Denmark parliamentary election: 15-09-2011

[ingemann]

Any reason for R/B's growth and the decline of DF and K? Also, kind of surprising SF is level right now. Not so long ago they were doing great.

They topped too early. The problem is that SF have moved somewhat to the right, centralised, compromised and become more responsable, so they have bleed the more radical socialist to Unity Left, the so called Cafe Latte segment to the Social Liberals and many former Social Democrats have returned to the Social Democrats. Of course they still stand to more votes than last election which was their best ever. So you can question a media which see the potential best or second best election ever as bad thing.
The Social Liberal (R/B) have had success because they do as they usual do, behave with absolut arrogance and run hard on getting influence, because the government was desperate they got that influence and the voters have rewarded them for it.
The Conservative have lost a significant amount of vote because their former leader became very very unpopular and Liberal Alliance have stolen much of their economic politics (and made it more extreme).
DF are losing voters because no one give sh**t about foreigners or Muslims right now, and because of Norway they can't behave as their normal charming self, it doesn't help that they have made some compromises which have hurt their voter segment rather badly.

[ingemann]

When I was in Denmark most of the people I talked to thought the right would win, although I was in Copenhagen which is fairly left wing and never went for the right to begin with so many may just have a cynical view that the rest of the country will vote to the right as it has in the past few elections.  I should also note France could swing left next year and possibly Germany the year after although I wouldn't get too excited.  It looked for quite a while like the Netherlands and Sweden would swing left, but they did not, so we shall see.  I wonder if the right will do better than the polls suggest due to the fact the demographics that generally vote for them tend to have a better turnout.  I know our politics are quite different, but that is what happened last federal election here in Canada where all the polls suggested a Conservative minority, yet they won a majority.

The Left will likely win, but it's no sure thing. Everybody are tired of the government, people are tired of discussing Muslims and we can't harden our immigration policies any more without risking breaking international conventions, which the Liberals, Conservatives and Liberal Aliiance aren't willing to do. So the election is about economy, and while it has traditional been the rights strong points, they have had the power in 10 years, so the economy lies squarely at their feet.

[ingemann]

Which party over there is the nazis? The Vent party?

?  You mean Venestre?

Venestre stands for "Left" or "Liberal", which is the very moderately conservative party that's aligned with ELDR in the EU.  K/Conservative is the mainstream conservative party.  I approve of both.

DF/Danish People's Party are the crazy right-wing populist nutcases.

This is not to be a asshole, but it's "Venstre", it means left and come from 19th century when the parliament was spit between the conservative Høire (right) and the liberal Venstre (left) with the Social Democrats as a third extreme left party.

In DF case replace crazy with "far" and remove nutcases and you have them. DF are sane, diciplined and well organised, they exist in a whole other category than most far right parties in  Europe, which make them on the whole a much more dangerous opponent than most such parties. Of course it should be said that the reason that a DF MP wouldn't fit into the Republican Party, would be because he would be too pro-gay, pro-abortion and to economical centrist to fit in, some of the things Republican presidental candidate have said about Muslims, would result in people being thrown out of DF if they said the same. 

[ingemann]

Anyone who'd even, for the slightest part of the smallest moment, think about breaking international laws in order to eliminate immigration is a crazy far right nut in my books.

Sorry but that's crap, there have been no such thing, they have suggested that Denmark pull out of some international treaties, which people can agree or disagree with, but are fully legal by any standard of international law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That surprise me, because they have supported DF/DPP anti-Immigration politic through ten years so that DPP would support their policies (centralisation, New Public Mannagement, privatisation and in general favouring big business).

[ingemann]

You guys wouldn't happen to have a link to a party test preferably in English, or even Swedish? I'm sort of curious to which party I'd be considered closest to. I'm guessing either Venstre, Radikale Venstre, or Liberal Alliance. I can read written Danish rather decently, but when it comes to politics there's always there will always be strange an hard words that non-speakers will have a hard time understanding.

You wouldn't vote with a party that allies with the far-right ?

As opposed to parties that ally with the far-left?

You might have a point if that was anywhere remotely close to the truth.

Depends on one's perspective; I consider the Red-Green alliance parties to be far left, and the Danish People's Party has far less problematic origins than, say, the Socialist People's Party.

You mean the split from the Social Democrats after they didn't overthrow the king after his failed coup in 1920, the support of Trotsky over Stalin, the fact that it founder was thrown in Sachsenhausen under the War, their history of being one of the main group of Freedom Fighters under the War or their split from USSR after the Soviet intervention in Hungary? As far as parties go they have a lot less ugly history than the Conservative, who are successor to Høire, who more or less establised a dictatorship from 1866 to 1901. The primary reason DPP have a less distinct history than SPP, is more or less because all far right parties closed after 1945, so they had to reestablish themselves, when enough people who didn't remember the war became adult and could vote.

[ingemann]

What part of Denmark is the bellwether area?  I know Copenhagen favours the left, while the areas near the German border favour the right.  What part is the bellwether part.

The Danish electoral system are a mix of PR and multi-member constituencies. As such there are no Bellwether areas, simply put people vote after regional, class, income and ethnic origin. As such it's quite hard to find a average area, the maps above show the regions, which are lousy to show parliament elections. The SocDem are always stronger in region and municipality elections, simply because they are the administrative link and people trust SocDem more there, while in parliamental elections, which is about economy and laws where people trust the right more. In fact in along the southern border (Region of Southern Denmark) as you described it, the SocDem are usual quite strong at the elections, but the local Region Mayor won through great personal popularity and he belongs to the more social liberal part of Venstre.  

[ingemann]

This is true for a lot of countries. The huge electoral break of the European Far Right in the last few decades is at least partially due to voters who always were there returning to their natural habitat, which they had left when that habitat became too toxic after '45. (I'd say)

Yes it isn't unusual, but DPP are in many way unusual, because it splited from the Progress Party, which look a lot like the modern European far right except that it was created 40 year earlier than most such parties. It also what give DPP it unusual staying power, because its politicians have been in politics for decades, so they have both experience and a developed networks. In fact for all that DPP are reactionary, traditional and dislike modern media (like facebook). They are in fact the most modern party, they run it more like a streamlined corporation with a top-down structure, rather than the more bottom-up NGO-like structure of the other parties. Whether it's going to be viable in the long term, I don't know, but in the short term the results have been incredible. But when Pia Kjærsgaard retire we may see problems with the structure, simply because there lack ways to get rid of poor leaders.

[ingemann]

Hi guys
Lots of great questions from you, and some utterly stupid discussion about SF - I'll probably answer that at some point....

The Jyllandsposten test is ok - I'll try to answer any questions that might be (and if I suddenly find some time - to translate it)

I tried the English translation. It made the first question into "The Wage must be abolished" I found that amusing. Then I looked up the Danish term to see what it was about.

I'm have taken that test, and I'm going to guess it's the Efterløn (dir. translated After-wage) which are the problem. It's a special early retirement policy, which let people leave the work force a little earlier (5 year earlier*) at a significant lower rate than the usual pension (but only until they reach the standard retirement age). It was original a way to get rid of youth unemployment by letting people retire earlier, but it has evolved into a policy popular among people in physical hard and low or  unskilled job, who rather than working until they collapse or need to go on førtidspension (early retirement for people with chronic diseases) go on efterløn. It's deeply unpopular among the academics and white collars who feel the deep injustice of paying to something which primary benefit others than themselves.

*it adapts to the rising retirement age

[ingemann]

By the way, Ingemann, welcome to the forum!!!

Thanks

[ingemann]

You guys wouldn't happen to have a link to a party test preferably in English, or even Swedish? I'm sort of curious to which party I'd be considered closest to. I'm guessing either Venstre, Radikale Venstre, or Liberal Alliance. I can read written Danish rather decently, but when it comes to politics there's always there will always be strange an hard words that non-speakers will have a hard time understanding.

You wouldn't vote with a party that allies with the far-right ?

As opposed to parties that ally with the far-left?

You might have a point if that was anywhere remotely close to the truth.

Depends on one's perspective; I consider the Red-Green alliance parties to be far left, and the Danish People's Party has far less problematic origins than, say, the Socialist People's Party.

You mean the split from the Social Democrats after they didn't overthrow the king after his failed coup in 1920, the support of Trotsky over Stalin, the fact that it founder was thrown in Sachsenhausen under the War, their history of being one of the main group of Freedom Fighters under the War or their split from USSR after the Soviet intervention in Hungary? As far as parties go they have a lot less ugly history than the Conservative, who are successor to Høire, who more or less establised a dictatorship from 1866 to 1901. The primary reason DPP have a less distinct history than SPP, is more or less because all far right parties closed after 1945, so they had to reestablish themselves, when enough people who didn't remember the war became adult and could vote.

That information is quite different from that which is contained on their Wikipedia page (and for the record, supporting Trotsky over Stalin merely makes a group less extreme, not commendable); are you referring to the actions of the Communist Party of Denmark? :

I was referring to their origins in the Communist movement, which is a political ideology much farther to the left than anti-immigrant populism is to the right.  For that matter, I don't consider the Danish People's Party to be as far-right as 'Eurocommunism' is far-left.    

That's nice, but wikipedia aren't the answer to everything. To condemn SPP for it communist past are meaningless for people who don't know the context of its origin. The Social Democrats originated in a time, where a conservative royal supported semi-dictatorial ruled the country, it began moderate after this regime collapse in 1901, but after the king tried to coup the social liberal government, and the following social democratic "revolt" ended up compromising with the king (by letting the monarchy survive), the communists felt that the social democrats had betrayed their people and split from the social democrats. Most of the communist leaders was under the war either in KZ-camps, undeground (and member of the partisan movement) or fleed the country. Unsurprising this made them more loyal to USSR and Stalin after the War (while before the war they had been more hostile to Stalin), but it didn't keep them from split from USSR after the Soviet intervention in Hungary as the first communist party in West Europe, they used the next few decades to push for creation of a independent from USSR Eurosocialism. In my eyes that's a more worthy history than most parties around the world.

...and that's why using Wikipedia to pass judgement of random parties around based on a wikipedia article are not a good idea.

[ingemann]

a policy popular among people in physical hard and low or  unskilled job, who rather than working until they collapse or need to go on førtidspension (early retirement for people with chronic diseases) go on efterløn. It's deeply unpopular among the academics and blue collars who feel the deep injustice of paying to something which primary benefit others than themselves.

Either you meant "white collars" here or...

Yes thanks

[ingemann]

Anyone kind enough to give any brief outlines of the issues, the parties, how the leaders are perceived, etc? Thanks for any help.

Venstre/Liberal:Just want to stay in power, ideological push some buzz words about individual choice and freedom, but after ten years of expanding the bureaucracy no one really believe them. Mostly push that they aren't the SocDems. Their leader PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen are seen as a tired little man, who fumble from issue to issue. Most believe them to be more responsable on fiscal issues

Social Democrats: People mostly see them as the guarantee for the survival of the welfare state, use most of their time warning that it's going hurt when they get power and say that everybody are going to hurt everybody equally and they promise nothing. Ironic this seem popular among the population, mostly because they are tired of Venstre, but also because it's seen as a short term il tasting medicine. Helle Thorning-Schmidt is not very popular neither internal in the party or among the wider population, but most think that she will be a good PM. She will likely win.
While left, the SocDems lack the bleeding hearts of the rest of the left, and are willing to do what's necessary to win, rule or make Denmark prosper. This are a mayor reason to why they can get away with promise doom to everybody, because people know that the SocDem want what's best for the entire population, even if it hurt on the road to that goal

DPP: Nationalist, anti-immigration, anti-EU, want to turn the clock back to the early sixties, through they are pro-choice and gay rights. Beside their voter segment most people are tired of them, including the rest of the right, so they have started a internal war on the right with the conservative. They will likely win the battle but lose influence, by making the centre-right voters move to the left. Pia Kjærsgaard is the most hated, feared and respected politician in Danish politic, but most voters want her to lose influence.

SPP: Have more less evolved into the left-wing of the SocDems, doesn't love EU like most parties but accept it. Villy Søvndal have a incredible personal popularity, but he has become unable to translate that into votes anymore.

Social Liberals: Bleeding hearts liberals, imagine a American liberal, with more fiscal conservative policies, but all the arrongance of the American "centrists".
They want to lower the taxes on work, raise it on property, open the borders for immigration, more European federalism and cooperation between the right and left (keep DPP away from power). Their biggest weakness are their arrogance, which ensure that many who agree with them won't vote for them, another weakness are that their voters tend to be a lot more fiscal left than they are. Margrethe Vestage hard to say, the media and the "creative class" love her, but outside that segment people tgend to find her off putting.

Conservatives: Want to cooperate over the middle to get rid of DPP's influence, through after ten years of cooperation few believes them, beside that lower taxes. Lars Barfod: who?

Liberal Alliance:; Lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes and lower taxes. The party is more or less bought and paid by Saxo Bank, a bank well known for it asocial and borderline criminal behaviour. Anders Samuelsen want to create a new centrist party, the problem are that the moment Saxo Bank cut the fiscal support the party is unlikely to survive. As a person Anders are popular among his voters and seen as a fanatic by everybody else.

Unity List: take a standard college socialist's opinions and make a party out of that and you have unity list. Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen she's something of a light weight, but she's also the world's nicest girl, that's maybe her biggest strength, everybody like her, including her opponents, so not only they don't want to attack, they would likely get a backlash from their voters if they did. So even Pia Kjærsgaard, who take a deep personal pleasure in ripping the limbs of other politicians treat her nice.

Christian Democrats: anti-abortion, anti-gay adoption but beside that a typical centre left party, except that they hate the centre-left. Per Ørum Jørgensen a complete non-entity.

[ingemann]

What differentiates Venstre from the Conservatives? Is it simply history or are there policy/appeal differences between them?

Primary history and voter segment. The Conservatives tend to be slightly more nationalist, pro-environment and pro-big state, beside the Conservative are much more urban, while Venstre tend to be rural. But any policy one adopt the other can adopt too.

It's important to remember that in Danish politics the four old parties (SocDem, SocLib, Venstre and the Conservative) tend to have much more class, region and income-based voter segments, who are quite loyal, while the new parties are much more random in voter segments and their voters are much more illoyal.

[ingemann]

Which shows up in maps of party, support of course.

Yews but you can't see it on regional maps, you need to look at municipality to municipality, and with the last reform many of the rural municipalities has become integrated with former urban municipalities, which are why the SocDem are so dominating on in municipality elections*. The Conservatives are especially strong in Northeast Zealand centred on Gentofte (the richest municipality in Denmark), beside that their primary strongholds are Frederiksberg and Odense. Through they are losing influence in the latter, thanks to the more neoliberal attitude they have taken over the last decade.

*They are strong in urban area, and moderate sized in rural areas, so they benefitted the most of these reforms (which was meant to weaken them)

[ingemann]

*They are strong in urban area, and moderate sized in rural areas, so they benefitted the most of these reforms (which was meant to weaken them)

Gerrymandering backfire ? That's quite interesting, how exactly did it happen ?

DPP fail to delive on local level, while a lot of people was pissed that their municipalities was forced together by the government.

Another element is that the Danish municipalities are a lot more powerful than in other countries,  they are also the major part of the executive branch, beside hostitals and the police, they are the most likely contact people have with the state, and while people tend to trust the right more on fiscal matters, on administrative matters SocDems are much more trusted. DPP model also translate quite well to national politic, administrative people don't trust them, and their top-down model have resulted in weak local organistions.

[ingemann]

Anyone kind enough to give any brief outlines of the issues, the parties, how the leaders are perceived, etc? Thanks for any help.

Venstre/Liberal:Just want to stay in power, ideological push some buzz words about individual choice and freedom, but after ten years of expanding the bureaucracy no one really believe them. Mostly push that they aren't the SocDems. Their leader PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen are seen as a tired little man, who fumble from issue to issue. Most believe them to be more responsable on fiscal issues

Social Democrats: People mostly see them as the guarantee for the survival of the welfare state, use most of their time warning that it's going hurt when they get power and say that everybody are going to hurt everybody equally and they promise nothing. Ironic this seem popular among the population, mostly because they are tired of Venstre, but also because it's seen as a short term il tasting medicine. Helle Thorning-Schmidt is not very popular neither internal in the party or among the wider population, but most think that she will be a good PM. She will likely win.
While left, the SocDems lack the bleeding hearts of the rest of the left, and are willing to do what's necessary to win, rule or make Denmark prosper. This are a mayor reason to why they can get away with promise doom to everybody, because people know that the SocDem want what's best for the entire population, even if it hurt on the road to that goal

DPP: Nationalist, anti-immigration, anti-EU, want to turn the clock back to the early sixties, through they are pro-choice and gay rights. Beside their voter segment most people are tired of them, including the rest of the right, so they have started a internal war on the right with the conservative. They will likely win the battle but lose influence, by making the centre-right voters move to the left. Pia Kjærsgaard is the most hated, feared and respected politician in Danish politic, but most voters want her to lose influence.

SPP: Have more less evolved into the left-wing of the SocDems, doesn't love EU like most parties but accept it. Villy Søvndal have a incredible personal popularity, but he has become unable to translate that into votes anymore.

Social Liberals: Bleeding hearts liberals, imagine a American liberal, with more fiscal conservative policies, but all the arrongance of the American "centrists".
They want to lower the taxes on work, raise it on property, open the borders for immigration, more European federalism and cooperation between the right and left (keep DPP away from power). Their biggest weakness are their arrogance, which ensure that many who agree with them won't vote for them, another weakness are that their voters tend to be a lot more fiscal left than they are. Margrethe Vestage hard to say, the media and the "creative class" love her, but outside that segment people tgend to find her off putting.

Conservatives: Want to cooperate over the middle to get rid of DPP's influence, through after ten years of cooperation few believes them, beside that lower taxes. Lars Barfod: who?

Liberal Alliance:; Lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes and lower taxes. The party is more or less bought and paid by Saxo Bank, a bank well known for it asocial and borderline criminal behaviour. Anders Samuelsen want to create a new centrist party, the problem are that the moment Saxo Bank cut the fiscal support the party is unlikely to survive. As a person Anders are popular among his voters and seen as a fanatic by everybody else.

Unity List: take a standard college socialist's opinions and make a party out of that and you have unity list. Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen she's something of a light weight, but she's also the world's nicest girl, that's maybe her biggest strength, everybody like her, including her opponents, so not only they don't want to attack, they would likely get a backlash from their voters if they did. So even Pia Kjærsgaard, who take a deep personal pleasure in ripping the limbs of other politicians treat her nice.

Christian Democrats: anti-abortion, anti-gay adoption but beside that a typical centre left party, except that they hate the centre-left. Per Ørum Jørgensen a complete non-entity.

Nice post, and welcome to the forum. I don't agree with everything, especially the part about SF for obvious reasons but hey, it's you outline

In my eyes the comparison to the SocDems are a compliment:p, but thanks.

[ingemann]

K used to Communist and D was originally Venstre

The use of letters to symbolise the parties started in Copenhagen municipality in the late 19th century, with the Social Democrats taking "A", Venstre "B" and Conservative "C", but with the split of Venstre into RV (radical left) and Venstre (moderate left), RV was stronger* in Copenhagen so they kept the letter "B". Venstre later adopted "V" when the letter system spread from Copenhagen.

*Venstre was more or less non-existent in Copenhagen until after the war, only being kept alive by rural migrants (in fact native-bore Copenhagen Venstre-voters are more or less a post-1990 phenomen and still relative rare)

[ingemann]

What's with KD's stronghold area?

The left are weak in the area, it's the stronghold of Inner Mission (Christian Fundamentalists). As such the strength of KD is to be expected. Whats more surprising are the strength of DPP in west Zealand (but it's because it's Pia Kjærsgaard's election district) and their weakness in North Jutland (which were a stronghold for the Progress Party)

[ingemann]

The left has gone from a 95-80 lead to a 90-85 lead, while it's not impossible it's going to be closer than that, I lean that we will ast least get 90-85 split, if not we will see the right win, simply because if it become closer the left will panic. The last week are going to be interesting, if nothing else gbecause of the leak* of Helle Thorning-Schmidts tax case. While the great irony is that it shows she's innocent, the media has spun it like she's guilty. Much depend on how the voters react to this.

*The leak seem like it likely come from the government itself, which means that there are a chance that even if they win, they may end up collapsing later, if the police find out who did it.

[ingemann]

If the Christian Democrats for example would get past the 2% (I think) threshold, have they said which coalition they would prefer to be in ? Do they even want to be in one or do the coalitions want them to be part of it ?

I guess from their platform, they would enter the current government coalition, right ?

They will support Lars Løkke Rasmussen

[ingemann]

Is it definite that the coalitions cling together in this election?
And that not for example, the Radikale Venstre goes with the center-right?

'
No, not in historical context, but honestly unless VRKI can get over 90 mandates, it isn't realistic today. Of course VOCI can offer R's leader to become PM if the negotiation with AFØ fails. Which is R's strongest card. But honestly O(DPP) voters hate R more than anybody else, so it's something of a empty threat.

[ingemann]

I've heard a lot of talk about a possible AFO coalition if ABFØ doesn't manage to get along, but I'm not taking that seriously.

I have a hard time seeing the current coalitions breaking up.

Uh, the Danes with their weird party letters... but I looked it up.

So there is talking about a coalition of Social Democrats, Socialists and the Danish People's Party? I hope your right and it isn't serious.

I'm not exactly a friend of Querfront ideas.

It's not going to happen. Honestly even the offer is mostly a big sarcastic "fyck you" from AF to DPP and its rhetoric about social justice.

---post edited to get the meaning through our silly filter---

[ingemann]

But honestly O(DPP) voters hate R more than anybody else, so it's something of a empty threat.

That's what I expected.

Would you agree with the argument that the Radikale Venstre fill the gap for the nonexistent Greens in Denmark? Well educated electorate, focusing on post-materialist issues etc.

No SF mostly take that position, through now that they have begun to embrace more coherent and pragmatic position, Enhedslisten has begun to take over that position. Radikale Venstre are closer to FDP in ideology, through they often share voters with SF and Enhedslisten, through they have gotten a influx of conservative voters in this election.

[ingemann]

If the Christian Democrats for example would get past the 2% (I think) threshold, have they said which coalition they would prefer to be in ? Do they even want to be in one or do the coalitions want them to be part of it ?

I guess from their platform, they would enter the current government coalition, right ?

I don't think they would support the current coalition on the right, mainly because of The Danish Peoples party. In that respect they are quite like the Norwegian Christian Democrats.
The difference is that the Norwegian Christian Democrats are at least somewhat relevant.

They would support Lars Løkke Rasmussen, they have even said so. But even if he got in a government on their votes, they wouldn't necessary support the laws the government pushed through, which would mean that it would need a alternative majority. Just as in case of a ABF government, they will likely cooperate more with the right than with Unity List and UL will accept that and keep supporting the government, because they hate the alternative more.

[ingemann]

Most of what is left uncounted includes Kopenhagen, Odense, Aalborg and Aarhus - which are the biggest cities.

The left have grown there. But F have had significant loses there, most of A's loss are from Copenhagen, while they have grown in Odense and rural areas. While RØ have exploded in size.
C have collapsed, I have grown to around 4%, V have grown a little in Copenhagen, O have lost around 1% but that's universal.
The loss for A in Copenhagen is a result of the support of Copenhagen Toll road, while F loss is a result of Ø and R being the new in parties for young voters and academics, and Muslim voters leaving the party (through that barely count for one percent point loss).