Man, i like the sound of those NEOS a lot. I wonder if my values would be more aligned between them or the social democrats. That's so awful that most austrians thinks a vote for Dems would be better to vote for nazis. Shows that the right-wing propaganda machine has been successful.

So the election is over. Which parties will come together to form a government? 1 and 2, alone right?

No party wants to form a government with the FPÖ, except the ÖVP. However, their leader, Chancellor Nehammer, has stated that they refuse to work with FPÖ’s leader, Kickl.
A coalition between the ÖVP and FPÖ could happen, but only without Kickl. Alternatively, it could also be without Nehammer.
The best outcome, however, would be an ÖVP and SPÖ coalition.

OVP and SVP together would form a total balanced government. Sort of what the US was originally designed to have. A government of compromise and balance.

That would be a cool outcome. Although I selfishly would love one day to see SPO and NEOS form a government. Maybe with the greens and beer just for fun lol

Thanks for walking me though all this, Darkstar! I'm learning a ton and this sure breaks up DJ/Sixty's snoozefest they've been having

Coalitions so far:

(on the right side are the days how long it took them to form a coalation after the elections)

ouch! SPO's have formed governments quite a bit and now they're down to 21% of the vote. OUCH

C'mon NEOS get your crap together. I want them to get a chance

Who's the bzo IN 2002? Was that the neo-nazi party that got into power? I remember reading that in the news at some point in my life.

After the FPÖ entered a coalition government with the ÖVP in 2000, internal tensions began to rise. The FPÖ faced challenges in balancing its populist, far-right rhetoric with the practicalities of governing. This led to dissatisfaction within the party, especially as they lost voter support in subsequent elections due to controversial policies and leadership struggles.

In 2005, Jörg Haider, the charismatic but polarizing leader of the FPÖ, and some of his supporters broke away from the party to form the BZÖ (Alliance for the Future of Austria). Haider felt that the FPÖ needed to move away from its more extreme positions and adapt to a more centrist, pragmatic approach in government. However, many within the FPÖ, including those loyal to new leader Heinz-Christian Strache, wanted to maintain the party's hardline stance.

The split created a new political dynamic, with the FPÖ continuing to represent far-right populist ideals under Strache's leadership, while the BZÖ, under Haider, initially positioned itself as a more moderate alternative. However, after Haider's death in 2008, the BZÖ's influence declined significantly, and it eventually lost relevance in Austrian politics, while the FPÖ regained strength under Strache in the 2010s.

A coalition of SPÖ, Greens, and NEOS would be the best thing for Austria (but not possible currently), which would be similar to the current government in Germany.
However, Germany's next elections will likely resemble Austria's recent ones, with increasing polarization and shifts towards the right.

Really curious if Canada's next election will move to the right. I hope not. But yeah it seems really easy to scare people into voting more to the right. Anytime things are bad or scary, it's so easy to point the finger to immigration or whatever.

Why point the finger at immigration, when you can point the finger at failed liberal policies instead?

Liberals might try to call Conservatives Nazis, but there are plenty of reasons to vote liberals out of power that have nothing to do with Xenophobia or racism.

Take Germany, for example. They've completely changed their entire economy to go green. Is that popular? no idea. Is it stupid? definitely. Is it a reason to vote conservative? probably. Will the liberals try to pretend that the economy isn't a big part of the reason? yeah they will, they'll absolutely pull the 'you’re racist' card, even if that has nothing to do with your vote.

If Trump weren't the alternative, I'd be voting conservative in this election. I'm fairly sure of it. But Trump is the alternative. I'm not sure what Germany's or Austria's politicians are like, but if they aren't Trump, I'd be considering voting for them too.

Someone needs more cranberry juice.

Timh sez THAT'S FOR UTI'S, STUPID


Hey speaking of Timh, I thought of him this morning (non-sexual). In a recent Jomboy "Things you May Have Missed", he covered a recent great sumo match and I thought it was really cool. I'll try to post it here with the time signature and stuff. Was it Timh that was posting Sumo stuff here a few months ago? I can't remember, but someone was into thicc japanese guys

go to 4:17, that's where it starts

Is that popular? no
Is it stupid? no
Is it a reason to vote conservative? not, if you have more than 2 brain cells.
most of the voters of right wing parties just vote for them because migrants = bad.


As long as I am not rich and/or own a big company there is literally no reason to vote for a right wing party.

You could be a fiscal conservative (prioritize economy over lots of things) or a social conservative without being rich or owning a big company

Btw if I was rich and may own a piece of a big company one day, I’d still probably vote liberal

Well I only have 2 brain cells, so I can't talk about what I'd do with more than that.

However, I work in the energy business, and I support multiple companies that are in, at a minimum adjacent to, Green industries. And I can tell you, with little doubt, that the Greenification of Germany's grid was probably a mistake. Because of their use of green energy, they have become much more reliant on natural gas for backup generation, which in turn comes from Russia. Maybe if I had a 3rd braincell, I'd be able to explain why this is a mistake, and an unfortunate departure from Germany's formerly heavily reliant on coal economy (6th largest reserves in the world), and the even dumber move towards abandoning nuclear power (which doesn't even emit CO2). A 4th braincell would find a solid argument to lay the blame for these poor decisions at the feet of liberals, who seem to think that wind and solar energy are abundant, cheap, and, most importantly, reliable.

As an aside... are you too poor to consume electricity? Because I feel like most people care about the price of electricity. The promise was that prices would go down (based on extremely faulty modeling of levelized costs, an area in which other people, with fewer braincells than me, consider me to be an expert); instead they've doubled (or worse).

In fact, I'd posit that only the rich don't care about the price of electricity.

Something like 80% of the world (at least) runs on hydrocarbons, so while it's good to be exploring and investing in alternate green sources of energy, the fact remains that we HAVE to invest in hydrocarbons (oil, coal, natural gas) in order to accommodate for the increasing need for energy. Green won't cut it or even come close, almost nothing runs on green energy (for now). So there's going to be this huge shortfall in energy supply which will skyrocket costs.

Energy is one of those areas where idealism falls short in a big way. Got to be pragmatic if we're going to meet the energy needs of the future.

You can be pragmatic while also investing and developing green energy, btw. But the idea to abandon or lower investment in hydrocarbons is a massive mistake that many countries will unfortunately realize. Europe will likely be the biggest victim.

I think people simply need to understand that green probably isn't the long-term solution. Like salt and pepper, when cooking, using too much is a mistake (so is not using any), and it isn't a replacement for meat and potatoes.

I'm in favor of putting solar panels on basically every surface that can afford to use them, but I would never be in favor of trying to power an entire economy with solar. I'm similarly, albeit less so, in favor of wind, with the same caveat.

We don't have a good solution to replace baseload power generation. Most people I know are in favor of switching wholesale to nuclear energy, but I know the Left is against that - for mostly, stupid reasons. If not nuclear, then someone is going to have to invent something new, because we aren't solving this with batteries (which are operationally extremely expensive).

BTW, one thing worth mentioning: none of these energy sources are renewable. We're just switching from one set of rare materials, to another: oil and gas currently, to a bunch of rare metals, etc.

Green is not a solution with current technology. But it COULD be if we put R&D into it (which we should). Ultimately, we're gonna need alternative energy sources. We can't stay with these forever.

Did you watch that amazing wind power turbine clip I pasted from instagram last week?? It's incredible.

I think we're probably gonna have to go heavy nuclear at some point

Chile can't use Nuclear...
Too many earthquakes...

Cucho, we're trying to have a conversation about the developed world here

Huge, almost never ending coastline... Offshore Wind is probably pretty good for you. ;-)

Maybe strike a deal with your less earthquake prone neighbors. They provide backup power when needed, and you provide wind when available.

I don't know, Chile is not on my radar - other than here.

______________________

@BB, feel free to help me find some R&D money. lol. That's literally what I'm doing for a Canadian Carbon Capture company right now. We need some seed capital to get our solution to market in about a year or two, I bet you know some of the right people.