The Great Nordic Thread

[Diouf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-finland-government-finnsparty-leaders-idUSKBN16K1AK

[Helsinkian]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One prominent member of the National Coalition Party, Jan Vapaavuori, who is running to be the mayor of Helsinki, said that he can't see the NCP in the same government with a Finns Party led by Halla-aho. The NCP ministers haven't gone that far yet, though.

I'd say the chances are 50-50 between Terho and Halla-aho. There have been a couple of polls which favour Terho but they were with very small samples. All party members can vote on the chairman but the twist is that they must come to the party congress personally to cast a vote; there is no postal ballot. The party has around 10,000 members.

[DavidB.]

Rooting for Jussi!

[Diouf]

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

[MaxQue]

Rooting for Jussi!

So, rooting for an homophobic racist?

[Diouf]

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

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

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

[Diouf]

DPP achieves majority for electoral law change after 10 year push

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

[Diouf]

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

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

[Diouf]

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

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

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

Thanks for the interest in the pecularities of the Danish electoral system!

[Diouf]

Danish Government withdraws Property Tax Proposal after negotiations broke down today

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

[Diouf]

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

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

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



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

[Diouf]

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

[Diouf]

Social Democrat group leader wants Australian refugee model

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

[Diouf]

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

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

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

Btw. Sweden today decided to stop the ID-control between Denmark and Sweden. This is the most intensive form of border control, where the IDs of all passengers are controlled at the border, and has doubled the train travel time from Copenhagen to Malmø from 35 to 72 minutes. Now Sweden will just make temporary border controls like between Denmark and Germany, where there are checks sometimes somewhere.

[Diouf]

Government finally reaches agreement on property taxation; Fogh's taxation stop rescinded



After long and hard negotiations with a breakdown at one point, the VLAK-government today reached an agreement with the Social Democrats, the DPP and the Social Liberals on a new property taxation system. The Liberal Alliance and the Conservatives finally gave in on their demands of a flat property tax rate and a land taxation rate freeze, which allowed Finance Minister Kristian Jensen to make a deal with the negotiation partners.
The deal is a break with the so-called "taxation stop", introduced by former Liberal leader and PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen in 2001. The taxation stop meant that the property tax was frozen at its 2001 amount. This was a very easy to sell policy, which created certainty among property owners. It also worked well politically as the Social Democrats were wavering on this policy and all other Red Bloc parties wanted it abolished, creating both tensions in Red Bloc and the possibility to portray the Red Bloc as raising property taxes on ordinary Danes. However, it has been severely opposed by economists, because it increases the chance of property bubbles as values can rise much quicker when taxes don't rise with it. Additionally, this has been the singlest biggest driver of inequality in Denmark as the wealthiest property owners in Northern Zealand, Copenhagen and Eastern Jutland has received huge wealth increases without paying any taxes on it.

The new property taxation system will be phased in and enter fully into force in 2021, when the property tax will again be a percentage of the property value (0,55% below 6 million DKK/0,81 million euro, 1,4% above it) instead of a fixed amount. Additionally a new property valuation system will enter into force, which will be more precise than the previous one, where cheaper, rural properties were overvalued and expensive, city properties undervalued. In the long term, the property taxes will stay at the same combined level as now, but with a fairer distribution between property owners. It will cost a combined 20 billion DKK/2,7 billion euro in the short and medium term. This includes compensations for too high property valuations under the previous system, ensuring that nobody pays a higher tax until 2021 than they would have under the previous system, some temporary rebates for those who gets the biggest tax increases after 2021, and for allowing property owners to postpone tax payments until they sell their house. These 20 billion are not financed by new incomes, so it is taken from the "available money" in the budget over the next 10 years. This is the reason why the left-wing parties SPP, Alternative and the Red-Green Alliance are not in the deal; they call this a 20 billion tax cut for home owners, paid for by the reforms made in recent years against the weakest in society.

[Mr. Smith]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/world/europe/iceland-icelandic-language-linguistics.html

This seemed relevant

[DavidB.]

Thanks for all this, Diouf!

@Helsinkian, perhaps you know this: turnout in parliamentary elections in Finland is structurally somewhere between 65% and 70%, about 15 points lower than in Sweden and Denmark and 10 points lower than in Norway. Do the Finnish media ever comment on this, and if so, what explanations do they have? It's not unique for a country as developed as Finland to have low turnout (Switzerland has much lower turnout), but unusual it is.

[Helsinkian]

In the 1970s the turnout in elections was still around 80%. The lower turnout in recent elections seems to be especially due to the dropping turnout among young generations. There have been polls done on young people indicating that they are particularly sceptical of politicians or are not very interested in politics.

[Diouf]

Social Democrats and DPP target Kristian Jensen - wants full investigation of taxation troubles

The two biggest parties in parliament have decided to support a full investigative commission to look at the many problems in the taxation authorities in the recent decade. Until now, both parties have worked with the government on a plan to re-build the taxation authority and largely refrained from attacks on previous wrongdoings, which have then largely been confined to the Red-Green Alliance and the Alternative. However, the problems have received renewed attention in recent weeks, which have increased the public pressure for doing something to place a responsibility. Also Finance Minister and Liberal Deputy Leader Kristian Jensen was Taxation Minister from 2004 to 2010, so both parties hope that most of the negative attention of the commission will be directed at him. The Social Democrats have probably been hesitant to support this, since they have governed for four years recently without doing anything to fix the problems, but apparently the chance to potentially damage the future Liberal leader was to good to let go.

There have been a number of problems emerging from the taxation authorities. The introduction of a new tax collection computer system has failed horribly, and has meant that the tax authorities have been unable to collect fines and unpaid taxes and fees in a number of areas. Around 25 billion Dkr is expected to have been lost in failed tax receipts, system costs etc. Additionally, there have been a number of other scandals, such as paying 12 billion Dkr to foreign tax fraudsters. Many have blamed the mess on cuts to the staff numbers in tax authorities. These cuts were largely made in the belief that the new tax collection system meant fewer employees were needed, but they were carried out before it was apparent whether the new system would work or not. Also taxation ministers from both sides of the aisle have previously emphasized the cut-down in staff size as an example that it was possible to cut bureaucracy in the public sector without a fall in quality.

It is hard to judge how much Jensen will be damaged by this commission. He is certainly in the firing line due to his long term as Taxation Minister, and the commission will probably show that some warned against cutting the size of the taxation authority as well as flagging problems with the computer system. However, the Social Democrats have largely supported these measures, and carried them on during the Thorning government, so it is only if some of these warnings have been kept from Parliament, that Jensen could really be hit hard. Often these commissions do not end with a smoking gun. The commission to investigate who leaked Stephen Kinnock's taxation information did not find a guilty person. Similarly it looks like the guilty person will not be found in the on-going commission to look at who ordered the police to break the Constitution and shut down a legal Free Tibet demonstration during the visit of the Chinese President in 2012. This case is somewhat different than the two, more political less criminal, but it could be equally hard to find a smoking gun.

[Diouf]

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

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-denmark-border-idUSKCN18C1V1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Diouf]

Biggest voter movements since 2015 election according to Gallup polls for Berlingske:

1% (40.000 voters) of all voters from DPP to New Right
0.8% from Social Democrats to the Alternative
0.7% from Liberal Alliance to Liberals
0,6% from DPP to Social Democrats

The three big parties have all lost between 1,5 and 2% of all voters to the group of voters, who are now in doubt about how to vote. The Liberal Alliance has lost a lot of voters (1%) to the group of doubters compared to the other minor parties, but they avoid a bigger meltdown due to being the party which has gained most new voters of all parties (0.8%). They are still 1.2% down from the 7.5% they received in the 2015 election in this poll, and 3.1% down from the 9.4% they polled in early 2016. So LA's strong position among the young generations joining the electorate keeps them somewhat afloat, but the question is whether the faithless youngsters will stay with the party as more of their youngish protest movement vibe is worn off from being in government.

[Helsinkian]

Sauli Niinistö, the President of Finland, will seek re-election in the presidential election that will be held early next year. Niinistö, who was elected as the National Coalition Party candidate in 2012, will now stand as an independent candidate, albeit he will be supported by the NCP. Finnish presidents have traditionally resigned their party membership when elected, but it seem that Niinistö now wants to further emphasise his independence from his old party. He will need 20,000 signatures but that won't be a problem.

The first round of the presidential election will be held on 28 January 2018, along with elections to the new regional councils.