The Great Nordic Thread

[DavidB.]

I never understood the inherent merit of parties being internally democratic - the "parties should be internally democratic" argument, of course, is oftentimes applied to the PVV (which must be the height of internal "authoritarianism", making DPP look like democratic Switzerland) and (albeit less often) to the SP, so there has been quite some attention for it in the Dutch political arena. If voters care about this, leading to negative electoral consequences, then things will change. If not, then voters are okay with it and the government should stay out of the party's business as well.

[ingemann]

Scandinavians in general value internal democracy in in private associations, not just parties, but also football clubs, cooperatives, guilds etc.

[DavidB.]

Scandinavians in general value internal democracy in in private associations, not just parties, but also football clubs, cooperatives, guilds etc.

Sure, so do Dutch, but that doesn't mean it has inherent merit.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

It's not my impression that SD is as top-down as DPP... yet.

Yes, I'd say so as well. Not that the SD leadership doesn't want to have the same power over the party as the DPP does, but the current SD leadership didn't get to create the original rule book in difference to the DPP leadership. They're instead left trying to reform the old rules, but that still has to be done with the consent of  their party congress. Of course they've come very far at solidifying power when they can cut off their entire youth wing with-out asking their congress for permission.

I never understood the inherent merit of parties being internally democratic.

I personally wouldn't want to be part of a party that wasn't internally democratic. If I cannot effect party policy why bother being a member. Nor would I entrust my vote or give my support to people who cannot even take debate and discussion with people who have close opinions to their own. If an organisation can't foster good attitude towards democracy with-in themselves, how can I trust them to do so in society.

But as for parties I'm not a member or supporter of, I support their right to organize as they see fit. Just don't expect me to approve of your organisation. ^^

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

But honestly while we may like to see the party structure of DPP as a sign inborn authorianism in the party, I think it's reaching. Instead it exist for both historical and practical reasons. DPP was founded after a chaotic annual congress for the Progress Party worse than anything I remember in my lifetime. Pia Kjærsgaard who was leader of the Progress Party and her fraction of the party decided to leave the party, the other parliamental fraction left the party some years later, but didn't set up a new party. It tell you something how bad the Progress Party were, when the two warring MP fractions both leave the party. DPP leadership never wanted to see the same thing again, so they set up the party structure to avoid the old Progress Party members entering the party and creating the same chaos in DPP.

But there's also another group DPP want to avoid, when you're right wing anti-immigration party, you really want to avoid the Nazis and want to be able to throw them out again, if they enter anyway.

Interesting, I didn't know that about DPP's history.

I obviously understand why the leadership of both SD and DPP feel they need to control their organisations rigidly. I have no idea how DPP handles that power,  so I will assume they do so responsibly.

In SD however, though keeping nazis and crazys out is the official motivation, it does feel like they abuse their power over the party to punish people who don't kiss the leadership's behind, rather than as a tool to keep the crazies out. 

[politicus]

Besides, do we even want these parties to allow crazy grass-rots take over their party. I'm not sure how that would actually be beneficial to anyone.

At least for DPP more party democracy would not just open up the conflict between ethno-nationalists (+ a few soft racialists) and assimilationists, but also the cleavage between former Social Democrats and economic right wingers on welfare and taxes. The party would likely develop actual factions over this. There are also a couple of additional issues:

- Isolationism vs. military activism: Originally DPP only wanted to use the military for defending Danish territory, not stationed in far-away lands to help foreigners. Many average members are still skeptical about any "activist" foreign policy. Even when justified as fighting terrorism.

- Climate: The outright climate skeptics would become vocal, while some (mainly female, I think) would want a less anti-Green line. Their animal rights advocacy has attracted some soft Greenies and their female social- and healthcare workers segment is not anti-green.

- The official lip service to Christian values, and especially the influence of the "black priests" and tolerance of homophobia would collide with many of their "church-alienated" and very secular members, this seems to be one of the things young DPPs are actually irritated of about the party (at least in Copenhagen).

- Israel/Zionism. Important to some of the leading families because of their resistance movement roots and essential to Deputy Chairman Søren Espersen because of his Jewish marriage, but the former Social Democrats seems often to have sympathy for the Palestinians. DPP have actively tried to block anyone who ever wrote negatively about Israel to become member, but it might still pop-up.

So it wouldn't just be crazy activists trying to hijack the party, other cleavages would open up as well. It has attracted a high number of "I would be on the left if it wasn't for foreigners and crime"-types and has some frustrated right wingers who thinks it has become much too Social Democratic. They would start fighting and might toss in some non-immigration related value issues.

[DavidB.]

I personally wouldn't want to be part of a party that wasn't internally democratic. If I cannot effect party policy why bother being a member.

Oh, I understand that very well (even though the DPP would be so close to me personally that I wouldn't mind being a member of it if I were Danish). I don't like the fact that my own party (VNL) isn't so democratic (though definitely a lot more than PVV/SP/DPP) either, but for me it's a bit of a trade-off: I support their policies to such a large extent that I don't really mind them not being so democratic (for instance, there hasn't been a vote on the new party leader), but if they were to change their policies and I wouldn't agree with them so much anymore, the balance could become negative, especially since I can't do much to change things.

But as for parties I'm not a member or supporter of, I support their right to organize as they see fit. Just don't expect me to approve of your organisation. ^^

We agree. Voters have the absolute right to reject parties on the basis that they are not internally democratic, and should absolutely do so if they think this is a problem.

Yes, I'd say so as well. Not that the SD leadership doesn't want to have the same power over the party as the DPP does, but the current SD leadership didn't get to create the original rule book in difference to the DPP leadership. They're instead left trying to reform the old rules, but that still has to be done with the consent of  their party congress. Of course they've come very far at solidifying power when they can cut off their entire youth wing with-out asking their congress for permission.

The difference between Danish and Swedish nationalism also seems to matter. Danish WWII history led to a link between anti-fascism/nazism and Danish nationalism, whereas Swedish nationalism, due to the country not having been occupied during WWII, still has an air of Germanic mythology/"brown" ideas. Swedish nationalists openly flirt with nazi sentiments and the like, certainly much more than Danish nationalists. That influences the SD's potential membership, and the parties' rather different histories (DPP "new"; SD formerly fascist) make this difference even bigger. It seems entirely legitimate for SD to try and keep the fascists down in order for the party to become "normalized" and more moderate.

[politicus]

The "Unit for Political Structures and Financing" under the European Parliament's Financial General Directorate will now investigate whether the funds given to MELD and FELD have been used for "non-designated purposes".

DPP MEP Jørn Dohrman has supported Karlsson's critique of the lack of info about the funds. Dohrman is the nephew of Helge Dohrman, who was Pia Kjærgaard's trusted ally under the factional battles in the Progress Party back in the day, so part of "the families", like Karlsson. The fourth MEP Anders Vistisen supports Messerschmidt 100%.

[politicus]

True to their consensus tradition the Faroese Union Party has settled on just one candidate for both chairman and deputy chairman despite their deep internal cleavages. So the election at the party convention on Saturday will be a formality.

Current deputy chairman Bárður á Steig Nielsen will be the new leader. He is an economic neoliberal and generally seen as a traditionalist (= cultural conservative and unionist). His deputy will be the economist Magni Laxafoss, who so far is the only MP that has declared he will vote in favor of gay marriage. Laxafoss is an economic right-winger, but a Social Liberal.

They both support an auction based fishing quota system - like the current centre-left/libertarian coalition. So there will be a shift in the party's position on this central area. A new fishing quota system will be impossible to revert if UP and the government agrees on a compromise.

[rosin]

The Danish MEP Rikke Karlsson has decided to leave the DPP. She says that the primary reason is that she was pushed to sign documents stating that she, among other things, had participated in meetings in the Euro-parties Movement for a Europe of Liberties and Democracy and Foundation for a Europe of Liberties and Democracy. However, she claims never to have participated in any meetings, and after several rejected requests of more information about these parties, she decided to leave.
It will of course be interesting to see whether the Eurosceptic DPP has in fact meddled with documents in order to collect as much money from the system as possible. This could create a minor backlash for the party. However, Karlsson's exit is also another damning indictment of Morten Messerschmidt's leader skills. In the previous term, the fellow DPP MEP Anna Rosbach left the party midway through the term after severe conflicts with him, and it is quite clearly a chemistry question this time as well. Messerschmidt is a very intelligent and charismatic politician, he led the DPP to a victory in the EP elections 2014 with the highest number of personal votes ever, but he is also extremely arrogant. His lacking leadership abilities might put into question his role as the heir apparent in the DPP. Not that Thulelsen Dahl is likely to leave anytime soon.

And now Thulesen Dahl's response on the matter has arrived. He says basically that there are no problems at all with Morten Messerschmidt's refusal to make specific documents from the EP party association MELD and its associated fund FELD public.

Interesting (to put it mildly) that DPP's "show us everything"-principles (latest seen when Søren Espersen urged Carl Holst to publicize all information about his advisor's role in Holst's electoral campaign - the affair that lead to Holst's exit from the Ministry of Defense) are bendable when the matter is about one of DPP's great electoral successes.

[Diouf]

The race is on to fill the vacant gap to the right of DPP. Three National Conservatives from the Conservative People's Party's right wing have founded a new party called We Conservatives, the only really interesting about this is that one of them is called Peter Seier Christensen, lives in überwealthy Rungsted and might be related to Saxo Bank co-founder, tax exiled billionaire and LA bankroller Lars Seier Christensen. Also, what a lame name when they could have gone with the historical Højre ("the Right"), the only decent name for a Danish National Conservative party.


Chairman Pernille Vermund

Unsurprisingly, the party was not allowed to use that lame name which sounds so much like the standard short hand version of the Conservatives. Instead they are called Nye Borgerlige (the New Bourgeois). That word of course doesn't have the marxist connotations in Danish. My guess is that they would have use Ny Højre (New Right) if that hadn't been the name of a Borgen party.

In other news, a Norstat poll for Altinget shows Venstre (the Liberals) on 20.1%,  i.e. above the election result. Like the other post-election polls, little movement. The Conservatives are closer to the threshold (2,9%), the Red-Green Alliance rises to 9,5 % while the Social Democrats loses a bit to 25%. Still blue bloc majority overall.

[Diouf]

The three biggest parties agree on changes to unemployment benefits


Four in the front: Social Democrat leader Mette Frederiksen, DPP leader Kristian Thulelsen Dahl, Liberal Minister of Employment Jørn Neergaard Larsen, Liberal Minister of Finance Claus Hjort Frederiksen

The three biggest parties, the Social Democrats, the DPP and the Liberals, have agreed on changing the unemployment benefit system. The system gets 300 million DKK (40 mio euro) added annually from 2017 and onwards.

Ever since the 2010 reform of the unemployment benefit (dagpenge) system, the issue has been near the top of the political agenda. The reform cut in half the period in which you can get unemployment benefits, from four to two years, and doubled the period you need to work to earn back the rights of full unemplyment benefits, from six to twelve months. The reform was agreed by the then Liberal-Conservative government and the DPP, but the Social Liberals and the Liberal Alliance voted in favour of it as well. The Social Democrats, the SPP and the Red-Green Alliance was opposed to it and campaigned heavily against it in 2011, but since they were heavily dependent on the Social Liberals after the 2011 election, the reform couldn't be rolled back.

This failure to roll the reform back was one of the main reasons that the government was quickly seen as untrustworthy and not keeping its promises. The Social Democrats and especially the SPP continously tried to change the system, but the Social Liberals would only allow temporary solutions. During their term in government, the DPP changed their tune and now supported rolling it back somewhat which put extra pressure on the red parties in the government. A working group was set up by the government to investigate possible changes to the system but, again due to the Social Liberals, the working group could not propose a more expensive system than the current one. That was the line by both the Liberals and the Social Democrats in the election campaign in 2015 as well.

Shortly after Mette Frederiksen became the new Social Democrat leader, she stated that the Social Democrats, now liberated from their governmental cooperation with the Social Liberals, supported adding more money to the system. Three days ago, the working group gave its proposed cost-neutral solution; making it easier to re-earn the right to unemployment benefits, even via short-term employment, while introducing 8 days a year where the unemployment benefits wouldn't be paid and lowering the rate for graduates.

Since there was a potential majority outside the government in favour of increasing the costs of the system, although the Social Democrats seemed hesistant to use it, it has now ended with a compromise which adds 300 mio DKK (40 mio euro) to the system annually from 2017. The Liberals kind of had to make an agreement after the working group's proposal, and neither the Social Democrats nor the DPP would want to be part of an agreement without the other one. The system adopts the easier ways of re-earning the right to benefits, but only introduces 3 days a year where unemployment benefits aren't paid. The graduate rate is cut even more than proposed, but this is not enough to make the system cost-neutral. The Social Liberals wasn't in the agreement but will support the agreement as it is a broad agreement, not that expensive and still very much based on the original deal. The Liberal Alliance and the Conservatives attack the deal and the Liberals for agreeing on a deal which raises the costs of the system, while the SPP, the Alternatives and the Red-Green Alliance are opposed to the agreement for not doing enough.

[Helsinkian]

There has been plenty of controversy within the Finns Party in the recent days. A few weeks ago Sebastian Tynkkynen, the chairman of the Finns Party's youth organisation who was also elected one of the party's deputy chairmen in the August party congress, demanded that the party should consider leaving the government coalition. He cited the government's failures in handling the asylum seeker crisis as well the Euro crisis as the reasons.

His view was in the minority when the party's governing board delibarated the issue. However, chairman Timo Soini was not content at leaving the issue there. Earlier this week the party's governing board made the decision to expel Tynkkynen from the party (they did this conveniently when Tynkkynen was out of the country and thus unable to defend himself). Legal experts noted that the expulsion might have been illegal, since the governing board does not have the power to expel a deputy chairman elected by the party congress. Soini responded to this by saying that though they had expelled Tynkkynen from the party's membership, he continues to be the party's deputy chairman. But that is in violation with the party's own rules which state that the members of the governing board (deputy chairmen are included in it) must be members of the party...

Today the Finns Party's youth organisation defied Soini by re-electing Tynkkynen as the youth wing's chairman in their annual conference (members of the youth wing don't have to be members of the party proper). And so we are in the absurd situation where a person, who has been expelled from the party, nevertheless continues to be the party's deputy chairman and youth leader who is entitled to participate in the meetings of the party's governing board and the parliamentary group.

This certainly reinforces the idea that Soini can not stomach any criticism of his leadership within the party.

[Diouf]

A new poll by Greens for Børsen shows that the Social Democrat voters are not satisfied with the above mentioned reform of the unemployment benefit system. Only 22 % are satisfied or very satisfied, while 37 % are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. With the Liberal voters, it is the other way around. 47 % are satisfied or very satisfied while only 9 % are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Børsen unfotunately does not write what the DPP voters think about the deal, but my guess is that they are somewhere inbetween, probably slightly more in favour than against. The three parties to the left of the Social Democrats have criticized the deal severely, which probably explains the dissatisfaction among Social Democrat voters.

While the number of asylum seekers in Denmark is likely to be lower in 2015 than in 2014, the number of residence permits granted to asylum seekers and their families is projected to be the highest since 1995. In 2014, 14,792 persons applied for asylum in Denmark, while 9,793 had applied in 2015 by the 1st October. Therefore, the total number of asylum seekers is expected to be lower this year than in the previous year. However, in 2014 7,012 persons received a residence permit, either directly or via family reunification, while the 2015 number until 1st October is already 10,116. The combined 2015 number is expected to be 13,000, and if Denmark takes the 1,000 refugees from the EU relocation system as promised, then the final figure could reach 14,000 which would be the highest number of residence permits granted to asylum seekers and their families since 1995. The main reason is that almost all of the Syrians get asylum.

Norstat for Altinget made a poll of the attitudes towards the number of asylum seekers in Denmark. The question asked was "Denmark received around 15,000 asylum seekers last year. What do you think of the number of asylum seekers?". 16 % said that Denmark should take in more asylum seekers, 31 % thought the 15,000 number was appropriate and 45 % thinks that Denmark should take in fewer asylum seekers. 9 % answered don't know. Per party figures below:

                                   S         R        K       SF      LA     DF     V     EL    ALT
More asylum seekers     16%   49%   10%   18%   9%   1%   5%   44%   55%
Appropriate number      42%   35%   34%   33%   38% 12% 38% 32%   17%
Less asylum seekers     29%     4%    54%   38%   50% 84% 53% 20%   13%
Don't know                   13%   12%   2%    11%    3%    4%   5%   5%   16%

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Surprised by SF. I thought they were effectively the liberal clergy party now.

[ingemann]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.thelocal.dk/20151029/denmark-wants-foreign-fighters-jailed-for-life

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

 Finns continue to collapse (truly the Lib Dems of the populist right, lol), and social democrats see signs of life: ("muu" means other not a new party aimed at cow farmers.)

[BundouYMB]

TNS Gallup also had a poll out recently:

[Helsinkian]

This is what happens when you campaign on tightening immigration and EU policy and standing up for the Finnish workers, and then in your first six months in government you oversee a tenfold increase in asylum seekers compared to the last year as well as further bailouts for Greece, combined with cuts to unemployment benefits.

If you lose over 40 percent of your support in six months, in almost any other party that would lead to massive criticism of the party's leader and calls for his resignation. Not in the Finns Party, though. If anything, Soini is now more willing to kick his critics out of the party, as evidenced by case Tynkkynen (see my previous message).

[ingemann]

Surprised by SF. I thought they were effectively the liberal clergy party now.

That group is not big enough to have a party that size. But more serious I think it have a lot to do with the large selection of parties on the left. If you're socialist and don't need to have a strong connection to reality, EL exist, if you're smug know-it-all better-than-you social liberal you have RV, which leave SF with people who's better educated and more soft than Social Democratic voters, but still have to deal with reality. Also you have to remember that Denmark do have a model for how a Denmark taking more refugees in would look, we call it Sweden, and while many have loved that model, it doesn't look that hot right now, if Sweden successful deal with the refugee crisis without becoming more like Denmark, that model will likely become more popular again. At last Denmark for all that the discussion about immigration is still the EU country which take the fourth most refugees per capita.

[DavidB.]

Finns continue to collapse (truly the Lib Dems of the populist right, lol), and social democrats see signs of life: ("muu" means other not a new party aimed at cow farmers.)

LOL. Would be a logical moment for the Rural Party to reinvent itself though, given the collapse of PS

[Diouf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN0SU2P820151105

[Helsinkian]

I doubt the government collapses because of this. This seems more like Sipilä playing hard negotiation tactics. He already gave one ultimatum, threatening to ask the president to dissolve the government if a solution were not found by Friday morning. But when that deadline passed he simply set a new deadline...

That said, Sipilä has said that if NCP were to kicked out, he would try to form a new coalition without going to a new election (according to the newest Yle/Taloustutkimus poll, SDP is very close to Center). In practice that would mean a coalition consisting of Centre, Finns Party, Swedish People's Party and the Christian Democrats. But they would have a very slim majority, and a couple of Finns Party MPs going their own way would bring it down.

You may ask, wouldn't the Finns Party have problems working with the Swedish People's Party. Considering that Timo Soini has given up almost all of his other principles already, I doubt renouncing one more principle would be an obstacle for him.

Edit: as I predicted, the parties reached a solution. It's pretty much what Centre wanted: 18 regions. The weird thing, though, is that there will still be only 15 regions that handle all the healthcare aspects, so some regions are forced to co-operate.

[Diouf]

Denmark is going to increase its participation in the UN mission in Mali. Currently, 20 Danish soldiers are taking part, and now they will be joined by a transport air plane and 30 special-trained soldiers. The Liberal government's proposal is backed by the Social Democrats, the Social Liberals, the SPP, the Alternative and the Liberal Alliance, while DPP, the Conservatives and the Red-Green Alliance is opposed to it. The Conservative opposition reflect their movement away from being a "responsible" governmental party. They argue that Denmark should focus its limited efforts on the Middle East instead. The DPP also argues that the 42 mio DKK (5,6 mio euro) could be spent better elsewhere, and that Danish soldiers should not be sent to a dangerous African civil war. Perhaps a bit surprising that the Alternative is in favour as they seem to be quite the peace, love and harmony party, but I think the decisive factor for them is that it is an UN mandate.

In the Social Democrats, there is now open criticism of the party's line in the immigration and refugee question from inside the parliamentary group. The former Minister of Agriculture and current chairman of the European Committee Mette Gjerskov attacks the party's decision to join the negotiations on lower benefits for people, who haven't lived in Denmark in 7 out of the last 8 years. The proposed "integration benefit" will be 45 % lower than the standard cash benefits, although the cut will be less severe if you pass Danish language tests and other integration requirements. The Social Democrats accepted these cuts as it was the requirement to join the negotiations, but proposed giving out vouchers with free access to sports organisations and winter clothes for the children in these families. The blue bloc didn't accept that idea, so the Social Democrats will not even be in the agreement after changing their position on the integration benefit to the dislike of many in the party. Additionally, the party hasn't ruled out accepting the government's cuts to the foreign aid budget. Gjerskov's criticism was shared by another Social Democrat MP Yildiz Akdogan.

[Diouf]

Amidst new numbers showing that 3,600 persons applied for asylum in Denmark in October, twice the 2014 number, and 1,100 during the last week, Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen called a meeting on Friday with the other party leaders to discuss further tightening the refugee and immigration policy. The new measures are expected to include shorter and more temporary residence permits, tougher restrictions on family reunification and even lower benefits. He also wants to do more on sending back rejected asylum seekers as well as alleviating the municipalities' problems in providing housing. The Blue Bloc and the Social Democrats welcomed the announcement, and are expected to be a part of the agreement.

Negotiations on the budget have intensified. Minister of Finance Claus Hjort Frederiksen decided to have further negotiations in Denmark instead of travelling to the ECOFIN Council yesterday. The DPP is demanding an additional billion DKK (130 mio euro) for the elderly, tougher rules on refugees, immigration, border control, integration and citizenship along with more police officers, the Conservatives are prioritizing lowering housing taxes as well as more police officers while the Liberal Alliance is focusing on lowering the taxation on cars. A budget agreement is expected in around a week.