zeit.de
Hessens schwarz-rote Landesregierung enjoys high approval ratings, contrasting sharply with the federal government.
According to a recent INSA-Umfrage, 42% of Hessians approve of the state government's performance, while only 22% approve of the federal government, primarily due to perceived better cooperation among the state's coalition partners.
- What factors contribute to the relatively high approval rating of the Hessian state government?
- The survey highlights improved inter-party cooperation within the state coalition, fewer disagreements, and clearly defined policy priorities as key factors contributing to the higher approval rating of the Hessian state government compared to the federal government.
- What are the implications of these differing approval ratings for the future political landscape in Hesse and Germany?
- The significant disparity in approval ratings between the Hessian state government and the federal government could impact future elections. The high approval of specific state policies, such as deportations of criminals and stricter welfare measures, may influence national policy debates and potentially benefit the CDU within Hesse.
- What is the most significant finding of the INSA-Umfrage regarding the approval ratings of the Hessian state government compared to the federal government?
- The INSA-Umfrage reveals a stark contrast: 42% of Hessians approve of their state's black-red coalition, while only 22% approve of the federal government. This discrepancy is largely attributed to the state government's perceived superior cooperation and clearer policy priorities.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a positive framing of the Hessian state government's performance, highlighting high approval ratings from various voter groups and emphasizing popular policy measures. The headline, while not explicitly provided, likely focuses on the high approval ratings, reinforcing this positive framing. The inclusion of specific approval numbers for different policies and politicians further strengthens this positive portrayal. However, the article also mentions lower approval ratings for the federal government, providing some counterpoint. The inclusion of contrasting data reduces, but does not eliminate, the framing bias.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, presenting factual data from the survey. Terms like "high approval ratings" and "positive assessment" are used, but these are fairly descriptive rather than explicitly loaded. There is no apparent use of emotionally charged language or biased adjectives.
Bias by Omission
While the article presents a comprehensive overview of the survey results, it omits information about the methodology of the INSA poll. Details on sample size, margin of error, and demographic breakdown of respondents are missing, hindering the ability to fully assess the reliability and representativeness of the findings. It also lacks counterpoints from opposition parties and alternative perspectives on the policies mentioned.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights high approval ratings for government measures focused on law and order, such as deporting criminals (73 percent approval), using ankle bracelets for wife-beaters (72 percent), and a reporting requirement for dangerous mentally ill individuals (64 percent). These policies directly relate to SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The high public support suggests a degree of public confidence in the government's ability to maintain peace and justice. Furthermore, the support for stricter measures against benefit recipients who refuse work also contributes to the goal of building strong institutions.