Danish Elections and Politics

[ingemann]

Danish voters: "I can excuse hostile anti immigration policies but I draw the line at cutting the number of public holidays!"

What's weird about: "I can excuse policies I support, but I draw the line at policies I don't support."? The anti-(MENA)-immigration policies are widely popular among most of the population, because there's a general consensus backed by facts that MENA immigration have been a net negative for Denmark.

[ingemann]

Social Democrats, SPP and Alternative have announced that they are forming an electoral alliance for the 2024 EP elections. It's no surprise that SPP and Alternative go together this time as they have fairly similar views, and both will join the Green group. I'm much more surprised that the Social Democrats are also a part of the alliance. I thought the Alternative would consider them and the government too foot-dragging and establishment on climate issues to enter such an alliance. As written above, the Alternative isn't polling very well and they don't seem to have any real noteworthy candidates, so will likely not get any MEPs. So with this electoral alliance, those votes they do get, would not only go towards electing SPP MEPs, but also Social Democrat MEPs.

As I remember it, last time they were in electoral alliance with the Social Liberals and their votes ended up going to the Liberal group in parliament, they were heavily criticized for this. So that leave them either Unity List or SPP to enter an electoral alliance with, but Unity List and the Alternative disagree fundamentally about the EU with the Alternative being far more pro-EU. So that leave SPP but that also bring them in alliance with the Social Democrats, but as both parties sit in progressive groups with a strong focus on the environment and consumer protection, the alliance still makes a lot of sense even if on the domestic scent the Danish Social Democrat are not green enough for them.

[ingemann]

Social Democrats, SPP and Alternative have announced that they are forming an electoral alliance for the 2024 EP elections. It's no surprise that SPP and Alternative go together this time as they have fairly similar views, and both will join the Green group. I'm much more surprised that the Social Democrats are also a part of the alliance. I thought the Alternative would consider them and the government too foot-dragging and establishment on climate issues to enter such an alliance. As written above, the Alternative isn't polling very well and they don't seem to have any real noteworthy candidates, so will likely not get any MEPs. So with this electoral alliance, those votes they do get, would not only go towards electing SPP MEPs, but also Social Democrat MEPs.

As I remember it, last time they were in electoral alliance with the Social Liberals and their votes ended up going to the Liberal group in parliament, they were heavily criticized for this. So that leave them either Unity List or SPP to enter an electoral alliance with, but Unity List and the Alternative disagree fundamentally about the EU with the Alternative being far more pro-EU. So that leave SPP but that also bring them in alliance with the Social Democrats, but as both parties sit in progressive groups with a strong focus on the environment and consumer protection, the alliance still makes a lot of sense even if on the domestic scent the Danish Social Democrat are not green enough for them.

The alliance with SPP makes all the sense in the world, and what I predicted they would do. But the link with the Social Democrats do surprise me. I would guess that perhaps SPP must have been very insistent on making the alliance with the Social Democrats, and then perhaps the Alternative had to take it or leave it if they wanted an alliance. SPP have been very close to the Social Democrats in recent years and maybe wanted to "keep the line warm", but I think it would have been very fine for them to run just with the Alternative this time and ensure that they got the benefit of all the Alternative votes themselves.

The Red-Greens are already trying to hammer the Alternative for this. Their EP lead candidate Per Clausen: "The Alternative prefer to provide votes for the Social Democrat refugee, climate and environmental policies over the Red-Greens. I don't understand that choice", and their former Copenhagen mayor Morten Kabell: "So much for the Alternative and Franciska Rosenkilde's critic of the system. They prefer a black Social Democrat in the EP rather than a green representative from the Red-Greens".

I understand the Unity List attack points, I just don’t think it’s that negative for the Alternative. I suspect that a major reason that the Alternative voters choose that party rather than Unity List is because it’s pro-EU. We should also not ignore the benefit for them of being in the news, also the benefit of being beside the leaders two biggest parties (in the polls) in all the medias, and at last the benefit of making it clear that they’re not just a Unity List clone.

It should also be remembered that a lot of people want a government lead by the Social Democrats, but they want to vote for parties pushing in a more green direction, but they don’t want to deal with the baggage of the Social Liberals or Unity List and they think SPP is not radical enough. Here Alternative is in a good position to place themselves as a kind of generic center-left party with a 100% focus on the green issues. A lot of people really hate Mette Frederiksen and the Social Democrats, but we should not forget a lot of people don’t and just want them and her with +/-10% of different policies.

[ingemann]

The alliance with SPP makes all the sense in the world, and what I predicted they would do. But the link with the Social Democrats do surprise me. I would guess that perhaps SPP must have been very insistent on making the alliance with the Social Democrats, and then perhaps the Alternative had to take it or leave it if they wanted an alliance. SPP have been very close to the Social Democrats in recent years and maybe wanted to "keep the line warm", but I think it would have been very fine for them to run just with the Alternative this time and ensure that they got the benefit of all the Alternative votes themselves.

The Red-Greens are already trying to hammer the Alternative for this. Their EP lead candidate Per Clausen: "The Alternative prefer to provide votes for the Social Democrat refugee, climate and environmental policies over the Red-Greens. I don't understand that choice", and their former Copenhagen mayor Morten Kabell: "So much for the Alternative and Franciska Rosenkilde's critic of the system. They prefer a black Social Democrat in the EP rather than a green representative from the Red-Greens".

Is there any unhappiness in SF about this decision? They are in opposition to a Social Democrat led ‘government across the middle’ which is pursuing policies they disagree with and are the largest opposition party to it in both seats and polling. You’d think in such a situation they’d actually try and set out a distinctive position rather than continue trying to tightly hug the Social Democrats.

Right now they’re the Social Democrats who are not in government with the center right, that seems to me to be a much better position to be in than to move to the left and begin to fight with Unity List over the voter segments on the Left. From a voter maximization POV they have clearly choose the right strategy and from a influence POV, they have also chosen the right strategy, they’re also pretty sure to join any new government.

[ingemann]

The koran burning discourse made me curious about its most obvious comparison (flug burning laws); amusingly in Denmark it is legal to burn the Danish flag but not non-danish flags. How did that weird situation arise?

The correct way to dispose of a Danish flag is by burning, and most of our neighboring countries have Ben on burning their own and foreign flag. So it may simply be accidental, especially because we don’t  have a lot tradition for groups in Denmark buying the Danish flag.

Also honestly I didn’t meet a single person in 2008 who was angry over the burning flag in the Middle East, the view seem more “middle easterners doing middle eastern things”. They were more worried about whether Denmark would be targeted by terrorists.

[ingemann]

Incredible how Løkke managed to drag the government's position so far to the left on this issue.

This is the essence of the Moderates' existence. Undoing the kingmaker position of working class S/DF and lower middle-class V/S swing voters by destroying the bloc system, and replacing it with a kingmaker position for rich voters who only want "what's good for business".

It more complex than that in this case, while Danish companies are not happy about losing access to Middle Eastern markets, they’re honestly not very important to Denmark or Danish companies. This is far more a question about Danish security and Danish foreign policy.

It’s also important to remember that until 2017 it was illegal to burn religious books under the Blasphemy Law*, this law was abolished by Lars Løkke Rasmussen under pressure by Conservative and Liberal Alliance, but only the Social Democrats voted against abolishing it. So when LLR is very active in this it’s likely also because he have been told to clean up after himself.

As any normal person, I’m in principle against this ban, but at the same time Denmark is a small country and no one (especially not USA) will back us up if we decides to make a stand on this. So in the end any government would have had to make this ban, and the opposition is free to oppose it because it knows the government have the majority to implement it.

*which was a 1930 law specific created to deal with anti-Semitic attacks on Jews by Danish Nazi.

[ingemann]

What's the difference between the former blasphemy law and the current proposal?

From what I understand, they will go with protecting the public order instead of blasphemy, which in theory is better but in practice is far worse, as it pretty much create a Heckler’s Veto and open for wider banning of protest against foreign states, while the old law could far less be used by the state to silence people. But sadly we can’t reintroduce the old law.

[ingemann]

Is the pro-american posture of Danish foreign policy something that's popular with voters or is it mainly an elite consensus ?

Good question, I would not say it’s popular policy, but neither is it unpopular. I think an anti-American foreign policy would be deeply unpopular among the general population.

[ingemann]

The Moderates have found a bigger name to lead their EP list, so Bergur Løkke has been pushed down to 2nd on the list. Their lead candidate will be Stine Bosse, the 62-year old famous businesswoman. From 2003-2011, she was CEO of the Tryg insurance company. Afterwards, she held a number of board positions, including as chairman of The Royal Danish Theater, Flügger, The Danish Insurance Association as well as roles as directors of the board in Nordea Bank, Aker ASA and Grundfos. From 2015-2022 she headed the European Movement.
It seems quite certain that the party will get a seat, which she will very likely take. A second seat for Bergur Løkke can't be completely ruled out.

https://twitter.com/moderaterne_dk/status/1697305867035566477

Bergur looks ten to fifteen years older than he is (partly because he has become fatter), also this may be me but with the Løkke family having the reputation it have, I would maybe not place my expensive watch in the foreground on every picture.

As for Stine Bosse, pretty good choice by Løkke, Bosse is talented, but she’s also something of a loose cannon, so placing her in the EP will give the Moderates the benefit of having her in their party, but without them risking she decides to vote against the party line in Folketinget. She’s also catnip for the voters the Moderates goes after, people who likely are less happy with Bergur, who have all of his father’s opportunism and lack of moral, but haven’t shown whether he has his father’s charm and talent.

[ingemann]

Do you think that Venstre has any chance of regaining the position they once had in Danish politics, or are they doomed to be just a junior coalition partner?

Yes, one of the reason why the old Danish parties (except the social liberals) tend to be so stable is because they have strong local representation, because the municipalities have significant autonomy and power. So I expect at some point Venstre will become bigger again.

I think the Conservative is in a worse position because they try to be large Conservative Party for the broad middle class, while also being the party of big business and the upper class. Even if Pape is replaced Conservative will still be unable to unite those two, and giving up the upper class and big business will mean a collapse in their funding, and they won’t be able to survive without it.

Liberal Alliance is the other potential big party on the right, but they have far too volatile voters with little party loyalty, they can go from 15% to 1,9% of the vote if they have a bad election.

So I expect Venstre to someday do better again. Of course right now they have to deal with the Løkke and Støjberg, as long as they’re active Venstre will be lucky to get 15% of the vote.

[ingemann]

Esben Schjørring from Altinget has written the below analysis, where he compares the story of Ellemann to a tragedy like Oedipus.

He argues that Ellemann had the right idea about how to position the party in two key moments, but both times backed down due to protests in his own party, which ended up with the party in bad positions. The first was about cooperation with the Social Liberals, where he seemed to open up for a closer cooperation, before then smacking the door hard in their heads after the other Blue parties and the conservtive wing in his party attacked it. Only now to see centrism and cross-bloc cooperation becoming the new the center of gravity in Danish politics. When the Mink slaughters started, he was very willing to support Frederiksen with fast track laws and quick killings of the Mink, but then turned against it due to opposition in his party, and ended up running as leader of an Anti-Frederiksen bloc. Only to see Frederiksen end up as a very popular election winner, and then having to cooperate with her in government.
He also says the decision to move to the Ministry of Economy after such a short sting back from his sick leave lost him the final bit of trust among voters and other politicians.

So Schjørring's conclusion is that Ellemann should have followed his heart in moving the party towards the centrist position as very green, very pro-EU, pro foreign labour, pro economic reforms and with less focus on immigration policy. It's probably right that it would have looked better if the party and him had moved confidently in that direction instead of sort of by accident landing there in a centrist government. But it's just a bit hard to imagine that he could have moved the party a lot without the internal opposition becoming too big, and the conservative wing and droves of voters leaving anyway. But yeah, maybe the voter loss to the Moderates and partly Liberal Alliance could have been avoided to a bigger degree.

https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/274722-analyse

I think Venstre was better off being pulled kicking and screaming to that position to the extent they have moved there. There’s next to no voter there and there’s a lot of party fighting over it. I think some anonymous Venstre MP said it best; if Venstre becomes the Social Liberals, they will also have the size of the Social Liberals. The problem is that pundits and the media think there’s a lot of votes in  that combination of policies, because everyone they know vote based on that or stay silent.