I can only speak for where I live (Sweden), and even then I'm not an expert on the subject (I'm better read on the US, ironically). But we have indeed had some problems with neoliberal reforms since the 90s leading to things like worsening conditions for government workers (because there has been a consistent drive towards lowering costs, even at the expense of quality) and partial privatisation and decentralisation of important government functions like healthcare and education. Heck, we even privatized our postal service to...rather bad results. We still have pretty extensive welfare mechanisms in place, especially compared to, say, the US, and the privatization is usually not as extensive as in other countries influenced by New Public Management (ie that thing where everybody thought "treating government functions like markets will make them like super-effective, you guys! We know that 'cos Thatcher and Reagan are doing it over in the UK and the US, so we don't need any actual evidence!"), so it's not as bad as I might be making it sound, but there's still some reason for concern.
Perhaps the weirdest part is that many of these reforms actually began under a Social Democrat administration. This is reflected even today in the fact that the modern Social Democrats are often not very far away ideologically from the Moderates (center-right pro-capitalist party, usually our second biggest party, and the leading opposition party whenever the Soc Dems are in charge), only slightly more focused on worker rights and slightly less on business interests than the latter (at least until the Moderates recently began to go harder on social conservatism and actively flirting with the populist anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, probably hoping that it'll win them the next election, since the Swed Dems are the third largest party atm...). And there's not much the parties further left (mainly the Green and the Left Parties) can really do about it, they're very much the junior partners in the left coalition. That is, when they're even allowed to be partners: the Left party has actually been excluded of the last two Soc Dem governments, apparently based on the assumption that the Left are too divisive, and that they'll vote with the Soc Dems anyway.
Roll a Constitution saving throw to make it through the year.