Danish Elections and Politics

[JimJamUK]

The Social Liberal leader Sofie Carsten Nielsen said she would not back another one-party government after the next election. She said the current government has shown an unprecedented power arrogance and implemented an unacceptable amount of top-down control of the government bureaucracy by virtue of no-one opposing the PM as all ministers are from the same party. She said a new government should be formed across the political centre, so likely some combination of the Social Democrats (+ maybe SPP), Social Liberals and then at least one of the Moderates, Christian Democrats, Liberals, Liberal Alliance or Conservatives. I'm guessing that in practice, she would also accept just another Social Democrat-Social Liberal government, but unless such a government is based on at least one centre-right party as support party, the rhetoric will ring quite hollow.

Is this seen more as an uncrossable red line or empty rhetoric to make the party seem moderate and relevant? The current government has been able to cut the Social Liberals out of many key policy agreements so it’s understandable they want one where they would have more influence and policy achievements, but of course the Social Democrats would presumably want to protect the status quo which has worked well for them. SPP and EL will also prefer the current government to the 2011-2015 one, so presumably they aren’t enthused by this proposal either.

[JimJamUK]

I think many see it as the party decisively choosing to go for the sensible, centrist government party route instead of the more woke, pro-immigration protest party route (which would probably give more votes). Carsten Nielsen explicitly acknowledges that no matter what, it will be difficult for the party to change Danish immigration policies very much. And as you point out, if the Social Liberals follow through on this route and the Social Democrats, as one would expect, really doesn't want the Social Liberals in their government, then there could be a massive stand-off between the two parties after an election if the Social Liberals has the decisive seats. The left wing, incl. Social Democrats, will try to say that it's a clear choice. You must quickly decide between Red and Blue Bloc and do you Social Liberals really wanna join a majority with DPP and New Right? While the Social Liberal argument will be that there are plenty of mainstream seats, when withdrawing Red-Green, DPP and New Right seats, so they want to build a broad centrist government and have the patience to reject any Bloc government until mainstream parties worth at least 90 seats come together across the middle.

It seems impossible that the Social Liberals would join a government reliant on hardline anti immigration parties, and even forming a government with the ‘mainstream’ of the Blue Bloc looks like something their voters would not be remotely happy about (in addition to not really being a centrist government, it’s not a certainty they’d want to be in government with the Social Liberals, and it probably wouldn’t have a majority anyways). Therefore, the Social Liberals don’t seem to realistically be able to threaten the left of centre parties with an alternative government, but rather just stop any government being formed. In that case, the left can wait it out and claim the Social Liberals should be responsible and support the continuation of the current government rather than prolong a messy cross bloc negotiation, and threaten another election where the Social Liberals would be squeezed if they don’t.

Would you say this is a fair analysis or have the Social Liberals fallen out with the left enough that they would be willing to go fully right or at least stand their ground and never allow a left only government regardless of how long it takes?

[JimJamUK]

If the political divisions are true, then its very hard to see the Vegan's making the 2% next election (not that they had much chance anyways). The number of hardcore animals rights/vegan activists is a tiny share of the population, so any animal rights party needs to be able to appeal a wider audience of animal lovers who like tougher animal welfare standards, sign e-petitions against x animal cruelty practice etc, and want to vote for a party that will deliver these policies and generally embody a compassionate ethos towards animals.

[JimJamUK]

Lars Løkke gave an interview to Weekendavisen where he revealed parts of the Moderates' political program. He wants to introduce a new "citizen's duty" of six months for all youngsters. Youngsters will live together and carry out tasks, this could be within environmental protection, cultural activities, civil society organisations etc. as well as a more standard conscription in the army. He argues it's necessary to ensure unity and cohesion by mixing people from different layers of society, so people get an understanding of others' way of life. The party also wants to convert parts of the study grant to a loan (with a deduction once you graduate to ensure more students, particularly foreign ones, stay and work in Denmark). They have a comprehensive proposal for a new tax reform: The point at which you start paying the top tax rate will be raised, a new top-top tax rate for the very high earners, lower taxes on entrepreunership, stocks and investments, a CO2 tax and a higher job deduction. Løkke says he will be more "pragmatic" on immigration policy; he attacks the government for being to slow to bring home Danish citizens (children of ISIS terrorists) from camps in Syria plus wants more foreign labour. He mirrors the recent Social Liberal criticism of the Mette Frederiksen government as too self-willed and patronizing. He won't point towards a specific PM candidate, but says that he wants a majority government with a long-term reform programme.

That’s a real hodge podge of policies. Lower taxes for the highest earners but higher taxes for the very highest earners stands out as a tough sell. I suppose it can be labelled technocratic/non-ideological pragmatism, but it doesn’t stand out as a platform that would attract a lot of interest from voters (basically knock off centre right social liberalism for which there are multiple alternatives and many more who have failed) so the party will be relying on Lokke’s popularity to sell it. Is there an expectation that the proper launch of the party will see a substantial and sustained polling increase, because so far the limited polling doesn’t look great?

[JimJamUK]

It seems certain that Thulelsen Dahl, his brother + Skaarup are opposed to Messerschmidt.
Thulelsen Dahl has been in a direct confrontation with predecessor and co-founder Pia Kjærsgaard, saying that it's a bad idea with her stated plans to re-enter the leadership after a Messerschmidt victory, while Kjærsgaard has blamed Thulelsen Dahl for letting the leadership contest run off the rails with MPs from the anti-Messerschmidt wings threatening to leave the party.

Kjaersgaard has insinuated that they knew more about Messerschmidt's EU fraud case than they are letting on, not exactly a sign of things being deescalated.

https://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2022-01-23-pia-k-sender-alvorlig-anklage-mod-thulesen-dahl

[JimJamUK]

Pernille Vermund has said she supports the governments lower pension age for worn out workers and would block a future blue government from getting rid of it as most of them want to. Given the original similarities between her party and Progress, are Nye Borgerlige already going down the DPP route of pandering to their anti-immigration but not particularly free market voters?

[JimJamUK]

I don't see a shift. Already, when the deal about the pension was made, she said she favoured the principle of early retirement for those who starting working earlier. Their proposed policies are still mostly around where Liberal Alliance are or further right in terms of economic impact.
I just looked at the New Right's Facebook, and their latest post is one bemoaning how the cost of the tax collection authority has risen dramatically in recent years. In the same link, it says they want to cut taxes with 137 billion DKK towards 2035, so I don't think they can really be excused of hiding their plans. But it's not like they are generally proposing to cut a lot of very popular things, and the earlier retirement age for those who have started work earlier is quite popular. They have always had the argumentation about helping the lesser off; in the early days the party went quite hard in to support a couple of cases with handicapped citizens complaining about the lack of support from their municipality etc. The savings they say they want to make are on immigration, bureaucracy, job centres, state broadcaster DR etc.

Thats a fair explanation and it certainly seems like the party is still comfortably right wing on economics. Still, it does seem notable that she would go to a trade union event and announce she would block a key policy of the other major right wing parties, and she has been attacked by LA as the 'New Social Democrats' (which is mostly politicking tbf, but does suggest Vermund wants her party to be seen as less dogmatically right wing than some of the competition).

[JimJamUK]

Had a play about with the Epinion vote transfer polling since 2019. The numbers listed below are for an average of their 7 2021 polls, its less up to date but does minimise the large margin of error of any individual poll.

SD - Very good vote retention of about 85%. Small losses to all the usual suspects and interestingly NB (though i suppose it does chime with NBs surprising strength among manual workers).
Venstre - Horrible vote retention of course. About 25% of their 2019 vote is going Conservative (representing 6% of all voters) as well as 8% to NB and 6% to SD.
DF - Like Venstre only holding onto about 50% of their 2019 vote. 1/5 going to NB, about 1/10 going both SD and KF (though the trend is the former down and latter up).
RV - Slightly better vote retention than previous 2 parties. About 15% going SD, and close to 10% KF. Also ~5% gains by Venstre, SF and interestingly EL (not something that would have happened in previous times).
SF - About 70% vote retention. The normal 15% loss to the SDs. While small, a fairly consistent 3% loss to NB which is surprising.
EL - About 75% vote retention. High single digits loss to SD and SF (and unusually the former seems to be if anything growing).
KF - Vote retention in the early 80s (expected it a bit higher given their surge). Losses are fairly scattered, the biggest being 5% to NB and 4% to SD.
A - An utterly awful vote retention of 20%. Biggest gainers are EL on 23% and then in descending order of a few % each time, SF, RV, SD and the Vegans. Only 4% for their FG splitters in the December poll.
NB - Almost 80% vote retention with the rest scattered.
LA - 55% vote retention (though looking a bit better recently). Losing just under 20% to KF and about 10% to Venstre.
SK - No vote retention as not eligible. Close to half going NB as a consequence (though only about 40% in more recent polls), near 20% going DF, and about 15% going 'Other' (which for SK voters will likely mean a lot of non-voters). Also an absolutely hilarious 15% of the December poll going FG (essentially people who think the other pro-immigration parties don't call their opponents racist often enough). LOL.
KD - A modest 60% vote retention. About 20% of their voters are going KF, and interestingly about 10% are going SD (which is 3 times as many as there are going for Venstre, where a plurality of their gains came from in 2019).
KRP - No longer a registered party so no vote retention. A plurality of 20% are going KF, with SD and LA either side of 15%. The last couple of polls have seen KF and SD surging while LA are in single digits (small samples of course).

In absolute terms the 6 largest vote transfers are Venstre to KF (6%), Venstre to NB (1.9%), DF to NB (1.8%), Venstre to SD (1.4%), RV to SD (1.2%), and SF to SD (1.2%).

[JimJamUK]

Not that controversial. But it will also require the potential new members to comply with the party line. None of those are mostly known on immigration policy, so in that relation it would be more about the symbol of them being ex-DPP, which I think only a tiny minority of their parliamentary group and base would really complain about. It might be more controversial with say Bøgsted's strong Euroscepticism, which he will have to renege on a lot. I'm not sure if someone like him wants to do that. There is, at the most, 16 months left of the parliamentary term, and we are now at the point, where the election could really come any day. And Bøgsted has said he won't run anymore, so for him it would just be to spite DPP. Some of the others might want to continue in politics, but it will be harder to get a good district and they will have less time to prove their credentials to their new party's voters.

How strict would you say the party line is in the Folketing, particularly for defectors? Off the top of my head Venstre split over the Stojberg impeachment and in the last Parliament a Social Democrat voted against some immigration policies yet remained in the party so there seems some room for manoeuvre. On the face of it the Danish electoral system (personal votes by constituency) would reward parties for putting up candidates who don’t completely follow the party line and allow candidates to be elected who represent only a minority of a party’s voters. If the Social Democrats are serious about winning over DF voters then having a few candidates who are a bit more anti-immigration doesn’t seem too much of an ask (assuming they vote with the government on the vast majority of other issues/when they agree with the direction on immigration).

[JimJamUK]

Are the social democrats to the right of Venstre on immigration?

They’re about the same (though I’m not sure the Social Democrats would accept the characterisation of their immigration policy as ‘right wing’). Venstre are more supportive of economic migration (the government’s new immigration proposal is being attacked by most of the right for not lowering the thresholds enough) while the Social Democrats are de facto a bit more supportive of refugees as their support parties made some demands eg; accepting UN quota refugees. There’s also uncertainty about how anti-refugee/failed asylum seeker Venstre would be if they got the chance to form a right wing government (they obviously wouldn’t have collaborated with NB with Lokke as leader, but the parties seem closer these days).

[JimJamUK]

The government, Liberals, SPP, Social Liberals, Red-Green Alliance, Liberal Alliance and Christian Democrats has made a deal to help Ukrainian refugees coming to Denmark. The deal exempts those fleeing from Ukraine from the standard procedures of applying for asylum, and instead creates an express track where they will get almost immediately a temporary residence permit, so they are able to work, study and get health care. Those Ukrainians already in Denmark on work permits will also be able to apply for this permit.
DPP and New Right are against the deal because it includes everyone with a legal stay in Ukraine, i.e. including refugees/migrants from the Middle East and North Africa. The Conservatives had the same opposition, so weren't a part of the deal when presented. However, the party's spokesperson in these negotiations, hard core immigration-sceptic Marcus Knuth, might have gone too far. The party has been barraged with attacks from the media and the other mainstream parties. Local councillors have spoken against it as well, and it seems obvious that several MPs were very uneasy with it. So now it sounds like, the Conservatives will end up backing the deal as well.

Just to clarify, they are opposed to the deal because non-western migrants legally living in Ukraine are allowed to seek asylum in Denmark? I can’t imagine this would apply to many people in practice so it seems an odd hill to die on given the sympathy for Ukrainian refugees atm.

[JimJamUK]

Diouf, what it the current state of relations between the Social Democrats and trade unions (money, campaigning, government policy etc)?

[JimJamUK]

I can see four other names in the government who could be big enough for that role. It could be Minister of Health, Magnus Heunicke; Minister of Climate and Energy, Dan Jørgensen; Minister of Immigration Mattias Tesfaye or Minister of Education, Pernille Rosenkrantz-Theil. At least the first three of them have quite significant policy projects ongoing at the moment, so that could talk a bit against them getting moved, particularly if Frederiksen wants an election fairly soon in the fall. But those seem like the other big name candidates if it isn't Hummelgaard.

How much of a promotion would Justice be compared to their current roles? All 4 seems fairly high profile, important and areas the incumbents care about, so would they be interested in Justice?

[JimJamUK]

Mette Frederiksen: "I'm open to a government across the centre"

On the day where the Moderates have their founding party congress, PM Mette Frederiksen comes with an interesting announcement which echoes many of the thoughts Lars Løkke has made in recent years. Frederiksen says that while her preference would be to continue with her current one-party government, she is open for discussions about a broad government across the political centre after the next election. In explaining why her line of thought is different on this than four years ago, the PM points to the crises with Covid + Ukraine. She is cheerful about the national compromise on defence, and says the population seems to be happy about those broad agreements, which was seen in the clear yes vote in the referendum.
The PM does not want to exclude any parties from such a cooperation or define the outlines of a political program too narrowly, but states that such a govenment will need very high green ambitions, a responsible economic policy, controlled immigration + commitment to the welfare system.
When asked specifically about whether a government with the Moderates would fulfill the criteria of a broad government across the centre, she says that it should probably be broader than that.

The reaction from the Blue Bloc parties are quite negative so far. Both the Conservatives + Liberals have said that there are too big political differences between them and the Social Democrats. Also both say that Frederiksen might know that the independent Mink Commission, which will publish its reports in late June, will criticize her heavily, and that's why she's trying to court the other parties now.
The Red-Green Alliance is obviously also very negative as they fear they could be left out of power. Mai Villadsen said the announcement sent shivers down her spine. She calls it the Social Democrats letting their mask slip, and brings back horrible memories of the Thorning - Corydon government which should scare ordinary citizens. Villadsen states that a vote for the Social Democrats would be a vote for the right wing's welfare cuts, tax cuts for the wealthy, inequality and too hesistant climate action.

Sofie Carsten Nielsen from the Social Liberals is ecstatic. She again argues that better solutions can be created across the political centre, and is happy that Frederiksen now shares that view.

Is there a clear sense of whether this is a genuine change of heart or trying to appear reasonable/get ahead of the likely election result?

On the one hand, the crisis mentioned have led to more cooperation and perhaps some good political manoeuvring can get blue parties to back her agenda. Radikale also look likely to have the seats for a majority so their support is necessary and may require blue block participation. On the other hand, the Social Democrats have still been arguing with the blue block about economic policy (covid related measures, tax cuts, Arne pension etc), so it’s hard to see how they could find a compromise that keeps both sides happy (and it’s hard to talk about a cross-block coalition while slagging each other off). It’s also hard to imagine the Social Democrats wanting to let Radikale in government again given the latter’s ability to control the agenda. Is there a decent chance Frederiksen just wants to make herself look reasonable/centrist but when negotiations arrive she is unable to agree to ‘unreasonable’ blue block demands and is ‘forced’ to maintain her current governing basis?

[JimJamUK]

Social Liberal leader Sofie Carsten Nielsen tonight said that the party can't support a government which deports asylum seekers to a third country, likely Rwanda, which is what the government has worked for throughout this term, and where it sounds like it might soon be able to conclude a deal like the British one. She actually says that she is not principially against third country processing centres, but that it should be a part of a common EU model, that it should be in a place where human rights are followed, that the relevant country should receive massive economic support and that those found eligible for asylum should be transported back to Europe to live (unlike the government's plan where the asylum will be granted in Rwanda).

I can't believe the government would be willing to drop the idea. Hopefully a deal can already be concluded before the election, and then we will see whether Carsten Nielsen follow through on her threat. The Blue Bloc parties, minus Moderates + Christian Democrats, should support it, so the deal will likely receive a handy majority.

There does seem to be wiggle room in her announcement and perhaps she knows it given she said she could back the broad idea in principle. The EU bit obviously cannot be changed, but the other 3 seem like areas where there could be compromise (Rwanda publicly agrees to uphold the asylum seekers rights, Denmark gives a bit more money than planned, a small % receive asylum in Denmark etc). Nonetheless, this does seem jarring given she previously accepted that Radikale cannot significantly alter any future government immigration policy. She said this to make Radikale government participation easier, but some voters will have been upset and presumably shes trying to keep them onboard.

[JimJamUK]

Interesting thread on euroscepticism in Denmark. Support for leaving the EU was as recently as a few years ago fairly represented from the left to the centre to the right, with the hard left having the biggest support (though very much a minority). Now, support for leaving the EU has completely collapsed among the hard left and has instead surged among the hard right to 1/3 support for leaving.

This is underlined by the Megafon poll on how people voted in the recent referendum found the following (Yes figure):

RV - 95%
SF - 82%
V - 79%
SD - 76%
Alt - 70%
KF - 69%
KD - 68%
LA - 67%
EL - 38%
DF - 23%
NB - 13%

The traditional eurosceptic vote among SF has completely gone and a decent minority of EL supporters would probably prefer the formers EU policy these days. The big 3 parties representing centre left-centre right voters are all clearly but not uniformly in favour, while only DF and especially NB voters are overwhelmingly opposed. Also, it’s within the MOE, but a Radikale splinter having one of the most eurosceptic electorates won’t stop being funny.


https://twitter.com/theisemol/status/1536264533240692738?s=21&t=yv-jD-1iGZXmVCkHV8yBDQ

[JimJamUK]

It does seem like, between Støjberg and NB, the 'firmly opposed to immigration but still vaguely social' position the DPP used to be able to occupy is being abandoned. Which doesn't have to be a tactical disadvantage - NB does seem to manage to win a slice of working-class voters despite having economic policies as dry as anything - but it could be against Frederiksen.

The position is still sort of occupied but not really. DF still basically occupy it despite moving to the right, but it doesn’t look like they’re going to be a very credible party at the next election. Støjberg isn’t social but she doesn’t seem to be positioning herself as anti-social (Arne pension, attracting DF MPs mainly from the left of the party etc). NB is obviously very right wing ideologically but even they pay lip service to some disadvantaged people (Arne pension, radical welfare reforms that would leave some people better off though others much worse off etc).

Tbf it’s quite hard to occupy that position these days. In the past the Blue Bloc was very focused on immigration and attacking the Red Bloc for being too soft. That’s not the case these days, with a Social Democrat government trying to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. In fact, V, K and LA are now attacking the Red government for not being pro-immigration enough! (The government proposed lowering the minimum earnings for economic migrants, but cannot get the bill through as the aforementioned parties want an even lower minimum and for the changes to be permanent). Instead, they’re much more focused on attacking the government economic agenda. With those dividing lines changed, is there really much point running as and voting for an anti immigration and semi-social right wing party? The old DF vote doesn’t seem to think so, with a large chunk going V and K (centre-right voters who think immigration problems are now being taken seriously), NB (the properly right wing voters who were never really supportive of semi-social, as well as immigration hardliners), and to S (anti-immigration left wingers who are content with the workerite direction of the government). There doesn’t seem much likelihood of reassembling this diverse coalition anytime soon, so it doesn’t seem like any party is going to bother trying, outside of a few parties not trying to actively alienate them.

[JimJamUK]

New poll today from Megafon gives Denmark Democrats 10%+ while Social Democrats for the first time see a substantial decline after the Mink debacle. Also, the "blue" parties has a rare slim majority in that poll, but it would be a nightmarish coalition to control.

Megafon is one of the more blue friendly/Social Democrat unfriendly pollsters, but still perhaps a more ‘expected’ result given a couple of weeks of negative coverage of the government.

[JimJamUK]

The issue with a cross-bloc government is that it would likely be a death wish to any party that facilitated it. A right wing government with the support of Radikale would almost certainly need the support of the Denmark Democrats or a similar party. Either the latter sells out or Radikale backs a government that is worse on immigration and especially the environment than a Social Democratic one from their voters pov. If the Liberals backed a mostly Red government, then they would absolutely be overtaken by the Conservatives at the next election. Polling has shown a lot of voters like the idea of a cross-bloc government, but in reality they will kick off once they discover their favoured party has to work with party x and implement policies xyz.

[JimJamUK]

Epinion did a political compass of Danish voters by party.

Things that stuck out:
SF voters, while obviously left of centre, are basically as close to SD as EL, which wasn’t the case on another compass from a few years ago (they were barely any more moderate than EL back then).
Moderate voters are well into the socially progressive column, which given their Liberal heritage is somewhat surprising (and suggests they are very niche atm).
KF is to the left of the Liberals. Pape might be picking up moderate swing/‘Pape for prime minister’ voters, but their platform is very much to the right which suggests trouble may be ahead.
The corpse of DF is barely the most economically moderate Blue party (and to the right of the Moderates), but the DD look fairly generically Blue as well (where has all the ‘Red DF’ vote gone?).
The NB vote, despite being fairly blue collar, is very economically right wing (if they ever had SD curious voters they’ve decamped to DD or KF).

https://twitter.com/christergaard/status/1564683857068261382?s=21&t=3fOChzzV...