The Great Nordic Thread

[Diouf]

Budget agreement - now referendum



The Blue Bloc parties today agreed on the budget for 2016 the day before Parliament closes for the two weeks up to the referendum on turning the JHA opt-out into an opt-in. The main parts of the budget include more money for health care (2.4 bn. DKK/0.32 bn. euro) and elderly care (1 bn. DKK/0.13 bn. euro). Additionally, the police will get 1.9 bn. DKK/0,25 bn. euro extra for the next four years. Car taxes are reduced from 180 % to 150 % and the planned housing tax increases for next year, which would hit expensive houses more, are removed.

The foreign aid budget is cut by 2.6 bn DKK/0,35 bn. euro, so that Denmark just fulfills the UN's minimum goal of 0.7 % of GDP, which of course only a handfull of countries actually fullfill. A benefit cap is introduced for people on cash benefits, and their weeks of holiday are reduced  from five to four. Additionally the budgets for research and education will be reduced by 2 % in each of the next four years. Finally, cash benefits will be cut for persons that haven't lived in Denmark for 7 out of the last 8 years, and asylum seekers and illegal immigrants will be accomodated more cheaply in temporary "tent camps".

The Liberal Alliance and the Conservatives both seemed fairly happy as they got some of their biggest wishes with lower taxes on cars and avoiding higher housing taxes. Most of the attention has turned to whether the DPP got enough out of the deal; the left wing parties, and especially the Social Democrats, have attacked them hard. They obviously got some things in the shape of stricter refugee policies, more money for the police and more money for health care and elderly, but they have accepted a benefit cap and tax reliefs for houses and cars which will be most beneficial for the wealthiest. Therefore, it is easy to attack them for giving money from the poor to rich, opposite of how they like to portrait themselves.

On top of the criticism of the DPP in relation to the budget, they will have to pay back 110,000 DKK/15,000 euro to the EU for wrongly used EU party support. A part of the case that has haunted their star MEP Morten Messerschmidt for weeks.
Now Parliament closes for two weeks as the referendum campaign intensifies.

[Diouf]

Liberal MEP becomes Social Liberal



The Danish MEP Jens Rohde has decided to leave the Liberals due to their refugee polices and EU-policies. He has instead decided to join the Social Liberals. This means that the Liberals now only has 1 of the 13 Danish MEPs, while the Social Liberals has 2 MEPs and the Danish Commissioner. He becomes the second MEP to leave his party since the June 2014 election after Rikke Karlsson left DPP earlier this year over concerns about the party's use of EU funds.

Jens Rohde was an MP from 1998 to 2006, and from 2001 to 2006 he had the very important role as Political Spokesperson for the Liberals. During that time he bravely defended the government's toughening of immigration policies together with the DPP, as he had to in that role, but since leaving the Danish Parliament he has been known for not agreeing with ever tougher refugee policies and criticizing slight movements towards a somewhat more sceptial view of the EU. He left Parliament to become director of a new radio channel, but that was a short, unsuccesful stint, so in 2009 he returned to politics as the Liberal lead candidate for the European elections.
Shortly before the Liberals chose its candidates for the 2014 European elections, he wrote a comment arguing for a much stronger European integration, including a common EU army. Therefore, the party leadership decided he was to EU-positive to be their lead candidate Again. However, he was chosen by one of the regional committees as a candidate, and was re-elected as the Liberal candidate with the second most personal votes.
For the past several years, he has often made clear that he was a SuperEuropean and preferred much softer and more common EU refugee policies, which was the opposite of the party line. Additionally, he is not very fond of party leader, and now PM, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, so he was one of the most famous and outspoken of those who almost forced Løkke to resign at a 2014 extraordinary party meeting.
It is no big surprise that Rohde has left, and an even less of an surprise that he is now a Social Liberal. For years he has stated that "you should never threaten to leave, you should threaten to stay" when asked about his disagreements with the party line, but now it was apparently time to leave. He will obviously stay in the ALDE Group in the European Parliament since both parties are located there, but now he can follow the ALDE and Guy Verhofstadt line much more outspokenly and consistenly than in the Liberals where there is quite some apprehension of being connected to this "SuperEuropean line". Rohde is also Deputy Mayor in Viborg Municipality, but it is still unclear whether he can keep that role.

During the last weeks, two low-profile parliamentary candidates left the Liberals and joined the Alternative! Whereas the Liberal to Social Liberal shift is pretty understandable for the pro-European social liberals, the two shifts to the Alternative are very odd. They are quite far from the Liberals on many issues apart from refugees like economy, climate, taxation etc, and aren't even really more EU-positive.
There are probably still a handful or so Liberal MPs with some leanings in a slight social liberal direction, but not any that has made many public comments opposed to the party line as Rohde. Therefore, I wouldn't think that any of them are about to jump ship, but you never know.

[ingemann]

Not really shocking as you said, he have been in opposition to LLR always, and they removed him as 1st candidate to the European Parliament. I think he will return to Danish politics, but I think it's more likely that he attempts to become mayor of Viborg than returning to Folketinget. Through he may do both, I find it doubtful that try to stay in EP, as I will be surprised if the Social Liberals could get two mandates (right now I also doubt they get one).

I think this is quite intelligent done, he's mostly outside influence in Venstre (and he would be as long as LLR stay in power), and with EP election often being used to punish the government Venstre risk only get one mandate next time. He also represent people who are tired and embarassed of LLR's behaviour and Støjberg's line on ... well Muslims. At the same time he have been in internal opposition so long, that it doesn't really seem like treason that he leave. So there's a chance that he will bring some voters from Venstre to the Social Liberals.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Are there any possible defectors in the LA? You would think an ostensibly libertarian party might have some issues with the refugee policy of the government.

[Diouf]

Are there any possible defectors in the LA? You would think an ostensibly libertarian party might have some issues with the refugee policy of the government.

hmm, I don't really think so. Of course, the party's top and founders came from the Social Liberals, but the change from the New Alliance-policy on that subject has been quite clear for some years now, so you would think that those disagreeing might have left by now. Jørgen Poulsen, MP at the time, was elected for the New Alliance in 2007, but defected to the Social Liberals in 2008 while the party was in the process of becoming the Liberal Alliance. I would think most of his kind would have left then.

The party has been suggesting creating camps in Africa where refugees coming to Denmark should be sent to and other similar, tough "cost-efficient measures", so it would be weird if somebody just now realized that their refugee policy is quite tough. The same might be said about the Liberals, but it is arguably a much broader party due to its longer history.

I still think that the biggest defection-risk for the blue bloc is that one of the many new DPP MPs will leave the party over its acceptance of a too right wing economic policy. In recent weeks, the media have been dominated by stories about the potential loss of housing subsidies for some pensioners as a result of a part of the agreed on 2016 Budget. This hurt the DPP so badly, that they in the end forced the government to take the unprecedented step of re-opening the budget to take these measures out of the budget. If there are enough incidents like that one, then one of the new backbenchers could leave the party, most likely to join the Social Democrats or set up a new short-lived party of some sort.

[ingemann]

Are there any possible defectors in the LA?

No

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Non-western immigrants on average are a fiscal deficit for the Danish society. So I an see why a group of people who want lower taxes, don't really fight hard for such people being free access to Denmark. LA do support immigration of western (includes East Europeans) or skilled immigrants, but the government have in general worked for it being easier for those people to come to Denmark.

[Helsinkian]

In Finland, the Social Democrats, in opposition, take the lead in the monthly Yle/Taloustutkimus poll for the first time since 2008.

The numbers of the Finns Party are still miserable, but apparently they have reached their floor now.


http://yle.fi/uutiset/bad_news_for_the_government__new_poll_shows_sdp_on_top/8561609

[Diouf]

From today, it will be easier for parties in Denmark to run for election as it will be possible to collect signatures online. Until now parties had to gather signatures in person, then the municipality would send a form to each signatory who then had to return the filled-out form. Now the whole process can be carried out online. For running in a general election, you need around 20 000 signatures collected within a time span of 18 months.
The Christian Democrats will most likely run again, and would probably have managed to due so even under the old system due to their relatively high number of experienced activists compared to their size.
Nye Borgerlige (New Bourgeois/New Right might be better in English as it doesn't carry the marxist vibe) have very good chances to collect the required number of signatures, I reckon.
Nationalpartiet (the National Party) will probably also be able to make it.

So combined with the current 9 parties in Parliament, we could very well have 12 parties running in the next general election.

I have problems seeing how the Christian Democrats will suddenly pass the threshold; their are reluctant to really campaign on their "unique" positions such as opposition to abortion, gay marriage etc. It usually ends up in talk about better conditions for families, which is hardly unique enough to get a party elected.
I think the New Bourgeois/New Right has rather good chances of passing the threshold. There should be a clear possibility to attract voters from the DPP, which either thinks the party has become too soft on migration and EU or is dissatisfied with their Social Democrat-like economic policies. Parts of the three other blue bloc parties could probably be tempted as well. We could see both the New Bourgeois/New Right and the Conservatives just around the threshold at the next election.
I am not really sure about the National Party. There are already five red bloc parties, so in some way most left leaning voters should already have enough to choose from. However, it is possible that they manage to carve out a niche for themselves regarding opposition to tough refugee and immigration rules and Danish wars in the Middle East. These positions are of course already common in other left-wing parties, but due to the immigrant background of their founders and leaders, they might be a more "credible" voice and manage to mobilize some immigrant communities. While Yahya Hassan gives them a certain degree of publicity, he might damage the latter point as his strong criticism of lifestyles of hypocrisy in immigrant neighbourhoods is probably not superpopular in those areas.

[DavidB.]

Norway has sent migrants back to Russia. Immigration Minister Sylvi Listhaug (Frp) is responsible for this. Of course, this move has been widely criticized by all sorts of organizations.

On their way to Norway, the migrants had crossed the border by bike because of the fact that Russia doesn't allow people to cross the border by foot. Approximately 29,000 people took the so-called "Arctic route" in 2015.

[Diouf]

Berlingske Barometer polling average (compared to 2015 election):

Social Democrats 24.7 % (-1.6 %)
Social Liberals 5.7 % (+1.1 %)
Conservatives 3.4 % (=)
SPP 4.4 % (+ 0.2 %)
Liberal Alliance 7.7 % (+ 0.2 %)
DPP 19.7 % (- 1.4 %)
Liberals 18.7 % (- 0.8 %)
Red-Green Alliance 9.1 % (+ 1.3 %)
The Alternative 6.1 % (+ 1.3%)

Red Bloc 50 %
Blue Bloc 49.5 %.
However, the Christian Democrats, while currently not eligible to run in the next election, is still often included and get 0.5 % in the average. So all in all 50-50. However, since the Christian Democrats will be wasted votes, the seat lead is 88-87 for Red Bloc.

I haven't seen a voter movement poll lately, but the most likely movements are probably DPPers and some Liberals going to the Social Democrats due to dissatisfaction with the government and DPP's handling of the migration crisis and the 2016 budget, that included freezed housing taxes and lower car taxes, mostly, but not exclusively, to the benefit of the rich. Similarly, significant portions of the Social Democrats' left wing seems to have left them due to their very tough line on migration and refugees, and have moved to the Social Liberals, the Red-Greens or the Alternative. Right now, it seems quite likely that the next election could end up with the same outcome as the last one; a small one-party government consisting of a party that lost seats at the election.

In the Social Democrats, the rather significant toughening of the line, "we will do everything we can to reduce the number of non-Western refugees and immigrants coming to this country", has caused some protests in the parliamentary group, but mostly from backbenchers. The most prominent critic is the former Minister for Agriculture and current chairman of the European Committee Mette Gjerskov, who has even said that she will vote against the party line on some of these proposals. Recently, there was an internal party vote on the party's position on re-introducing citizenship test, even for children born and raised in Denmark without a criminal record and who have passed Folkeskolen (something like secondary school, age 15-16). 10 MPs voted against the party accepting this strictening.

As previously mentioned, the Liberals has also had some defections. A MEP and a few local politicians or previous parliamentary candidates have left the party due to the tough line on refugee and migration. In the recent week, the rumours have talked about a possible reshuffe before summer. The Finance Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen has made some clear mistakes in the handling of the 2016 budget and negotiations with the municipalities in dealing with the expenses to asylum seekers and refugees. Therefore, some speculate whether the 68-year old could be reshuffled or choose to resign, already at some point before the summer.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Could the blocs start to break down? I highly doubt Radikale Venstre would want to enter an SD government with strixt rules on migrants; nor would LA want to support a government with a DPP inspired economic plan.

[Diouf]

Could the blocs start to break down? I highly doubt Radikale Venstre would want to enter an SD government with strixt rules on migrants; nor would LA want to support a government with a DPP inspired economic plan.

Well, right now it looks unthinkable that there will be a Social Democrat - Social Liberal coalition; with the Social Democrats perhaps even the most opposed since it would completely shatter the credibility of the very hard-on-migration turn they have taken. Also, there might be a bigger possibility to make some economic deals with the left wing + DPP now than previously. But that the next red government would most likely be a Social Democrat one-party government, does not really destroy the blocs. It's not like a right-wing government would be more attractive to support with regards to refugees for the Social Liberals.

I don't see it happen with regards to the DPP either. If they open up for the possibility to support a Social Democrat government or the other way around, then that would shake up the blocs. However, that would most likely lead to a mass exodus of voters from the DPP and require support from at least one more party, and probably two, which would be hard to find. The DPP could cause a stir in the blue bloc with regard to the government formation, but I think that would only really happen if they are around the same size/bigger as the three other blue bloc parties combined. Then the DPP might demand to lead the government with their programme, but the other blue bloc parties would be hesistant due to their economic programme. Until then, I don't think the DPP would make such demands as they would not have even have a majority inside the blue bloc.

[bmw1503]

Sorry to derail the topic a bit, but the vehicle tax was 180% of the purchase price in Denmark? That seems really really high to an outside observer; is it calculated differently there than in other countries? Also, I would have thought that for a largely populist party like the DPP that a measure to reduce that sort of tax (perhaps seen as a nanny state, environmental tax) would be popular with their voting base.

[Diouf]

Sorry to derail the topic a bit, but the vehicle tax was 180% of the purchase price in Denmark? That seems really really high to an outside observer; is it calculated differently there than in other countries? Also, I would have thought that for a largely populist party like the DPP that a measure to reduce that sort of tax (perhaps seen as a nanny state, environmental tax) would be popular with their voting base.

It was and is indeed really really high. Much higher than all other countries. Below a comparison with other European countries before the tax reduction.



It is calculated in the following way:
You start out with the price without taxes, then you add the 25 % standard sales tax. Then, there is a 105.5 % car tax on costs up to 82,800 DKK, and a 150 % (previously 180 %) car tax on costs over 82,800 DKK. You can than withdraw a few thousand DKK if the car has the newest safety equipment and can drive many km per liter gasoline.
So a standard new car to the purchase price of 106,400 DKK will get a sales tax of 26,600 DKK and a car tax of 116,985 DKK, and end up costing 249,985 DKK.

And that is after the reduction of the car tax. But as it can be seen, the rate is only reduced for costs above a certain price, which means that the cheapest cars will not become much cheaper. It don't think the DPP voters as a whole are very opposed to tax reductions, especially since they have received a lot of former Liberal voters. A poll showed that 32 % of the DPP voters were in favour of reducing the top income tax rate, which only 20 % of the Social Liberal voters supported, despte the DPP being against and the Social Liberals being in favour. So one should be careful to see the DPP as too much of a Social Democrat party voterwise, despite tones from their leaders that are somewhat different. However, they do still have a significant number of voters with lower incomes, who were previously Social Democrats. Those voters might be dissatisfied with the Budget, that also included housing tax freezes and a cash benefit cap, which could be seen as a take from the poor to give to the rich. In addition, the initial budget compromise included cuts to the housing benefits for some pensioners, but this was extraordinarly taken out of the budget after DPP pressure.
So overall, it is certainly true that many DPP voters will like or at least not be bothered by this tax reduction. However, the crucial DPP-Social Democrat swing voters are probably not that much in favour, which also explains why the DPP is reluctant to agree to reducing the top income tax rate. Something that will be negotiated as a part of the tax reform, which is due in the fall.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Meanwhile, in Iceland:

5.3% Bright Future (saving itself from oblivion)

11.4% Left Greens (they've polled very steady - their base hasn't deserted, but no capitalisation on the unpopular government etc.)

11.5% Progressive (a bit of a boost, but still below their 11.7 "worst result ever" in 2007.
   
12.9% Social Democrats (well ... above the LG at least)

20.6% Independence (below their historically bad 2010 result, and apparently the lowest the party has ever polled)

and drumlol ..
   
34.9% the Pirates

[ingemann]

Sorry to derail the topic a bit, but the vehicle tax was 180% of the purchase price in Denmark? That seems really really high to an outside observer; is it calculated differently there than in other countries? Also, I would have thought that for a largely populist party like the DPP that a measure to reduce that sort of tax (perhaps seen as a nanny state, environmental tax) would be popular with their voting base.

Diouf have already said the most, but I think a historical context are also necessary, Denmark have never really produced cars, there have been a few Danish car companies, but they was long gone when this vehicle tax was created. Denmark on the other hand suffered from major BOP deficits after WWII and up to the 90ties, it was not really a problem before 1970, because before that Denmark had some of the highest growth rates in western Europe. But as the growth rate fell, Denmark needed to limit the outflow of capital, our membership of EEC limited custom barriersd we could set up. Instead we could set up high prices on products we didn't produce ourselves. We also set high prices on oil, to limit the oil import, of course as we became a oil producers, this served to increasing our export, as we consumed less of our oil, the high taxes on cars also resulted in Danes buying smaller more fuel efficient cars.

That's give us a little context for why we have these taxes. As for why DPP's voters are not fan of lowering the taxes, well I think it can best be explained by them asking, what public services will be cut to pay for these tax cuts? DPP may be populists but that doesn't mean that they can promise everything all the time, they want to keep 3rd world immigrants (primarily Muslims) out, help the elderly and ensure high public service. It's hard to promise the last two thing and support cut the tax. LA do, but no one believe them, and their voters in general support that the poor should get poorer.

[Diouf]

The government's most recent migration and refugee bill was passed today with a large majority. The Liberal government was supported by the Social Democrats, the DPP, the Liberal Alliance and the Conservatives. Against was the Red-Green Alliance, the Alternative, the Social Liberals, the SPP and three Social Democrat rebels (Mette Gjerskov, Daniel Toft Jakobsen, Yildiz Akdogan). Not yet clear whether this will have any repercussions for the three. As previously noted, Gjerskov is a former Minister while the two others are basically unknown backbenchers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.thelocal.dk/20160126/heres-how-denmarks-new-immigration-bill-will-affect-you

[DavidB.]

The Social Democrats voted for this? Wow.

[Lurker]

The Social Democrats voted for this? Wow.

Shouldn't be that surprising. During the 2015 general election, their campaign posters featured slogans like "Stramme asylregler og flere krav til indvandrere". (Strict rules for asylum and more demands for immigrants, too translate it a bit awkwardly.)

[Famous Mortimer]

The Danish Social Democrats are generally thought of as one of the more tepid social democratic parties and that's saying something. Not surprised at all.

[DavidB.]

Shouldn't be that surprising. During the 2015 general election, their campaign posters featured slogans like "Stramme asylregler og flere krav til indvandrere". (Strict rules for asylum and more demands for immigrants, too translate it a bit awkwardly.)

I know, I followed that campaign I just didn't think they would ever double down on that "promise", especially since I thought people that are more "soft" on immigration had gained power within the party after HTS's defeat.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Shouldn't be that surprising. During the 2015 general election, their campaign posters featured slogans like "Stramme asylregler og flere krav til indvandrere". (Strict rules for asylum and more demands for immigrants, too translate it a bit awkwardly.)

I know, I followed that campaign I just didn't think they would ever double down on that "promise", especially since I thought people that are more "soft" on immigration had gained power within the party after HTS's defeat.

That might very well be so, but "soft on immigration" politicians in Europe has generally had an awful time outside and with-in their parties after the refugee crisis culminated, so it's natural that such politicians would either have to adopt a new position, or risk falling out of favour. (i.e. see the Swedish government for referens how quickly left-wing pro-immigration positions can falter in times like these.)

[ingemann]

Shouldn't be that surprising. During the 2015 general election, their campaign posters featured slogans like "Stramme asylregler og flere krav til indvandrere". (Strict rules for asylum and more demands for immigrants, too translate it a bit awkwardly.)

I know, I followed that campaign I just didn't think they would ever double down on that "promise", especially since I thought people that are more "soft" on immigration had gained power within the party after HTS's defeat.

Mette Frederiksen have always been more ideological and old fashion than HTS, but that doesn't translate into being soft on anything. The goal of the Social Democratic party in Denmark are to upkeep and potential expand the welfare state, and they have usual been condemned for that by the Whiny Left, who want to talk and talk and  talk and talk, rather than doing something and risk getting their hands dirty. Because they value clean hands and conscience more than helping people.

Of course the SocDem have also been home to some of those, but historical there have been internal discussion since the 80ties in the party in how to deal with immigration, with the soft liners getting power with Svend Auken in 1987. But there was already a strong internal debate before that.

Mette Frederiksen who did have a reputation for being soft, thanks to her focus on social (mostly women issue) early in her career, what people forgot about her was that her district was in the centre of the SocDem hardliner area, the western Copenhagen suburbs.

At the same time there's a general Danish political-cultural aspect which count for almost all parties (to greater or lesser degree), people tend to forget. In Danish politics the most important issue are money. We can discuss why it's so important in Denmark. So the question are always how much do things cost, how do we find the money, who's going cough them up.

Here's the main softliner party the RV/SL solution to emigration have been the last few years, have been to raise the pension age, lower the period you can be unemployment benefits etc. (you people get the idea).

So RV have in fact done SocDem a favour, they have set up a model for how Denmark can handle the large influx of third world immigrants.; simply to destroy the Welfare State.

This mean that suddenly the SocDem opposition to large scale third world immigration have been transformed from being opportunistic in nature (or a necessary evil) to being ideological, and even the softliners like Gjerskov and Yildiz (I don't know with Toft) support most of the bill, they're just in opposition to the 3 year rule.

[Diouf]

Agricultural tensions in governing majority

The relationship in the governing majority in the Danish Parliament has become increasingly tense in recent days. The Prime Minister has openly threathened the Conservatives with new elections if they insist on sacking the Minister for Environment and Food Eva Kjer Hansen. The most probable outcome is probably still that the Minister resigns voluntarily, but the case has already exposed a significant lack of confidence between the blue parties.

The Conservatives has declared that that they no longer have confidence in the the Minister for Environment and Food as they believe that she has provided them with misleading numbers regarding the environmental impact of an Agricultural package agreed upon by the Blue Bloc. A package that the Conservatives will still support. As the Red Bloc of course also stated that they do not have confidence in the minister, the "normal procedure" will be for the minister to resign voluntarily and the PM will appoint a new one. However, this time the PM instead declared that the Conservative decision has caused him to seriously wonder whether the whole government can continue. The Liberal Alliance and the DPP also supports and praises the Minister for Environment and Food, and claims that the Conservative spokesperson has been absent in negotiations and unable to understand the documents.

The Red Bloc have declared an official vote of no confidence for the Minister for Environment and Food which will be on the agenda for Wednesday. The Conservatives have been trying to brand themselves as the "green party" in the Blue Bloc, but at the same time they want to support good conditions for the Agricultural industry. So they decided that if they forced the minister to go while still supporting the Agricultural package, they could show their green credentials while supporting the industry. The PM has so far stated that it is more likely with new elections than he would ask his minister to resign. Instead, he has called for negotiations with the three blue parties about a deal which could change the Conservatives' mind regarding the minister by making the Agricultural package slightly greener.

As I started with, the most likely option is probably still that the Minister for Environment and Food at some point before Wednesday resigns voluntarily. However, it would be rather late for that to happen, and would make the Liberals look like a very weak government. It would be rahter humiliating for the PM after all his sabre-rattling, even if the Minister states that this is her very own independent decision to resign. If the Conservatives in some way changes their mind and suddenly has confidence in the minister again, then they would be the humiliated part, almost no matter how many compensating green measures they get. If the Conservatives force her to leave via a vote in Parliament, and the PM does not call an election, he will also look weak. And if there is an election, it is quite likely that the Red Bloc will come into power. The opinion polls are 50/50, but with support from Greenland and the Faroe Islands, that is Red Bloc Victory. Also an election called on the basis on divisions in Blue Bloc would make it even better for the Red Bloc. The Conservatives are hovering around 3 %, and could fall below the 2 % threshold if the other Blue Bloc parties reject further cooperation with them, thereby making them obsolete. The Conservative leader is elected in Western Jutland, so even if they just pass the threshold, he could be out if widely seen as anti-agriculture. The Liberals are also around 2% down at 17,5 % in the polls, and the PM would most likely lose his jobs as both PM and Liberal leader with an election. So neither should really want an election.

[rosin]

Eva Kjer Hansen resigns

The threatening crisis in the Danish "blue bloc" described by Diouf in the previous post have now been - temporarily? - avoided, as the minister of food production and environmental affairs, Eva Kjer Hansen, has resigned this morning. This is widely seen as a defeat for PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who now might look as if he isn't able to hold his government together, and similarily a big victory for the leader of the Conservatives, Søren Pape Poulsen, who - since he in 2014 became chairman for the party - widely has been viewed as a political light-weighter.

The future implications of will likely be that the cooperation in the bloc becomes harder - since it is now clearly seen, that the government is not set in stone, and the government's other supporting parties - LA and DF - might now also try to remove ministers, they - by some reason - are dissatisfied with.