G17 Plus: Govt. from Thursday

"taking the decision to form a parliamentary majority with the Democratic Party (DS)."

- does he not mean consent of parlimentary majority?

Since D yes to all EUrope demands list of 5 parties and the 3 party coalition centerd on SPS only have 122 mandates and are thus a minority government who could form government only with partlimentary sanction with the likes of Cedomites LDP supoorting SPS in govt.

This is an 8 party minority govt not a parlimentary majority goverenment.

The SPS have betrayed its voter base and what now seems obvious is that they always intended to join up with the sell-outs.

Two days of negotiations with the "Sell Serbia to EU" coalition and they are almost ready to sign. The four weeks of negotiations with the patriots was just a show.

Anyway, the battle continues and the will of the people will keep Serbia whole - even though it will be that much more difficult.

Unfortunately, Serbia is still on her knees.

Serbia’s proportional representation electoral system is at the core of its current problems. Serbia must abandon proportional representation and replace it with the British system of constituency elections.

Britain is divided into 650 constituencies, each with its own Member of Parliament. A constituency is an area of land that is home to approximately 90,000 people. When elections are called, parties fight for every constituency. The party with the most votes in a constituency wins a seat in Parliament. The party that wins most seats has won the election and can form the government.

In Britain, parties must win seats across the country if they hope to form a government. But if they can do this, then the chances are good that they will be able to form a government without the need for coalitions.

Serbia should be divided into 250 electoral constituencies, each with a population of 30,000. Each constituency would have its Member of Parliament. To win a seat, parties have to win more votes than their rivals, they do not need to win the majority of votes.

Had Serbia used the British electoral system, then the Radical Party would most probably have the majority of seats in Parliament. The Democratic Party would be in opposition and no other parties would have seats.

Who the hell are the SPS, PUPS, LDP? Similar Mickey Mouse parties exist in Britain, but thank God none have any power.

Michael, i have thought about that before and agree the electoral system needs reform, but disagree with you about the need for one based on the British system.

while it would be a way of reducing the messy number of parties, it would also eliminate the guarantee that minorities have to enter parliament.

and who says it would be the Radicals that win out? did you miss the result of round two Vojvodina?

Jan Andersen (message 5)

I am writing about improvements to the Serbian electoral system which is clearly dysfunctional. Serbia needs is a functioning government and it will never get this by using a flawed electoral system. Multi-party coalitions like that emerging in Serbia is not a triumph for democracy but a recipe for cronyism, corruption and incompetence. We will perhaps never know what promises and threats were used to get the SPS in bed with Tadic, but does anyone believe that such a union will produce anything good for the Serbian nation? The SPS will use its position to boost the fortunes of its leaders and it will, whenever needed, sabotage the work of the DS.

In Serbia today the political battle is between the DS and the SRS, everyone else is a minor player and has no business determining Serbia’s future.

adrian, Timisoara (message 6)

My point is that Serbia needs a single party government to rule. What we have now is a complete mess and is a situation which Serbia’s mortal enemies (USA and EU) will exploit.

Bonga (message 7)

Serbia’s Hungarian and Moslem minorities live in areas where they are majorities or large minorities. In these circumstances it is very likely that they return several members of parliament, perhaps even more than at present.

There is another good reason for adopting the British system: in Britain we vote for a known candidate. Mr X is my Member of Parliament. He stood for election in the constituency where I live and people voted for him almost as much as they voted for his party. Apart for the few party leaders and well-known Ministers, who are Serbia’s 250 Members of Parliament? They are placemen of the party leadership. They do not represent the people of Serbia, they just represent themselves. My Member of Parliament is required to meet his constituents (me and my neighbours) at least once a month and to look after his constituency (my home town) in Parliament. Who does this in Serbia?

Well I'm no fan of either SPS or DS, despite both being in the socialist international, both are more connected to oligarchs than socialists, and G-17 are neo-liberal fundamentalists.

However, as long as they band together to keep out the SRS-DSS mob (connected to ther own oligarchs), then they are doing Serbia a great favour.

That might sound like I find them all a bad choice, which is true, but that is simply the reality of the last 20 years since the so-called "anti-bureaucratic" revolution, from which they all emerge. But the fact is it is only by saying a big no once and for all to those who most trenchantly defend that legacy - ie the medieval right-wing coalition - that Serbia can even begin to move forward. Once it starts t become a normal country, then the conditions might open for a different kind of opposition to SPS/DS/G-17, from a different perspective, one that actualy tries to tae them up on their currently hardly believable rhetoric about 'socially responsible' etc. Just first put out of its misery the front advocating hatred towards the the rest of the peoples of the balkans, a view that is a mortal threat to the people of serbia just as much as to others.

So though I never thought I'd say it, I'll say it now, thank you reformed SPS.

The SPS might be betraying certain parts of its voter base, however, it is clearly aiming to rebrand, hence expanding the potential voter base in the next elections.

That is very good news for Serbia. a modern socialist party, ready to take serious action on social concerns and forget the war-mongering of the past, will be in position to play a crucial role in the modernisation and development of Serbian institutions.

On 24 June 2008 14:41, Michael Thomas wrote:

"Serbia’s proportional representation electoral system is at the core of its current problems."

Really? Then please tell me why the same core problems do not manifest themselves in countries like Denmark and Sweden which uses a proportional system, seemingly with good results.

Michael,

I disagree with your analysis that SRS would win with a British First past the post system

DS-G17-SPO formed an electoral alliance on the party list. They would probably also form such an alliance in FPTP constituencies (like the Lib-SDP alliance in Britain in the eighties) and agree not to stand against each other (possibly under a single name). They were 9% above SRS in the vote, and with a lead like that it would tranlate into a a big majority in an election.

Look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_parliamentary_election%2C_2008
see the map and how many districts ZES won.

"Had Serbia used the British electoral system, then the Radical Party would most probably have the majority of seats in Parliament."

Maybe. But since it has a different system, who cares?

Odd to think that SPS coalition has had its Pension promise broken already and yet they don't seem to mind that but choose this as one of two supposed reason for breaking off SRS DS-NS talks.

", said the PUPS promise to their voters of a 70 percent hike is unrealistic this year, but can be expected in 2009. "
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/business-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=06&dd=24&nav_id=51366

i.e. next year we will break the promise again and while infaltion is running at over 10% annually pensions are in "real" terms actually falling! Beyond that the pensioners are actually seeing a bigger erosion in their pension given that a much larger proportion of their income is spent on foodstuff and heating - which have been raising far above the annual rate of inflation. But then this is no concern to the D yeS men - it wasn't their promise was it!

"taking the decision to form a parliamentary majority with the Democratic Party (DS)."

- does he not mean consent of parlimentary majority?

Since D yes to all EUrope demands list of 5 parties and the 3 party coalition centerd on SPS only have 122 mandates and are thus a minority government who could form government only with partlimentary sanction with the likes of Cedomites LDP supoorting SPS in govt.

This is an 8 party minority govt not a parlimentary majority goverenment.

The SPS have betrayed its voter base and what now seems obvious is that they always intended to join up with the sell-outs.

Two days of negotiations with the "Sell Serbia to EU" coalition and they are almost ready to sign. The four weeks of negotiations with the patriots was just a show.

Anyway, the battle continues and the will of the people will keep Serbia whole - even though it will be that much more difficult.

Unfortunately, Serbia is still on her knees.

The SPS might be betraying certain parts of its voter base, however, it is clearly aiming to rebrand, hence expanding the potential voter base in the next elections.

That is very good news for Serbia. a modern socialist party, ready to take serious action on social concerns and forget the war-mongering of the past, will be in position to play a crucial role in the modernisation and development of Serbian institutions.

Serbia’s proportional representation electoral system is at the core of its current problems. Serbia must abandon proportional representation and replace it with the British system of constituency elections.

Britain is divided into 650 constituencies, each with its own Member of Parliament. A constituency is an area of land that is home to approximately 90,000 people. When elections are called, parties fight for every constituency. The party with the most votes in a constituency wins a seat in Parliament. The party that wins most seats has won the election and can form the government.

In Britain, parties must win seats across the country if they hope to form a government. But if they can do this, then the chances are good that they will be able to form a government without the need for coalitions.

Serbia should be divided into 250 electoral constituencies, each with a population of 30,000. Each constituency would have its Member of Parliament. To win a seat, parties have to win more votes than their rivals, they do not need to win the majority of votes.

Had Serbia used the British electoral system, then the Radical Party would most probably have the majority of seats in Parliament. The Democratic Party would be in opposition and no other parties would have seats.

Who the hell are the SPS, PUPS, LDP? Similar Mickey Mouse parties exist in Britain, but thank God none have any power.

On 24 June 2008 14:41, Michael Thomas wrote:

"Serbia’s proportional representation electoral system is at the core of its current problems."

Really? Then please tell me why the same core problems do not manifest themselves in countries like Denmark and Sweden which uses a proportional system, seemingly with good results.

"Had Serbia used the British electoral system, then the Radical Party would most probably have the majority of seats in Parliament."

Maybe. But since it has a different system, who cares?

Michael, i have thought about that before and agree the electoral system needs reform, but disagree with you about the need for one based on the British system.

while it would be a way of reducing the messy number of parties, it would also eliminate the guarantee that minorities have to enter parliament.

and who says it would be the Radicals that win out? did you miss the result of round two Vojvodina?

Jan Andersen (message 5)

I am writing about improvements to the Serbian electoral system which is clearly dysfunctional. Serbia needs is a functioning government and it will never get this by using a flawed electoral system. Multi-party coalitions like that emerging in Serbia is not a triumph for democracy but a recipe for cronyism, corruption and incompetence. We will perhaps never know what promises and threats were used to get the SPS in bed with Tadic, but does anyone believe that such a union will produce anything good for the Serbian nation? The SPS will use its position to boost the fortunes of its leaders and it will, whenever needed, sabotage the work of the DS.

In Serbia today the political battle is between the DS and the SRS, everyone else is a minor player and has no business determining Serbia’s future.

adrian, Timisoara (message 6)

My point is that Serbia needs a single party government to rule. What we have now is a complete mess and is a situation which Serbia’s mortal enemies (USA and EU) will exploit.

Bonga (message 7)

Serbia’s Hungarian and Moslem minorities live in areas where they are majorities or large minorities. In these circumstances it is very likely that they return several members of parliament, perhaps even more than at present.

There is another good reason for adopting the British system: in Britain we vote for a known candidate. Mr X is my Member of Parliament. He stood for election in the constituency where I live and people voted for him almost as much as they voted for his party. Apart for the few party leaders and well-known Ministers, who are Serbia’s 250 Members of Parliament? They are placemen of the party leadership. They do not represent the people of Serbia, they just represent themselves. My Member of Parliament is required to meet his constituents (me and my neighbours) at least once a month and to look after his constituency (my home town) in Parliament. Who does this in Serbia?

Well I'm no fan of either SPS or DS, despite both being in the socialist international, both are more connected to oligarchs than socialists, and G-17 are neo-liberal fundamentalists.

However, as long as they band together to keep out the SRS-DSS mob (connected to ther own oligarchs), then they are doing Serbia a great favour.

That might sound like I find them all a bad choice, which is true, but that is simply the reality of the last 20 years since the so-called "anti-bureaucratic" revolution, from which they all emerge. But the fact is it is only by saying a big no once and for all to those who most trenchantly defend that legacy - ie the medieval right-wing coalition - that Serbia can even begin to move forward. Once it starts t become a normal country, then the conditions might open for a different kind of opposition to SPS/DS/G-17, from a different perspective, one that actualy tries to tae them up on their currently hardly believable rhetoric about 'socially responsible' etc. Just first put out of its misery the front advocating hatred towards the the rest of the peoples of the balkans, a view that is a mortal threat to the people of serbia just as much as to others.

So though I never thought I'd say it, I'll say it now, thank you reformed SPS.

Michael,

I disagree with your analysis that SRS would win with a British First past the post system

DS-G17-SPO formed an electoral alliance on the party list. They would probably also form such an alliance in FPTP constituencies (like the Lib-SDP alliance in Britain in the eighties) and agree not to stand against each other (possibly under a single name). They were 9% above SRS in the vote, and with a lead like that it would tranlate into a a big majority in an election.

Look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_parliamentary_election%2C_2008
see the map and how many districts ZES won.

Odd to think that SPS coalition has had its Pension promise broken already and yet they don't seem to mind that but choose this as one of two supposed reason for breaking off SRS DS-NS talks.

", said the PUPS promise to their voters of a 70 percent hike is unrealistic this year, but can be expected in 2009. "
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/business-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=06&dd=24&nav_id=51366

i.e. next year we will break the promise again and while infaltion is running at over 10% annually pensions are in "real" terms actually falling! Beyond that the pensioners are actually seeing a bigger erosion in their pension given that a much larger proportion of their income is spent on foodstuff and heating - which have been raising far above the annual rate of inflation. But then this is no concern to the D yeS men - it wasn't their promise was it!