Denmark Parliamentary Election - June 18, 2015

[politicus]

Could, as the DPP and SD both moderate and move closer to Venstre, we ever see a grand alliance between the three? Does Denmark have any experiences with that either nationally or locally?

If SD and DPP got closer (this would take a new SD leadership generation) Venstre would likely try to rein in the Social Liberals as more permanent partners. That is what the circle around Kristian Jensen would like and the Social Liberals have adapted standard policies on defence (they were traditionally anti-militarist and "semi-pacifist") and accepted relatively tough immigration and law & order policies in the current government. At that point LA might also have "matured" enough for them to be useful. Right now the Liberals consider them immature and unfit for government. LA has a lot of support among young people and might be a 10-15% party a decade ahead. If the Conservatives die Social Liberals, Liberals and LA might have a majority at some point. Something like a 8%, 26%, 15% could be a possibility. Liberals vs. Statists would make sense.

The joker is if the Danish left wing stays at 15% combined. The leftist generation(s) who were young in the 60s and 70s will start dying off at some point and that will cause a drop if young people remain as right wing and/or liberal as they are now. If the left wing stays at about 15% SD/DPP would be hard because it would depend on suppport from a relatively strong left wing - and the Red Greens would never go for that.

[politicus]

Denmark has no tradition for Grand Coalitions and I doubt we will ever develop one. In the post-war era the Social Liberals started being able to swing both ways (and the Georgists in the Justice party were in a left wing government), but otherwise Danish governments (in peacetime) have always been based on either the right or the left. And like Ingemann pointed out the only shortlived attempt at a GC was a disaster.

Political historians have often pointed out that SD + Conservatives would have been the across-the-aisle possibility that might have worked (plenty of moderates on both sides and a shared statist view on politics), but it has never been tried and now the Conservatives look either doomed or at least permanently marginalized.

Liberals and SDs are two tribes with very different cultures and a lot of bad blood between them.

Of course a "centre-left" including DPP would not be a genuine left, but more of a pro-welfare state coalition incl. both progressives and culturally conservatives.

[politicus]

To illustrate here is the result of this years test election among older pupils in Danish schools:

http://www.skolevalg.dk/valgresultat/

(the added numbers are not correct.. pretty embarrasing)

Blue bloc 58,8
Red bloc 41,3

Venstre 27.4
Social Democrats 17.7
Liberal Alliance 11
Conservatives 10.5
Radikale Venstre 9.9
DPP 9.0
SPP 7.7
Red Greens 6.0
KD 0.9

You got:

The 4 "Liberal" parties (incl. Cons) 58,8

vs.

SD, DPP + left wing: 40.4

(the Conservatives and the left wing are actually doing surprisingly fine here)

School elections used to be massively red only a decade ago.

While this could seem to indicate DPP has no future as a strong party, that may change if they establish themselves as one of the "Big 3" and become (even) more mainstream.

[politicus]

Sorry for locking. The numbers were wrong and it was driving me crazy (probably says a lot about Danish schools...).

The correct ones are:

Blue bloc 58.8
Red bloc 41.3

Total 100.1


The 4 Liberal parties 58.8
KD 0.9
Welfare bloc (SD, DPP + left wing) 40.4

[politicus]

Is Radikale Venstre's right-wing shift alienating many of their voters, or were the sort of voters likely to be alienated by it already voting for somebody else (SPP or Alternativet perhaps)?

(I suppose I'm asking because I used to think they were the natural Danish party for me, but they certainly don't sound like they are now.)

Their shift on being less vocal on immigration happened before the 2011 election - it occurred gradually after Margrethe Vestager took over as leader in 2007. They had been labeled a single issue party by the press (immigration/integration) and needed to become relevant again by stressing their credentials as "the responsible party" by focusing on the economy - and SD had moved right so they had no allies on the issue apart from the left wing.

It has been a centre-right party on economics for a long time (from the 60s I would say) - but often with a few unorthodox positions (like prefering high property taxes and low income taxes). They supported the economic policy of the Conservative led centre-right governments in the 80s and early 90s based on considering SD "irresponsible", but during their former leader Marianne Jelved they worked well with SD in the 90s Nyrup-governments and were more willing to compromise on economic policy and welfare - and also a bit more left wing than under Vestager (who is a former bureaucrat in the Ministry of Finance, which influenced her outlook).

There has been some rumblings among parts of their membership about the leadership forgetting social responsibility and Elbæk has attracted some of the idealistic left wing, but most seems to be okay with the party being "liberal" on economics.

They moderated on defence in the 90s. They are very pro-UN, so UN sanctioned military operations got them to become more positive towards the military. They had already accepted Danish NATO-membership in the 60s.

tl;dr: Most of their 2011 voters were okay with the party being right of center on economics. The change has been more on attitude (little willingness to compromise) than on policy and a more pragmatic/unprincipled stance on certain value issues than expected, which may cost them some votes, but most will likely accpet it as realpolitik. Their voters are pragmatic - it is in the party DNA to have a pragmatic approach to politics.

[politicus]

HTS speaks in Fælledparken in Copenhagen despite the risk of getting shouted/whistled out by anarchists/activist types (and regular drunks). There was one year when she chose Aarhus instead, but anything else than Fælledparken would have seemed cowardly in an election year.

A Wilke poll shows that more voters now view HTS as better at conducting immigration and integration policy than LLR. So maybe the long SD nightmare of losing elections on "foreigner policy" is over.

Helle Thorning-Schmidt 39,6%
Lars Løkke Rasmussen 33,9%
Dunno 26,5%


She leads LLR on 5 of 7 policy areas:

Environment and climate:
51.9/20.1

Welfare:
50.2/25.5

Healthcare:
46.4/27.5

Education:
39.7/32.9

Immigration/integration:
39,6/33,9
-----------------
Judicial policy:
31.1/34.9

Economic policy:
33.9/42.9.

http://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/meningsmaalinger/ECE7642319/Mener-du-at-Helle-Thorning-Schmidt-eller-Lars-L%C3%B8kke-Rasmussen-er-bedst-til.../

So HTS ahead on immigration and almost a tie on law and order..  right wing "value politics" my not work this time for the Libs. Not good news for Venstre. A bit surprising LLR is ahead on the economy actually, it is going quite well, but SD apparently can not win that game.

[politicus]

Also a somewhat interesting personal credibility poll. Kristian Thulesen Dahl from DPP is tied with Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen for first, but he is followed by all the "Red Bloc" leaders - ordered from left to right.

Scale from 0-10

1. Kristian Thulesen Dahl (DPP)/Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen (Red Greens) 5.8
3.P Pia Olsen Dyhr (SPP) 5.3
4. HTS 5.2
5. Morten Østergaard 4.8
--------------------------
6. Søren Pape Poulsen (Cons.) 4.4
7. Anders Samuelsen (LA) 4.2
8. LLR (Liberals) 3.9
9. Uffe Elbæk 3.5

http://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/meningsmaalinger/ECE7642114/S%C3%A5-trov%C3%A6rdige-er-partilederne/

[politicus]

tl;dr: Most of their 2011 voters were okay with the party being right of center on economics. The change has been more on attitude (little willingness to compromise) than on policy and a more pragmatic/unprincipled stance on certain value issues than expected, which may cost them some votes, but most will likely accpet it as realpolitik. Their voters are pragmatic - it is in the party DNA to have a pragmatic approach to politics.

OK, I guess I got the wrong end of the stick at some point when I thought they were my natural Danish party.  Who should I support?  (Centre-left on economics, fairly pro-Europe, opposed to pretty much everything people like the DPP and UKIP say...)

You may have been confused by Radikale Venstre's very misleading name.

Though at least they tend to be a part of the centre-left bloc, unlike, say, their Norwegian sister party, so they can't be that bad from your perspective. The only part of the above description that doesn't fit very well with RV is the centre-left on economic thing.
Perhaps SF would be the party for you (they are much more pro-EU than in the past, IIRC).

Yes SF would be the obvious choice. It is sort of a greenie left-SD party, pro-EU and with a more principled line on civil rights, transparency, refugees etc. than SD. They sucked in government (and never should have entered), but from an ideological POV they would probably fit you. They are also (at least in principle) more sceptical of big bureaucracies and top-down solutions. "More (civil) society, less state" is an old SPP slogan. There is a left liberal streak to the party, that sets them apart from the Red Greens and SD.

The wing that wanted to toughen up on the partys immigration and law & order policies (still, not anything  DPP-like) in order to attract workers, have almost all left.

The SPP right wing (so-called Greens) is close to the now rather marginalized RV left wing. Their current leader is from that group (but with working class background and union ties, giving her a different approach to some things).

[politicus]

Pape Poulsen now says openly that he wants to challenge the assumption that the Conservatives is a broad centre/right party and poace it unequivocally to the right of Venstre on all isssues (economic as well as value based). Also states that too many Conservatives are stuck in veneration for the Schlüter-era in the 80s.

This could reopen the traitional Conservative civil war between right winger and "Social Conservatives" (= moderates).

[politicus]

While moving the Cons to the right - and thereby overcoming the old structural problem of the party being at the same time to the left and right of Venstre - may be the right move long term (there are clearly too many centrist parties in Denmark)  it is a really risky move to attempt during an election campaign. where they may very well get in trouble with the threshold if part of their moderate core voters stay home without the party attracting new segments. Bold or desperate? Perhaps a little of both.

[politicus]

The first poll has been made on the Faroe Islands which will elect two MPs. It looks like the two current MPs will be reelected, one blue and one red.

The full results of the polls have not been reported, as far as I can see, but the three most important parties are:
Sambandsflokkurin (cooperates with the Liberals) 26.1%
Javnaðarflokkurin (cooperates with Social Democrats) 24.6%
Tjóðveldi (socialist, separatist, republican) 20.6%

English names are: Union Party, Social Democrats and Republic. The seaparatist and right wing Peoples Party is as important as them and needs to be included to make a fair assesment.
Numbers are much better for the Union Party than earlier polls this year. Perhaps nationalist centre-right voters prefering the Unionists over the left wing nationalists in Repulic at this point.

[politicus]

I'm really uncertain who I'd vote for in this election out of Radikale, Konservative, and Liberal Alliance.

Radikale is the party that is closest to me, but I do really dislike Thoring-Schmidt's government. On the other hand, the option isn't much better...  

No way you could vote Conservative in their current incarnation. LA is a tad too right wing  on a number of issues, but fits your Euroscepticism.

As much as you would hate it you might fit the Christian Democrats best..

[politicus]

For what its worth: I think the government will be reelected now (so they probably wont   )

[politicus]

Greenland: Betting on an upset: Two seats for IA

That is just silly...

Wonder what happened on the Faroes, the Union Party was as unpopular as speeding tickets and it doesn't really affect the Faroese what the Danish parliament decides on socioeconomic issues, so no real need for separatist right wingers to go Union instead of Republic.

[politicus]

This map really tells an important part of the story. Last time around, a bunch of the smaller cities like Randers and Esbjerg were colored red. At this point, it's only Copenhagen+western suburbs, Århus, Odense and half of Aalborg, plus a couple random rural municipalities.

Obviously, the Social Democrats did well in most of these places, but it seems that their coalition partners really collapsed in mid-sized Denmark.

Svendborg is not rural, but the second largest town on Fyn and Lolland - with Nakskov - is far from random, but the reddest (and poorest) area in Denmark.

[politicus]

So in Denmark Proper it is 90-85 Blues.  But TV2 seems to indicate that Reds won all 4 seats in Faroe Islands and Greenland so it is 90-89 for Blues.  Is this true? What happen to the Union Party in Faroe Islands ?

All media are reporting this, so it would appear to be true. Been wondering about the same thing, apparently the Republicans picked up a seat out of nowhere in the Faroes. Most of the reports for the past couple days have been about the Social Democrats possibly losing their seat, but they held on to it comfortably.

The surprisjng thing was the poll.. The centre-right government is unpopular, so a double red was always a likely possibility.

The current SD MP is a popular entertainer and radio personality, apart from being a politologist, and he was never in any real danger.

Given that the Danish parliament has almost zero influence a switch of right wing separatist voters to left wing wing separatist Republic was always a possibility. Faroese voters tend to vote more on the separatist-unionist scale in Folketing elections than on the socio-economic.

[politicus]

So despite topping the poll and increasing her vote share, she ends up resigning. That seems non-sensical to me.

Ever since 1982 all Danish governments have won a second term. Failing to do that makes HTS a failure and there is a strong alliance between Mette Frederiksen and Henrik Sass Larsen, uniting the two strongest factions, that are not happy about her and Corydon. She did not have much of a choice IMO.

[politicus]

Svendborg is not rural, but the second largest town on Fyn and Lolland - with Nakskov - is far from random, but the reddest (and poorest) area in Denmark.

Noted - Fyn is kind of a blind spot in my geographic knowledge (I'm sure a lot of Danes can relate), but I should have figured out Lolland and Falster.

Svendborg is a working class town and still fairly red. Odense is a traditional Conservative stronghold and one of the few town outside the capital area, where that party styill has strength, but has a strong SD presence as well. The third largest is Nyborg, which is an industrial town with a lot of traditional working class voters.
Southern Fyn is generally a marginalized area, despite being one of the most beautiful parts of Denmark. The islands to the south of Fyn are even poorer, with Langeland near the bottom.

While Danes like the term Lolland-Falster, the two islands are not alike politically. Falster and the eastern part of Lolland are not poorer or more red than many other provincial  areas - but is a DPP stronghold. As you can see it went with blue bloc this time. The really red area is Western Lolland with Nakskov. Before the municipal reform 5 out of 6 of the poorest municipalities were in Western Lolland, now they have added the middle part of the island where social conditions are more normal and there are less social clients and that makes it less extreme. Besides losing a lot of industrial jobs Western Lolland is also a magnet for problem families from Copenhagen because of cheap housing and has a high crime rate.

[politicus]

Regarding government possibilities:

Venstre said before the election that they considered LA immature and DPP will not accept LA in government.

The  Conservatives are not popular with DPP and it is hard to see why they should want to enter government. I see that as a non-starter.

It is hard to see why DPP should want to enter a government with such a narrow majority, it is bound to collapse within 1-2 years and if DPP stays out they can pick up the pieces. If they enter it will open the gates for Danish Unity (bound to be on the ballot next time due to electronic signature registration) and DPP will lose seats to Red Bloc due to compromising on welfare. While they have tried to vet all their candidates carefully, there will always be a couple of unreliable candidates in a populist party that gains so much, and these types will jump ship if a government will have to do something very unpopular.

It is between a Liberal minority government and a Liberal-DPP coalition. The first option is the logical - unless Thulesen-Dahl has lost his cool. I was very surprised DPP even brought up getting into government in the first place.

Worth noticing: For left wingers this was actually quite a good election despite the poor result from the two left wing parties: They got rid of Thorning, Radikale was cut down to size (even 1% below their typical modern level) and there is a good chance of an at least somewhat more red centre-left coalition within 1-2 years. A similarly narrow Red Bloc win would almost have guaranteed a strong Blue Bloc win next time with maybe 7-8 years of Blue Bloc dominance.

[politicus]

Danish posters: do you think this parliament can last a full term?

No chance. I would be very surprised if it lasts longer than two years and a 2016 election is very likely.

[politicus]

Oh great, another sh*tty election result.

Given the circumstances it is actually quite good for people like you. As noted above the reverse result would have been a disaster for the left.

This might very well be the ouverture for a Frederiksen goverment in 2016 with a weaker Radikale = a more classical SD line. Alternativet is a joker, but if you count them as somewhat leftist/green, this is not bad for the left. DPP won so big that they might be tempted/feel obliged to enter government, which is the safest way to break a right wing populist party - especially such a weak government.

The Thorning/Corydon axis was a guarantee for a all round quite right wing party, both on economics, immigration and civil rights/justice. It was only on the environment that this goverment was (moderately) leftist. If Thorning had stayed on with a decent election result this would have continued.

[politicus]

A poor result as expected for the Conservatives, but there might be some hope for the party in the 6 candidates it looks like they will get in. The leader Søren Pape Poulsen gets in and managed to improve his party's fortunes in Western Jutland to 4.9%. The former leader Lars Barfoed will not get a seat in Copenhagen, and instead the 27-year old Mette Abildgaard is elected in Northern Zealand. The 55-year old Mike Legarth will not be re-elected in Southern Jutland, while 35-year old Mai Mercado will be elected in Funen. Finally the 38-year old Rasmus Jarlov, who has been the Conservative leader in the Copenhagen City Council, will get into parliament.
So the generational change the party has been longing for, seems to come true. However, with recounts and so on, seats could change again inside the party, but it looks like they will get a completely new start.

Pape, Abilgaard, Jarlov and Mercado... That is four solid right wingers. Who are the last two? Does Pape get a pure right wing group? That would make his political project much more realistic.

[politicus]

It is between a Liberal minority government and a Liberal-DPP coalition. The first option is the logical - unless Thulesen-Dahl has lost his cool. I was very surprised DPP even brought up getting into government in the first place.

Thulesen-Dahl has said that the party should be were it will be able to have the greatest influence, has he not? Let's face it, on immigration DPP will hold the sway no matter if they're in or out of this government, however on other areas, most notably the European Union, it is entirely possible, not to say likely, that a pure Venstre government would run a very pro-European policy with support from across the aisle. If DPP is in the government however they can make sure that Denmark is a close ally to Cameron in the re-negotiations of the EU-terms, and thereby curb intra-EU migration.

On the same time, Lars Lökke has all the reason to want the DPP inside his government. I think your analysis too often assume that Lökke is some docile idiot, and not the sharp ruthless and mean politician he actually is. With a strong coalition partner in the government he will have someone to share the blame with, and since voters always finds a reason to be cross with the government, it is most important as a party to not stand alone in government, especially when your party is already weak.       

In a coalition Lökke would also be able to trade concessions from Venstre on Europe for a more centre-right economic policy, which would please the Liberal Alliance and the Conservatives. Everybody wins, and the blue bloc gets the most stable government they could out of this unstable election result.

That is why the Venstre-DPP coalition is actually the most logical solution.

It is obviously the best option for Venstre (never claimed otherwise), but at the end of the day the DPP is the party that decides. Loekke is in a weak position. He does not have much of a choice.

So far most observers have assumed that DPP would only go into government if they were stronger than the other three blue bloc parties and thereby able to get major influence on European policy. This time the Eurosceptic part of Blue Bloc is stronger than the Europhile, but DPP itself is still weaker than Lib/Con and LA is not a natural ally for DPP. Eurosceptics are a minority in the Folketing and the old parties (Venstre, SD, Radikale and Conservatives) are unlikely to want major changes to Danish EU policy. Being unambiguously pro-European is still seen as vital for corporate and agricultural Denmark and thereby also for Venstre.

If DPP stays out they are in a good position for the next election, if they join, they will almost certainly lose seats. That is the bottom line. They need big concessions for them to be worth it. Even then it seems like an unnecessary risk.

[politicus]

Failing to do that makes HTS a failure

That wasn't exactly her fault -  it was Radikale and SF who lost 18 seats between them.

It doesn't make much of a difference for Venstre and SocDem only gaining power matters, that's success everything else is a failure. Svend Auken got some of the greatest election results for SocDem and he's still seen as a failure, because he failed to gain power.

^^^^

Getting votes from your coalition partners is not considered success. when Auken won big in 1990 it was dismissed as a fusion on the left by pundits, because SF lost big.

Besides seen in a historical light the SD result is still among the worst in party history. You can say it is good by "modern standards", but being below 30% is still seen as rather miserable by many.

[politicus]

A poor result as expected for the Conservatives, but there might be some hope for the party in the 6 candidates it looks like they will get in. The leader Søren Pape Poulsen gets in and managed to improve his party's fortunes in Western Jutland to 4.9%. The former leader Lars Barfoed will not get a seat in Copenhagen, and instead the 27-year old Mette Abildgaard is elected in Northern Zealand. The 55-year old Mike Legarth will not be re-elected in Southern Jutland, while 35-year old Mai Mercado will be elected in Funen. Finally the 38-year old Rasmus Jarlov, who has been the Conservative leader in the Copenhagen City Council, will get into parliament.
So the generational change the party has been longing for, seems to come true. However, with recounts and so on, seats could change again inside the party, but it looks like they will get a completely new start.

Pape, Abilgaard, Jarlov and Mercado... That is four solid right wingers. Who are the last two? Does Pape get a pure right wing group? That would make his political project much more realistic.

Mr. Stop Nazi-Islamism Naser Khader and Brian Mikkelsen. Khader certainly quite right-wing, and after his failures in the New Alliance in explaining economic policies, he seems like he has lost interest in that part. His campaign was very much focus on immigration and extremism.

While Khader has a maverick streak and is a bit unpredictable, that is clearly the most right wing Conservative group post-1929 and possibly since 1920. There are zero moderates in the Christmas-Moeller tradition, which would be the first time since Christmas-Moeller himself was elected back in 1920.