The Great Nordic Thread

[DavidB.]

Thanks for elaborating on this, politicus and ingemann Very interesting.

Christianity mean a quite different thing in Denmark than in Netherlands. Alone the name difference between the "national" old (in case of Netherlands) churches are telling "Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk" versus "Folkekirken (The People's Church). Netherlands are a place of religious heterogenity, while Denmark is a place of religious homogenity,

Of course, that's what I meant when I talked about the difference between Danish and Dutch history in terms of religion and cleavages. In the Netherlands, religion (more specifically the divide between Protestants and Catholics) only undermined the formation of a national identity. However, it was harder for me to understand the specific way in which Danish Christianity served to reinforce the country's national identity, which I now understand better.

But this mean that even for conservative atheists and agnostics, there's a connection between Danish-ness and Christianity (read the Evangelian Lutheran Church), and there's respect for Lutheran theological knowledge far into the left, with priest historical and even today being well represented in Danish debate and politics, from the Black (as in reactionary) priests in DPP to Margrete Auken in SPP.

That's interesting. How much diversity is there within the Danish Lutheran church in terms of progressivism/conservatism? Are many Danes "culturally Christian" yet not practicing?

[DavidB.]

Very interesting discussion Will Karlsson stay in ECR?

[DavidB.]

I never understood the inherent merit of parties being internally democratic - the "parties should be internally democratic" argument, of course, is oftentimes applied to the PVV (which must be the height of internal "authoritarianism", making DPP look like democratic Switzerland) and (albeit less often) to the SP, so there has been quite some attention for it in the Dutch political arena. If voters care about this, leading to negative electoral consequences, then things will change. If not, then voters are okay with it and the government should stay out of the party's business as well.

[DavidB.]

Scandinavians in general value internal democracy in in private associations, not just parties, but also football clubs, cooperatives, guilds etc.

Sure, so do Dutch, but that doesn't mean it has inherent merit.

[DavidB.]

I personally wouldn't want to be part of a party that wasn't internally democratic. If I cannot effect party policy why bother being a member.

Oh, I understand that very well (even though the DPP would be so close to me personally that I wouldn't mind being a member of it if I were Danish). I don't like the fact that my own party (VNL) isn't so democratic (though definitely a lot more than PVV/SP/DPP) either, but for me it's a bit of a trade-off: I support their policies to such a large extent that I don't really mind them not being so democratic (for instance, there hasn't been a vote on the new party leader), but if they were to change their policies and I wouldn't agree with them so much anymore, the balance could become negative, especially since I can't do much to change things.

But as for parties I'm not a member or supporter of, I support their right to organize as they see fit. Just don't expect me to approve of your organisation. ^^

We agree. Voters have the absolute right to reject parties on the basis that they are not internally democratic, and should absolutely do so if they think this is a problem.

Yes, I'd say so as well. Not that the SD leadership doesn't want to have the same power over the party as the DPP does, but the current SD leadership didn't get to create the original rule book in difference to the DPP leadership. They're instead left trying to reform the old rules, but that still has to be done with the consent of  their party congress. Of course they've come very far at solidifying power when they can cut off their entire youth wing with-out asking their congress for permission.

The difference between Danish and Swedish nationalism also seems to matter. Danish WWII history led to a link between anti-fascism/nazism and Danish nationalism, whereas Swedish nationalism, due to the country not having been occupied during WWII, still has an air of Germanic mythology/"brown" ideas. Swedish nationalists openly flirt with nazi sentiments and the like, certainly much more than Danish nationalists. That influences the SD's potential membership, and the parties' rather different histories (DPP "new"; SD formerly fascist) make this difference even bigger. It seems entirely legitimate for SD to try and keep the fascists down in order for the party to become "normalized" and more moderate.

[DavidB.]

Finns continue to collapse (truly the Lib Dems of the populist right, lol), and social democrats see signs of life: ("muu" means other not a new party aimed at cow farmers.)

LOL. Would be a logical moment for the Rural Party to reinvent itself though, given the collapse of PS

[DavidB.]

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

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

[DavidB.]

The Social Democrats voted for this? Wow.

[DavidB.]

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

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

[DavidB.]

The Alternative feeling

the alternative feeling is "404 not found"? not surprising for me...

[DavidB.]

Thanks for your updates, Diouf -- much appreciated.

[DavidB.]

Helsinkian, how is the Finnish economy doing now? Better?

[DavidB.]

The party wants to remove islam from the public space, which means closing all mosques, removing halal meat, making it illegal to wear muslim clothing like burqaes, veils, headscarfes etc. They stated the headscarf would only be illegal for muslims, and was a bit wrongfooted when asked what if a woman wears it and states that she is not a muslim. After not answering a few times, the response was that it would be "a specific judgement". All of these changes would of course require changing the Danish Constitution with regards to freedom of religion, which is not exactly an easy process.

That is pretty radical. For advocating these same policies, the PVV has been excluded by other parties on the Dutch right. I understand the Danish system works differently, but would Venstre, the Conservatives and the Liberal Alliance rule out any type of government cooperation with D?

[DavidB.]

Thanks for these updates, Diouf!

[DavidB.]

Thanks for your updates, Diouf. You mentioned student subsidies. How are they currently organized in Denmark?

[DavidB.]

Thank you for your detailed explanation. Here, the monthly rate was 80 euros for students who lived with their parents and 250 euros for people who lived elsewhere (most often where their university is located), so that is much lower than in Denmark. However, this system was abolished for new students by VVD, PvdA (!), D66 (!) and GroenLinks (!) two or three years ago, so now students without extremely well-to-do parents have to take loans.

[DavidB.]

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).

That said, it could be that I look at this in an overly "polsci" way. Differences in party culture and rhetoric outside the realm of policy matter and are a factor that could make or break the willingness of both parties to cooperate. But I get the impression that both parties are warming up to each other to such a degree that if it does not happen after the next election, it may definitely happen afterwards.

[DavidB.]

If it was passed in 2014, why did it have to take so long to be implemented? I thought it had already come into effect a long time ago.

[DavidB.]

I'm pretty much acquainted with the Danish party system, certainly well enough to know that DF are far from "a Wilders party", thank you very much. But interesting point on the Løkke-Dahl personal relationship and that the Social Democrats, according to you, are being sincere in their skepticism of immigration -- now those are the things that are more difficult for a foreigner to grasp. However, I personally do think a significant part of the DF electorate will have at least some problems with a SD-DF coalition, even if it will be a smaller part of the DF electorate than of most other Western European RRWPs due to the fact that DF has showed that they are serious about their "economic leftism" and ready to walk the walk for a longer period of time (and due to SD's shift to the right on immigration). But in general this remains thin ice for RRWPs because of the fact that their electorates consist of both middle-class people who used to vote for mainstream right-wing parties before and lower-middle class or working-class people who used to vote for social democrats and socialists, even if DF may be the chief example that such a "sincere" shift to the left on economic issues may help a party rather than harm it.

I think it will eventually happen, and I also think it will not necessarily cause the demise of DF, who seem strong enough to survive a coalition that may be unpopular.

[DavidB.]

Rooting for Jussi!

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DavidB.]

So if the Conservatives even supported this -- who didn't, then?