Denmark Parliamentary Election - June 18, 2015

[politicus]

To those - like Antonio - that are sceptical about a right wing populist party starting to be "on the left" in their socioeconomic policies it is a bit tricky to determine whether it is pure tactics, but I think at his point what started as tactical considerations has morphed into a genuine change of how the party view itself and its role.

During the centre-right governments in the 00s there was an impression that when push came to shove DPP would always be willing to sell leftist welfare goals for tigther immigration and/or integration policies - unless said goals dealt with pensioners (a major part of their base).

But the party has grown a lot and the leadership has its eyes set on becoming one of the three big parties in Denmark - perhaps even the biggest one day - and occupying the centre ground in Danish politics. They have absorbed a lot of traditional SDs in the process - both in their membership and among voters and are at the point where they needs to stay credible National SDs to remain a big People's Party. They have moderated a lot in their rhetoric (now DPP are accusing the Conservatives of being a bit shrill ) to attract centre-left and centrist voters. I don't see them giving up their gains for a few jabs at Muslims. They are too ambitious for that.

Their leader Kristian Thulesen Dahl is a former chairman of the Progress Party Youth, but he hails from a Social Liberal family (back when it was a somewhat leftist smallholders party) and some would say he has drifted back to his roots on socioeconomic issues. He is far from a hardcore neoliberal.

Where they go long term is unclear. Their biggest political talent by far, MEP Morten Messerschmidt is a genuine National Conservative and they attract a small segment of young National Conservatives, but Thule Dahl is young enough to hang on for two decades more and in the end the leadership may pass to a centre-left oriented person. It would in many ways be a logical development.

(left and right in the above only refer to socio-economic issues)

[ingemann]

The Soc Libs have been in coalition with the blue block before right? What's stopping them crossing the floor to prop up a right-wing government?

The answer is DF/DPP. The Soc Libs and DP are polar opposites on so many areas, EU, immigration, taxation, education, that it would be inconceivable with a government depending on/consisting of both of them. Their voters are as different as they can get in Denmark; DP's standard voter is the old working class/unemployed/pensioner man outside the big cities while the Soc Lib is the young woman with a higher education degree living in one of the big cities. They both hate each other with a vengeance; probably the two parties which despise each other the most.
No polls have shown anything resembling a centre-right majority, i.e. Liberals, Conservatives, Liberal Alliance and Soc Libs. The latest polling average gave them only 70 seats combined.

There's also the aspect that no one in the other parties likes the Soc Libs MPs, they're really a bunch of horrible people to work with. So if there exist a stable alternate majority, you're not going to see them as part of a majority.

[ingemann]

Where they go long term is unclear. Their biggest political talent by far, MEP Morten Messerschmidt is a genuine National Conservative and they attract a small segment of young National Conservatives, but Thule Dahl is young enough to hang on for two decades more and in the end the leadership may pass to a centre-left oriented person. It would in many ways be a logical development.

I don't think that Messerschmidt will ever become leader of DPP. He function because he's a big fish in a small pond (the Danish EP group). In a party leader discussion in Denmark, he would be crushed because he could not get away with making things up and bluffing, which work in the EP elections, where his opponents sadly are too ignorant about EU to call him out. In my opinion he's most overrated politicians in Denmark, since Naser Khader founded New Alliance.

[politicus]

Looking at the last nine polls from late March onwards Red Bloc is above 48% in six of them and only at around 46% in the one from the least credible pollster, YouGov. There are three polls around 47 (46,9-47,4) from April 12-14.

I think the SD top will disregard the YouGov poll, so the question is if they will risk the possibility of maybe being around 47%, or want another string (maybe 4-5 polls) consistently above 48% before they call the election. Given that HTS couldn't call the election before the Queens birthday on April 16 I don't think you can base anything on them not calling it on the earlier five 48%+ string from late March to April 9 + according to political journos they were also waiting for the Gallup poll on April 9 given that Gallup is considered the leading pollster.

EDIT: The 46,9 poll is from a pollster with a (small, but consistent) right wing bias. If you only look at the seven polls from quality pollsters it looks promising for Red Bloc.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Could, as the DPP and SD both moderate and move closer to Venstre, we ever see a grand alliance between the three? Does Denmark have any experiences with that either nationally or locally?

[ingemann]

Could, as the DPP and SD both moderate and move closer to Venstre, we ever see a grand alliance between the three? Does Denmark have any experiences with that either nationally or locally?

We had a coalition between Venstre and SD in the 70ties, it was a disaster. Locally coalition are muddy, and often based on personality. SD in Hvidovre sit on DPP votes, on Lolland they use Venstre's votes. But in Lyngby-Taarbæk the Conservative and SD are usual in coalition together with a Conservative mayor. Local politics are vastly different from the national one in Denmark.

[Diouf]

Could, as the DPP and SD both moderate and move closer to Venstre, we ever see a grand alliance between the three? Does Denmark have any experiences with that either nationally or locally?

We had a coalition between Venstre and SD in the 70ties, it was a disaster. Locally coalition are muddy, and often based on personality. SD in Hvidovre sit on DPP votes, on Lolland they use Venstre's votes. But in Lyngby-Taarbæk the Conservative and SD are usual in coalition together with a Conservative mayor. Local politics are vastly different from the national one in Denmark.

English summary of academic paper on the SD-Venstre government:

The Social Democratic-Liberal Government’s  Background, Formation and Short Life

In the summer of 1978 the Danish Social Democratic party and the Liberal Party formed a coalition government. Its main purpose, it claimed, was to restore Denmark’s economy, which had deteriorated steadily since the first oil crisis. The government was an ’historic’ experiment, because the two parties had a long record of opposition to each other. This article deals with the government’s formation, its course and the reasons why it lasted little more than one
year.
In August 1978, when the two parties decided to form a coalition government, both parties had an interest in restoring the economic situation, though other motives concerning the parliamentarian situation, the parties’ interests, and personal motives also played a role. The most important agreement between the two parties was a declaration of intent concerning incomes policy. The aim was a tight incomes policy in the years to come. The government
planned tripartite negotiations between trade unions, employers and government.
The trade unions strongly resented the coalition. Prime Minister Anker Jørgensen, leader of the Social Democratic party, was heavily influenced by the confrontations between the party and the trade unions. Instead of fighting for the coalition, Anker Jørgensen sought to satisfy the trade unions. The government did not succeed with the tripartite negotiations. In the end the government had to make another statutory incomes policy solution. It was a solution that did not fulfil the declaration of intent concerning incomes policy, but it was a solution that pleased the trade unions.
In September 1979 the government broke down, only partly because of internal disagreement about policies to fight the economic crisis, but mainly due  to the Social Democrats’ unclear position. The party’s weak leader had limited priorities concerning the economy and too many internal problems.

http://www.historisktidsskrift.dk/pdf_histtid/104_1/122.pdf

[politicus]

The Soc Libs have been in coalition with the blue block before right? What's stopping them crossing the floor to prop up a right-wing government?

The answer is DF/DPP. The Soc Libs and DP are polar opposites on so many areas, EU, immigration, taxation, education, that it would be inconceivable with a government depending on/consisting of both of them. Their voters are as different as they can get in Denmark; DP's standard voter is the old working class/unemployed/pensioner man outside the big cities while the Soc Lib is the young woman with a higher education degree living in one of the big cities. They both hate each other with a vengeance; probably the two parties which despise each other the most.
No polls have shown anything resembling a centre-right majority, i.e. Liberals, Conservatives, Liberal Alliance and Soc Libs. The latest polling average gave them only 70 seats combined.

There's also the aspect that no one in the other parties likes the Soc Libs MPs, they're really a bunch of horrible people to work with. So if there exist a stable alternate majority, you're not going to see them as part of a majority.

If there ever was a party that embodies the term Very Serious People it would be Radikale Venstre.

[politicus]

Could, as the DPP and SD both moderate and move closer to Venstre, we ever see a grand alliance between the three? Does Denmark have any experiences with that either nationally or locally?

If SD and DPP got closer (this would take a new SD leadership generation) Venstre would likely try to rein in the Social Liberals as more permanent partners. That is what the circle around Kristian Jensen would like and the Social Liberals have adapted standard policies on defence (they were traditionally anti-militarist and "semi-pacifist") and accepted relatively tough immigration and law & order policies in the current government. At that point LA might also have "matured" enough for them to be useful. Right now the Liberals consider them immature and unfit for government. LA has a lot of support among young people and might be a 10-15% party a decade ahead. If the Conservatives die Social Liberals, Liberals and LA might have a majority at some point. Something like a 8%, 26%, 15% could be a possibility. Liberals vs. Statists would make sense.

The joker is if the Danish left wing stays at 15% combined. The leftist generation(s) who were young in the 60s and 70s will start dying off at some point and that will cause a drop if young people remain as right wing and/or liberal as they are now. If the left wing stays at about 15% SD/DPP would be hard because it would depend on suppport from a relatively strong left wing - and the Red Greens would never go for that.

[politicus]

Denmark has no tradition for Grand Coalitions and I doubt we will ever develop one. In the post-war era the Social Liberals started being able to swing both ways (and the Georgists in the Justice party were in a left wing government), but otherwise Danish governments (in peacetime) have always been based on either the right or the left. And like Ingemann pointed out the only shortlived attempt at a GC was a disaster.

Political historians have often pointed out that SD + Conservatives would have been the across-the-aisle possibility that might have worked (plenty of moderates on both sides and a shared statist view on politics), but it has never been tried and now the Conservatives look either doomed or at least permanently marginalized.

Liberals and SDs are two tribes with very different cultures and a lot of bad blood between them.

Of course a "centre-left" including DPP would not be a genuine left, but more of a pro-welfare state coalition incl. both progressives and culturally conservatives.

[politicus]

To illustrate here is the result of this years test election among older pupils in Danish schools:

http://www.skolevalg.dk/valgresultat/

(the added numbers are not correct.. pretty embarrasing)

Blue bloc 58,8
Red bloc 41,3

Venstre 27.4
Social Democrats 17.7
Liberal Alliance 11
Conservatives 10.5
Radikale Venstre 9.9
DPP 9.0
SPP 7.7
Red Greens 6.0
KD 0.9

You got:

The 4 "Liberal" parties (incl. Cons) 58,8

vs.

SD, DPP + left wing: 40.4

(the Conservatives and the left wing are actually doing surprisingly fine here)

School elections used to be massively red only a decade ago.

While this could seem to indicate DPP has no future as a strong party, that may change if they establish themselves as one of the "Big 3" and become (even) more mainstream.

[ingemann]

The Soc Libs have been in coalition with the blue block before right? What's stopping them crossing the floor to prop up a right-wing government?

The answer is DF/DPP. The Soc Libs and DP are polar opposites on so many areas, EU, immigration, taxation, education, that it would be inconceivable with a government depending on/consisting of both of them. Their voters are as different as they can get in Denmark; DP's standard voter is the old working class/unemployed/pensioner man outside the big cities while the Soc Lib is the young woman with a higher education degree living in one of the big cities. They both hate each other with a vengeance; probably the two parties which despise each other the most.
No polls have shown anything resembling a centre-right majority, i.e. Liberals, Conservatives, Liberal Alliance and Soc Libs. The latest polling average gave them only 70 seats combined.

There's also the aspect that no one in the other parties likes the Soc Libs MPs, they're really a bunch of horrible people to work with. So if there exist a stable alternate majority, you're not going to see them as part of a majority.

If there ever was a party that embodies the term Very Serious People it would be Radikale Venstre.

That's.... that's a wonderful description of them. Through I would include to lesser extent LA in that. They're quite similar to RV in selfrightousness and smugness, through they're less bad.

[ingemann]

To illustrate here is the result of this years test election among older pupils in Danish schools:

http://www.skolevalg.dk/valgresultat/

Blue bloc 57,9
Red bloc 42,1

Venstre 27.4
Social Democrats 17.7
Liberal Alliance 11
Conservatives 10.5
Radikale Venstre 9.9
DPP 9.0
SPP 7.7
Red Greens 6
KD 0.9

You got:

The 4 "Liberal" parties (incl. Cons) 58,8

SD, DPP + left wing: 41.2

(the Conservatives and the left wing are actually doing surprisingly fine here)

School elections used to be massively red only a decade ago.

While this could seem to indicate DPP has no future as a strong party, that may change if they establish themselves as one of the "big 3" and become (even) more mainstream.

The school elections are always in opposition to the sitting government and their block, I don't expect any long term effect of this. Unless of course we see several similar student elections.

[politicus]

Sorry for locking. The numbers were wrong and it was driving me crazy (probably says a lot about Danish schools...).

The correct ones are:

Blue bloc 58.8
Red bloc 41.3

Total 100.1


The 4 Liberal parties 58.8
KD 0.9
Welfare bloc (SD, DPP + left wing) 40.4

[YL]

Is Radikale Venstre's right-wing shift alienating many of their voters, or were the sort of voters likely to be alienated by it already voting for somebody else (SPP or Alternativet perhaps)?

(I suppose I'm asking because I used to think they were the natural Danish party for me, but they certainly don't sound like they are now.)

[politicus]

Is Radikale Venstre's right-wing shift alienating many of their voters, or were the sort of voters likely to be alienated by it already voting for somebody else (SPP or Alternativet perhaps)?

(I suppose I'm asking because I used to think they were the natural Danish party for me, but they certainly don't sound like they are now.)

Their shift on being less vocal on immigration happened before the 2011 election - it occurred gradually after Margrethe Vestager took over as leader in 2007. They had been labeled a single issue party by the press (immigration/integration) and needed to become relevant again by stressing their credentials as "the responsible party" by focusing on the economy - and SD had moved right so they had no allies on the issue apart from the left wing.

It has been a centre-right party on economics for a long time (from the 60s I would say) - but often with a few unorthodox positions (like prefering high property taxes and low income taxes). They supported the economic policy of the Conservative led centre-right governments in the 80s and early 90s based on considering SD "irresponsible", but during their former leader Marianne Jelved they worked well with SD in the 90s Nyrup-governments and were more willing to compromise on economic policy and welfare - and also a bit more left wing than under Vestager (who is a former bureaucrat in the Ministry of Finance, which influenced her outlook).

There has been some rumblings among parts of their membership about the leadership forgetting social responsibility and Elbæk has attracted some of the idealistic left wing, but most seems to be okay with the party being "liberal" on economics.

They moderated on defence in the 90s. They are very pro-UN, so UN sanctioned military operations got them to become more positive towards the military. They had already accepted Danish NATO-membership in the 60s.

tl;dr: Most of their 2011 voters were okay with the party being right of center on economics. The change has been more on attitude (little willingness to compromise) than on policy and a more pragmatic/unprincipled stance on certain value issues than expected, which may cost them some votes, but most will likely accpet it as realpolitik. Their voters are pragmatic - it is in the party DNA to have a pragmatic approach to politics.

[ingemann]

To the Danish posters; I just heard last Sunday's "Søndagsfrokosten" as a podcast. Jon Stephensen had a interesting analyse on the whole "Stop Nazi Islamisme" campaign.

[politicus]

HTS speaks in Fælledparken in Copenhagen despite the risk of getting shouted/whistled out by anarchists/activist types (and regular drunks). There was one year when she chose Aarhus instead, but anything else than Fælledparken would have seemed cowardly in an election year.

A Wilke poll shows that more voters now view HTS as better at conducting immigration and integration policy than LLR. So maybe the long SD nightmare of losing elections on "foreigner policy" is over.

Helle Thorning-Schmidt 39,6%
Lars Løkke Rasmussen 33,9%
Dunno 26,5%


She leads LLR on 5 of 7 policy areas:

Environment and climate:
51.9/20.1

Welfare:
50.2/25.5

Healthcare:
46.4/27.5

Education:
39.7/32.9

Immigration/integration:
39,6/33,9
-----------------
Judicial policy:
31.1/34.9

Economic policy:
33.9/42.9.

http://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/meningsmaalinger/ECE7642319/Mener-du-at-Helle-Thorning-Schmidt-eller-Lars-L%C3%B8kke-Rasmussen-er-bedst-til.../

So HTS ahead on immigration and almost a tie on law and order..  right wing "value politics" my not work this time for the Libs. Not good news for Venstre. A bit surprising LLR is ahead on the economy actually, it is going quite well, but SD apparently can not win that game.

[politicus]

Also a somewhat interesting personal credibility poll. Kristian Thulesen Dahl from DPP is tied with Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen for first, but he is followed by all the "Red Bloc" leaders - ordered from left to right.

Scale from 0-10

1. Kristian Thulesen Dahl (DPP)/Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen (Red Greens) 5.8
3.P Pia Olsen Dyhr (SPP) 5.3
4. HTS 5.2
5. Morten Østergaard 4.8
--------------------------
6. Søren Pape Poulsen (Cons.) 4.4
7. Anders Samuelsen (LA) 4.2
8. LLR (Liberals) 3.9
9. Uffe Elbæk 3.5

http://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/meningsmaalinger/ECE7642114/S%C3%A5-trov%C3%A6rdige-er-partilederne/

[YL]

tl;dr: Most of their 2011 voters were okay with the party being right of center on economics. The change has been more on attitude (little willingness to compromise) than on policy and a more pragmatic/unprincipled stance on certain value issues than expected, which may cost them some votes, but most will likely accpet it as realpolitik. Their voters are pragmatic - it is in the party DNA to have a pragmatic approach to politics.

OK, I guess I got the wrong end of the stick at some point when I thought they were my natural Danish party.  Who should I support?  (Centre-left on economics, fairly pro-Europe, opposed to pretty much everything people like the DPP and UKIP say...)

[Lurker]

tl;dr: Most of their 2011 voters were okay with the party being right of center on economics. The change has been more on attitude (little willingness to compromise) than on policy and a more pragmatic/unprincipled stance on certain value issues than expected, which may cost them some votes, but most will likely accpet it as realpolitik. Their voters are pragmatic - it is in the party DNA to have a pragmatic approach to politics.

OK, I guess I got the wrong end of the stick at some point when I thought they were my natural Danish party.  Who should I support?  (Centre-left on economics, fairly pro-Europe, opposed to pretty much everything people like the DPP and UKIP say...)

You may have been confused by Radikale Venstre's very misleading name.

Though at least they tend to be a part of the centre-left bloc, unlike, say, their Norwegian sister party, so they can't be that bad from your perspective. The only part of the above description that doesn't fit very well with RV is the centre-left on economic thing.
Perhaps SF would be the party for you (they are much more pro-EU than in the past, IIRC).

[politicus]

tl;dr: Most of their 2011 voters were okay with the party being right of center on economics. The change has been more on attitude (little willingness to compromise) than on policy and a more pragmatic/unprincipled stance on certain value issues than expected, which may cost them some votes, but most will likely accpet it as realpolitik. Their voters are pragmatic - it is in the party DNA to have a pragmatic approach to politics.

OK, I guess I got the wrong end of the stick at some point when I thought they were my natural Danish party.  Who should I support?  (Centre-left on economics, fairly pro-Europe, opposed to pretty much everything people like the DPP and UKIP say...)

You may have been confused by Radikale Venstre's very misleading name.

Though at least they tend to be a part of the centre-left bloc, unlike, say, their Norwegian sister party, so they can't be that bad from your perspective. The only part of the above description that doesn't fit very well with RV is the centre-left on economic thing.
Perhaps SF would be the party for you (they are much more pro-EU than in the past, IIRC).

Yes SF would be the obvious choice. It is sort of a greenie left-SD party, pro-EU and with a more principled line on civil rights, transparency, refugees etc. than SD. They sucked in government (and never should have entered), but from an ideological POV they would probably fit you. They are also (at least in principle) more sceptical of big bureaucracies and top-down solutions. "More (civil) society, less state" is an old SPP slogan. There is a left liberal streak to the party, that sets them apart from the Red Greens and SD.

The wing that wanted to toughen up on the partys immigration and law & order policies (still, not anything  DPP-like) in order to attract workers, have almost all left.

The SPP right wing (so-called Greens) is close to the now rather marginalized RV left wing. Their current leader is from that group (but with working class background and union ties, giving her a different approach to some things).

[politicus]

Pape Poulsen now says openly that he wants to challenge the assumption that the Conservatives is a broad centre/right party and poace it unequivocally to the right of Venstre on all isssues (economic as well as value based). Also states that too many Conservatives are stuck in veneration for the Schlüter-era in the 80s.

This could reopen the traitional Conservative civil war between right winger and "Social Conservatives" (= moderates).

[politicus]

While moving the Cons to the right - and thereby overcoming the old structural problem of the party being at the same time to the left and right of Venstre - may be the right move long term (there are clearly too many centrist parties in Denmark)  it is a really risky move to attempt during an election campaign. where they may very well get in trouble with the threshold if part of their moderate core voters stay home without the party attracting new segments. Bold or desperate? Perhaps a little of both.

[ingemann]

While moving the Cons to the right - and thereby overcoming the old structural problem of the party being at the same time to the left and right of Venstre - may be the right move long term (there are clearly too many centrist parties in Denmark)  it is a really risky move to attempt during an election campaign. where they may very well get in trouble with the threshold if part of their moderate core voters stay home without the party attracting new segments. Bold or desperate? Perhaps a little of both.

Pape and the Conservatives are in panic right now, and they try to something which can same them. Of course these random acts are more likely to make them lose even more voters.

Of course I'm personal of the opinion that Conservative Folketing's group could use a Stalinistic purge, leaving no one alive. Their lazyness and incompetence over the last 20 years is the main reason the Conservatives have the problems they have now, and I think a complete crash and burn may be better for them in the long term, especially as I would expect them to return after a period outside the Folketing (because of their strong local organisation) with a much more competent group.