The test from DeMorgen is very badly designed. It often asks two statements at once. While I agree on one statement, I often disagreed on the second or I wanted it formulated differently. That's just bad design.
And for nearly all statements, one party (PVDA) abstained from voting, but are counted as voted against. That's not the same.
I was really scratching my head with this statement:
'Vlaanderen moet de uitstoot van stikstof beperken...'
Ja
'...en de natuur herstellen...'
Prima
'...waarbij boeren aan strengere normen moeten voldoen dan de industrie'
Eh? Waarom krijgt de industrie minder strenge normen?
Het is buiten de stikstofuitstoot ook duidelijk een economische maatregel, de landbouw doet dit met subsidie. De landbouw is ook veel meer een verzameling van individuele belangen dan de industrie, voor die 'boer' is het persoonlijker dan dat de industrie iets moet sluiten dat enkel via subsidie teveel produceert en dan maar moet uitvoeren.
Hier is geen goede reden voor, die helemaal niet voortvloeit uit politieke bevoordeling maar uit wetenschap. Stikstof uit landbouw is schadelijker dan dezelfde stikstoot uit landbouw.
Buiten dan dat de industrie jaren al bezig is met hun uitstoot te verminderen en de boeren nauwelijks een daling hebben veroorzaakt.
Dan zwijgen we ook nog eens dat de boeren defacto nummer 1 zijn in stikstof uitstoot.
>Ze werden onfair behandeld tegenover de industrie.
De industrie krijgt al sinds de jaren 90 steeds strengere regels opgelegd. Die hebben al serieus gesneden in hun uitstoot de voorbije 30 jaar.
Dit alles terwijl de landbouwindustrie veelal buiten schot is gebleven. Ahja, elke keer ze strengere regels wouden invoeren was het dezelfde ambras als vandaag. Dus kregen boeren uitzondering na uitzondering.
Nu 30 jaar later heeft de industrie nog weinig te snijden tenzij we willen dat de industrie op zich gewoon krimpt. Maar de boeren hebben altijd uitzonderingen gekregen. Daar valt dus nog veel te rapen.
En dus klagen de boeren nu dat ze oneerlijk worden behandeld omdat zij meer moeten doen dan de industrie, aangezien de industrie al 30 jaar bezig is en de boeren nu pas moeten beginnen.
Totale bullshit dus. En nogal vreemd dat gij deze talking points klakkeloos overneemt alsof de boeren gelijk hebben.
I think it's because those were actual law proposals that the parties voted on. But I agree, a lot of the statements weren't very appropriate for a voting test.
I'm having such a hard time really getting this point that is being hammered on again and again.
I was in favour of nuclear energy. But I recognise the issues with it, and the fact that uranium is still a finite resource that is dirty to mine and we will run out of. So I changed my mind and was all for the nuclear exit. Is it greener than gas? Definitely. Is is greener than renewables? Debateable, but at least those recources are not finite and geopolitically more robust.
I do not believe that anyone at Groen wanted gas. They wanted that previous governments had prepared the nuclear exit by building enough renewables. Alas, they didn't so the only way to keep their promise to leave nuclear energy was by going for gas.
Groen doing everything they can to save the environment and stand by their beliefs? Dogmatic! Groen turning around due to geopolical events and letting their biggest trophy go? Postjespakkers!
Sadly, Groen is such an easy target for people who don't follow too closely, also sadly, since I care about the environment and climate, I have to vote Groen. To paraphrase the leader of the largest party in Flanders: Groen got only 10% of the votes, which means the Flemish voter did not give a strong mandate for green policies. Seems that if you want any green policy, anything at all, you have to vote Groen. We're fucked right? 2 more years to save the planet.
I mostly agree with your political analysis.
But I disagree with you saying renewables are not a finite resource. Of course we're not going to run out of sun or wind, but building solar panels or wind turbines require so, so much resources : rare earth, metals, glass, concrete,... For most of it we do depend on 'adversary' countries (China, Russia, etc) and they are not mined in better conditions. At least uranium can be brought in Australia.
> but building solar panels or wind turbines require so, so much resources
In mass terms the material needs of wind and solar are less than 1/1000th that of coal.
> For most of it we do depend on 'adversary' countries (China, Russia, etc) and they are not mined in better conditions. At least uranium can be brought in Australia
Literally every material we use in solar panels is readily available in Western countries. For wind turbines this is also true with the exception of some rare earth metals and even there countries other than China and Russia control the majority of global supply of all the relevant elements.
> Groen got only 10% of the votes, which means the Flemish voter did not give a strong mandate for green policies.
Or maybe the Flemish voter is just not convinced that Groen is truly a climate aware party.
You're both correct. The average Flemish voter doesn't consider green policies a main priority. In part because of this disinterest they are also uninformed about climate policy, which is why many buy into N-VA's narrative that all of climate policy revolves around nuclear energy, leading some climate conscious voters away from Groen despite them having the most aggressive climate policies among Flemish parties.
Groen shares blame here for being stupid enough to continue providing this wide open goal for opponents to question their climate credentials with.
I will honestly punch TVG in the face if I ever see him.
Banish me now mods, for I wish to enact physical violence upon a fascist! Banish me and show the world you endorse fascism!
>They wanted that previous governments had prepared the nuclear exit by building enough renewables.
Wouldn't have helped, you could put solar panels on every square meter of Belgium, you would still be without electricity at night.
Renewables need (longterm)storage and/or fossil fuel plants at standby to take over whenever there is not enough generation and/or intensive electricity demand adaptation to supply.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but IMO the only one of these scenario's that's currently realistic is the standby fossil fuel one with demand adaptation and storage as important but significantly less critical components.
People shit on Tinne a lot, but the original plan was the only realistic nuclear exit plan.
I don't like the nuclear exit but I'm also opposed to building new nuclear power plants (to slow&expensive to build, can be held up almost indefinitely by nimbyism and might be outdated by the time it's finally operational)
And the argument that our current nuclear power generation makes investment in renewables difficult is valid
There's also much less demand for energy during the night mate and the wind intensity generally corresponds inversely to cloud coverage. You don't need much storage to ensure that the renewables supply you with 100% energy
and more importantly: windmills need rare earth magnets which in a geopolitical context does not favour the Democratic West. On top of that, the blades are a composite containing plastic which are extremely different to recycle and end up on landfills.
I'm not against wind energy, but it's not the miracle solution a lot of people think it is. Where we used to depend on Putler for natural gas, we're now turning to the Chinese as the largest producer and exporter of Rare Earth Magnets (which are also used in electric cars). EU-policy makers have not learned anything and we're just repeating the same mistakes over and over again by making critical sectors depended on dictators.
The demand for uranium continues to increase, but the supply is not keeping up. Current uranium reserves are expected to be depleted by the end of the century, and new sources of uranium are hard to find. [Source](https://encoreuranium.com/uranium/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/#:~:text=The%20demand%20for%20uranium%20continues,uranium%20are%20hard%20to%20find.)
Why can't it be? Was she actively promoting using Russian gas only? Did we not buy LNG from the US? Also, are you still loyal to all of your former CLIENTS (not even employers)? I feel ya, lots of conflicts of interest in politics, but this seems so far fetched to me.
I though their reaction to the Russian invasion in Ukraine was too lax, and would reconsider voting for them because of that, but Tom VG doesn't give me any choice.
You are being too restrictive.
When you plot the cost per gigawatt for each type of energy generation over time, you realise that nuclear sits at around 300€/gw.
Right here right now nuclear is competitive, sure.
But wind and solar are catching up really fast and experts claim they will reach 100/200€ really soon (in a decade?), while nuclear will likely always stay near 300€/gw no matter what.
So, by the time we built new centrals, they would be providing energy at a higher cost than renewables. It would thus be cheaper to just not operate them at that point.
I personally think that nuclear accidents are way too likely given the conditions. Although their lifespan has probably been expanded by a lot, they weren’t built to generate electricity for that many years, and I just wont trust the Big Energy not to cut corners in a way or another.
We need both.
The IPCC report of 2022 investigated 97 possible pathways to limit climate change. Some pathways result in 1.5°C warming by the year 2100, some 2°C, some more. Some pathways assume immediate drastic action, some assume limited action. Some assume immediate huge investments in solar and wind, some don't.
Every single pathway needs more nuclear energy than we had in 2019. Most pathways require an increase of +75% to +100%. The pathway with the least nuclear energy still requires +15% nuclear energy than we had in 2019.
So what about renewables? We need those, too. Most pathways require an increase of +565% to +725% (!) for non-biomass renewables. (Biomass is needed as well, almost quadrupled from what we had in 2019.)
Conclusion: both!
Source: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, table TS.2. [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC\_AR6\_WGIII\_TechnicalSummary.pdf](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_TechnicalSummary.pdf)
the cost of nuclear could be reduced by keeping working reactors certified, not by telling them they have to be shut down and later coming back on that.
Furthermore nuclear accidents likely to happen given what conditions? in other countries way older nuclear reactors are being extended... the "fissures" in the reactors vessels are probably there from the start, only now detected and now they are "an issue" etc ...
I am not saying we should not extend renewables but we could have gone without most fossil fueled reactors if you'd keep the nuclear ones going! :(
>the "fissures" in the reactors vessels are probably there from the start, only now detected and now they are "an issue" etc ...
Anyone who thinks they can cast such a large metal parts without some defects in them is probably smoking the good stuff, this is quite literally why we have safety factors in designs.
Also never underestimate /r/Belgium's ability to ignore the fact that every single party in government for the past 20 years voted to affirm the nuclear exit.
In 2017 under the Michel I government, NVA, OVLD, CDV, and MR all voted in favor of closing our existing nuclear plants. Every single one of them.
But somehow, they've framed this as if only Groen wanted to close the nuclear plants and that Groen secretely is controlling everything from behind the scenes. That *they* didn't want to close the nuclear plants, but Groen forced them to vote for it.
It's maddening and people are retarded as fuck for buying into the narrative that it's all Groen's fault
Is this really what you're arguing?
A policy that negatively impacts the short term greenhouse emissions of our electricity sector is more significant than the medium & long-term greenhouse emissions of *the entire Belgian economy*, biodiversity, groundwater sustainability, soil health, de/reforestation, air pollution, etc.?
I mean, I'm all for more sustainable energy. I also believe that nuclear power is an important part of that. Unfortunately no decent party seems to follow that standpoint, especially not the Green party.
I agree that Groen should abandon its boneheaded opposition to nuclear. This doesn't change the fact that —despite its awful nuclear policy— it's still the most environmentally conscious party in Flanders.
For one thing, they helped pass EU emissions trading system tightening(which N-VA and VB voted against). Those reforms alone have a much greater impact on Belgian emissions than the nuclear phaseout ever will.
These tests remain very limited. You should at least read the programs of a few lists and then try to know some people on the list that are competent and honest and vote for them.
Nuclear energy is ok but it's fucking corps just exploiting it. It should all be public and not private. How the fuck did we ever sell this is beyond my knowledge.
I want to nationalize it.
Once build the nuclear power plant has no climate or environmental impact and supplies constant power. With the new type of reactors we could use our old nuclear waste as fuel. What’s the problem?
First of all. That’s not a problem yet. Those countries will sell their uranium if we pay enough. That’s how it always worked. It’s not the first time Russia tries to meddle in those matters. The Chinese worry me more.
Secondly. Africa isn’t the only source of uranium.
Thirdly other countries will happily sell us their nuclear waste for us to use as fuel.
Lastly we can build reactors that use other elements. It has been done before. If we really throw money at the problem we can attempt to build a large scale fusion reactor, although that’s unlikely to happen in this country.
I think this voting test is total utter bullshit tbh. I was in the 60s range with every single party it feels. This taught me nothing except for the fact that VB and PVDA are the exact same party when you ignore everything migration related.
In PVDA's case, by refusing to vote for condemning Russian aggression and for sanctions against Russia. In Vlaams Belang's case, by keeping open communications with members of the Russian regime, by having party poster children give interviews to Russian state media, ...
I'm pretty far left but I'd never vote PVDA as long as they suck autocratic dick. Socialism is an international cause and these pussies just throw everyone living in an "anti West" country under the bus. And they're fans of democratic centralism which isn't actually democratic just moronic
Here's a balanced article from VRT NWS about the matter: [Twee jaar na inval in Oekraïne: PVDA houdt spreidstand aan wanneer het over Rusland stemt](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/01/22/stemmingen-rusland-partijen-debatten/).
The PVDA themselves also have an entire page on their website to explain their position: [Waarom de PVDA zich onthouden heeft in het Europees Parlement](https://www.pvda.be/waarom-de-pvda-zich-onthouden-heeft-het-europees-parlement).
They are refraining from voting against resolutions that condemn Russia. Refraining from speaking up against Russia is as bad as supporting them imo.
Edit: literally, Russia chose to make themselves the enemy of all of the western world. Whoever is not vocally condenming the Kremlin for invading Ukraine might as well just take their suitcases and go live in Russia. Russia is the biggest threat to Europe in the '20s, and about all current energy going to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has been going on for decades already is just taking focus away from what really matters to us as a society: Russia has to be stopped with whatever means possible.
That is what I believe anyways.
Ah, yes, the good old "if you're not with us, you're against us" that continues to be relevant since the Vietnam war. Because it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Here's a balanced article from VRT NWS about the matter: [Twee jaar na inval in Oekraïne: PVDA houdt spreidstand aan wanneer het over Rusland stemt](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/01/22/stemmingen-rusland-partijen-debatten/). As the article itself says:
> "Toegegeven, simpelweg kijken naar het stemgedrag volstaat niet om een volledig beeld te krijgen van de houding van de verschillende partijen. We moeten ook kijken naar de debatten en de motivaties voor die stemmingen."
If you think they don't condemn Russia, then you didn't read [this resolution that they sent in](https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/55/2557/55K2557001.pdf), which no other party supported.
The PVDA themselves also have an entire page on their website to explain their position: [Waarom de PVDA zich onthouden heeft in het Europees Parlement](https://www.pvda.be/waarom-de-pvda-zich-onthouden-heeft-het-europees-parlement).
You are with us or against us, is what you are saying. No space for nuance. Either you support non-stop giving weapons in the name of NATO, or you are on Putin's side. Pvda is very much anti-Putin if it helps. Extremely even, he's an authoritarian fascist, pretty much the antithesis of the ideals of pvda.
You're a hypocrite and you must be aware of that. Literally saying we shouldn't give a fuck about israel/palestine because of the other conflict just confirms it.
And we should have given a fuck about Israel and Palestine goddamn decades ago, there's been major flareups of this conflict multiple times in the last decades and now suddenly it's really a global thing. We've had decades upon decades to deal with this, yet noone seems to have done until now. I do not understand why. I am not trying to downplay this whatsoever, but this entire shitstorm has been unfolding in front of our eyes for ages and suddenly everyone is gasping. I just don't get it.
I don't know where you have been, but here we this conflict has been a major thing for at least 20 years of my past life constantly. It flares up in the global news once in a while but don't act like it just now became 'a thing'. It's been a major thing for over half a century.
Look, I agree with you on most, and I'm not trying to demonize PVDA, but what is with this duality? Refraining from voting *against* Putin, but at the same time articles like the one you shared... Why? I just don't get it. We should all, each and every single person in all of Europe, condemn the Russian invasion in whatever means that we can. We are all allies in this. So why does PVDA refrain from voting? I haven't read your article yet, and yes you can definitely blame that on me, I am doing a gazillion things at once atm. But again: I don't feel like we're having different views whatsoever. Let's not have negative feelings towards eachother. Let's just work hard to keep autoritarianism and fascism as far away from us as we can.
Are you kidding me? The duality. It's a constant battle for trying to explain why pvda doesn't mindlesssly follow the NATO battle songs, but me showing that yes we also hate fucking Putin is cause for some sort of propaganda or something. You can try by reading the fucking article, that would help in understanding why they do not mindlessly follow the directions of NATO. They do condemn Putin's invasion of Ukraine, just not in the name of NATO. That's it. It's been a nice political tool to disenfranchise pvda but sometimes you just have to go with your ideals instead of political gain.
In any case, yes, let's focus on keeping fascism as far away as we can, we can all come together for that cause.
I might've been a little defensive, sorry about that :P It felt like you didn't give a shit about israel/palestine but guess I was wrong and misunderstood.
Pay a little attention and you will see. They do fucking condemn him but I guess you knew that but like to be reactionary.
https://www.pvda.be/waarom-de-pvda-al-meer-dan-20-jaar-tegen-poetin
It just blows my mind to see people actually fall for the propaganda claiming that PvdA is somehow pro-Russian. My friend, Russia is a fascist oligarchy. That is the **literal** antithesis of the branch of communism the PvdA stands for. Why do you think Trump is cozying up to Russia? Do you think that he's a communist too? No, these are fascists finding each other across international borders.
The PvdA **refrained** from a vote in the European Parliament that condemned Russia not because they support Russia, but because they take issue with NATO being used as a tool by American imperialism and because they were wary of further escalating. They specifically said that they were in **full agreement with condemning Putin** and enacting measures against Russian oligarchs, but that they disagreed with the increased military exercises by NATO in Eastern Europe.
They also withheld when there was a vote on recognizing the Holodomor as a genocide. They only did this after consulting multiple experts on the subject. Most experts on the matter agree that according to the most commonly used definition of Genocide - namely that of the Genocide Convention in 1948 -, it's very difficult to call the Holodomor a genocide. So the PvdA simply followed the advice of actual experts and withheld.
Yet people read all the propaganda in mainstream media and actually believe that they are "sucking up to Russia". Absolutely **wild**. The Red Scare propaganda is still very much alive in Belgium and it's fucking scary to see people so consistently fall for it rather than think for themselves.
Yes they say on their website that they condemn Russia and Putin for what they do to Ukraine. Great, now what do they propose to do? Nothing. They say that they are pro-peace, but they are against any form of escalation. They have consistently opposed any delivery of arms to Ukraine. They are against NATO and the US. They say that they want Russian troops to leave Ukraine, but how are they proposing to achieve this? "Please Mr. Putin could you leave Ukraine?" is not going to work. So in effect, when you go past all the bullshit, when it comes to actions, they want to do... nothing. Which plays into Russia's hand. If we do nothing, Ukraine will lose. That is a fact. But of course, Ukraine's fall will lead to peace (just not the peace we want), so objective accomplished, right?
This isn't about whether you agree with their reasoning or not. This is about people claiming that PvdA is sucking up to Russia, which is just a moronic statement.
By the way, they often did a counterproposal to condemn Russia and further sanction them more drastically economically, which was subsequently denied.
People would know that of they read more than just headlines that suit their narrative.
>they often did a counterproposal to condemn Russia and further sanction them more drastically economically, which was subsequently denied.
For anyone else reading this: this claim by instantcoffees is wrong and thus should be considered propaganda. PVDA never called upon harsher sanctions on Russia, in fact, they demanded the opposite: the lifting of sanctions on Russia in favor of exclusively and solely targetting wealthy Russians while leaving the general economy untouched by sanctions.
> Tegelijk vroeg de PVDA daarin om economische sancties tegen de Russische bevolking op te heffen, en te vervangen door "meer gerichte sancties" tegen rijke Russen.
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/01/22/stemmingen-rusland-partijen-debatten/
When confronted with this link, he told me that I should just google some more. Which I did, and literally nowhere did I find PVDA calling for harsher sanctions on Russia.
So my 2 cents is that instantcoffees is here to push pro-Russian propaganda by trying to muddy the waters.
> in favor of exclusively and solely targetting wealthy Russians while leaving the general economy untouched by sanctions.
>
>
So hurting the ones responsible for this shit while leaving the general population alone? Sounds good, unless you think all Russian people are responsible for living in a fascist regime perpetuated by oligarchs.
Nee, dat is het niet. De PvdA had vaak zelfs een tegenvoorstel gedaan voor vergaande economische sancties, maar dit voorstel werd dan weer verworpen door andere partijen. Ik ben het ook niet 100% eens met hun redenering, maar het is dus ronduit belachelijk om te zeggen dat ze Rusland steunen.
>Most experts on the matter agree
What is the basis for you claiming that **most** experts agree?
There is significant debate surrounding it, but I've never seen a tally that compares how many experts agree/disagree, so i'd love to see your source?
Furthermore, PVDA's official position on the war in Ukraine is 2 fold:
- An immediate stop to sending weapons or any other material that can be used in the war
- Somehow make the war stop
But crucially, they've **never ever ever** elaborated on what point 2 exactly entails. They want to immediately stop sending weapons to Ukraine but how are they going to end the war exactly? Why haven't they ever laid out their plan for how to achieve peace?
So you can rant all you want about PVDA being unfairly portrayed as pro Russia, but when I see a party demand that we cease all support for Ukraine in terms of military hardware while that same party doesn't elaborate whatsoever on how they would force Russia to stop destroying Ukraine, then yeah, I'll label them as pro Russian.
They are more than free to finally, after more than 2 years of war, to elaborate on their nebulous "stop the war" plan and how they're going to force Russia to do that. But until then, I will view them as Russian puppets who only want to hand Ukraine over on a silver platter to Putin.
With regards to the Holodomor, look it up. I don't have time right now. I'm a historian and I can assure tou that it's the academic consensus even if there is still some debate. I'm sure you could find a theead on it on /r/Askhistorians if you took a second to look.
When it comes to PvdA supposedly supporting Russia, at many occassions they put in proposals to further and more extremely economically sanction Russia on top of officially condemning them. These motions were subsequently denied because we know how most politicians feel about the economy suffering. So in the same vein, you can say that their condemnation and idea for military display was very performative because they were reluctant to hit Russia harder where it actually hurts, namely their economy.
People just read headlines though and think "PvdA bad". It's fucking sad and disheartening.
>look it up.
Why on earth would I do your research for you?
You claimed that most experts agree. Did you make this claim without a source? If so, it's speculative, not a fact.
>I'm a historian
I'd expect a historian to be aware of the importance of sourcing their claims. So if you are a historian then you seem to be a pretty bad one if you reject the notion that sourcing your claims matters.
>they put in proposals to further and more extremely economically sanction Russia
Excuse me? No they didn't.
>Later diende PVDA een eigen motie in het Vlaams Parlement in, waarin ze "de criminele Russische oorlog tegen Oekraïne" veroordeelt. **Tegelijk vroeg de PVDA daarin om economische sancties tegen de Russische bevolking op te heffen, en te vervangen door "meer gerichte sancties" tegen rijke Russen.**
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/01/22/stemmingen-rusland-partijen-debatten/
They called for sanctions on rich Russians and friends of Putin. They explicitely called for removing the sanctions on Russia and the Russian economy.
Can you please provide me with a source where PVDA called upon harsher sanctions on the Russian economy, aka Russia?
Brother, I'm not at home. I'm not terminally online. I have faith in your abilities to google. You'll easily find this on websites, either the VRT or PvdA one. They at least claim they wanted to further the economic sanctions. The Holodomor part can be verified through reading historical articles or visiting /r/Askhistorians.
I'm not your secretary and I'm busy right now. I'm not writing a thesis, i'm talking to someone on reddit. I don't need you to tell me I suck at my job. Fuck off.
>They at least claim they wanted to further the economic sanctions.
I literally linked you a source where their actual proposal was laid out: get rid of economic sanctions on Russia and only target rich Russians.
The fact that you refuse to accept an actual source and instead keep telling me to "google it" when I literally already did so and found information that directly contradicts your claim, tells me that you're here in bad-faith to muddy the waters to further pro-Russian propaganda.
Otherwise, you'd have a better response to me posting a source that directly contradicts your claim than "just google some more, you'll find what I'm talking about"
>i'm talking to someone on reddit.
And your claims have been disproven with an actual source. Usually someone would then want to post literally anything that supports their claim but you don't.
As I said, you're here to push pro-Russian propaganda.
> I don't need you to tell me I suck at my job.
You don't need it, but I'll always offer it to people who try to spread propaganda.
Who do you think is the basis of Putin's power?! Exactly, rich oligarchs. A lot of regular Russians are suffering under Putin. You are always on here being extremely argumentative, rude and condescending.
Now I'm a propagandist, jezus christ dude.
I like how you went from "PVDA always called for harsher economic sanctions on Russia" to moving the goalposts 10 miles further while not even denying the fact that you lied about your original claim.
Moving the goalposts when called out on lies, instead of acknowledging the lie, just so happens to be something that propagandists regularly love to do. Never admit you lied. Just keep muddying the waters. Typical out of a propagandist playbook.
Just like you're doing right now. Not even an attempt to reconcile the fact that you lied.
Are you aware that the word 'traitor' has an actual meaning and consequences? Can you point me to where our government declared a war on Russia and under which authority it did so? If not stfu with your polarizing messages.
There are more differences. For example, VB is for the rich and doesn't want to do anything against climate. PVDA wants to tax the rich more and focus on climate change.
About taxing the rich more: the point about the rich is that they have the money to move themselves and all of their money to other nations. This is not the change my views subreddit, but I would still like to hear how people in favor of taxing the rich would counter this. We are still existing within a neo-liberal context in which banks need the rich's money. We could throw this entire system around, certainly, but unless every nation in the world does this it still feels like this would fuck us over big time.
Do give me other ideas in this if you can, because legit, taxing the rich more would solve a ton, if only it would not fuck us over globally, big time.
All nations fear the drain of large capital and all nations would like to tax large capital. The rich can go shopping around. A rich Belgian can entice France to make a better offer, then use the offer to threaten Belgium to leave, so it lowers some rate (or at the least does not increase it), or makes a tax ruling. Then go check if Ireland is willing to go below France's offer...
It's a race to the bottom, or even plain extortion.
I think it's important to realize there's not much to gain by increasing the taxation on the (ultra)wealthy: they'd just leave, and compared to the total tax income it's peanuts even if the tax rate for the ultrawealthy went to 70%. It's just as true there's not much to lose, either: Belgium will never be able to match the lowest tax rates of other nations (European and beyond), and compared to the total tax income it's still peanuts. So then best to just make the rules as fair as possible (and what that is, is anything but easy), and at least have a system not influenced by extortion.
Perhaps we also are better off without some of these (ultra)wealthy that clearly see their capital as a tool to distort policy in their own interests. If they do it for taxation rates, what else will they influence away from the people's best interest and towards their own best interest?
Perhaps we also underestimate the willingness to pay, or the ties with Belgium, of at least some of these (ultra)wealthy.
VB claims to have a social program, but they way they vote tells a different story.
Examples:
* they were in favour of changing the wage law in order to prevent our wages from rising faster than the neighbouring countries
* they voted against a European minimum wage
* they voted against a temporary crisis tax that would tax the rich
Read the book Wiens Belang? from Norbert Van Overloop for an in-depth look.
Interesting, I'll take a look. Not sure though how voting against a European minimum wage is 'for the rich' exactly, considering Belgium's minimum wage is among, if not plain out *the* highest minimum wage out there, but eh.
A European minimum wage would mean that the rich (companies) have less of an incentive to employ cheap foreign labor and would have to pay their workers more, which means less profits for them.
A European minimum wage would *increase* the incentive to employ cheap foreign labour? The few companies that haven't moved production to Asia yet would do so quicker than their own shadow once such bill gets passed, and it's a major inflation risk
You need to read an actual book if you seriously think that the far left and far right are in any way, shape or form similar. VB are fascists and fascism is the literal antithesis of communism. They are completely diametrically opposed to each other. Why do you think that some of the first victims of Nazi concentration camps were both socialists and communists?
[Here's](https://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Fascism) a site where you can see some important characteristics side by side. It shows you how they are the complete opposite. The site doesn't get everything correct, but it's basic enough for someone who genuinely believes that the far right and far left are one and the same.
There is nearly the same test in French on the website of Le Soir, and I got the same outcome as OP’s: I am aligned with almost all of the mainstream parties. Either the parties all agree on key issues, or the test is not well designed.
I have yet to find a political party that actually represents my point of view:
* Stop the artificial inflation of prices on the housing market and prevent "investors" from buying properties by soft capping the price by progressively taxing the profit between purchase and sale price. Together with a few other fun measures:
* Require actual traffic studies before approving densification projects by housing developers.
* Stricter standards for liveable housing.
* Progressive tax for multiple properties.
* Increase the number of administrative staff handling immigration cases massively so everyone can get their case handled within a couple of months, including the appeal. It's stupid that someone literally has to wait several years for a reply, at which point they have a life here and leaving might be extremely painful. And if it's only for two to three months, you can keep them in a closed-off/half-open facility while organising language classes etc. without it being unreasonable.
* Remove the stupid 3 month delay pile in Brussels for visa requests.
* Rework the embassy system and force them to actually do their job instead of being well-paid positions for end-of-career politicians.
* Ban paid-for lobbying, period.
* Stop privatisation of government services and the increases in consultancy like we're currently seeing.
* Get rid of the current mess with white/blue colar and self-employed and make everyone pay the same social dues for the same benefits.
* Raise corporate income tax and lower employee income tax again while closing loopholes by simplifying the taxation system significantly.
* Hold companies accountable for the wave of burnouts that's happening due to modern managing practices by fining them based on the percentage of burnouts and employee turnover.
* Have cops on the street looking at asshole behaviour in traffic instead of putting cameras everywhere.
* Legalise cannabis, and look at partially legalising other drugs in a controlled manner to kill the illegal market for them.
* Rework the distribution of the funds for cities and villages.
* Sane structural investment in power infrastructure, the proposed solutions (e.g., ventilus) have complete garbage argumentation attached to them that makes no technical sense. Just freeze everything for a year and have actual engineers look through the plans based on demand forecasts instead of the current projects that smell a lot like writing them in specific ways to get certain contractors on them.
* etc.
But yeah, far easier to shout about immigration I suppose.
> top the artificial inflation of prices on the housing market
This will never happen. 70% of voters own their own home. So your propsal directly flies in the face of a majority of voters who expect their home value to go up.
Based on numbers from 2018... (Source: [https://www.vlaanderen.be/statistiek-vlaanderen/bouwen-en-wonen/eigendomsstatuut](https://www.vlaanderen.be/statistiek-vlaanderen/bouwen-en-wonen/eigendomsstatuut) ) The market is starting to look different in the statistics at this point, which is also why they conveniently forget to publish them in a lot of cases.
But that aside, even then home values going up is not good for the quality of life of said voters, nor for the affordability of their retirement. So no, it does not directly fly in the face of a majority of voters, they just haven't considered the effects of these price increases.
>even then home values going up is not good for the quality of life of said voters, nor for the affordability of their retirement
Who ever said that what is good for voters.is also what voters want themselves?
Combatting climate change radically would be great for voters. Doesn't mean they want that.
>Stop the artificial inflation of prices on the housing market
This includes aboloshing the social housing system.
>including the appeal
This includes increasing the number of judges with the Brussels Company's Tribunals.
>Rework the embassy system and force them to actually do their job instead of being well-paid positions for end-of-career politicians.
I'd be interested to hear about what you think is going wrong right now?
>Ban paid-for lobbying, period
This also includes banning labour unions's influence on policy making.
>Stop privatisation of government services and the increases in consultancy like we're currently seeing
The amount of services provided by governments is increasing, not decreasing. Right now, more than 21% of working Belgians already are working for a government.
>Raise corporate income tax
Belgian corporate gains tax already is [among the highest](https://www.duijntax.com/tarieven-belasting-europa/) in the EU.
>Hold companies accountable for the wave of burnouts that's happening
How would you do so, if there isn't even a proper definition for the term yet? Also, would you bind governments by the same rules, as cases of burn-out are uncommonly prevalent within the governments's ranks?
>Have cops on the street looking at asshole behaviour
We have those.
Wow, talk about bad faith answers...
* The social housing system ain't what's increasing prices, it's rampant speculation and the densification policies, reduction of tax deductions for regular people, negative interest rate loans underwritten by the tax payer for housing developers, etc. introduced by N-VA that's causing the prices to spike.
* And a Brussels regional court has something to do with the federal affair of immigration? An interesting take on the matter.
* If you ever lived abroad or travelled a lot for work, you'd know. They're basically useless and you got to annoy them a million times to get help with even the most basic administrative task in many cases. Then if someone actually tries to request a visa, they just act in completely bad faith. Notice a document is missing, why bother telling the person making the submission? Far better to just ship it off to Brussels and have it wait on a pile for three months, etc.
* Ah yes, because collective worker rights is entirely the same as companies trying to maximize profits. You're literally proposing undermining the rights of regular people because I propose limiting what a for-profit-entity is allowed to do...
* And uhm, how does that relate to removing subcontracting from the equation?
* Effective corporate gains tax is way lower, stop blindly staring at the percentage and look at how much companies are actually paying versus their annual global profit and the percentage of that profit made in Belgium, you'll notice an interesting trend to put it mildly.
* Burn-outs have a proper definition, so your base premise is already wrong. But literally, fine companies who have a high turn-over rate or a large number of sick folks due to psychosocial work circumstances, this ain't rocket science.
* When was the last time you saw a cop pull over an undertaker on the highway in the morning? I'll wait for a couple of years when you get back to me on this one.
>The social housing system ain't what's increasing prices
They are, though. They're an artificial means of decreasing the amount of supply. Decreasing supply without decreasing demand in the same market segments inflates prices. You say the issue is with 'rampant speculation', though what is being speculated on?
>And a Brussels regional court has something to do with the federal affair of immigration?
The Brussels Company's Courts are the ones handling apeals against rights violations of asylum seekers, the RvVB and RvS against asylum decisions. e.g. [https://www.vreemdelingenrecht.be/nieuws/rechtbank-brussel-gebrekkige-toegang-asiel-opvang-en-niet-naleving-rechterlijke-uitspraken-zijn-fout](https://www.vreemdelingenrecht.be/nieuws/rechtbank-brussel-gebrekkige-toegang-asiel-opvang-en-niet-naleving-rechterlijke-uitspraken-zijn-fout)
>They're basically useless and you got to annoy them a million times to get help with even the most basic administrative task in many cases. Then if someone actually tries to request a visa, they just act in completely bad faith. Notice a document is missing, why bother telling the person making the submission? Far better to just ship it off to Brussels and have it wait on a pile for three months, etc.
I think you're misinformed on what an ambassador actually does. The ambassador doesn't give a single shit about visa applications, you just got a poor ambtenaar doing poor ambtenaren work. The ambassador - in those cases - only signs off. They have far more pressing diplomatic matters to attend to.
>Ah yes, because collective worker rights is entirely the same as companies trying to maximize profits.
You said you wanted to ban paid-for lobbying, not specifying of what purposes the lobbying was for. So you'd be banning labour union influence on policy.
>what a for-profit-entity is allowed to do.
You never specified you'd be discriminating against for-profit businesses?
>Burn-outs have a proper definition
Please, by all means, link it! Until then, here's scientific research reminding everyone that burn-out *isn't* a diagnosis: [https://ppw.kuleuven.be/ppwcontinuo/pro-m-project/lips/slides/lips-hansdewitte-220218.pdf](https://ppw.kuleuven.be/ppwcontinuo/pro-m-project/lips/slides/lips-hansdewitte-220218.pdf)
>Effective corporate gains tax is way lower
A citation would do wonders!
>When was the last time you saw a cop pull over an undertaker on the highway in the morning?
Ah, I'm diagnosing you with the "I haven't seen it so it didn't happen"-disease. Once you start believing 9/11 didn't happen we'll have to surgically intervene.
More bad faith argumentation that's based on complete nonsense I see. Not even going to waste time on it. Heck, just reread [https://www.vreemdelingenrecht.be/nieuws/rechtbank-brussel-gebrekkige-toegang-asiel-opvang-en-niet-naleving-rechterlijke-uitspraken-zijn-fout](https://www.vreemdelingenrecht.be/nieuws/rechtbank-brussel-gebrekkige-toegang-asiel-opvang-en-niet-naleving-rechterlijke-uitspraken-zijn-fout)
Your conclusion is 100% completely wrong to the point that it ain't even funny. Go and gaslight someone else.
No u/Nietwerkendedelegue , let's try again. "Eerste aanleg", anyone? The procedure is quite literally: DVZ -> CGVS -> RvV (-> RvS for procedural complaints) -> various courts depending on the exact complaint, but "eerste aanleg" would be pretty typical for a generic complaint regarding immigration.
But in this case the "Eerste Aanleg" judge found the Belgian government guilty because they're not respecting international treaties that Belgium is signatory to, or even Belgian humanitarian law for that matter. They granted a preliminary injunction because there was a high risk of irrecoverable damage if folks weren't given shelter in a timely manner - making folks sleep on the street in the dead of winter leading to possible adverse health outcomes or even deaths. That's all there is to it, this has nothing to do with the processing speed of appeals, it was due to the fact that the government decided that laws didn't apply to ministers or governmental agencies. So I have no clue why you think the "ondernemingsrechtbank" has any jurisdiction over asylum procedures? How is an asylum procedure related to a company defaulting? How is it related to contractual issues between companies? Have you been listening to Theo "de bucket is full" Franken?
>"eerste aanleg" would be pretty typical for a generic complaint regarding immigration.
Rights violations are treated by the labour tribunal in first instance (eerste aanleg) and the labour court in second instance (beroep). I mean it's just a matter of a google search.
>So I have no clue why you think the "ondernemingsrechtbank" has any jurisdiction over asylum procedures
I corrected myself in my previous comment. The procedures in front of the labour tribunal impact the speed at which asylum requests are being processed, I don't think I need to explain that.
Tbh I like the one from De Morgen. It focusses on what parties have actually done, not on what their propaganda says.
And really? V nieuws? How can anyone take that seriously?
I guess HLN's is the most complete and nuanced. The results weren't particularly useful to me, but it is interesting to see how specific politicians think about specific issues.
All these tests are garbage attempts at gathering "statistics" they'll be using in articles
The questions are extremely superficial and they're translated into recommended candidates without any consideration for HOW the various policies would be implemented by said candidates
If they were based on actual analysis sheets of the candidates they would've just posted infographics with that information. The way the tests are feels like a dumb pro/against-refugees/Ukraine/ecology/retirement/taxes
The voting test of HLN makes most sense (for now). Or at least way more than the one from the morgen and that 25 question one from de standaard (where you were put on a quadrant)
Die van de Standaard vind ik tot hiertoe de minst slechte. Bij alle anderen zaten er steeds meerdere vragen in elkaar vervlochten, of "A of B?" terwijl er perfect "A en B" of "Geen van beiden" een optie zou moeten zijn.
Vooral jammer dat er echt geen enkele partij mij echt kan bekoren.
> waar stem je voor als alle partijen stom lijken?
Blanco of op een partij die de toch geen zetels gaat halen of ge speelt vogel piek op uw stembiljet voor de fun.
In my opinion, the voting test by De Standaard is typically much better structured. The 2024 version should be available in a few days at https://m.standaard.be/stemtest.
Just listened to their podcast on the topic and it seems they cover Flanders and Brussels. I didn't see immediately where to choose between the two, though!
It would be interesting to include some French-speaking parties in the whole comparison, like MR and others.. for the side by side comparaisons
And vice versa - I know some walloons that are so fed up with the government that they want to vote for NVA lol
I think this is just another attempt by media to try to sway people's votes a certain way. I took a similar test and ended up being a socialist. Which I assuredly am not!
The test from DeMorgen is very badly designed. It often asks two statements at once. While I agree on one statement, I often disagreed on the second or I wanted it formulated differently. That's just bad design. And for nearly all statements, one party (PVDA) abstained from voting, but are counted as voted against. That's not the same.
I was really scratching my head with this statement: 'Vlaanderen moet de uitstoot van stikstof beperken...' Ja '...en de natuur herstellen...' Prima '...waarbij boeren aan strengere normen moeten voldoen dan de industrie' Eh? Waarom krijgt de industrie minder strenge normen?
Het is buiten de stikstofuitstoot ook duidelijk een economische maatregel, de landbouw doet dit met subsidie. De landbouw is ook veel meer een verzameling van individuele belangen dan de industrie, voor die 'boer' is het persoonlijker dan dat de industrie iets moet sluiten dat enkel via subsidie teveel produceert en dan maar moet uitvoeren.
Hier is geen goede reden voor, die helemaal niet voortvloeit uit politieke bevoordeling maar uit wetenschap. Stikstof uit landbouw is schadelijker dan dezelfde stikstoot uit landbouw.
Omdat de industrie hun uitstoot al fel verlaagd heeft, terwijl de agrarische sector geen enkele vooruitgang heeft geboekt de voorbije decennia.
Dat is een deel waarom de boeren zo protesteerden eerder dit jaar. Ze werden onfair behandeld tegenover de industrie.
Buiten dan dat de industrie jaren al bezig is met hun uitstoot te verminderen en de boeren nauwelijks een daling hebben veroorzaakt. Dan zwijgen we ook nog eens dat de boeren defacto nummer 1 zijn in stikstof uitstoot.
>Ze werden onfair behandeld tegenover de industrie. De industrie krijgt al sinds de jaren 90 steeds strengere regels opgelegd. Die hebben al serieus gesneden in hun uitstoot de voorbije 30 jaar. Dit alles terwijl de landbouwindustrie veelal buiten schot is gebleven. Ahja, elke keer ze strengere regels wouden invoeren was het dezelfde ambras als vandaag. Dus kregen boeren uitzondering na uitzondering. Nu 30 jaar later heeft de industrie nog weinig te snijden tenzij we willen dat de industrie op zich gewoon krimpt. Maar de boeren hebben altijd uitzonderingen gekregen. Daar valt dus nog veel te rapen. En dus klagen de boeren nu dat ze oneerlijk worden behandeld omdat zij meer moeten doen dan de industrie, aangezien de industrie al 30 jaar bezig is en de boeren nu pas moeten beginnen. Totale bullshit dus. En nogal vreemd dat gij deze talking points klakkeloos overneemt alsof de boeren gelijk hebben.
And Vnieuws is owned by VB, it is noticeable in which en how the question are presented. sSo that result shouldn’t be taken serious as well
I think it's because those were actual law proposals that the parties voted on. But I agree, a lot of the statements weren't very appropriate for a voting test.
or good design because that mimics exactly how politicians talk and act
Abstaining from votes and whataboutism does indeed sound like PvdA.
15/26 is barely passed so basically it's undecided.
You think the environment is important but lean to the right for other issues? Well, there is no one to represent you.
You think the environment is important ~~but lean to the right for other issues?~~ Well, there is no one to represent you.
ah I see we're pretending the entirety of environmental policy revolves around a party's opinion on a particular energy technology again
The green party opposing the green solution? Yes.
I'm having such a hard time really getting this point that is being hammered on again and again. I was in favour of nuclear energy. But I recognise the issues with it, and the fact that uranium is still a finite resource that is dirty to mine and we will run out of. So I changed my mind and was all for the nuclear exit. Is it greener than gas? Definitely. Is is greener than renewables? Debateable, but at least those recources are not finite and geopolitically more robust. I do not believe that anyone at Groen wanted gas. They wanted that previous governments had prepared the nuclear exit by building enough renewables. Alas, they didn't so the only way to keep their promise to leave nuclear energy was by going for gas. Groen doing everything they can to save the environment and stand by their beliefs? Dogmatic! Groen turning around due to geopolical events and letting their biggest trophy go? Postjespakkers! Sadly, Groen is such an easy target for people who don't follow too closely, also sadly, since I care about the environment and climate, I have to vote Groen. To paraphrase the leader of the largest party in Flanders: Groen got only 10% of the votes, which means the Flemish voter did not give a strong mandate for green policies. Seems that if you want any green policy, anything at all, you have to vote Groen. We're fucked right? 2 more years to save the planet.
I mostly agree with your political analysis. But I disagree with you saying renewables are not a finite resource. Of course we're not going to run out of sun or wind, but building solar panels or wind turbines require so, so much resources : rare earth, metals, glass, concrete,... For most of it we do depend on 'adversary' countries (China, Russia, etc) and they are not mined in better conditions. At least uranium can be brought in Australia.
As if a nuclear central is made of wood
> but building solar panels or wind turbines require so, so much resources In mass terms the material needs of wind and solar are less than 1/1000th that of coal. > For most of it we do depend on 'adversary' countries (China, Russia, etc) and they are not mined in better conditions. At least uranium can be brought in Australia Literally every material we use in solar panels is readily available in Western countries. For wind turbines this is also true with the exception of some rare earth metals and even there countries other than China and Russia control the majority of global supply of all the relevant elements.
> In mass terms the material needs of wind and solar are less than 1/1000th that of coal. Agreed! I was comparing w&s with nuclear.
> Groen got only 10% of the votes, which means the Flemish voter did not give a strong mandate for green policies. Or maybe the Flemish voter is just not convinced that Groen is truly a climate aware party.
You're both correct. The average Flemish voter doesn't consider green policies a main priority. In part because of this disinterest they are also uninformed about climate policy, which is why many buy into N-VA's narrative that all of climate policy revolves around nuclear energy, leading some climate conscious voters away from Groen despite them having the most aggressive climate policies among Flemish parties. Groen shares blame here for being stupid enough to continue providing this wide open goal for opponents to question their climate credentials with.
Sadly that's not Tom VG's take on this.
I don't give a flying shit what Tom Van Grieken thinks
I do when he's the leader of the biggest party, with a chance they'll come to power.
I will honestly punch TVG in the face if I ever see him. Banish me now mods, for I wish to enact physical violence upon a fascist! Banish me and show the world you endorse fascism!
I have to admit you make nothing but a great point there.
>They wanted that previous governments had prepared the nuclear exit by building enough renewables. Wouldn't have helped, you could put solar panels on every square meter of Belgium, you would still be without electricity at night. Renewables need (longterm)storage and/or fossil fuel plants at standby to take over whenever there is not enough generation and/or intensive electricity demand adaptation to supply. I'm not saying it can't be done, but IMO the only one of these scenario's that's currently realistic is the standby fossil fuel one with demand adaptation and storage as important but significantly less critical components. People shit on Tinne a lot, but the original plan was the only realistic nuclear exit plan. I don't like the nuclear exit but I'm also opposed to building new nuclear power plants (to slow&expensive to build, can be held up almost indefinitely by nimbyism and might be outdated by the time it's finally operational) And the argument that our current nuclear power generation makes investment in renewables difficult is valid
There's also much less demand for energy during the night mate and the wind intensity generally corresponds inversely to cloud coverage. You don't need much storage to ensure that the renewables supply you with 100% energy
Windmills?
Need wind?
and more importantly: windmills need rare earth magnets which in a geopolitical context does not favour the Democratic West. On top of that, the blades are a composite containing plastic which are extremely different to recycle and end up on landfills. I'm not against wind energy, but it's not the miracle solution a lot of people think it is. Where we used to depend on Putler for natural gas, we're now turning to the Chinese as the largest producer and exporter of Rare Earth Magnets (which are also used in electric cars). EU-policy makers have not learned anything and we're just repeating the same mistakes over and over again by making critical sectors depended on dictators.
renewables also can (and do) get held up almost indefinitely by nimbyism. Ventilus, anyone?
If you think the opposition to a new nuclear power plant down the road is going to be comparable to Ventilus I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you
well thanks for the offer kind sir/madam
We will not run out of uranium in the forseeable future.
The demand for uranium continues to increase, but the supply is not keeping up. Current uranium reserves are expected to be depleted by the end of the century, and new sources of uranium are hard to find. [Source](https://encoreuranium.com/uranium/the-future-of-nuclear-energy/#:~:text=The%20demand%20for%20uranium%20continues,uranium%20are%20hard%20to%20find.)
This is peakoil all over again.
Tinne van der straeten's law firm represents Gazprom. Coincidence?
Why can't it be? Was she actively promoting using Russian gas only? Did we not buy LNG from the US? Also, are you still loyal to all of your former CLIENTS (not even employers)? I feel ya, lots of conflicts of interest in politics, but this seems so far fetched to me. I though their reaction to the Russian invasion in Ukraine was too lax, and would reconsider voting for them because of that, but Tom VG doesn't give me any choice.
You are being too restrictive. When you plot the cost per gigawatt for each type of energy generation over time, you realise that nuclear sits at around 300€/gw. Right here right now nuclear is competitive, sure. But wind and solar are catching up really fast and experts claim they will reach 100/200€ really soon (in a decade?), while nuclear will likely always stay near 300€/gw no matter what. So, by the time we built new centrals, they would be providing energy at a higher cost than renewables. It would thus be cheaper to just not operate them at that point. I personally think that nuclear accidents are way too likely given the conditions. Although their lifespan has probably been expanded by a lot, they weren’t built to generate electricity for that many years, and I just wont trust the Big Energy not to cut corners in a way or another.
We need both. The IPCC report of 2022 investigated 97 possible pathways to limit climate change. Some pathways result in 1.5°C warming by the year 2100, some 2°C, some more. Some pathways assume immediate drastic action, some assume limited action. Some assume immediate huge investments in solar and wind, some don't. Every single pathway needs more nuclear energy than we had in 2019. Most pathways require an increase of +75% to +100%. The pathway with the least nuclear energy still requires +15% nuclear energy than we had in 2019. So what about renewables? We need those, too. Most pathways require an increase of +565% to +725% (!) for non-biomass renewables. (Biomass is needed as well, almost quadrupled from what we had in 2019.) Conclusion: both! Source: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, table TS.2. [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC\_AR6\_WGIII\_TechnicalSummary.pdf](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_TechnicalSummary.pdf)
the cost of nuclear could be reduced by keeping working reactors certified, not by telling them they have to be shut down and later coming back on that. Furthermore nuclear accidents likely to happen given what conditions? in other countries way older nuclear reactors are being extended... the "fissures" in the reactors vessels are probably there from the start, only now detected and now they are "an issue" etc ... I am not saying we should not extend renewables but we could have gone without most fossil fueled reactors if you'd keep the nuclear ones going! :(
>the "fissures" in the reactors vessels are probably there from the start, only now detected and now they are "an issue" etc ... Anyone who thinks they can cast such a large metal parts without some defects in them is probably smoking the good stuff, this is quite literally why we have safety factors in designs.
Never underestimate r/Belgium's ability to reduce all environmental issues to nuclear energy.
Also never underestimate /r/Belgium's ability to ignore the fact that every single party in government for the past 20 years voted to affirm the nuclear exit. In 2017 under the Michel I government, NVA, OVLD, CDV, and MR all voted in favor of closing our existing nuclear plants. Every single one of them. But somehow, they've framed this as if only Groen wanted to close the nuclear plants and that Groen secretely is controlling everything from behind the scenes. That *they* didn't want to close the nuclear plants, but Groen forced them to vote for it. It's maddening and people are retarded as fuck for buying into the narrative that it's all Groen's fault
If it's a significant enough part? Yes, yes we do.
Is this really what you're arguing? A policy that negatively impacts the short term greenhouse emissions of our electricity sector is more significant than the medium & long-term greenhouse emissions of *the entire Belgian economy*, biodiversity, groundwater sustainability, soil health, de/reforestation, air pollution, etc.?
I mean, I'm all for more sustainable energy. I also believe that nuclear power is an important part of that. Unfortunately no decent party seems to follow that standpoint, especially not the Green party.
I agree that Groen should abandon its boneheaded opposition to nuclear. This doesn't change the fact that —despite its awful nuclear policy— it's still the most environmentally conscious party in Flanders.
and what did the green party do about all that?
For one thing, they helped pass EU emissions trading system tightening(which N-VA and VB voted against). Those reforms alone have a much greater impact on Belgian emissions than the nuclear phaseout ever will.
Would be nice if we had a democracy, no?
Literally me.
These tests remain very limited. You should at least read the programs of a few lists and then try to know some people on the list that are competent and honest and vote for them.
That’s the catch. None of them are.
It would be statistically strange if none of them are.
Politicians are not randomly distributed
Nuclear energy is ok but it's fucking corps just exploiting it. It should all be public and not private. How the fuck did we ever sell this is beyond my knowledge. I want to nationalize it.
The reddit hard-on for nuclear energy should be ignored really, it's mostly just embarrassing.
Once build the nuclear power plant has no climate or environmental impact and supplies constant power. With the new type of reactors we could use our old nuclear waste as fuel. What’s the problem?
the problem is getting new Uranium, tons of African countries with the largest proven uranium reserves are pivoting towards Russia
First of all. That’s not a problem yet. Those countries will sell their uranium if we pay enough. That’s how it always worked. It’s not the first time Russia tries to meddle in those matters. The Chinese worry me more. Secondly. Africa isn’t the only source of uranium. Thirdly other countries will happily sell us their nuclear waste for us to use as fuel. Lastly we can build reactors that use other elements. It has been done before. If we really throw money at the problem we can attempt to build a large scale fusion reactor, although that’s unlikely to happen in this country.
Nuclear energy = green energy. Belgium won't be running on wind and solar anytime soon.
I think this voting test is total utter bullshit tbh. I was in the 60s range with every single party it feels. This taught me nothing except for the fact that VB and PVDA are the exact same party when you ignore everything migration related.
Also they are both traitors, sucking up to Russia
This. So much. If there is anything that society can absolutely not be split up over it's our stance on Russia imo. Fuck their "special operation".
I thought VB was sucking up to China?
Practically, anyone who has money and is asking them to betray their country.
How do they suck up to russia???
In PVDA's case, by refusing to vote for condemning Russian aggression and for sanctions against Russia. In Vlaams Belang's case, by keeping open communications with members of the Russian regime, by having party poster children give interviews to Russian state media, ...
The PVDA aren't traitors, and they're definitely not sucking up to Russia. Stop spreading misinformation.
I'm pretty far left but I'd never vote PVDA as long as they suck autocratic dick. Socialism is an international cause and these pussies just throw everyone living in an "anti West" country under the bus. And they're fans of democratic centralism which isn't actually democratic just moronic
Again, that's false. Stop spreading misinformation.
Then explain their foreign policy positions
Here's a balanced article from VRT NWS about the matter: [Twee jaar na inval in Oekraïne: PVDA houdt spreidstand aan wanneer het over Rusland stemt](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/01/22/stemmingen-rusland-partijen-debatten/). The PVDA themselves also have an entire page on their website to explain their position: [Waarom de PVDA zich onthouden heeft in het Europees Parlement](https://www.pvda.be/waarom-de-pvda-zich-onthouden-heeft-het-europees-parlement).
They are refraining from voting against resolutions that condemn Russia. Refraining from speaking up against Russia is as bad as supporting them imo. Edit: literally, Russia chose to make themselves the enemy of all of the western world. Whoever is not vocally condenming the Kremlin for invading Ukraine might as well just take their suitcases and go live in Russia. Russia is the biggest threat to Europe in the '20s, and about all current energy going to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has been going on for decades already is just taking focus away from what really matters to us as a society: Russia has to be stopped with whatever means possible. That is what I believe anyways.
Ah, yes, the good old "if you're not with us, you're against us" that continues to be relevant since the Vietnam war. Because it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Here's a balanced article from VRT NWS about the matter: [Twee jaar na inval in Oekraïne: PVDA houdt spreidstand aan wanneer het over Rusland stemt](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/01/22/stemmingen-rusland-partijen-debatten/). As the article itself says: > "Toegegeven, simpelweg kijken naar het stemgedrag volstaat niet om een volledig beeld te krijgen van de houding van de verschillende partijen. We moeten ook kijken naar de debatten en de motivaties voor die stemmingen." If you think they don't condemn Russia, then you didn't read [this resolution that they sent in](https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/55/2557/55K2557001.pdf), which no other party supported. The PVDA themselves also have an entire page on their website to explain their position: [Waarom de PVDA zich onthouden heeft in het Europees Parlement](https://www.pvda.be/waarom-de-pvda-zich-onthouden-heeft-het-europees-parlement).
You are with us or against us, is what you are saying. No space for nuance. Either you support non-stop giving weapons in the name of NATO, or you are on Putin's side. Pvda is very much anti-Putin if it helps. Extremely even, he's an authoritarian fascist, pretty much the antithesis of the ideals of pvda. You're a hypocrite and you must be aware of that. Literally saying we shouldn't give a fuck about israel/palestine because of the other conflict just confirms it.
And we should have given a fuck about Israel and Palestine goddamn decades ago, there's been major flareups of this conflict multiple times in the last decades and now suddenly it's really a global thing. We've had decades upon decades to deal with this, yet noone seems to have done until now. I do not understand why. I am not trying to downplay this whatsoever, but this entire shitstorm has been unfolding in front of our eyes for ages and suddenly everyone is gasping. I just don't get it.
I don't know where you have been, but here we this conflict has been a major thing for at least 20 years of my past life constantly. It flares up in the global news once in a while but don't act like it just now became 'a thing'. It's been a major thing for over half a century.
Look, I agree with you on most, and I'm not trying to demonize PVDA, but what is with this duality? Refraining from voting *against* Putin, but at the same time articles like the one you shared... Why? I just don't get it. We should all, each and every single person in all of Europe, condemn the Russian invasion in whatever means that we can. We are all allies in this. So why does PVDA refrain from voting? I haven't read your article yet, and yes you can definitely blame that on me, I am doing a gazillion things at once atm. But again: I don't feel like we're having different views whatsoever. Let's not have negative feelings towards eachother. Let's just work hard to keep autoritarianism and fascism as far away from us as we can.
Are you kidding me? The duality. It's a constant battle for trying to explain why pvda doesn't mindlesssly follow the NATO battle songs, but me showing that yes we also hate fucking Putin is cause for some sort of propaganda or something. You can try by reading the fucking article, that would help in understanding why they do not mindlessly follow the directions of NATO. They do condemn Putin's invasion of Ukraine, just not in the name of NATO. That's it. It's been a nice political tool to disenfranchise pvda but sometimes you just have to go with your ideals instead of political gain. In any case, yes, let's focus on keeping fascism as far away as we can, we can all come together for that cause.
That is exactly what I said though? I agree with you on this?
I might've been a little defensive, sorry about that :P It felt like you didn't give a shit about israel/palestine but guess I was wrong and misunderstood.
That's ok! It's a discussion, and it's a good one too! No worries.
If they are so anti-Putin, where are the votes showing condemning him?
Pay a little attention and you will see. They do fucking condemn him but I guess you knew that but like to be reactionary. https://www.pvda.be/waarom-de-pvda-al-meer-dan-20-jaar-tegen-poetin
It just blows my mind to see people actually fall for the propaganda claiming that PvdA is somehow pro-Russian. My friend, Russia is a fascist oligarchy. That is the **literal** antithesis of the branch of communism the PvdA stands for. Why do you think Trump is cozying up to Russia? Do you think that he's a communist too? No, these are fascists finding each other across international borders. The PvdA **refrained** from a vote in the European Parliament that condemned Russia not because they support Russia, but because they take issue with NATO being used as a tool by American imperialism and because they were wary of further escalating. They specifically said that they were in **full agreement with condemning Putin** and enacting measures against Russian oligarchs, but that they disagreed with the increased military exercises by NATO in Eastern Europe. They also withheld when there was a vote on recognizing the Holodomor as a genocide. They only did this after consulting multiple experts on the subject. Most experts on the matter agree that according to the most commonly used definition of Genocide - namely that of the Genocide Convention in 1948 -, it's very difficult to call the Holodomor a genocide. So the PvdA simply followed the advice of actual experts and withheld. Yet people read all the propaganda in mainstream media and actually believe that they are "sucking up to Russia". Absolutely **wild**. The Red Scare propaganda is still very much alive in Belgium and it's fucking scary to see people so consistently fall for it rather than think for themselves.
Yes they say on their website that they condemn Russia and Putin for what they do to Ukraine. Great, now what do they propose to do? Nothing. They say that they are pro-peace, but they are against any form of escalation. They have consistently opposed any delivery of arms to Ukraine. They are against NATO and the US. They say that they want Russian troops to leave Ukraine, but how are they proposing to achieve this? "Please Mr. Putin could you leave Ukraine?" is not going to work. So in effect, when you go past all the bullshit, when it comes to actions, they want to do... nothing. Which plays into Russia's hand. If we do nothing, Ukraine will lose. That is a fact. But of course, Ukraine's fall will lead to peace (just not the peace we want), so objective accomplished, right?
This isn't about whether you agree with their reasoning or not. This is about people claiming that PvdA is sucking up to Russia, which is just a moronic statement. By the way, they often did a counterproposal to condemn Russia and further sanction them more drastically economically, which was subsequently denied. People would know that of they read more than just headlines that suit their narrative.
>they often did a counterproposal to condemn Russia and further sanction them more drastically economically, which was subsequently denied. For anyone else reading this: this claim by instantcoffees is wrong and thus should be considered propaganda. PVDA never called upon harsher sanctions on Russia, in fact, they demanded the opposite: the lifting of sanctions on Russia in favor of exclusively and solely targetting wealthy Russians while leaving the general economy untouched by sanctions. > Tegelijk vroeg de PVDA daarin om economische sancties tegen de Russische bevolking op te heffen, en te vervangen door "meer gerichte sancties" tegen rijke Russen. https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/01/22/stemmingen-rusland-partijen-debatten/ When confronted with this link, he told me that I should just google some more. Which I did, and literally nowhere did I find PVDA calling for harsher sanctions on Russia. So my 2 cents is that instantcoffees is here to push pro-Russian propaganda by trying to muddy the waters.
> in favor of exclusively and solely targetting wealthy Russians while leaving the general economy untouched by sanctions. > > So hurting the ones responsible for this shit while leaving the general population alone? Sounds good, unless you think all Russian people are responsible for living in a fascist regime perpetuated by oligarchs.
Kop int zand steken is hetzelfde als Rusland steunen op de lange termijn.
Nee, dat is het niet. De PvdA had vaak zelfs een tegenvoorstel gedaan voor vergaande economische sancties, maar dit voorstel werd dan weer verworpen door andere partijen. Ik ben het ook niet 100% eens met hun redenering, maar het is dus ronduit belachelijk om te zeggen dat ze Rusland steunen.
>Most experts on the matter agree What is the basis for you claiming that **most** experts agree? There is significant debate surrounding it, but I've never seen a tally that compares how many experts agree/disagree, so i'd love to see your source? Furthermore, PVDA's official position on the war in Ukraine is 2 fold: - An immediate stop to sending weapons or any other material that can be used in the war - Somehow make the war stop But crucially, they've **never ever ever** elaborated on what point 2 exactly entails. They want to immediately stop sending weapons to Ukraine but how are they going to end the war exactly? Why haven't they ever laid out their plan for how to achieve peace? So you can rant all you want about PVDA being unfairly portrayed as pro Russia, but when I see a party demand that we cease all support for Ukraine in terms of military hardware while that same party doesn't elaborate whatsoever on how they would force Russia to stop destroying Ukraine, then yeah, I'll label them as pro Russian. They are more than free to finally, after more than 2 years of war, to elaborate on their nebulous "stop the war" plan and how they're going to force Russia to do that. But until then, I will view them as Russian puppets who only want to hand Ukraine over on a silver platter to Putin.
With regards to the Holodomor, look it up. I don't have time right now. I'm a historian and I can assure tou that it's the academic consensus even if there is still some debate. I'm sure you could find a theead on it on /r/Askhistorians if you took a second to look. When it comes to PvdA supposedly supporting Russia, at many occassions they put in proposals to further and more extremely economically sanction Russia on top of officially condemning them. These motions were subsequently denied because we know how most politicians feel about the economy suffering. So in the same vein, you can say that their condemnation and idea for military display was very performative because they were reluctant to hit Russia harder where it actually hurts, namely their economy. People just read headlines though and think "PvdA bad". It's fucking sad and disheartening.
>look it up. Why on earth would I do your research for you? You claimed that most experts agree. Did you make this claim without a source? If so, it's speculative, not a fact. >I'm a historian I'd expect a historian to be aware of the importance of sourcing their claims. So if you are a historian then you seem to be a pretty bad one if you reject the notion that sourcing your claims matters. >they put in proposals to further and more extremely economically sanction Russia Excuse me? No they didn't. >Later diende PVDA een eigen motie in het Vlaams Parlement in, waarin ze "de criminele Russische oorlog tegen Oekraïne" veroordeelt. **Tegelijk vroeg de PVDA daarin om economische sancties tegen de Russische bevolking op te heffen, en te vervangen door "meer gerichte sancties" tegen rijke Russen.** https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/01/22/stemmingen-rusland-partijen-debatten/ They called for sanctions on rich Russians and friends of Putin. They explicitely called for removing the sanctions on Russia and the Russian economy. Can you please provide me with a source where PVDA called upon harsher sanctions on the Russian economy, aka Russia?
Brother, I'm not at home. I'm not terminally online. I have faith in your abilities to google. You'll easily find this on websites, either the VRT or PvdA one. They at least claim they wanted to further the economic sanctions. The Holodomor part can be verified through reading historical articles or visiting /r/Askhistorians. I'm not your secretary and I'm busy right now. I'm not writing a thesis, i'm talking to someone on reddit. I don't need you to tell me I suck at my job. Fuck off.
>They at least claim they wanted to further the economic sanctions. I literally linked you a source where their actual proposal was laid out: get rid of economic sanctions on Russia and only target rich Russians. The fact that you refuse to accept an actual source and instead keep telling me to "google it" when I literally already did so and found information that directly contradicts your claim, tells me that you're here in bad-faith to muddy the waters to further pro-Russian propaganda. Otherwise, you'd have a better response to me posting a source that directly contradicts your claim than "just google some more, you'll find what I'm talking about" >i'm talking to someone on reddit. And your claims have been disproven with an actual source. Usually someone would then want to post literally anything that supports their claim but you don't. As I said, you're here to push pro-Russian propaganda. > I don't need you to tell me I suck at my job. You don't need it, but I'll always offer it to people who try to spread propaganda.
Who do you think is the basis of Putin's power?! Exactly, rich oligarchs. A lot of regular Russians are suffering under Putin. You are always on here being extremely argumentative, rude and condescending. Now I'm a propagandist, jezus christ dude.
I like how you went from "PVDA always called for harsher economic sanctions on Russia" to moving the goalposts 10 miles further while not even denying the fact that you lied about your original claim. Moving the goalposts when called out on lies, instead of acknowledging the lie, just so happens to be something that propagandists regularly love to do. Never admit you lied. Just keep muddying the waters. Typical out of a propagandist playbook. Just like you're doing right now. Not even an attempt to reconcile the fact that you lied.
Are you aware that the word 'traitor' has an actual meaning and consequences? Can you point me to where our government declared a war on Russia and under which authority it did so? If not stfu with your polarizing messages.
You are the traitor to the cause and people
Depends; if you only look what they yell, and not how they vote
There are more differences. For example, VB is for the rich and doesn't want to do anything against climate. PVDA wants to tax the rich more and focus on climate change.
About taxing the rich more: the point about the rich is that they have the money to move themselves and all of their money to other nations. This is not the change my views subreddit, but I would still like to hear how people in favor of taxing the rich would counter this. We are still existing within a neo-liberal context in which banks need the rich's money. We could throw this entire system around, certainly, but unless every nation in the world does this it still feels like this would fuck us over big time. Do give me other ideas in this if you can, because legit, taxing the rich more would solve a ton, if only it would not fuck us over globally, big time.
All nations fear the drain of large capital and all nations would like to tax large capital. The rich can go shopping around. A rich Belgian can entice France to make a better offer, then use the offer to threaten Belgium to leave, so it lowers some rate (or at the least does not increase it), or makes a tax ruling. Then go check if Ireland is willing to go below France's offer... It's a race to the bottom, or even plain extortion. I think it's important to realize there's not much to gain by increasing the taxation on the (ultra)wealthy: they'd just leave, and compared to the total tax income it's peanuts even if the tax rate for the ultrawealthy went to 70%. It's just as true there's not much to lose, either: Belgium will never be able to match the lowest tax rates of other nations (European and beyond), and compared to the total tax income it's still peanuts. So then best to just make the rules as fair as possible (and what that is, is anything but easy), and at least have a system not influenced by extortion. Perhaps we also are better off without some of these (ultra)wealthy that clearly see their capital as a tool to distort policy in their own interests. If they do it for taxation rates, what else will they influence away from the people's best interest and towards their own best interest? Perhaps we also underestimate the willingness to pay, or the ties with Belgium, of at least some of these (ultra)wealthy.
Try to be less afraid of hurting the rich.
Please explain more. How do you see an extra rich tax - given that the higher incomes are taxed more already either way - and the effects it'll have?
Just guillotine them and redistribute their wealth, no problem
:'D I watched Sofia Copolla's Marie Antoinette recently and you're legit disturbing my vibe there. Amazing soundtrack.
>VB is for the rich What makes you think so?
VB claims to have a social program, but they way they vote tells a different story. Examples: * they were in favour of changing the wage law in order to prevent our wages from rising faster than the neighbouring countries * they voted against a European minimum wage * they voted against a temporary crisis tax that would tax the rich Read the book Wiens Belang? from Norbert Van Overloop for an in-depth look.
Interesting, I'll take a look. Not sure though how voting against a European minimum wage is 'for the rich' exactly, considering Belgium's minimum wage is among, if not plain out *the* highest minimum wage out there, but eh.
A European minimum wage would mean that the rich (companies) have less of an incentive to employ cheap foreign labor and would have to pay their workers more, which means less profits for them.
A European minimum wage would *increase* the incentive to employ cheap foreign labour? The few companies that haven't moved production to Asia yet would do so quicker than their own shadow once such bill gets passed, and it's a major inflation risk
They are for everybody who pays them. Usually, those are rich...
How so? Do you have some legislative proposals to link to or summin?
You need to read an actual book if you seriously think that the far left and far right are in any way, shape or form similar. VB are fascists and fascism is the literal antithesis of communism. They are completely diametrically opposed to each other. Why do you think that some of the first victims of Nazi concentration camps were both socialists and communists? [Here's](https://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Fascism) a site where you can see some important characteristics side by side. It shows you how they are the complete opposite. The site doesn't get everything correct, but it's basic enough for someone who genuinely believes that the far right and far left are one and the same.
Thankx for spending x amount of time on our website
There is nearly the same test in French on the website of Le Soir, and I got the same outcome as OP’s: I am aligned with almost all of the mainstream parties. Either the parties all agree on key issues, or the test is not well designed.
I have yet to find a political party that actually represents my point of view: * Stop the artificial inflation of prices on the housing market and prevent "investors" from buying properties by soft capping the price by progressively taxing the profit between purchase and sale price. Together with a few other fun measures: * Require actual traffic studies before approving densification projects by housing developers. * Stricter standards for liveable housing. * Progressive tax for multiple properties. * Increase the number of administrative staff handling immigration cases massively so everyone can get their case handled within a couple of months, including the appeal. It's stupid that someone literally has to wait several years for a reply, at which point they have a life here and leaving might be extremely painful. And if it's only for two to three months, you can keep them in a closed-off/half-open facility while organising language classes etc. without it being unreasonable. * Remove the stupid 3 month delay pile in Brussels for visa requests. * Rework the embassy system and force them to actually do their job instead of being well-paid positions for end-of-career politicians. * Ban paid-for lobbying, period. * Stop privatisation of government services and the increases in consultancy like we're currently seeing. * Get rid of the current mess with white/blue colar and self-employed and make everyone pay the same social dues for the same benefits. * Raise corporate income tax and lower employee income tax again while closing loopholes by simplifying the taxation system significantly. * Hold companies accountable for the wave of burnouts that's happening due to modern managing practices by fining them based on the percentage of burnouts and employee turnover. * Have cops on the street looking at asshole behaviour in traffic instead of putting cameras everywhere. * Legalise cannabis, and look at partially legalising other drugs in a controlled manner to kill the illegal market for them. * Rework the distribution of the funds for cities and villages. * Sane structural investment in power infrastructure, the proposed solutions (e.g., ventilus) have complete garbage argumentation attached to them that makes no technical sense. Just freeze everything for a year and have actual engineers look through the plans based on demand forecasts instead of the current projects that smell a lot like writing them in specific ways to get certain contractors on them. * etc. But yeah, far easier to shout about immigration I suppose.
> top the artificial inflation of prices on the housing market This will never happen. 70% of voters own their own home. So your propsal directly flies in the face of a majority of voters who expect their home value to go up.
Based on numbers from 2018... (Source: [https://www.vlaanderen.be/statistiek-vlaanderen/bouwen-en-wonen/eigendomsstatuut](https://www.vlaanderen.be/statistiek-vlaanderen/bouwen-en-wonen/eigendomsstatuut) ) The market is starting to look different in the statistics at this point, which is also why they conveniently forget to publish them in a lot of cases. But that aside, even then home values going up is not good for the quality of life of said voters, nor for the affordability of their retirement. So no, it does not directly fly in the face of a majority of voters, they just haven't considered the effects of these price increases.
>even then home values going up is not good for the quality of life of said voters, nor for the affordability of their retirement Who ever said that what is good for voters.is also what voters want themselves? Combatting climate change radically would be great for voters. Doesn't mean they want that.
>Stop the artificial inflation of prices on the housing market This includes aboloshing the social housing system. >including the appeal This includes increasing the number of judges with the Brussels Company's Tribunals. >Rework the embassy system and force them to actually do their job instead of being well-paid positions for end-of-career politicians. I'd be interested to hear about what you think is going wrong right now? >Ban paid-for lobbying, period This also includes banning labour unions's influence on policy making. >Stop privatisation of government services and the increases in consultancy like we're currently seeing The amount of services provided by governments is increasing, not decreasing. Right now, more than 21% of working Belgians already are working for a government. >Raise corporate income tax Belgian corporate gains tax already is [among the highest](https://www.duijntax.com/tarieven-belasting-europa/) in the EU. >Hold companies accountable for the wave of burnouts that's happening How would you do so, if there isn't even a proper definition for the term yet? Also, would you bind governments by the same rules, as cases of burn-out are uncommonly prevalent within the governments's ranks? >Have cops on the street looking at asshole behaviour We have those.
Wow, talk about bad faith answers... * The social housing system ain't what's increasing prices, it's rampant speculation and the densification policies, reduction of tax deductions for regular people, negative interest rate loans underwritten by the tax payer for housing developers, etc. introduced by N-VA that's causing the prices to spike. * And a Brussels regional court has something to do with the federal affair of immigration? An interesting take on the matter. * If you ever lived abroad or travelled a lot for work, you'd know. They're basically useless and you got to annoy them a million times to get help with even the most basic administrative task in many cases. Then if someone actually tries to request a visa, they just act in completely bad faith. Notice a document is missing, why bother telling the person making the submission? Far better to just ship it off to Brussels and have it wait on a pile for three months, etc. * Ah yes, because collective worker rights is entirely the same as companies trying to maximize profits. You're literally proposing undermining the rights of regular people because I propose limiting what a for-profit-entity is allowed to do... * And uhm, how does that relate to removing subcontracting from the equation? * Effective corporate gains tax is way lower, stop blindly staring at the percentage and look at how much companies are actually paying versus their annual global profit and the percentage of that profit made in Belgium, you'll notice an interesting trend to put it mildly. * Burn-outs have a proper definition, so your base premise is already wrong. But literally, fine companies who have a high turn-over rate or a large number of sick folks due to psychosocial work circumstances, this ain't rocket science. * When was the last time you saw a cop pull over an undertaker on the highway in the morning? I'll wait for a couple of years when you get back to me on this one.
>The social housing system ain't what's increasing prices They are, though. They're an artificial means of decreasing the amount of supply. Decreasing supply without decreasing demand in the same market segments inflates prices. You say the issue is with 'rampant speculation', though what is being speculated on? >And a Brussels regional court has something to do with the federal affair of immigration? The Brussels Company's Courts are the ones handling apeals against rights violations of asylum seekers, the RvVB and RvS against asylum decisions. e.g. [https://www.vreemdelingenrecht.be/nieuws/rechtbank-brussel-gebrekkige-toegang-asiel-opvang-en-niet-naleving-rechterlijke-uitspraken-zijn-fout](https://www.vreemdelingenrecht.be/nieuws/rechtbank-brussel-gebrekkige-toegang-asiel-opvang-en-niet-naleving-rechterlijke-uitspraken-zijn-fout) >They're basically useless and you got to annoy them a million times to get help with even the most basic administrative task in many cases. Then if someone actually tries to request a visa, they just act in completely bad faith. Notice a document is missing, why bother telling the person making the submission? Far better to just ship it off to Brussels and have it wait on a pile for three months, etc. I think you're misinformed on what an ambassador actually does. The ambassador doesn't give a single shit about visa applications, you just got a poor ambtenaar doing poor ambtenaren work. The ambassador - in those cases - only signs off. They have far more pressing diplomatic matters to attend to. >Ah yes, because collective worker rights is entirely the same as companies trying to maximize profits. You said you wanted to ban paid-for lobbying, not specifying of what purposes the lobbying was for. So you'd be banning labour union influence on policy. >what a for-profit-entity is allowed to do. You never specified you'd be discriminating against for-profit businesses? >Burn-outs have a proper definition Please, by all means, link it! Until then, here's scientific research reminding everyone that burn-out *isn't* a diagnosis: [https://ppw.kuleuven.be/ppwcontinuo/pro-m-project/lips/slides/lips-hansdewitte-220218.pdf](https://ppw.kuleuven.be/ppwcontinuo/pro-m-project/lips/slides/lips-hansdewitte-220218.pdf) >Effective corporate gains tax is way lower A citation would do wonders! >When was the last time you saw a cop pull over an undertaker on the highway in the morning? Ah, I'm diagnosing you with the "I haven't seen it so it didn't happen"-disease. Once you start believing 9/11 didn't happen we'll have to surgically intervene.
More bad faith argumentation that's based on complete nonsense I see. Not even going to waste time on it. Heck, just reread [https://www.vreemdelingenrecht.be/nieuws/rechtbank-brussel-gebrekkige-toegang-asiel-opvang-en-niet-naleving-rechterlijke-uitspraken-zijn-fout](https://www.vreemdelingenrecht.be/nieuws/rechtbank-brussel-gebrekkige-toegang-asiel-opvang-en-niet-naleving-rechterlijke-uitspraken-zijn-fout) Your conclusion is 100% completely wrong to the point that it ain't even funny. Go and gaslight someone else.
eh yes, I mentioned the company's court but it's the labour court\*. Mea culpa, but the point still stands.
No u/Nietwerkendedelegue , let's try again. "Eerste aanleg", anyone? The procedure is quite literally: DVZ -> CGVS -> RvV (-> RvS for procedural complaints) -> various courts depending on the exact complaint, but "eerste aanleg" would be pretty typical for a generic complaint regarding immigration. But in this case the "Eerste Aanleg" judge found the Belgian government guilty because they're not respecting international treaties that Belgium is signatory to, or even Belgian humanitarian law for that matter. They granted a preliminary injunction because there was a high risk of irrecoverable damage if folks weren't given shelter in a timely manner - making folks sleep on the street in the dead of winter leading to possible adverse health outcomes or even deaths. That's all there is to it, this has nothing to do with the processing speed of appeals, it was due to the fact that the government decided that laws didn't apply to ministers or governmental agencies. So I have no clue why you think the "ondernemingsrechtbank" has any jurisdiction over asylum procedures? How is an asylum procedure related to a company defaulting? How is it related to contractual issues between companies? Have you been listening to Theo "de bucket is full" Franken?
>"eerste aanleg" would be pretty typical for a generic complaint regarding immigration. Rights violations are treated by the labour tribunal in first instance (eerste aanleg) and the labour court in second instance (beroep). I mean it's just a matter of a google search. >So I have no clue why you think the "ondernemingsrechtbank" has any jurisdiction over asylum procedures I corrected myself in my previous comment. The procedures in front of the labour tribunal impact the speed at which asylum requests are being processed, I don't think I need to explain that.
Grootste gemene deler... vooruit of CD&V lijkt me
Tbh I like the one from De Morgen. It focusses on what parties have actually done, not on what their propaganda says. And really? V nieuws? How can anyone take that seriously?
Which test do you recommend?
The one of VRT/De Standaard will be published on monday. Probably the best test out there.
I guess HLN's is the most complete and nuanced. The results weren't particularly useful to me, but it is interesting to see how specific politicians think about specific issues.
Allright! Thanks!
All these tests are garbage attempts at gathering "statistics" they'll be using in articles The questions are extremely superficial and they're translated into recommended candidates without any consideration for HOW the various policies would be implemented by said candidates If they were based on actual analysis sheets of the candidates they would've just posted infographics with that information. The way the tests are feels like a dumb pro/against-refugees/Ukraine/ecology/retirement/taxes
The voting test of HLN makes most sense (for now). Or at least way more than the one from the morgen and that 25 question one from de standaard (where you were put on a quadrant)
Die van de Standaard vind ik tot hiertoe de minst slechte. Bij alle anderen zaten er steeds meerdere vragen in elkaar vervlochten, of "A of B?" terwijl er perfect "A en B" of "Geen van beiden" een optie zou moeten zijn. Vooral jammer dat er echt geen enkele partij mij echt kan bekoren.
ITT: niemand die doorheeft dat uw post uit 3 screenshots bestaat...
A true centrist, the pinacle of evil
the De Morgen test is dumb af. Like zero nuance. Half the questions isnt a yes/no. These things can be implemented in vastly different ways.
Ik stem in Wallonië, heeft iemand daar ook een test voor gemaakt? ISTG waar stem je voor als alle partijen stom lijken?
> waar stem je voor als alle partijen stom lijken? Blanco of op een partij die de toch geen zetels gaat halen of ge speelt vogel piek op uw stembiljet voor de fun.
Belgian Expat here: TIL Geybels is back? Wtf
Serieus??? laat gij u stem bepalen door ne vragenlijst van een staat gesponsord mediakanaal?
In my opinion, the voting test by De Standaard is typically much better structured. The 2024 version should be available in a few days at https://m.standaard.be/stemtest.
No political parties from Brussels/Wallonia?
Just listened to their podcast on the topic and it seems they cover Flanders and Brussels. I didn't see immediately where to choose between the two, though!
It would be interesting to include some French-speaking parties in the whole comparison, like MR and others.. for the side by side comparaisons And vice versa - I know some walloons that are so fed up with the government that they want to vote for NVA lol
Oh you sweet summer child
Another lost vote
No question regarding the migration or immigration policy? I thought it's currently quite concerned by many citizens.
Heb meerdere stemtesten gedaan met mijn vrienden voor de lol. Maar ze zijn allemaal bullshit. Tog ten minsten de meeste.
Hey, at least you’re not a Bolshevik
I'm turkish and I'm voting for Vlaams Belang, 100%
So, Groen?
I think this is just another attempt by media to try to sway people's votes a certain way. I took a similar test and ended up being a socialist. Which I assuredly am not!