The Great Nordic Thread (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:48:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  The Great Nordic Thread (search mode)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9
Poll
Question: Will Iceland and Norway ever join the EU?
#1
Iceland, but not Norway
 
#2
Norway, but not Iceland
 
#3
Both
 
#4
None of them
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 178

Author Topic: The Great Nordic Thread  (Read 201289 times)
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #100 on: November 02, 2016, 06:08:25 AM »

The last three polls from Voxmeter, Megafon and YouGov have the DPP at 15.8, 15.9 and 14.5%. So at the moment the DPP have lost around 30% of their voters since the 2015 general election. These three polls were all made after the two week long focus on the EU expenses scandal in the DPP, so in a month or two, I would expect them to bounce a bit back, but they would still be significantly below their (historically great) 2015 result. The beneficiaries from the DPP fall differs somewhat from pollster to pollster, but in most the Liberal are back up around their (poor) 2015 result of 19.5%, the New Right gains further ground and get above 3%, and the Red Bloc gains a bit, so the polls now fluctuate between a narrow red majority and a clear red majority.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

After little movement in the negotiations, the government is forced to put their big 2025 plan on hold. The 2017 budget was meant to be a minor part of these negotiations, but the deadline for passing the budget is mid-November, so if that deadline is to be kept, they need to focus on that now. Getting an agreement which fulfills the Liberal Alliance's tax demand seems almost impossible, so if LA stick to their word, the government will fall right after New Year. I believe, the only real precedent for a support party taking down its own government in modern times, is 1975, when the anarchist Progress Party took down the Liberal minority government ushering in a seven-year Social Democrat reign.

http://www.politico.eu/newsletter/playbook/politico-brussels-playbook-presented-by-pfizer-oettinger-fallout-continues-eu-china-tit-for-tat/
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #101 on: November 18, 2016, 10:01:05 AM »
« Edited: November 18, 2016, 02:03:04 PM by Diouf »

Blue Bloc parties agree on 2017 Budget



The Blue Men's Club has reached an agreement on the 2017 budget. The DPP managed to increase the funds for improved elderly care and for the temporary border control. Naturally, they have also achieved tougher rules on refugees and immigration; it will be more difficult to achieve a permanent residence permit and more money will be spent on deporting rejected asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants. The Liberal Alliance achieved a further decrease of the car tax as well as increasing the subsidies for private schools, while the Conservatives again managed to freeze the local property taxes. Other important aspects is increased funds for cancer treatment and research, an increase in the number of policemen trained a year and a new short term "police cadet" education to perform lighter police tasks to release real policemen for other tasks.

The government's negotiations have flown rather quickly since it postponed its ambitious 2025 plan, yesterday the government made a broad agreement on the new system for energy subsidies, and later today they will agree on a new property valuation system. The Liberal government will be happy to show some competence and results after months of inertia, especially before the Liberal conference this weekend. However, now that these agreements have been made, the attention will revert to the top tax battle, where the Liberal Alliance insists it will take down the government if 5% top tax rate reductions for all high earners are not agreed upon before the New Year. Something that seems almost impossible for the DPP to agree on, even more so as they have already lost many voters after their EU expenses scandal.

Several political commentators wrote yesterday about the possibility of the creation of a new government to overcome these difficulties, so someone have probably been briefing that around pretty clearly. That government would consist of the Liberals, the Liberal Alliance and the Conservatives. The benefits are clear: negotiations in the Blue Bloc will then only be between the Government and the DPP instead of between the government and three different parties. In that way, the situation would be similar to how the situation was in 2001-2011. The Conservatives were quite adamant after the 2015 election that they were not entering the government due to their poor result, but their fortunes have not really improved outside government, so perhaps they now see government participation as an at least equally good chance of improving their standing. For the Liberal Alliance it might be a gentle way to back down from their aggressive threats of taking down the government; because if, as it seems likely, they do not get their top tax reductions, they would either have to take down their government or look very humiliated for not doing it. However, there are a number of caveats, which makes it less likely that such a government reorganisation will happen. The government programme would have to become more right-wing economically for the two new parties to defend their participation. This could hurt the Liberals, who are probably already seen as being somewhat too right-wing on economy by the median voter. Also it would make economic negotiations with the DPP even more difficult. Government participation would probably also make the Liberal Alliance more susceptible to loss of voters to the New Right, which can mock the LA for not getting through enough tax cuts and reductions of poublic spending. So all things considered, I lean towards it not happening, but perhaps the chaotic 2025 negotiations have made the parties much more favourably inclined to a broader government.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #102 on: November 19, 2016, 03:56:52 PM »

PM invites Liberal Alliance and Conservatives to join government

At the first speech of the Liberal conference, the party leader and PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen listed the achievements of the Liberal government in its first one and a half year, but then concluded that further progress would be most likely to happen if the government was broadened to include the Liberal Alliance and the Conservatives. This is in particular to get past the top tax rate debacle, that was threatening to take down the government with the Liberal Alliance and the DPP pulling the government in different directions. It seems like LA is willing to ditch their ultimatum of 5% top tax rate reductions for all high earners if they are allowed into the government. The Conservatives seems less eager to join the government than LA, but there must be a common understanding that an agreement can be reached with all three parties for the PM to announce it.

The negotiations will start on Monday, and it will be interesting to see how far right the new government programme will move economically, and what changes will happen personnel-wise. There are a few older man in the current Liberal government, and particular the Finance Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen has been the subject of quite a few retirement rumours. The PM gave him a special greeting in his speech for the work he had done in agreeing on many deals during this government, which sounded somewhat like a farewell greeting. Although I would hope for someone like Health Minister Sophie Løhde to take over as finance minister, the most likely scenario is probably that Løkke's good friend Defence Minister Peter Christensen will take over. Christensen was touted as a likely Finance Minister before the 2015 election, but did not figure in the original government after failing to be elected MP. However, when the Defence Minister had to resign quickly, the PM's reliable friend was brought into the government. Presumably there will be some division of responsibilities in the finance and economy ministries, so that the Liberal Alliance and Conservative party leaders can both get a decent economy-related ministry, while the Liberal retain the Finance Ministry post.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #103 on: November 27, 2016, 12:11:57 PM »

Agreement on new three-clover government: New Cabinet presented tomorrow



Today, the Liberals, the Liberal Alliance and the Conservatives reached agreement on forming a new government. The Government programme for the new government includes the following things: less regulations for companies, a more effective public sector with limited or no increase in funding, lower income taxes (both the bottom and top rate), lower study grants, cut the state broadcaster DR down in size, 50% of Danish energy demand in 2030 should come from renewable energy, more funds for the military, harder punishments for violent crimes, move more government agencies from Copenhagen to other parts of the country, change rules to give disruptive and innovative companies better possibilities (recent court sentences have made it hard for Uber to function in Denmark).

One pundit called it the most right-wing government since Madsen-Mygdal in 1926-1929. That might be true, but most economic proposals will be diluted by negotiations with the DPP or the Social Democrats. It will be interesting to see how the Liberal Alliance, hitherto largely a ultraliberal protest party, will handle being in government, particularly once its high ambitions are watered down in negotiations. Already, many have been puzzled by their sudden change from "5 % top tax rate reductions for everybody or we take down the government" to responsible government party willing to compromise. It should give great opportunities for the newest protest party, the New Right, which is even more hardcore right wing on economy. Additionally, the government EU-policy is quite standard pro-EU without much trace of the light Euroscepticism of the Liberal Alliance, another issue where the New Right, favouring complete EU-withdrawal, can attack them.

The new cabinet will be presented for the Queen tomorrow. We don't know the names yet, but it will expand in size from 17 to 22 (13 V, 6 LA, 3K). I think and hope there will be a bigger gender parity in this new cabinet; perhaps the Liberals will make a smaller generational change as well. The focus will be on the Finance Ministry in particular, where the 69-year old Claus Hjort Frederiksen might not continue. The question then is whether Foreign Minister Kristian Jensen, deputy leader and Løkke rival, will get the post or whether a Løkke loyalist like Peter Christensen or Troels Lund Poulsen will take over. Some see this as a proxy for whether there will be a full-blown leadership battle once Løkke is no longer Liberal leader; if Jensen gets it Løkke accepts that he will take over after him, if Jensen does not get it, it suggests that Løkke would support another against Jensen once that time comes. In the end, Hjort Frederiksen might stay simply to avoid this problem. It will also be interesting to see whether some of the more controversial Liberal Alliance MPs become ministers.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #104 on: November 28, 2016, 07:08:51 AM »

New Cabinet in place: Kristian Jensen established as Liberal heir



The new three-clover cabinet was presented to the Queen today. Younger and with more women (from 30 to 40%). The Liberal deputy leader Kristian Jensen is now also Finance Minister, the second most important post in the government. Thereby Jensen seems firmly established as the heir in the Liberal party once Lars Løkke Rasmussen resigns. Surprisingly, Jensen is replaced as Foreign Minister by Liberal Alliance leader Anders Samuelsen. The Liberal Alliance has mostly focused on domestic affairs, economy and taxation in particular, so he was excepted to get an economic post. LA is somewhat Eurosceptic, supported no in the December referendum, but the government programme is a standard pro-EU one, so it likely won't be a big problem. Also, Samuelsen was previously (2004-2007) a MEP for the extremely pro-EU Social Liberal Party, so he knows how to sound a pro-EU line internationally. Conservative leader Søren Pape as expected becomes Minister of Justice, a typically important Conservative area, and with agreement on more police officers, a new police cadet education and higher punishments for violent crimes, he should have a decent opportunity to get some positive media attention. The wild card is the Liberal Alliance's Thyra Frank, new Minister of the Elderly. She is not exactly a typical politician; she used to run a private elderly home which became famous for its liberal booze and smoking policies. She was elected a MP in the 2011 election, but did not get re-elected in 2015 despite Liberal Alliance's increase in seats. I could worry for how she will handle potential cuts to the elderly care, although she might be lucky that the DPP will fight hard to avoid any such notion.

Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #105 on: November 30, 2016, 03:23:33 PM »

Norway government at risk as budget talks break down

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.thelocal.no/20161130/norway-government-at-risk-as-budget-talks-break-down
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #106 on: December 15, 2016, 05:11:45 PM »

The majority supporting the Danish government has risen from 90, the minimum necessary, to 91 as the Greenlandic Independent MP Aleqa Hammond has stated that she will not vote against the government in so called cabinet questions; bills where the government has stated that they will consider a defeat as a no-confidence motion. Hammond has in return become chair of the Committee of Greenlandic Affairs, a post previously held by a Liberal MP. This means that the government should be able to survive one defection from one of their parties or from the DPP without falling.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #107 on: January 11, 2017, 05:26:08 PM »

Berlingske polling average per 9 January

Social Democrats 26.4% (+0.1% compared to 2015 election)
Social Liberals 5.5% (+0.9%)
Conservatives 4.0% (+0.6%)
New Right 2.7% (new)
SPP 4.9 (+0.7%)
Liberal Alliance 6.4% (-1.1%)
DPP 16.4% (-4.7%)
Liberals 18.9% (-0.7%)
Red-Green Alliance 8.3% (+0.5%)
Alternative 5.8% (+1.0%)

Overall, the Red Bloc opposition parties would win 90 seats, while the Blue Bloc parties would win 85. The only major change is the big drop for the DPP, mostly due to the EU expenses scandals.

The main question in the spring will be whether it will be possible for PM Løkke Rasmussen to find a political balance, that allows him to keep LA and the Conservatives somewhat happy within the government without moving the government's economic platform so far right, that compromises with the DPP and/or the Social Democrats become impossible. This will be crucial since a number of economic reforms will be high on the agenda. A question that must be resolved is that of a new property tax system, since the old one has shown to be highly deficient. The Conservatives in particular has been outspoken opponents of higher property taxes, particularly for high value properties. Along with LA, they want to lower the taxes compared to the proposal of the previous Liberal government. Meanwhile, the Social Democrats, the DPP and the Social Liberals want to raise taxes for the most wealthy property owners. Similar battles will be fought on the issues of retirement age, income tax and student subsidies, where the two small government parties wants to make the government's proposals more "ambitious"(right-wing) to show their influence in government, which makes it harder to forge compromises. They will probably try to lure the DPP into an agreement on some of these issues by proposing further measures to tighen immigration policies, but I doubt that anything less than the effective termination of Schengen-membership would do, something the Liberals seem unlikely to offer. So unless the DPP can be lured by some radical immigration measures, it seems that the two alternatives are a "puppet government" that won't be able to get support for any of its economic policies, or two small government parties who will be completely trounced with the internal disarray and voter loss that would probably entail, which would in turn destabilize the whole government.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #108 on: January 26, 2017, 04:22:46 PM »
« Edited: January 26, 2017, 05:55:22 PM by Diouf »

After an embarrasing months-long discussion about where to place a new police academy, the government could not get a majority for its plan to build a brand new academy in Herning. The Social Democrats and the DPP rejected that idea as they wanted the academy built in existing buildings to make it cheaper and functioning at an earlier time. Therefore they forced the government to start building in existing buildings in Vejle instead. The case has been extra delicate because Løkke-loyalist Lars Krarup, who was a major player in the 2014 Liberal leadership crisis, is mayor in Herning, so many saw it as a gift for Krarup. Especially since the police had originally searched for existing building to place the academy in and been all around the country to look at buildings, before in the middle of the process deciding to go for a new building instead.

The Social Democrats and the DPP could easily destroy the government's plan on the next big case on the agenda as well, property taxation. As expected the two small government parties have forced the government to tack to the right, so they have made a new property taxation proposal without a top property tax. This means the property tax will turn into a complete flat tax rate, and the 15.000 wealthiest property owners in the country would no longer have to pay a higher tax-% for the value above 6 mio DKK (0.81 mio euro). The Social Democrats, the DPP and the Social Liberals were already complaining that the original proposal was not progressive enough, so an agreement will be much harder to reach now.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #109 on: January 26, 2017, 06:23:55 PM »

Thanks for your updates, Diouf. You mentioned student subsidies. How are they currently organized in Denmark?

All students aged 18 or older gets student subsidies. The standard rate is 5100 DKK (685 euro) a month after tax. This is what most people in university gets. Many already turn 18 during their youth education (gymnasium/high school, vocational etc), so they start getting subsidies there, but there are at lower rate, and graduated according to their parents' wealth as most people live at home. You can get the full rate if you have to study far from your parents' home, and therefore have to get your own place. If you have a student job, your student subsidy will be gradually reduced once you have reached an earnings limit. On top of the subsidies, there are student loans with low rates. You can loan a further 3000 DKK (400 euro) a month.

The reform proposal of the previous Liberal-only government was to lower the standard subsidy rate to 4300 DKK (580 euro), raise the possible loan amount to 4300 DKK, and raise the earnings limit, so students can work more without getting a lower subsidy. As with the other proposals, the two smaller government parties would prefer the proposal to become more radical before negotiations start with other parties. Compared to retirement age and income tax, it is probably a bit more likely that a deal can be reached on this topic. The Social Democrats and the DPP have both participated in deals with the government that lowered the unemployment benefits for graduates and a ban on taking two educations at the same level (i.e. two different bachelors), so they are not as afraid to upset young students as they are with other groups. However, education policy is one of the few areas where there is normally somewhat agreement in the Red Bloc, so the Social Democrats might not want to destroy that further. Also they have recently stated that they see no more need for economic reforms now, so they would face a minor backlash if they agree to one. The DPP could perhaps agree to it anyway, but they might not want to make another "welfare-reducing" deal, that allows the Social Democrats to criticize them.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #110 on: February 09, 2017, 07:36:04 AM »
« Edited: February 09, 2017, 04:46:30 PM by Diouf »

The first real policy agreement by the new expanded government exposes the difficulties it will face in many negotiations. A deal on a new taxi law was immediately criticized by MPs from the Liberal Alliance and the Conservatives because it will make it very difficult for Uber to function, a company that especially the former party has loudly praised as a good example. But today the Liberal Alliance Minister of Transportation Ole Birk Olesen presented an agreement that maintains that taxis must have taximeters, seat sensors, clear marking that it's a taxi, the taxi driver/company must have at least 40.000 DKK (€ 5 400) and still needs a special drivers's license, which can be uptained in around two weeks. After the Danish courts recently determined that Uber's activities are covered by the Taxi Law despite their claims to the opposite, these rules had to be removed or reduced drastically if Uber should still be able to function in Denmark. Liberal Alliance MP Joachim B Olsen calls the demands completely ridiculous and protectionist, and calls the Social Democrats and the DPP "luddites" due to their insistence that these rules were not changed. The Conservative Rasmus Jarlov made similar comments. None of them has suggested that they will vote against the agreement, and there is some liberalizations of the taxi business in removing the cap on taxi licenses and removing the geographical limits, so a taxi license can now be used in the entire country. However, especially for the Liberal Alliance this is seen as a clear defeat, particularly due to the instant criticism from their own MPs. The deal was made by the government, the Social Democrats, the DPP, the Social Liberals and the SPP.

The negotiations on the new property taxation system are as difficult as expected
, and it is difficult to see how a deal can be reached without another blow to the two minor government parties. The negotiations have been postponed by two weeks now because the Social Democrats and the DPP demands that the government explicitly lays out how the new nice tax cuts for the wealthiest property owners should be financed. At the same time the Liberal mayor of Herning and the most important local politician in the party, Lars Krarup, has criticized the expanded government's new proposal because it mostly benefits property ownerns in Northern Zealand, Copenhagen and Eastern Jutland. He claims the proposal is very risky for his party, and that they should remember their core voters, who are mostly outside these areas.

On top of the other difficulties for the Liberal Alliance, the leader of the Liberal Alliance Youth and his closest supporter in the leadership were both suspended due to illegally gaining access to other members' computers.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #111 on: February 14, 2017, 06:40:08 AM »

S and DPP make life increasingly difficult for the government



The party leaders of the two biggest parties, Mette Frederiksen and Kristian Thulelsen Dahl, cemented their status as the power couple of Danish politics. In a common interview, where they are joined by the leader of 3F, one of the biggest unions, they again poured cold water on some of the VLAK-government's most important economic proposals, raising the retirement age, top tax reductions in both income and property taxes etc. They also discuss possible government formations, and while the answers are vague, they do open up somewhat for a potential formal coalition. Thulelsen Dahl praises Frederiksen and says that he has already talked more with her this term than he did with Thorning-Schmidt during her entire term as PM. He states that things are not frozen or cast in cement for eternity in relation to the blocs in Danish Politics, and adds that the DPP will try to make it possible for themselves to make agreement across the blocs on different subjects. Frederiksen is even more vague and states that "the closer we get to an election, the more different letter-combinations we will see in relation to government formation", and praises Thulelsen Dahl for their cooperation.

Political commentators are naturally really excited, "an interview whose importance can't be overstated" etc, but I'm not really sure how much to make of it. Perhaps I'm too locked in my thinking that a formal cooperation, i.e. coalition or support party, remains really unlikely for quite some time. I still see too many obstacles for that. I understand that Thulelsen Dahl is very happy to distance himself from Løkke, who is unpopular among a significant part of his voters, but there is relatively little to suggest that they would be much happier about formal cooperation with Frederiksen and the Social Democrats. After the last election, 1/3 of the DPP voters chose the Social Democrats as the party they are least likely to vote for, in July 2016 only 9% of DPP voters stated that the Social Democrats would be their second preference (33% chose the Liberals, 11% Liberal Alliance), and in January 2017 only 14% of DPP voters preferred Mette Frederiksen as PM (38% someone else (i.e. Thulelsen Dahl), 21 % Løkke). Therefore, I think there would be quite a realignment of DPP voters moving to the other Blue Bloc parties if the DPP formally cooperates with the Social Democrats. And while the Social Democrats have moved rightwards on immigration, I still don't see them as more likely than the current government to cross the rubicon between DPP and the other parties on immigration by leaving international cooperation, i.e. UN conventions, ECHR, Schengen or even the EU itself. And the remaining soft left parts of the Social Democrats will probably move to the smaller left wing parties if such cooperation happens. Btw a movement I predict will happen to some extent in the next election anyway once the Social Democrats loudly have to prove how tough on immigration they are.

Another concern is that who would the additional party be in such a cooperation? (in current polls, they only have 79 seats combined). The SPP perhaps the most likely option since they are a bit to the right of the three other left-wing parties on immigration, but I'm not sure they would do well in such a scenario. I think it would take a situation of complete chaos for it to happen, i.e. a situation where at least one of the blocs are no longer functioning. The LA threatened to do that last fall with their repeated threats to take down the government, but instead ended up inside of it and the Red-Greens were at times very mad but never withdrew support. The New Right is perhaps the best shot of it happening; policy-wise they are very similar to the extinct Progress Party, so if they turn out to be as parliamentary unruly and impossible to make agreements with, we could have a post-bloc situation again. Still in such a situation, there might be the giant obstacle of who of the Social Democrats and DPP should hold the PM title, and whether the minor party would not risk legitiatizing the major party, making itself somewhat obsolete. But as I started out with, I might be too locked in my own thinking. The two parties are holding increasingly similar positions on many subjects, and they both occupy the electoral sweet spot with tough immigration policies and centre-left economic policies, where many voters reside, so in some sense formal cooperation would be really logical. And their voters might warm to this cooperation if the policy outcomes are close to their preferred ones.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #112 on: March 05, 2017, 01:07:19 PM »

Timo Soini is stepping down in a move which could imperil the Finnish government.

Certainly if MEP Jussi Halla-aho takes over as party leader. He representes the hard-core right of the party. He has been convincted of racism, and is critical of the government's policies. It's hard to see the Finns Party stay in the government for long with him as the leader.
However, if political spokesperson Sampo Terho or Defence Minister Jussi Niinistö succeeds Soini, then little changes would probably happen. They have both voted for all the government's policies and largely supports Soini's more moderate line. They are unlikely to both run. Niinistö should be Soini's preferred candidate, but is probably not as popular as Terho, and is rumoured as a candidate for the 2018 Presidential election.

Polling among Finns Party local affiliate leaders from January with and without Soini. In both cases, the moderate candidate just beats Halla-aho in the run-off(Soini 54,7 - 45,3, Terho 57,9 - 42,1). However, the leadership election will to a large extent probably be a referendum on the government's policies, so victory for Halla-aho can certainly not be ruled out. Like in most other countries, the refugee policies have been tightened in connection with the refugee crisis. Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia have been declared safe in some areas, so many asylum applications for these countries have begun to be rejected. The number of asylum seekers boomed to 32,476, but has fallen to 5,657 in 2016. However, as in many countries, the government has not taken the ultimate step to stop asylum seekers coming in by leaving UN Conventions, ECHR or Schengen and EU rules. Something Halla-aho and many in the Finns party wants.

With Soini

Without Soini
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #113 on: March 10, 2017, 06:44:26 AM »

The Ministry of Interior today published the signature count for the parties trying to obtain permission to run in the next Danish general election. 42 new parties are registrered, but only 4 of them have collected more than 1 000 signatures. It requires 20 109 signatures to run. Nye Borgerlige (The New Right) have already collected enough signatures. The Christian Democrats have collected 17 235, so it looks likely that they will be able to run again. Their last succesful election was in 2001, they rather narrowly fell below the threshold in 2005, and in the last three elections they have been stable at 0.8%. I can't really see why they should do any better the next time, but they have a fairly committed bunch of elderly activists and local councillors a few places, so they decided to give it another go. No one else is really close to the signatures threshold. The former nazi Daniel Carlsen, who have moderated a bit, and his Danes' Party have collected 5 685 signatures, so they still have a long way to go. They have gained some attention with gimmicks like handing out "asylum sprays" to "protect you from raping refugees" and have delivered leaflets similar to air plane tickets to the Middle East in areas with many non-western immigrants "to encourage them to go home". The immigrant party the National Party have only collected 2 908, despite several times claiming that they had collected enough signatures to run, but each time "the dog ate them" when asked for evidence. Finally, another new far right party Danish Unity have collected 1 245 signatures.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #114 on: March 13, 2017, 12:55:47 PM »

Sampo Terho is officially running. Jussi Niinistö is not; he's supporting Terho.

Jussi Halla-aho has confirmed that he is running as well.

"In a video statement published on Monday, Halla-aho said the party leadership "must better reflect the needs of the people who vote for us".

"Finland cannot be a global social office, where everyone has the right to walk in, expect to be taken care of and make arrogant demands," he said.

As an MEP, Halla-aho has proposed sanctions against organizations that rescue refugees and immigrants from the Mediterranean, saying it encourages movement from Africa to Europe.

In his video-message on Monday, he said he did not know what would happen to the government if he was elected party leader."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-finland-government-finnsparty-leaders-idUSKBN16K1AK
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #115 on: March 14, 2017, 01:19:16 PM »

Danish Minister of Immigration Inger Støjberg celebrating passing the 50. tightening of immigration laws since 2015. The most important things include cutting the cash benefits for persons who have stayed less than 7 years in Denmark (between 33% and 50% depending on family shape), increase demands for those who wants Danish citizenships (Danish proficiency, earnings, democratic values, less suspensions for those with illnesses), shorter residence permits, easier to withdraw residence permits when situation in home country improves (deportations to Afghanistan and Somalia are on-going), no longing taking UNHCR mandated refugees (used to be 500 a year), rejected asylum seekers must live or report frequently on a remote former farm in the middle of Jutland, make it more difficult to get permanent residences and family unification.

Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #116 on: March 24, 2017, 05:53:57 PM »

SPP refugee chaos, Conservatives ride tough-on-crime wave

The SPP is trying to walk the fine line between recognizing the problems of high levels of non-western immigrants and refugees while also espousing a traditional left-wing pro-solidarity and pro-human rights message. This week however, they failed quite spectacularly at that. The government has proposed introducing a so called emergency break in the asylum system. This means that in situations where the Dublin Convention is considered to be non-functioning, like in 2015, Denmark will introduce border controls and send all asylum seekers back across the border if there was proof they had been in a safe country previously, most likely Germany of course. SPP supported this hypothetical tightening of refugee laws at first, which caused massive criticism from many councillors, their MEP Magrethe Auken etc. This culminated when Özlem Cekic, MP from 2007 - 2015, left the party as she believed this was the final prove that SPP had moved to far right for her. Cekic already rebelled a few times when SPP was in government, so she lost all spokesperson roles then. However, she is still quite popular among the rank-and-file members. Also she received 6.542 personal votes in the 2015 election, the second-highest of non-elected candidates; she was ambushed by party leader Pia Olsen Dyhr, who decided to run in Copenhagen and won more personal votes to take the party's single MP in the constituency. But just a few hours after Cekic' departure, the party made a u-turn and said that they could not accept the proposal because it meant unaccompanied minors could be rejected. This whole saga reflects how the party leadership would like to stay relatively close to the Social Democrats and the DPP in the hope that the party could play an important role in a potential SPP-DPP-Soc Dem majority, which they hope can dominate law making in the next parliament while many party members and voters are still very uncomfortable with tight immigration policies.

Meanwhile, the Conservative leader and Minister of Justice Søren Pape Poulsen could present an agreement to toughen the line against criminal gangs. After 54 public shootings committed by gang members in 2016, the Government, the DPP and the Social Democrats agreed on 35 new measures. The most significants are increasing the range of penalties for public shootings with 50%, the possibility for the police to make it illegal for persons convicted of gang-related crimes to enter a certain area for up to 10 years, make it easier for municipalities to force gangs to leave houses where they cause troubles for the neighbours, and make it more difficult for gang members to get parole. This is just one example of a number of tough-on-crime proposals by Pape as Minister of Justice, which has helped the Conservatives increase their fortunes to 4.6% (from 3.4% in 2015) and rising in the polling average. While the other blue parties are in some kind of trouble, the Conservatives have been coherent and competent in government, which has allowed Pape to get a lot of good attention for his proposals. This is also helped by the fact that law and order, alongside immigration, is the only area where the government can easily get a majority for its proposals. Additionally, these tough-on-crime proposals are as popular as tough immigration policies, despite repeated warnings from legal scholars, prison guards etc, that higher punishments and poorer conditions in prisons could lead to more hardened criminals.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #117 on: March 29, 2017, 12:29:43 PM »

DPP achieves majority for electoral law change after 10 year push

The government announced that it will support two proposals from DPP to change the electoral law; two proposals DPP have pushed for the last decade without receiving majority support until now. Earlier, the Liberal Alliance, the SPP and the Social Liberals have supported it and it seem like the Alternative is in favour as well.
The first proposal allows the parties with open party lists, everyone except Red-Green Alliance, to only let the personal votes decide who gets elected. Currently, the party list votes, i.e. those that only choose a party but no specific candidate, are distributed among the candidates according to their share of the personal votes in the nomination district. This means that it is possible for candidates to be elected ahead of someone with more personal votes, in fact this is the case for five members of the current parliament. This is often the case where one candidate has a strong local presence in one or two nomination districts and receives the most personal votes, but is beaten by a candidate which is more well-known across the multimember constituency and therefore receives enough party list votes to win the seat. One example is for the Social Liberals in Southern Jutland, where Stephan Kleinschmidt, a member of the German-speaking minority and Schleswig Party councillor, won 2.819 personal votes, primarily in the nomination districts close to the border, while current MP Lotte Rod won 2.316 quite evenly distributed across the multi-member constituency. However, because Rod was the most popular candidate in most non-border adjacent districts, she received 2.555 party list votes, while Kleinschmidt only received 1.685 party list votes. So the argument for this change is that is it more democratic that only personal votes count, that the current system favours "famous candidates" who win votes more evenly in a constituency compared to someone with a strong local presence in a part of the constituency, and that it increases flexibility for the parties. The opposition will be that the current system is more fair because if a candidate received 50% of the personal votes in a district, that candidate is probably also responsible for attracting 50% of those voting party list votes in that district. This new option would perhaps also mean that candidates become even more pork barrel candidates for limited areas. Some parties might also stay away from this new system as it to some extent disincentivizes candidates from campaigning for the party all-over the constituency.

The second proposal allows parties with open lists to lists the candidates according to their own preference. Currently, the lead candidate in the nominating district tops the lists, while the rest of the constituency candidates are listed alphabetically. The arguments for is again that it increases flexibility for parties. Also it is seen as unfair that a random thing like your last name should determine your spot on the list. Aarhus Universitet estimates that a higher position on a party list can give you around 3/4 % more votes, the effect is extra strong for the first woman/minority candidate if there are more of such candidates in the constituency. Some of the left-wing parties are also in favour of this, as it allows them to rank candidates man/woman/man/woman etc. The argument against is primarily that it gives parties more influence and moves it closer to the closed party list system, because parties can strongly hint that it would prefer you to vote for one of their top ranked candidates. This could also make it a bit more difficult for new candidates to break through and oust existing MPs if the parties themselves rank them as “less worthy”.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #118 on: March 29, 2017, 03:48:27 PM »

I don't really understand that first example of how it currently works. How does a candidate receive more party list votes than a candidate with more personal votes if these party list votes are distributed on the basis of the number of personal votes a candidate receives?

Because the distribution of party list votes is on district level, not constituency level. In the example, Kleinschmidt won 485 personal votes in the Aabenraa district, while Rod won 294. Therefore, Kleinschmidt got 184 party list votes, while Rod only got 112 party list votes from Aabenraa. However, in the Vejen district, Rod won 139 personal votes, while Kleinschmidt only won 46. So here Rod received 193 party list votes, while Kleinschmidt only got 64. So while Kleinschmidt won a lot of personal votes (and therefore party list votes) in the three border districts, Rod won a decent amount of personal votes (and therefore many party list votes) across all 13 districts. Rod therefore ended up with more votes and won the Social Liberal seat in the constituency.

As for the second point, how many personal votes would a candidate need if they are listed too low to be elected on the basis of the party list?

The new possibility for the open lists does not introduce a vote barrier. So if say DPP choose both new options, and nr. 6 gets more personal votes than nr. 5, then nr. 6 would still get elected. The point is that a fully ranked open list would signal to voters that those at the top are the best candidates and should be elected. But there are no guarantees for a unpopular candidate placed highly. For closed lists, used by the Red-Green Alliance, it is very difficult for lowly placed candidates to "break the list" and get elected. For a lowly placed candidate, it requires that the candidate receives total amount of constituency votes for party (both personal and party list) divided by seats won+1. So for a lowly ranked Red-Green candidate to win a seat in Eastern Jutland in 2015, he would need 35.960/3= 11.987 personal votes. Not even their lead candidate was close to that figure, he only received 2.238 personal votes, while the one "closest" to breaking the list only won 899 votes. I believe, SPP's Margrethe Auken, current MEP, is the only one to have broken it in recent decades, as she did so in 1994 when SPP still used the closed lists. She was very well-known nationwide and outspoken, but not very popular inside several parts of the party
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #119 on: March 30, 2017, 03:08:03 AM »

Got it. I had taken district as a synonym for constituency. I guess we Dutch just don't know how these things work. Thanks for your elaborate explanation.

I gather that parties can (and will have to) choose to work on the basis of either, or both, or none at all? Both options have the potential to make campaigns incredibly personalized, to an unusually high degree in a PR system. There is a risk that people will be more inclined to vote for the most charismatic local candidate instead of picking the party whose views they support most, although one could obviously argue this is already the case. Still, it seems like an improvement to me.

Yes, parties can choose freely whether they want to use either option. It will be quite interesting to see which parties choose to use them. The Alternative supported the addition of both options, mostly due to flexibility for parties, but also because they would like to make man/woman lists. However, especially a new party like that should consider carefully whether to choose the first option also. One of their MPs, Roger Matthisen, has criticized the idea heavily. He states that in 2015, he campaigned like mad for the party across Funen to make the party known and enter debates across the island. That way, he won 1.081 personal votes across the island and became the most popular Alternative candidate in 7 of 8 districts. Another candidate, Nikolaj Amstrup, apparently more or less camped in Svendborg, where he was a somewhat famous face. He won 605 personal votes in Svendborg alone, and 1.035 votes in all. So only based on personal votes, it would have been a very narrow victory for Matthisen, but Matthisen received 4.028 party list votes from across Funen while Amstrup only got 2.903 making the actual win quite safe.

Thanks for the interest in the pecularities of the Danish electoral system!
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #120 on: April 05, 2017, 03:46:49 PM »

Danish Government withdraws Property Tax Proposal after negotiations broke down today

After two months of negotiations about the perhaps most consequential bill this year, the property tax reform, the talks today collapsed and the government has withdrawn its proposal. The government has negotiated with the DPP, the Social Democrats and the Social Liberals, who all wants an agreement that is less beneficial to the richest property owners. When the Government was expanded to include the Liberal Alliance and Conservatives, its property tax proposal was changed quite radically with the introduction of a flat state property tax rate and a local property tax rate freeze. Both proposals have been impossible to accept for the three negotiating partners. The government is expected to introduce a new proposal in a few weeks, and it will probably look quite similar to the original Liberal-only proposal. Negotiations will then draw it a bit further left, a deal that could probably have been made quite quickly with a Liberal-only government in charge. The DPP might even try to humiliate the two small government parties by drawing the deal even further to left than they would have otherwise done, just to show that the new government might be really right-wing in words, but DPP will ensure that the actual deeds are socially just.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #121 on: April 11, 2017, 06:45:11 AM »

Haha, based on your wording I see you've read Kitschelt and/or De Lange too... Anyway, a highly interesting development. The way I see it, the real impediment to such a coalition is that the Social Democrats and DF are perhaps too much moving toward each other electorally. They want to win over each other's white working-class and lower middle class voters, but, in doing so, they will inevitably lose voters who do not reside in the "sweet spot": SD lose economic left-wingers who are more progressive on the "new dimension" whereas DF lose economic right-wingers. And a big majority of Danish voters do not reside in the sweet spot, even if a plurality do. I especially get the impression that DF do not really understand that a lot of their voters are no economic left-wingers. So the problem for an SD-DF coalition is as follows: if these two parties lose too many seats (or do not win enough), a continuation of the current "deadlock" in bloc politics seems more likely.

However, it is true that the Danish environment seems open to such a coalition, especially in a context in which the blocs are becoming increasingly less relevant. The New Right could support an SD-DF coalition when it comes to DF's pet peeves, whereas SF and perhaps V will be willing to help out the coalition on an occasional basis when it comes to its economic policies. After all, V cooperated with other center-left governments too. In conclusion, I would say an SD-DF coalition is a real possibility because the ideological gap between both parties is becoming progressively smaller. However, they need to have the real desire to cooperate and actively break down "bloc politics" and it needs to be a logical option after the election (which means they cannot lose many voters), which requires DF to tread lightly in moving to the left economically (without pissing off white working-class voters and enlarging the ideological gap with SD).

Just saw this voter analysis made by Altinget from the Summer 2016, which reminded me of and confirmed this point. They have made this distribution based on a couple of Norstat polls. They tested people's opinions on a couple of economic questions and value-based questions (immigration, law and order, national identity, climate change). You can argue whether climate change should be included, but as long as it is climate and not environment, the answers correlate quite well with the other so-called value based questions. The analysis as expected shows that a majority of voters prefer left-leaning economic policies (65.7%) and right-leaning value-politics (63.5%).  A plurality of voters, 37%, are what they call "old socialists", who prefer this exact combination, while only 7.8% of voters have the opposite preference, right-leaning economic policies and left-leaning value politics. The analysis does not show degrees, i.e. how close to the center the voters are, but never the less decently show a distribution of voting preferences, I believe will be quite similar in most Western Countries.



The second graphic shows the average position of a party's voters on the economic and value-based scale. The first interestingly shows how the positions of the DPP and the Social Liberals are the reverse of their actual policy positions. This reflects that the Social Liberals, despite losing many left-left voters to the Alternative, is still placed to the right of its average voter. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it allows them to steal some voters from blue economic voters. The DPP might move further left in such a scale once the New Right manifests itself with some of the blue economic DPP voters, but again the party's policies to the left of its voters is valuable to lure voters. On the value-based scale, the climate change thing might move the Social Democrats and Conservatives a bit too far left. SPP's position reflects their struggle to find an adequate position between the Social Democrats and the three other Red Bloc parties, who are clearly very left-wing on these issues. And while the Social Democrats are clearly the furthest right in the Red Bloc, their voters average position here shows why I expect the Social Democrats to bleed voters during the next election campaign unless the Red Bloc wins by a landslide. Some left-left voters will be peeled off once they have to loudly clarify that they are not soft on immigration, and I believe it will be a higher number than the number of "old socialists" they manage to re-gain.

Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #122 on: April 21, 2017, 05:29:19 AM »

Official portrait of Helle Thorning-Schmidt presented in Parliament. Made by artist Ditte Ejlerskov

Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #123 on: May 01, 2017, 04:50:06 AM »

Social Democrat group leader wants Australian refugee model

In his 1.May speech, the Social Democrat parliamentary group leader Henrik Sass Larsen proposed adopting the Australian refugee model, where it is not possible to apply for asylum in Denmark. Instead, the country will take in a defined number of thoroughly screened refugees from UN camps. He argues that this model is fairer for refugees as it ensures an equal playing field while it also eliminates the lucrative deals for people smugglers as well as ensuring fewer people drown. Unfortunately, Social Democrat leader Mette Frederiksen does not agree, and she stated, "No government can disregard the international rules. We don't want to either". The statement is obviously not correct; of course, a government could disregard or leave international conventions. It would just have some consequences for international relations, although I believe these consequences are probably overestimated. Especially since other West European countries would probably soon follow. Another Social Democrat MP, Mattias Tesfaye, recently made similar noises to Sass in the aftermath of the publication of his great new book "Welcome Mustafa", which looks into the battle regarding immigration policy in the Social Democrats during the last 50 years.

The DPP, the Conservatives and the Liberal Alliance already support an Australian model in one way or another, so again it's the two system parties, the Liberals and the Social Democrats, who are keeping it from becoming reality. The fact that Sass and Tesfaye openly speaks about this policy is hopefully a sign of where the party is going. Currently, the system parties are also stopping the blasphemy paragraph and the hate speech paragraph from being repealed. However, on the former point there is some hope that it could be repealed soon. Because its repeal is not only supported by the three other Blue Bloc parties, all the four minor Red Bloc parties also support it now. This means that there is a majority for its repeal among the parties, but the Conservatives and Liberal Alliance are bound by being in government. However, with a majority in favour and this hardly being a very consequential concession to make for the Liberals, I expect that the Liberals will soon bend and allow the whole government to vote for its repeal, or at the very least make it a free "ethical vote" for government MPs.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
« Reply #124 on: May 02, 2017, 11:25:11 AM »

The European Commission today decided that over the next six months, Schengen countries Austria, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Denmark should phase out the border controls instated because of the migrant crisis. This will probably not go over well in Denmark.

It will indeed cause some tension. However, so far it is only a recommendation by the Commission, which the Council has to accept for it to come through. That will probably not be easy to get through the Council. Some countries, especially Slovenia, barked already at the last prolongation, but if Germany, Austria etc want to keep the border control, I don't think the Council will accept the recommendation.

If the Council accepts it, it will again cause difficulties inside the Liberals, and between the VLAK-government and the DPP. When the current temporary border control was introduced, Minister of Finance Kristian Jensen and Minister of Science Søren Pind was opposed to it, at least until there was evidence that the Swedish border control would lead to a accumulation of Sweden-bound migrants in Denmark. However, a majority including PM Løkke, Minister of Immigration Inger Støjberg and Minister of Defence Claus Hjort Frederiksen meant it was introduced almost immediately after the Swedish decision. The DPP of course wants to exit Schengen completely and introduce permanent, intensive border control. I see the Commission recommends "police checks in border areas and along main transport routes" as a possible replacement, which could be a muddle-through solution. But the DPP (and the New Right) can of course hammer away on this topic, on which they have majority support in the public. The latest poll I could find is from December 2016, A&B Analyse for Berlingske. 48 % in favour of permanent border control, 33% opposed, 19% don't know.

Btw. Sweden today decided to stop the ID-control between Denmark and Sweden. This is the most intensive form of border control, where the IDs of all passengers are controlled at the border, and has doubled the train travel time from Copenhagen to Malmø from 35 to 72 minutes. Now Sweden will just make temporary border controls like between Denmark and Germany, where there are checks sometimes somewhere.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.098 seconds with 14 queries.