All of tonight's German election debate so far has been devoted to the question of which parties you would or wouldn't form a coalition with. And really, it's the underlying question of the whole thing
Laschet: Finger-wagging and indignant. Scholz: Bemused and unflappable. Baerbock: Smiling and collegial
If you'd like to watch it with english translation:
Good exchange about flaky party candidates. Laschet is asked about a far-right conspiracy theorist in CDU; he answers nothing can be done, we don't control members. Baerbock asked about a racist in the Greens; says she told him to apologize and when he didn't she had him sacked
Laschet refuses to say that vaccination should be required, even for specific professions (62% of the German population is fully vaccinated). Baerbock says yes at least for some jobs eg teachers. Scholz against mandates but for "persuading" (substantially same as Laschet)
Finally a question about why the internet and broadband are so crappy in Germany!
(Two of the candidates are leaders of parties in the government that oversaw the failure to de-crappify German internet... they don't have much to say)
Scholz, the Social Democrat and ex Hamburg mayor, is by far the winner among the 3 candidates to replace Merkel in all the network polls.
While he evaded a lot, he showed that simply keeping your cool and not appearing rattled, Merkel-style, goes far
I have previously declared my bias re Olaf Scholz: I knew him and sometimes engaged with him when he was premier of Hamburg, and was generally impressed by his urban and European-fiscal ideas
(his foreign-policy views are much more of a mystery)
This is a good summary. It was a very pleasant debate to watch! Three adults having a fairly full and comprehensive argument, including some accusations, and allowing one another to respond fully without need for moderator interventions. More of this
Given that a) we’ll all need proof of vaccination to do just about anything by end of year, if not of summer and b) a mishmash of paper/email proofs is privacy-invading and insecure and c) a standardized secure electronic document isn’t — why are we delaying on vax passports?
I mean, if even **FOX NEWS** has implemented a vaccination passport, I don’t think the political hurdles are going to be that hard to clear
There’s a very good, very secure and anonymous system already built and tested and in place and fully rolled out by 27 countries you may know (plus a few others). Why not just adopt that one?
I spent the week looking at countries that did well pandemic-wise and then didn’t, and the sole determining factor isn’t lockdowns or testing but...vacation travel. Those that prevented it, or made hotel quarantine universal, were safe. Those that allowed it had 2nd and 3rd waves
Canada and Germany really stand out here — both countries got ALL their Covid-19, from winter 2020 onward, from southbound vacation travel without enforced quarantine. Both got a second wave from allowing people to go south post-summer. And both have a third now from this.
Also regions. Atlantic Canada had a police-enforced quarantine and as a consequence saw few cases and experienced few or no lockdowns or restrictions on day-to-day life. They got to have dinner parties!
Last year the Geneva-based Mixed Migration Centre commissioned me to look into the effects of the pandemic on urban migrants. Months of research showed me that COVID-19 is an "arrival city" disease like no other before.
After drawing on large-scale data from the IOM, OECD, the World Bank and national- or local-level data from hundreds of sources and studies, here's what I found: Pandemics have always hit the nexus of migration and cities, but none to the extent, or in the manner, of this one
I found three major worldwide effects of the pandemic on urban migration-origin communities:
- Concentration of infection in immigration districts
- The largest 'reverse migration' event in history
- Huge stranded populations of noncitizen migrants
Those who are skeptical of the value of reducing the role of police forces in cities -- such as Minneapolis appears just to have done -- really ought to read the work of Patrick Sharkey. I got into this two years ago, and will discuss it a bit...
Sharkey studied the role of police in crime rates in his important study Uneasy Peace: The Great Crime Decline, the Renewal of City Life, and the Next War on Violence. It looked at "broken windows" theories and found that having more police on the streets DOES reduce crime. BUT
...He found that the reduction in crime rate caused by increased street policing is not dependent on the type of policing. It can be cops, or rent-a-cop security services, or community patrols, or (maybe most importantly) even an increase in visible CCTV cameras -- SAME OUTCOME
The park behind our apartment is absolutely jammed with people, every surface covered. The police just came in, got on their megaphone, and loudly read everyone the riot act re social-distancing rules. Then thanked everyone for following them.
The whole park then applauded
I actually just wrote a column about the need to keep parks open and tolerating closeness there as a pandemic-management priority, and mentioned stories of police thanking crowds in other parks. As usual, the perfect anecdote appears before your eyes the day after you file
Although Berlin now approves of everyone flocking to the parks & police thank them, it remains verboten to cook there (big blow to Turkish-German families) or use playgrounds, or be too close if you don’t live together. Weed dealers now get busted for distance (and skin colour)