The Great Nordic Thread

[politicus]

Social Conservative means something completely different to Americans, so lets just call them centrists ;-)

Parties don't necessarily live forever and I don't think you can assume that the Danish Conservatives will survive in the long run. Their crisis is due to more than just a few policy-mistakes and mishaps, its a structural problem in the sense that there isn't any real need for the party anymore. They will hang in there for a decade or possibly two and then disappear into the dustbin of history.

Even assuming they have a chance (and they do in the short run) I don't agree that moving to the right is necessarily the best thing to do. Those positions are already taken by others, to quote myself (bad habit): "their problem is that they have nowhere to go". Building on an image as the more sophisticated, urban, cultured centre-right alternative to crude neo-liberalism might be their best chance.
  
Historically there has always been two wings in the party: a centrist, welfare-conservative and a low tax, tough on law and order right wing. What kept the party together was the defence-issue and patriotism, but this issue isnt polarized in Danish politics anymore so it doesn't really work as a unifier. One of the reasons the party has done badly is the countless feuds between those two wings throughout the party history, so moving to the right would likely trigger yet another "civil war" and I doubt they can survive that. The right wing may be displeased with certain policies at the momemt, but at least they are not in open rebellion as long as the party is low tax, pro-business and tough on law and order.

Most Conservative voters (and potential voters) are not anti-immigration, so I especially doubt it would help them to move to the right on this one. Most of their voters where quite dissatisfied when they had to accept DPP-type immigration and refugee policies during the AFR and Løkke governments. So I think the party is better of being the voice of "bourgeois decency", as its traditionally called, on this subject as well as others.

Like the German FDP in the old days they have the strategic problem whether to be on the right or left of their big brother, with a wing representing each view. FDP chose to be to the right of CDU, but it has given them some problems and they lost certain groups. But the major problem in this is that Liberal Alliance is basically the Danish FDP while DPP has the reactionarians, national conservatives and the "hang them high"-crowd. Its not really a viable position IMO.

[politicus]

Perhaps the best thing simply would be for the party to simply merge with the Liberals? I can understand why they exist, in a historical context, as the culturally urban alternative to the Liberals. But now that the Liberals (as I understand) is just as much as a urban party, and caters to a lot of the same voters, it just doesn’t make any sense to have a 4 -5% party like the Danish Conservatives. I am not familiar enough with Danish politics, but isn’t the Liberals enough of a big tent party to absorb the Conservatives?

The Liberals is a big tent, catch all party, but the problem is that the Liberals is a much bigger party, about three times as big, so the Conservative party culture would drown in the Liberal sea and given the very different party cultures Conservatives would see this as a loss of identity. Party culture and identity is often more important than policies.
Basically this idea has been dead ever since Eriksen proposed it in 1965.

[politicus]

Diouf: I basically disagree that the Conservatives have turned left under Barfoed. They courted the Social Liberals during the campaign, sure, but their policy positions are not more left leaning than they were under Bendtsen, they are just a little clearer.

The current leadership and group of MPs have been called the most left-wing in the history of the party, and is dominated by social conservatives who have quite some reluctance in cooperating with the Danish People's Party.

By whom?

[politicus]

Diouf: I basically disagree that the Conservatives have turned left under Barfoed. They courted the Social Liberals during the campaign, sure, but their policy positions are not more left leaning than they were under Bendtsen, they are just a little clearer.

But the deal with the Social Liberals was not just about courting them and the broad cooperation idea. Immigration was clearly stated as an area where the Conservatives wanted to make agreements wil the Social Liberals which inevitably means a left turn. Barfoed said about the deal: "I easily think we can get into step in the future in relation to integration and the labour market, and to secure humanism and brotherliness in what we do".

Sure, but this is just one area and immigration and integration is a field where most Conservatives have basically been dissatisfied with the ultra tough Liberal-DPP approach the whole time, especially considering the refugee policy. During VK they had to back the governments tough stance, and when it was pretty clear that the VK-government was doomed Barfoed changed the tune. But they still defend the 24 year rule and the core of the VK-immigration policy.

This is more about creating an edge to the Liberals, than about a left wing turn in general. Barfoed has been pretty Conservative Classic IMO with a touch of "bourgeois decency" (borgerlig anstændighed) regarding immigrants, refugees and civil rights.

[politicus]

No, the Danish Liberals descends from the peasant movement and they still have the movement culture with a strong internal coherence despite incorporating both social liberals, and classical liberals, and having a wide range of professions among its supporters: academics, businessmen, craftsmen, workers and farmers. Their leaders used to be called chieftains and its still a party that is very loyal to its leadership.

[politicus]

Are there any Danish polls which display party support by demographic group (eg age, education etc) ?

Not often, gender is the most commonly used background variable. Diouf and Jens are probably the best people to PM for references to places you might find those data.

This article (in Danish) gives the basics about who votes what, but its from 2011 and SD and SPP have lost a lot of support since then. Still its a starting point and perhaps you can read it with google translate.

http://www.cvap.polsci.ku.dk/valgkamp/presse/Social_baggrund_afg_r_igen_partivalg_-_CVAP_i_Berlingske.pdf/

[politicus]

I presume the Liberals are among the 1,1% for Others. That's pretty bad for the heirs to the good old Liberal Peoples Party. Why so low? 

[politicus]

I presume the Liberals are among the 1,1% for Others. That's pretty bad for the heirs to the good old Liberal Peoples Party. Why so low? 

The has been son strong tradition of really strong liberal party in Finland. The Finnish Liberal party was effectively killed when it lost its sole MP in the elections in 1995. After that has been only minor parties which haven't been able to get people elected. The newest try is this "The National Progressive Party" which doesn't seem be able to secure the needed 5 000 names. That's really funny because even the Communist Workers' Party – For Peace and Socialism was able to re-enter the party register it was dropped, because it was unable to secure any MPs in two elections.

The liberals in the Finnish political parties are traditionally concentrated in the National Coalition Party and in the Green.

Okay, I didnt know LPP lost representation that early. They renamed the party to the Liberals in 2000, and I thought this party still existed. Is it dissolved now?

[politicus]

I presume the Liberals are among the 1,1% for Others. That's pretty bad for the heirs to the good old Liberal Peoples Party. Why so low? 

The has been son strong tradition of really strong liberal party in Finland. The Finnish Liberal party was effectively killed when it lost its sole MP in the elections in 1995. After that has been only minor parties which haven't been able to get people elected. The newest try is this "The National Progressive Party" which doesn't seem be able to secure the needed 5 000 names. That's really funny because even the Communist Workers' Party – For Peace and Socialism was able to re-enter the party register it was dropped, because it was unable to secure any MPs in two elections.

The liberals in the Finnish political parties are traditionally concentrated in the National Coalition Party and in the Green.

Okay, I didnt know LPP lost representation that early. They renamed the party to the Liberals in 2000, and I thought this party still existed. Is it dissolved now?

Yea, the Liberals as a political party were dropped from the party register in the 2007 and after this they're unable re-register their party. In the elections 2011 they had a deal with Pirate Party that the candidates would run in the list of Pirate Party. After the elections the Liberals changed itself to a political think tank and political organization and some of them started the National Progressive Party -project.  

You can understand the condition of Finnish "liberals" if they're not even able to get 5 000 names for their party...

Yes, thats sounds truly miserable. Why the " " around the word liberals?

[politicus]

Yes, thats sounds truly miserable. Why the " " around the word liberals?

Because in my eyes and as Ethelberth  pointed out most of these liberals who are not members of already existing parties are more libertarians than old-school liberals like the Liberal Peoples Party.

Okay, I thought thats probably what you meant, but wasnt quite sure.

So basically the Finnish party system (minus the Swedes in SPP) is almost equal to the Danish party system just without Liberalism as a defining factor for the parties (we have no less than three liberal parties!) and therefore no equivalent of Liberal Alliance.

Left Alliance = Red-Green Alliance + SPP left wing
SD = SD + SPP "workerite" right wing
Greens = Social Liberals + SPP green wing
Christian Democrats = Christian Democrats
Center = Liberal "rural" or traditional wing  
NCP = Conservatives + Liberal "urban" or modern wing
True Finns = DPP
Libertarian fringe groups = Liberal Alliance (currently polling at 5%)

[politicus]

Historically, centre party had something common with RV (smallholders) and Conservatives with V (bigger farms).  Leftwing union has had also strong workerite wing, and still controls some labour unions.

Yes, but I was thinking about the current system. The "workerite" wing in SPP are right wingers who are almost indistinguishable from SDs and wouldn't fit in the Left Alliance.
Red-Green Alliance also has supporters in the union movement and several of their MPs are union representatives so thats comparable to the Left Alliance.

RV has long since lost its smallholder roots and is today a party for urban upper middle class "progressives" concerned with the environment and humanitarian issues but also liberal on economic policies, so I think its pretty close to the Finnish Greens.

"Traditional" Venstre is the more moderate mainly small town/rural wing of the party and I think that must be pretty close to the Finnish Center Party, but of course Venstre is an odd party that is difficult to compare to other party systems.

[politicus]

Wou, from the Guardian

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A video about it and a best picture:

Yeah, she didn't have the guts to speak in Fælledparken in Copenhagen where the SD leader normally speaks, but they boohed her in Jutland as well. Still I think it would have been much worse in Copenhagen. Demonstrators spoiled most of the prominent SDs speeches in the big cities and SPP leader Annette Vilhelmsen simply had to cut her speech short because of the yelling. Some protesters executed a Corydon-doll (our minister of finance) in front of parliament. People are angry, that's for sure.

[politicus]

So Vilhelmsen hasn't taken the SPP to the left like she said she would, I take it?

Well, rhetorically she has and quite a few of the young so-called "workerite" right wingers have left the party for SD, but she has stayed in the government and is unable to influence its policy since SD and the Social Liberals don't care if SPP leaves. So it doesn't really matter what she says. SPP is approaching the threshold, so most observers think they will have to leave the government soon, but its probably too late for Vilhelmsen to regain her left wing credentials. She is seen as weak, indecisive and a light weight.

[politicus]

New poll from YouGov with SD only 0,7% in front of the Red-Green Alliance, clearly within the margin of error. This is the closest the Red-Greens have been to overtaking SD.

Liberals and DPP have an outright majority. 60,1% for the right wing opposition and only 25,4% for the government.

SD 15,2%
Social Liberals 6,9%
Conservatives 4,5%
SPP 3,3%
Liberal Alliance 5,4%
Christian Democrats 0,4%
DPP 18,9%
Liberals 31,0%
Red-Green Alliance 14,5

[politicus]

I have been waiting for when the first new "genuine" SD party in Denmark would emerge. Now Allan Busk deputy leader of 3F (unskilled labourers union) in Aalborg (pop. 170.000) has launched a new, so far unnamed, SD party based on a network of Jutlandic union representatives. He got 2800+ votes at the last regional council election and is well known in the region, one of the SD left wings strongholds.

This is of course a challenge on a low level, but given the amount of anger among union representatives and SD left wingers combined with extremely bad polling this might trigger a snowball effect.

Busk says he "cant look his unemployed comrades in the eyes" and "doesn't have the patience to wait for Helle Thorning-Schmidt to be thrown out".

[politicus]

First Icelandic poll since the election shows IP clearly in the lead and PP losing ground. Probably both right wing voters dissatisfied about SDG flirting with the leftists before forming the coalition and more centrist voters disappointed he went right after all. Perhaps also disappointment about the lack of clarity regarding debt reduction.
BF seems to be rewarded for being ready to enter a broad coalition and Pirates for being ready to support a PP minority government to keep IP out.
SDA isn't losing much despite all the internal bickering.

IP 28,4 (+1,7 since the election)
PP 19,9 (-4,5)
Left Greens 12,1 (+1,2)
SDA 11,7 (-1,2)
Bright Future 11,3 (+3,1)
Pirates 6,5 (+1,4)

Dawn 3,8 (+0,7)
Democracy Watch 1,6 (-0,9)
Right Greens 1,4 (-0,3)
Households Party 1,2 (-1,8)
Rainbow 0,8 (-0,3)
Sturla Jónsson 0,5 (+0,4)
Rural Party 0,5 (+0,3)
Peoples Front of Iceland 0,1 (-)
Humanists 0,0 (-0,1)

[politicus]

Thats pretty low for Ap and very low for Høyre.

I dont have any polling, but I think those numbers would be higher for all similar parties in Denmark (apart from SV/SF, which would be similar). Questioning human causes is considered out of the mainstream here.

At the moment Villum Christensen MP from Liberal Alliance and Morten Messerschmidt MEP for DPP are the only national level politicians that are openly climate change deniers and I dont know any pols that are "only" human cause sceptics.

A few Liberal MPs are probably privately cc deniers, but its against party policy and DPP officially recognizes human causes, its part of their "respectability" line.
The most prominent Liberal cc denier was former Minister of Finance Thor Pedersen, but he is retired now.
I doubt any Conservative MPs are human cause sceptics.

The right wing argument here is more the Lomborg-argument, that it is too expensive and pointless to do anything and that the money could be used more wisely on other things.

I suppose the proces up to the Copenhagen summit and the fierce Lomborg debate can explain a lot of the difference. Perhaps also AFRs personal influence while PM.

I am sure the Icelandic SDA would also be higher than Ap, but the traditional Icelandic centre-right (ie the present government) could easily privately be similar to Norway. But both parties officially recognize human causes.

[politicus]

Just to make sure I get this, how broad is the concept of the "Norwegian model"?

In Denmark we use "the Danish model" for the way our labour market is organized with employer and employee organizations negotiating agreements that are valid for everybody, a complicated labour market legal system with mediators and a labour court etc. + the government playing a small role.

Is the Norwegian model used in the same narrow way or is it about the entire way Norwegian society is organized?

[politicus]

Given that Søren Pind has made himself "unappointable" (dunno if that's a word, but it should be ) and Venstre will be going solo next time I think it was pretty clear that she was destined to become Minister of Foreign Affairs in a Venstre government. Which leaves Løkke with a problem. Who do you think he will chose? I don't see Pind getting it - not a diplomatic bone in that guys bony bod.

[politicus]

Life is good in the Nordic countries according to OECD.

Four Nordic countries are in top 10 on OECD's new Better Life Index comparing 11 parameters on housing, income, jobs, education, environment, civic engagement, health, life satisfaction, safety and work/leisure balance. Both Sweden and Norway are in Top 4. Finland is 12th right after NZ. Its remarkably that Iceland despite the crisis is number 9. Also 5 Anglophone countries in Top 12.

* 1. Australia

* 2. Sweden

* 3. Canada

* 4. Norway

* 5. Switzerland

* 6. USA

* 7. Denmark

* 8. Holland

* 9. Iceland

* 10. UK

* 11. New Zealand

* 12. Finland

[politicus]

Recently two young and prominent Danish SDs from the party's left wing, Peter Hummelgaard (ex SD youth league chairman) and Matthias Tesfaye (ex SPP deputy chairman with immigrant and working class background), claimed that SD and DPP should form a broad alliance which could form an alternative majority and be the axis Danish politics would resolve around. They where supported by several left wing MPs and councillors, but the party leadership (from the right wing) was not amused.

What is your take on this? Should SD give up on social liberal value politics and form alliance with right wing populists to defend the welfare state?

Is this an idea that's relevant in other European countries where SD left wingers/traditionalist are under pressure from their own ("neo-liberal" in their view) right wing? Or is it just because our "right wing" populists are so relatively leftist on welfare issues.

Tesfaye and Hummelgaard agree with DPP that:

- Danish food culture should be represented in all public institutions (yes, we do care about our pork roast and meatballs in Denmark..)
- It should not be voluntary for tenant associations to opt out of Danish TV-channels in their cable packages.
- Danish should be the dominant language everywhere in the public sphere. Other languages only  a supplement.
- Danish (ie Christian) festivals should be celebrated and not replaced by Muslim

Their reasoning:

"Danes are willing to pay taxes to a social model, which takes care of the sick, the elderly and socially vulnerable, but its a prerequisite that there is a social and cultural community in the population. Therefore all steps towards parallel societies is a direct threat to the welfare (state). Arab, Turkish and Somali culture should therefore not replace Danish culture, but supplement it.
Its a political job to make this distinction, so that the welfare state has strong cultural pillars and institutions. A job SD has had difficulties doing, but which we think the small miracle in Hvidovre (a working class municipality west of Copenhagen where SD held on to power after making a deal with DPP) can help us with".

Matthias Tesfaye:



Peter Hummelgaard Thomsen:



A plate of meatballs:



 

[politicus]

I actually see some similarity to Germany, where the CDU is prepared to give in to most of the SPD´s requests related to welfare (minimum wage, rent control, etc.), as long as they can avoid accepting dual citizenship (held by 5.4% of Lübeck's population, though officially non-existing), and legalising gay marriage.

There is a big difference between things like that coming from conservatives and from SD left wingers. Its the intra party aspect, where SD left wingers are marginalized by a dominant right wing, I find interesting. Is cooperation between "right wing" populists and SD left wingers  something we will see in the future, because those two groups are the only major groups outside of the neo-liberal consensus?
I think right wing populists are too genuinely rightist in most countries, but I was interested in your thoughts.

[politicus]

Greenlandic Prime Minister Aleqa Hammond is in trouble since her Social Democratic party Siumuts former chairman Hans Enoksen (who was Prime Minister 2002-09) broke with the party a week ago and started getting signatures to get a new party on the ballot for the next election. Her majority is down to a paltry 16-15 which basically means anybody in her party or its Liberal/Unionist partner Atassut can blackmail her by threatening to cross over to Enoksen.

Enoksens excuse for quitting was that Hammonds life partner Tom Ostermann got a a cushy consultant job in the Ministry of Fishery, and even though Hammond sacrificed the Minister of Fishing Karl Lyberth (one of her closest allies in the party) it gave Enoksen the excuse he needed to jump ship. The old "village partisan" - who is famous for claiming he doesn't speak a word of Danish and is a former shopkeeper in a village of 50 in Northern Greenland - has been dissatisfied with not getting into the cabinet or becoming chairman of  parliament after Siumut regained power in 2013 after a 4 year break in their otherwise unbroken line of governments since Greenland got autonomy in 1979.

Enoksens time as Premier was marred with corruption and nepotism, but he is still widely popular in the small coastal settlements (bygder) where 15% of Greenlanders live. His new party is called Naleraq (guiding point) and has fishing rights for small fishermen, Greenlandization of society and larger investments in the periphery as their main rallying points. Since the centre/periphery cleavage is the most important in Greenlandic politics and the Inuit nationalists/populists in Partii Inuit are more or less falling apart after flip-flopping on abolishing the ban on uranium export Enoksen has a good chance of succeeding.

Observers speculate whether Hammond will go for a quick election before Enoksen is ready to do battle or if she will try to hang on to power as long as she can. Meanwhile the pressure from Hammonds critics to summon an extraordinary congress in Siumut is mounting all over the country. Something Hammond will try to avoid if at all possible.

Hammond and Ostermann.

[politicus]

Minister of Health Astrid Kragh has left SPP and joined SD. She battled Vilhelmsen for the leadership last year and was the last remaining representative from the "workerite" right wing (basically SDs in all but name) among the SPP ministers.

There is some speculation as to whether she can hang on in the cabinet as an SD-er, since she has been fairly efficient and is a political talent (and they don't have that many of those in SD), but I doubt it.

[politicus]

How will SF leaving the coalition affect the government? Will Social Democrats and Social Liberals continue a minority government, hoping for parliamentary support from SF in addition to Enhedslisten? Or will they now look for an additional partner, maybe DPP? While I understand that the government is not keen on new elections, will they really be able to avoid them?

SD and the Social Liberals will continue - and are probably relieved to get rid of their troublemsome partner. SPP has no choice but to support the government. An election now would be a disaster for them. They have been polling as low as 3%, dangerously close to the 2% threshold. They are also without a leader until a  new one is elected in March.

I doubt that the Red Greens will pull the plug on the government right now. They dont want a Liberal government. They seem to have decided to let the governmet hang on for lack of a better alternative, without actively supporting it.

DPP and the Social Liberals are opposites and hate each other. The present SD leadership would never exchange the Social Liberals with DDP, as they basically agree with them on economics and the need for "trimming" the welfare state. And DPP is still seen as the enemy by most SDs.