I've got to ask... Please comment more!

Occasionally we get a huge spike in readership- for example today, when we hit our entire monthly average pageviews in 2 hours.  This seems odd.

As I see it this has two possible explanations- is something I write being used in a class or other institutional setting?  Or is someone rigging up bots to look at my pages?  It drives up my numbers, either way, but I'd really appreciate it if readers could tell me what you think!  This lets me know how this writing is being used, and what people want to see more of!  Obviously I want to write for people rather than bots. But the numbers are flattering.  Thanks, Genossinnen und Genossen!

Antidemocratic elections

Ok, Hi. You all know how into election design I am, and this last British election, while disastrous in its own right, also provides an opportunity to discuss how fundamentally antidemocratic the single member district, first past the post system used by the US and UK is.  There are many problems with it, and I will try to explain them in an engaging manner. My primary contention is as long as we're giving this whole democracy theory a shake, its goal is to make as many votes as possible have an impact on the outcome. The British/American election system, by which voters are divided into constituencies/districts, each of which elects 1 representative by simple plurality vote, is an obsolete menace to the fair representation of the public's views.

First- location. People can vote all they want in droves- if 10% of the electorate across the country endorses a particular party's agenda, they still get no seats unless they have a plurality in a given location. Meanwhile the largest parties (the most likely to command pluralities) end up winning a far bigger share of the seats than they earn of the popular vote. This is not Democracy!

You can also have the opposite problem cause the same result- a party can overwhelmingly win one district by more than they need to carry it, but reap no additional benefits from doing so. This is currently being displayed in North Carolina, where the GOP legislature has packed over 90% of the state's African-American residents (22% of the population) into just 3 of the state's 13 congressional districts, so their voices don't affect any other elections. That's pretty close to a representative share of the electorate but there are huge advantages for the conservatives in keeping the other districts from having any minority input, and those 3 districts do not need to be as homogeneous as they are to produce these results- the net result is massive under-representation for the Democratic Party, as only these three majority minority districts can elect democratic pluralities. The result? Republicans won (on their best day ever in 2014) 55% of the vote but got 77% of the seats, while the Dems got 45% of the vote but only 23% of the seats. The ratios for each are 1.4 of representation for the Republicans, and .51 for the Democrats. This is not Democracy!

These twin tendencies of First Past the Post and Single Member districts produce a chilling effect on political activity, because the tendency to vote strategically is so strong, not only can minor to moderately sized parties win no representation at all, but this is self-reinforcing, as people become less and less willing to vote for parties that they believe in- 20% of the American public favors Socialism. How many Socialists do we have in Congress? (1- Bernie Sanders). Lemme see, 1:535 is... less than 20%, yet no one will vote to represent their interests because under a first past the post system, how many votes you get is only as important as where those votes came from. This is not Democracy!

What it is instead, is a system in which some people's votes matter and others' do not. If you live in a safe seat, it doesn't matter to the dominant party if they win by the slimmest of pluralities or 80 % of the vote- they're overwhelmingly likely to win there, which means those people get less attention from political figures except during primary season than those living in swing districts. This can be fixed in a lot of ways- multimember districts and list voting (perhaps at a larger level) would both make those votes more valuable. Because there is only one seat to be decided, the scale of victory doesn't matter except for bragging rights- in a multimember district, a strong party would have incentive to compete for all the seats, with a super-high margin of victory divided among several candidates, while a minor party could likely gain some representation by hitting a minority threshold, not needing a plurality. All sides would have reason (at least mathematically) to campaign everywhere and hold the approval of as many constituencies as possible. I'll write more soon about an ideal system, but here's my autopsy of Anglo-American-Canadian-French Democracy. Every other semi-democracy and even the few true democracies has fixed at least some of these problems in their electoral system! We need to catch up quickly.

All British parties except the conservatives, including both the Heroic SNP and the Villainous UKIP are fully behind reform and transition to a list system which would eliminate the necessity for the last row!  We see in this system that the SNP, the Tories, Labour, Plaid Cymru, and most Northern Irish parties get significant subsidies through geography, while the Greens, Libdems,  and UKIP get shafted.  That may be a worthwhile bargain from my usual Socialist standpoint, bu it does mean a huge number of wasted votes on all sides.  I'd rather try to carry the day on skill and persuasion, not an obsolete election system- it's also worth noting that with a list system, Cameron would have needed to go into coalition with UKIP (which he couldn't do without being known as the menace he truly is) or the DUP (which would probably have precluded his current plan to scrap the Irish peace treaty, just sayin').  Either way, the UK would be slightly better off than they are now.  It will take more than fixing a broken electoral system to fix the worrying fact that half of all Britons voted for the Tories or UKIP, though.

British election results- Parties- results from wikipedia

Party Name and my opinion of them	Scottish National Party (Scotland only) Heroes	Plaid Cymru, Party of Wales (Wales only) Good	Greens goodish	Labour centrists	Libdems centrists	Tories evil	UKIP Really, Really evil	Ulster Union Party (N. Ireland only) evil	Democratic Union Party (N. Ireland only) evil	Sinn Fein (N. Ireland only) damned post modern hipsters	Social Democratic and Labour Party (N. Ireland only) good
Votes	1.4 million	180000	1.1 million	9.4 million	2.4 million	11.3 million	4 million	115000.00%	185000	175000	100000
Votes (%)	5.00%	0.60%	4.00%	30.40%	8.00%	36.80%	12.00%	0.40%	0.60%	0.60%	0.30%
Seats won /650	56	3	1	232	8	330	1	2	8	4	3
Seats won (%)	8.60%	0.50%	0.20%	35.00%	1.20%	51.00%	0.20%	0.40%	1.20%	0.60%	0.50%
Vote/seat ratio	25,000 to 1	60,000 to 1	1,100,000 to 1	40,500 to 1	300,000 to1	34,000 to 1	4,000,000 to 1	57,500 to 1	23,000 to 1	44,000 to 1	33,000 to 1
representation %/votes	1.72	.83	0.05	1.15	0.15	1.38	0.02	0.75	2	1	1.6

Clarifications- representation%/Votes%- this last row expresses how far each party deviated from the vote percentage that they earned. Ideally (from a democratic perspective) each number in this lowest row should be 1. Less than that means a party got fewer votes than it would have under a system which counted all votes equally, more than that means they got more.  For example Labour got 115% of what they should have, Greens got 5%, and Sinn Fein actually got the "correct" amount.

What do you think- should I add in the numbers of seats that each side would get under a list system?

Yes

Under a pure list list system (with a bit of rounding), the SNP would receive 32, Plaid 4, the greens 26, Labour 198, Libdems 52, Tories 240, UKIP 78, UUs 3, the DUP 4, Sinn Fein 4, and the SDLP 2.

Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen

Thälmann vor Allen!

Vor Allen Thälmann !

Hi, Genossinnen und Genossen!  Trying something new today- I'm proud to present DGBFHTP auf Deutsch!  I'll continue with a regular post later tonight.

Edit- should add in some current news.  Since winning a majority of the seats with less than 40% of the vote (damn you, single member district system!), David Cameron has set out to massively reduce the already punch-drunk British welfare system, and now he is about to abolish the Northern Irish peace treaty that ended the Troubles.  Not sure what he hopes to gain from that- it is part of his plan to install a written Bill of Rights in UK law which is a good idea but going after a popular treaty seems poorly advised to say the least.  I'm very pleased with the SNP's showing (which admittedly also depends on the anti-democratic quirks of First past the post single member districts) they got over 95% of Scotland's seats in parliament with about half of the vote.  I'll analyze this all in n upcoming piece restating my positions on election design in a hopefully sexier, more concise manner than I've yet delivered.

Wisconsin is still in the grip of the Kochs- in a blatantly punitive move, the GOP legislature is cutting Secretary of State La Follette's staff by 2/3 and office space (for the state's records) by 9/10, primarily because La Follette is the only Democrat holding statewide office.  He also had the nerve to go on national television to talk about the punitive campaign being led against environmentalists in general and Tia Nelson in particular- Treasurer Adamcyk and AG Schimel have, in their capacity as members of the Commission of Public Lands, banned the staff of this commission from acknowledging climate change-whether they'll go as far as Florida did and declare acceptance of the science behind Climate Change to be a mental illness requiring psychiatric evaluation remains to be seen.

I'm also keeping an eye on the Labour Party leadership election.  More on that later but for now I can only say "Go Mary Creagh!".  Now on to the article.

      Wenn nur ein Wahlkampf anders ausgegangen wäre, würde so viel besser sein hätte. Die Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands hatte einen so guten, so mutig, so starken ein Vorstand in der späteren Weimarzeit, und es ist so nahe an seiner Ziel gekommen: die Rettung Deutschlands von Faschismus und Kapitalismus. Immer wieder für gewählt mit 100 anderen KPD Reichstagsangehöriger, der Kommunistische Partei worden von der Held der Arbeiterbewegung, Ernst Thälmann geleitet. 

      Ernst Thälmann bleibt ein ewiges Symbol des Deutschen Widerstandes gegen Faschismus. Thämann wünschte und behaupte immer, dass wichtige Betriebe der Arbeiterklasse gehören sollte. Er hat viele Streik-Aktionen geleitet, nach seiner Beteilung in der 1918 Revolution als er wider Willen Wehrdienst für Monarchie machte. Während der 20er Jahre, kämpfte Thälmann mit den Kommunistischen Partei Deutschlands gegen den Freikorps und die NSDAP.

      Wenn Thälmann nicht ermordet wäre, würde alles ganz anders sein. Heute gibt es so viele Probleme, die seine Ideen gebrauchen. Thälmann würde nicht mit der Entwicklingshilfe sparen, sondern er benutzte die Wohl der Erste Welt, um alle ArbeiterInnen zu helfen. Strom würde auch wichtig, wenn Thälmann noch leben würde, aber es würde ganz anders verwaltet sein. Der Volkseigenen Betriebe Systemen würden noch zu dem Volken gehören, wie eine Mehrheit Berliner noch wollte. Es würde keine Debatte mehr über Kinderkrippen geben, weil Thälmann wußte und es noch wissen würde, dass es ist sehr wichtig, junge Muttern zu arbeiten zu helfen, um ihre eigene Unabhängigkeit, und die Entwicklung die Wirtschaft.

      Stellen Sie sich vor, wie ein Europa ohne den zweiten Weltkrieg aussehen würde. Es gäbe weder Massenmord noch Bombenangriffen. Thälmann wußte immer das Krieg sich am stärksten auf die Armen und ArbeiterInnen auswirkt, und würde Deutschland in eine friedliche Koalition mit dem Soviet Union gegen alle Rüstungsliefern und Imperialisten einreihen.

      Wenn Thälmann noch leben würde, würden einen neue Mindeslohn für alle ArbeiterInnen einräumen, und es würde auch Arbeit für alle geben. Deutschland leitet schon der Entwickelten Welt in Grüne Technologie, aber mehr muss getan worden, und mit Thälmann als Bundeskanzler, würde es so sein.

     Ein weitere interessante Frage ist ob die Vereinigten Staaten werden so großes ein Militär gebaut hätten wenn es de zweiten Weltkrieg nicht gegeben hätte. Es ist warscheinlich dass es noch schneller hatte passieren können, wenn Deutschland und Russland zusammen gearbeitet hättet, aber vielleicht nicht. Eine Welt ohne Amerikanische Imperialismus wäre ganz anders- Es hätte eine kurzerem vietnamischen Krieg, keine koreasichen Krieg, und keine Besitzungen im Nähen-Osten.

Thälmann würde so viele Problemen lösen, wenn er nur überlebt hätte. Und vielleicht, würde er diese Zielen erreichen, wenn die gebrauchte Einheitspartei zwischen die Sozial Demokraten und der Aktuelle Linkspartei passiert. Aber die Vision Ernst Thälmann lebt trotzem weiter.

Solidarität

German State Feminism since Annexation

      One could draw many parallels, superficial and meaningful, between the current state of the women's movements in Germany and the United States. Which is to say, both look to be in pretty dire straits if we look at the federal level. An examination of movement goals, politics, and political opportunities will reveal some meaningful differences, and show that by embracing bureaucratization, certain German feminist movements have been able to make great strides in regaining some of the protections lost when West Germany (hereafter the BRD) annexed East Germany (hereafter the DDR), and in placing women's rights firmly on the agenda at the municipal and state level. This analysis will be conducted through a political opportunity lens, and will show that bureaucratized “state feminism” is the viable future of the German women's movement.

      Barbara Epstein has thoroughly outlined a pessimistic view of the American women's movement which is far from inaccurate. She points out how despite feminist publicity of the unfair expectation that women perform household and childrearing labor regardless of whether they work outside the home or not, this “second shift” persists, along with increasingly successful attacks on reproductive freedom, lethargic action to improve protections against pay and hiring discrimination, and myriad other defeats.¹ On the same page she also highlights the role elite feminist theory has played in reducing issues in women's lives to the most abstract minutiae, segregated from any concept of relevance or applicability to women's lives or the activist process. She discusses the cultural successes the feminist movement has achieved, mostly spreading awareness of feminism as an idea which seems unlikely to die completely due to the breadth of its ostensible support, but has weakened politically since its heyday.² The parallels cannot be overstated- Epstein links the decline of the American feminist movement to the loss of the world's most prominent alternative to American hyper-capitalism: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The collapse of the DDR government was hastened by the same forces which brought Soviet Socialism down, and women's movements in both the United States and Germany have been hampered by the political discourse forbidding further alternatives. The German women's movement has adapted to this by bureaucratizing as has the American women's movement, but also has infiltrated both of Germany's mainstream leftist movements- the Greens (hereafter die Grünen) and the Left Party (hereafter Die Linke, or PDS when Professor Guenther was writing), which has borne notable results, particularly at the local level.

      Much of the framework for women's rights during the DDR's existence was laid decades beforehand- German feminists were extremely active in radical circles and in war resistance. Germany's greatest woman radical, Rosa Luxemburg was a crucial leader in the aftermath of the 1918 revolution until her martyrdom at the hands of the proto-Nazi Freikorps in 1920, and her writing led the new Communist Party of Germany (KPD) to embrace a detailed platform to undermine the influence of sexism on society, calling for public daycare, hiring protections and educational expansions which would have taken a meaningful chunk out of the “second shift” had they been implemented. Weimar Germany also saw the first organized forays of feminism into film, including the  first film with lesbian protagonists, “Mädchen in Uniform” (previously reviewed on this site) critiquing double standards of behavior and misogynist, natalist ideology. This free, critically thinking climate was one of the Nazi party's many targets, and the surviving Communist leadership seems to have felt a degree of solidarity with other Nazi victims- they would have little other reason to legalize homosexuality and conscientious objection to military service. Under the communist government of the DDR, women were able to make dramatic gains in the field of arts, especially in theatre with works like Franziska Linkerhand, and films like the Legend of Paul and Paula which concern themselves with the struggle of proletarian women in what was still very much a man's world, and music with Tamara Danz of Silly being the most prominent example of feminist rock musicians. Many male artists also devoted considerable attention to what are often considered “women's issues”- the Puhdys released songs about heroic single mothers, loathsome abusive fathers, the absurdity of some performative gender roles, and women's suffering in war zones, to name a few. The ultimate anthem of empowerment however, has to be Silly's “Mont Klamott”- a funky power ballad recounting the rebuilding of Berlin by its women- the “Trümmerfrauen” in the wake of World War II. This is important as evidence of what ideology the regime was willing to support, and as will be demonstrated later, the DDR was extremely supportive of women's personal and professional rights.

      Over the same period as American feminism's decline or abeyance, German politics have taken an increasingly hostile stance towards women's economic empowerment and reproductive freedom, actually starting considerably sooner in the early 70s as the Supreme Court struck down the Brandt government's modest reforms as unconstitutional attacks on religion. The 70s also marked the beginnings of modern globalization, producing a contest between progressive interest in state power over market abuses against the force of globalization making firms and their interests bulletproof. State power has shrunk just as women begin to access it, abetted by the conservative approach of putting some issues out of state reach.³

     Even aside from that, the fact that all German women now live under the BRD has been a major blow to their liberties. There were serious campaigns and mass mobilizations to legalize Abortion in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, bu none of them has yet achieved lasting success. The closest German women have yet come is in the early 70s, when the practice was legalized by the Willy Brandt government. After protests began, the supreme court struck the legalization down. Abortion has now been legalized for reasons of hardship, eugenics(!) health of the mother, or rape or incest cases. The solution was in 1995 to ban other abortions but only punish with mandatory de facto religious counseling⁴, and both public and private insurance is forbidden to cover abortion services. Finally, the dominance of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) has led to massive government subsidies to Catholic churches and organizations which conduct the shaming/counseling of women who seek abortions or obtain them without certain doctors' permission, even in heavily protestant or atheist areas. Bavarians have used their outsized influence through the CDU to ban doctors from earning more than 25% income from Abtreibung.⁵ While this is a gross violation of human rights, there have been positive developments arising on other fronts at the local level.

      A large part of the current activity of German Feminism is motivated by the desire to regain the rights women had under the Communist government, which were considerable. Among its highlights were a formal (though hard to enforce) ordinance mandating equal division of household labor, family policy that did not incentivize marriage, a full year of paid maternity leave, and guaranteed time off to care for sick children available to both parents, and an extra day off each month for women to deal with time sensitive errands and childrens' appointments.⁶ (This latter policy obviously contradicts the goal of equal division of domestic labor, but it sure helps more than having a culturally mandated second shift and no day off). Access to healthcare was also markedly improved in the DDR- birth control was fully available for free to single and married women alike, and abortion was also free and legal, if somewhat stigmatized,⁷ and the revolutionary Poliklinik model brought more people access to specialist medical providers than ever before. Culturally, single motherhood was not only tolerated but actively embraced by the state with several popular state-backed musicians both male and female producing songs glorifying their work and openly acknowledging their difficulties. Employment was more available than in the west, but glass ceilings were ubiquitous. Despite this, the DDR set a new world record in 1984 with 83% of women employed outside the home, compared with less than 40% in the BRD.⁸ The advantages of this cannot be overstated- employed women are more valued in a materialist culture, and also have the means to free themselves from abusive situations. Crucially, 90% of DDR children under 3 were cared for in state day facilities, compared to 3% of BRD children⁹. All of this would be destroyed overnight by the western government, whose lack of a minimum wage law until 2014 meant that it was not unheard of for women to be hired in the service sector for only 1 euro per hour¹⁰.

     The opportunity to act came about through great backlash among eastern women and some men at the loss of women's rights under the western regime. Organization efforts were primarily localized, and this arena provided the best opportunities following the legal mandate for each political unit of 10,000 or ore citizens to appoint a high level official as “Bearer of the Equality Objective” (hereafter Die Gleichstellungsbeauftragte, or GB). Nascent women's movements sought to cooperate with and in some cases supply this new leadership of state activism.¹¹ Gleichstellungsbeauftragten are generally tasked with ensuring municipal compliance with gender equality legislation, and for gender mainstreaming city policy- making sure it doesn't have a disparate negative effect on vulnerable populations as well as disseminating information on inequality as well as providing governmental advice and counseling to citizens seeking redress and direction.¹² This opportunity allowed for symbiotic institutionalization- many cities' women's movements became dependent on the political power of these new officials, who themselves relied on information, policy drafts, and activist support from these organizations to remain relevant, ensuring a steady stream of state funding for things like women-targeted job training and domestic violence shelters.¹³ Particularly in Rostock, women's movements' partnering with the local Gleichstellungsbeauftragte has contributed greatly to the resurgence of daycare co-ops, and was crucial in getting city funding for these feminist undertakings.¹⁴

     The leading organization in women's rights in northeastern Germany (at least as of 2005) was the Landes-Frauenrat Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (State Women's Council of West Pomerania), based in Rostock, seeking women's equality in politics, women's political participation, solidarity among women, consolidation of women's interests, improving the representation of women in media, business and politics, reducing long-term unemployment among women, and restoration of support for single mothers. They primarily use petitions and letter writing campaigns to engage at the legislative level rather than street protests, but with strong GB offices in both Rostock and the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, they've accomplished much, especially in the arena of funding for women's shelters and job training.

      We can see examples of successful bureaucratization in Germany, helped by a receptive political climate and elites in the east. The American feminist movement should look to our German sisters for inspiration of how to get back up after the most savage of punches, and look to work at municipal levels to gain access to the health care, childminding, and employment rights Washington would withhold from us.

Sources

Epstein, Barbara. Decline of the Women's Movement, the. From the Social movements Reader, 2^nd edition. Goodwin, Jeff and Jasper, James, eds. Wiley-Blackwell publishing, West Sussex, UK: 2009

Günther, Katja. Making Their Place: Feminism After Socialism in Eastern Germany. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA: 2005.

McCarthy, John D. and Mueller, Carol McClurg. Cultural Continuity and Structural Change. From Women's Movements Facing the Reconfigured State. Banaszak, Lee Ann, Beckwith, Karen and Rucht, Dieter eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2003.

1Epstein, Barbara. Decline of the Women's Movement, the. From the Social movements Reader, 2^nd edition. Goodwin, Jeff and Jasper, James, eds. Wiley-Blackwell publishing, West Sussex, UK: 2009., p. 376.

2Epstein, Barbara. Decline of the Women's Movement, the. From the Social movements Reader, 2^nd edition. Goodwin, Jeff and Jasper, James, eds. Wiley-Blackwell publishing, West Sussex, UK: 2009.P. 379.

3McCarthy, John D. and Mueller, Carol McClurg. Cultural Continuity and Structural Change. From Women's Movements Facing the Reconfigured State. Banaszak, Lee Ann, Beckwith, Karen and Rucht, Dieter eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2003. p. 231.

4McCarthy, John D. and Mueller, Carol McClurg. Cultural Continuity and Structural Change. From Women's Movements Facing the Reconfigured State. Banaszak, Lee Ann, Beckwith, Karen and Rucht, Dieter eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2003. , p. 232.

5McCarthy, John D. and Mueller, Carol McClurg. Cultural Continuity and Structural Change. From Women's Movements Facing the Reconfigured State. Banaszak, Lee Ann, Beckwith, Karen and Rucht, Dieter eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2003. p. 235.

6Günther, Katja. Making Their Place: Feminism After Socialism in Eastern Germany. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA: 2005. p. 27

7Günther, Katja. Making Their Place: Feminism After Socialism in Eastern Germany. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA: 2005. p. 27.

8Günther, Katja. Making Their Place: Feminism After Socialism in Eastern Germany. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA: 2005., p. 30.

9Günther, Katja. Making Their Place: Feminism After Socialism in Eastern Germany. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA: 2005. P. 30.

10Günther, Katja. Making Their Place: Feminism After Socialism in Eastern Germany. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA: 2005., p. 74.

11Günther, Katja. Making Their Place: Feminism After Socialism in Eastern Germany. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA: 2005., p. 37

12Günther, Katja. Making Their Place: Feminism After Socialism in Eastern Germany. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA: 2005., p. 38

13Günther, Katja. Making Their Place: Feminism After Socialism in Eastern Germany. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA: 2005., p. 40.

14Günther, Katja. Making Their Place: Feminism After Socialism in Eastern Germany. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA: 2005. P. 75.

Brief thoughts on the British election

Hey all, I'm back after a long absence- sorry about that.  The clock is ticking, and here are my thoughts.  Much more to follow later- and you'll also get to see the thirty pages of mediocrity I call my thesis.

Oh my oh my I am so excited. If Ed Miliband can just stop flipping off the Scottish National Party for a few minutes, he may be Prime Minister and the G7 can finally boast at least one leader who sees stopping climate change as a top priority. That's reason enough for me to be excited, but fivethirtyeight shows it can be done! Labour needs to work with its Irish partner party, the SDLP, as well as both separatist movements, but there is a clear path to a bare plurality (majority if Sinn Fein maintains its abstentionist tradition) which gets easier if Liberal Democrat leader/ Tory stooge Nick Clegg loses his seat.

The problem is Miliband has started saying he would rather see a Conservative government that a Labour government that gets the Scottish National Party' support. This is the SNP that has been busily out-Labouring Labour itself for the last 15 years or more, ever since Alex Salmond undertook the titanic mission of purging the fascists from what was becoming a very ugly organization and turned it into Britain's leading force for democratic socialism. Now under the leadership of his longtime deputy Nicola Sturgeon (architect of the SNP's progressive expansions of childcare guarantees and a staunch advocate for nuclear disarmament and increased public action to improve the economy), the SNP has produced miracles in Scotland with regard to youth unemployment and climate protection. Miliband is the most progressive leader Labour has had in a generation, and if even he can't agree to work with the SNP, it's going to be a very depressing five years.

Watching the leadership debate. Ed is disappointing-he had a chance to stand up and mention British acceptance of refugees as saving his parents' lives. Sad to see he's giving in to the rising tide of xenophobia. No European economy would be even as strong as it is without lots of immigrant labor off-setting declining birth rates

Clegg got in a great line- said Farage was incapable of viewing any foreigner as anything other than a menace.

The star of UK politics right now is SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon- she alone is unafraid of Nigel Farage, and is calling him out at every opportunity on the need to create a welcoming environment for newcomer, saying that Britain is strengthened by diversity. She's equally impressive on war spending and healthcare- she's calling for the abolition of Britain's nuclear arsenal, and has masterminded the re-nationalization of Scotland's NHS with stellar results, and has served in the government that recently expanded free childcare. She is the greatest stateswoman I've seen come out of Britain, and I desperately hope her party will enter the next government, or at least get meaningful policy concessions from Miliband.

Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen.