Hej to members of the Scandinavian Politics list,
Three quick notices - the first administrative, the others related to Scandinavian politics.
1. Here's a further appeal for potential paper-givers at the PSA ANNUAL CONFERENCE on April 4th-6th 2006 (www.psa.ac.uk/2006/default.htm). Any ideas, please let me know - and as soon as possible.
2. THE TSUNAMI REPORT. The findings of the "citizens' commission" that investigated the Swedish government's handling of the Asian disaster last Christmas, which claimed more Swedish lives than any incident since the battle of Poltava nearly 300 years ago, were published last week. My colleague Jacob Christensen summarises the reaction nicely on his blog ("The Perfect Flood I", http://blog.jacobchristensen.name/). There's also an English-language summary of the report, available at the commission's website (www.katastrofkommissionen.se). I can't say that I've read the report, so I can only add the following brief comments.
First, the commission's criticism of the government was unusually, even shockingly, severe. Not only were systemic and procedural flaws said to have delayed for a couple of days any state response to the suffering of so many Swedish citizens; individual ministers and under-secretaries of state were also singled out. Basically, it seems that pretty much every relevant decision-taker was enjoying Christmas and didn't want to be disturbed, so they thus totally misjudged the magnitude of the event. Although the under-secretary in her department probably received most criticism, foreign minister Laila Freivalds - who, it must be said, has looked completely miserable ever since she was surprisingly appointed to the job in late 2003 - has probably received the toughest media treatment.
Now, reasonable people can disagree about the fairness of these attacks. Can a European government really be blamed for what was, after all, a natural disaster on the other side of the world? Shouldn't cabinet ministers be able to enjoy Christmas? Whatever your views on that, it seems that the government's strategy of, as the Swedes say, "doing a poodle" - apologising profusely for your mistakes, accepting responsibility for what went wrong, but staying in your position - will bring about few immediate political consequences.
First, no one will be resigning. A cynic might suggest that nothing else could have been expected. Many observers, not least those on the citizens' commission (who included my esteemed colleague from Umeå, Professor Gunnel Gustafsson), have noted a problem of pinpointing responsibility and accountability in Swedish public administration. Certainly, compared with Britain, few ministers ever resign because of their own mistakes and misjudgments, never mind those of their underlings (deputy prime minister Bosse Ringholm, had he been British, would have surely resigned about 15 times during his career). But there's also a political factor here. The prime minister, Göran Persson, cannot allow anyone to resign - because, as he was explicitly criticised by the commission for failing in his overall responsibility for crisis-management, he cannot just allow someone else to shoulder the blame.
Second, the opposition seems unlikely to move a vote of no confidence in the government. There are some interesting tactical calculations going on here. But just now it seems that there's little appetite for inducing a vote that the opposition knows it would lose.
But, when the election comes around in September, will voters remember this sense that leading ministers are so out of touch that they don't bother to watch the news over a holiday? We'll see.
3. There are fun and games going on in COPENHAGEN CITY COUNCIL following last month's election. See Jacob's blog for details (http://blog.jacobchristensen.name/).
Best,
Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | SE-901 87, Sweden | www.pol.umu.se
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested.
To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know. See also www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/scandinavia/
2005-12-05
2005-11-28
PSA conference
Dear all on the Scandinavian Politics list,
PSA ANNUAL CONFERENCE, READING, April 4th-6th 2006
(www.psa.ac.uk/2006/default.htm)
I have belatedly realised that I have yet to ask list members for panel proposals for this year's PSA conference. As usual, I've been distracted by a load of other tasks. But I can also blame the complete lack of communication from the conference organisers.
We can interpret this silence in a positive way. It suggests that neither the organisers nor most other specialist groups are much more advanced than we are. Still, I'd be grateful if anyone who is thinking of going to the conference, and who has Nordic-related research that they'd like to present, could let me know. I'll then try to put together a suitable panel or panels.
(If you earlier mentioned an idea to me, could you repeat it now?)
Alternatively, if anyone has a panel idea (rather than just a paper proposal), that is equally welcome.
I suppose we ought to get moving soon, so I'd appreciate ideas as promptly as you can manage.
Best,
Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | SE-901 87, Sweden | www.pol.umu.se
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested.
To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know. See also www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/scandinavia/
PSA ANNUAL CONFERENCE, READING, April 4th-6th 2006
(www.psa.ac.uk/2006/default.htm)
I have belatedly realised that I have yet to ask list members for panel proposals for this year's PSA conference. As usual, I've been distracted by a load of other tasks. But I can also blame the complete lack of communication from the conference organisers.
We can interpret this silence in a positive way. It suggests that neither the organisers nor most other specialist groups are much more advanced than we are. Still, I'd be grateful if anyone who is thinking of going to the conference, and who has Nordic-related research that they'd like to present, could let me know. I'll then try to put together a suitable panel or panels.
(If you earlier mentioned an idea to me, could you repeat it now?)
Alternatively, if anyone has a panel idea (rather than just a paper proposal), that is equally welcome.
I suppose we ought to get moving soon, so I'd appreciate ideas as promptly as you can manage.
Best,
Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | SE-901 87, Sweden | www.pol.umu.se
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested.
To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know. See also www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/scandinavia/
2005-11-16
Danish local elections
Hej to members of the Scandinavian Politics list (and a few others),
Yesterday were the Danish local and regional elections, the first in that country's radically new administrative landscape. My colleague here in Umeå, Jacob Christensen, has written the following commentary.
(Incidentally, members of the list may well be interested in Jacob's shrewd observations on, inter alia, Scandinavian and European politics. Most of his blog is in Danish. A fair bit, though, is in English: see http://homepage.mac.com/jacob_christensen/english_blog/index.html.)
-----
THE BACKGROUND
The elections were part of the wholesale reform of Danish local and regional government, which will take effect from January 1st 2007.
As a consequence of the reform the existing 271 municipalities will be merged to
98 larger units – 32 municipalities will stay unchanged while the other 239 municipalities merge to 66 new municipalities.
The existing 14 counties will be abolished and replaced by 5 regions. The regions will have fewer competences than the counties had and, in particular, the regions will not have the power to raise taxes. On the other hand, the cities of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, which until now have not belonged to a county, will be part of the new Metropolitan Region.
In the new municipalities and regions, the newly elected local and regional councils will act as transitional councils during 2006 while the existing local and county councils have had their terms prolonged until December 31st 2006.
One thing that the reforms will not change is the ”Swiss” style of local government: municipalities and regions will continue to be led by a mayor who is elected by the council for the entire term. The larger cites (Copenhagen, Århus, Ålborg and Odense) have several mayors or councillors, and these posts are distributed on a roughly proportional basis. In the smaller municipalities and the regions, the posts of chairmen of committees are important political spoils.
Unlike in national elections, parties can form electoral alliances. The parties present individual lists, but votes are counted as votes on one common list in the first instance, and only distributed among individual party lists in the second round of counting.
THE CAMPAIGN
The campaign has generally been described as unusually dull, with very few interesting themes. One reason may be that the financing of the new bodies hasn’t been settled yet, so it has been difficult for the candidates to make clear promises.
The national parties kept a relatively low profile. The Social Democrats declared that their aim was to win the posts of mayor in all four big cities (Copenhagen, Århus, Ålborg and Odense), or at least in ”three of the four big cities”. The Liberals declared that their aim was to win ”a plurality” of mayoral posts.
The campaign in Copenhagen attracted some national interest. The Social Democrats in Copenhagen failed to recruit a mayoral candidate from their own ranks. Instead, they chose to field the 64-year-old veteran Ritt Bjerregaard – who first entered national politics in 1971, and has been a minister and a European commissioner – as their candidate for the post of "first mayor" and successor to Jens Kramer Mikkelsen (who left office in late 2004 and was replaced by interim candidate Lars Engberg).
Two other politicians presented themselves as candidates for the office of first mayor. One was Søren Pind (Liberal), who had been "housing and infrastructure mayor" since 1997 and who is generally seen as belonging to the hard-line faction of his party. Pind’s relationship with the leadership of his party is notoriously bad. A dirty campaign between Pind and his ally Martin Geertsen, on the one hand, and the party leadership and Jens Rohde, on the other about, a safe parliamentary seat in the run-up to the 2005 national elections was the high – or low – point.
Pind ran a hard-line campaign focusing on law-and-order (in itself not an issue for local government) and integration policy. He announced tough measures against young immigrants who committed crimes. The campaign turned out to be a complete failure both in terms of choice of issue and stance.
The other main candidate was Klaus Bondam (Social Liberal), who is best known as an actor (in the last episode of the popular crime series Rejseholdet/Mordkommissionen he played a justice minister who may have murdered an African prostitute) and a successful theatre manager. He also succeeded in easing out long-time party faithful Inger Marie Bruun Vierø as the party’s local political leader. Bondam is also one of the few openly gay politicians in Denmark.
Finally, the main candidate of the Danish People’s Party, Louise Frevert, caused a scandal when articles posted on her homepage were criticised for being racist. Frevert managed to survive this by blaming her webmaster for the postings.
The campaign in Århus, attracted some interest as incumbent Louise Gade (Liberal), who broke 82 years of Social Democrat rule, tried to win re-election as mayor against the new Social Democratic candidate, Nicolai Wammen.
In Odense, incumbent Anker Boye (Social Democrat) had problems with a number of minor scandals – mostly related to the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the writer H.C. Andersen – and was challenged in the local elections by the outgoing Conservative county mayor, Jens Boye. (The two are not related.)
In both Århus and Odense, it was predicted that the Social Liberals would hold the balance. That party’s national leadership decided to take a demonstratively neutral stance.
The merger of municipalities meant that the relationship between old towns and countryside and suburban municipalities attracted some attention. As it turned out, the mergers did hold some surprises for established politicians in many municipalities.
Comic relief was provided by the campaign in Rudersdal, which is a merger of Søllerød and Birkerød municipalities – both among the most affluent suburbs of Copenhagen. The Conservative Party decided to choose industrialist and socialite Christian Kjær as the party’s front candidate. This led the Conservative mayor of Birkerød to leave his party, while the Liberal mayor of Søllerød ridiculed Kjær as a “National Enquirer”-kind of candidate. (Verbatim: “En ugebladskandidat” and “en Se-og-Hør-figur”.)
THE RESULTS
National trends
The turnout stayed at the level from 1997, which is slightly surprising, given the lack-lustre campaign and uncertainties about the new administrative bodies. Turnout was reported as 69.4% against 70.1% in 1997 and 85% in 2001. The unusually high turnout in 2001 was due to the fact that local, regional and national elections were held on the same day.
The results on a national level have not been announced yet, but the Social Democrats may have won some votes compared to 2001, while Venstre also increased its share of the vote. On the other hand the Social Democrats can still claim to be Denmark’s largest party in local government. The movements for most of the other parties seem to be neglible on a national level.
Some interesting results
* Copenhagen. The Social Democrats under Ritt Bjerregaard won a convincing victory, with nearly 38% of the votes cast. This is a massive increase in the party’s share of the vote. The Social Liberal Party also increased its share even though their gains were smaller than expected.
On the other hand, the Liberal Party under Søren Pind lost votes and Pind announced that he would retire from local politics.
In a surprising move, Bjerregaard is expected to make an agreement on mayoral posts with the Social Liberal Party, while not including the Socialist People's Party and the Red-Green Alliance.
* Århus. Even though the Liberals under Louise Gade recorded gains, it was not enough to keep her in office. Nicolai Wammen will be the new mayor supported by the left wing.
* Odense. Incumbent Anker Boye suffered massive losses and will be replaced by Jens Boye, despite a desperate late-night offer to the Social Liberal Party, in which the Social Democrats offered the post of mayor to that party.
* Vejle. Vejle is being merged with three minor suburban and rural municipalities. Here Socialist Flemming Christensen (no relative) who has been mayor since 1993, lost office to an unusual coalition of Social Democrats, Liberals and Danish People’s Party.
Leif Skov (Social Democrat), who is the incumbent mayor in the suburban municipality of Børkop, will be the new mayor, with Arne Sækkenbjerggaard (Liberal and mayor of Jelling) as deputy mayor and Kristian Thulesen Dahl (Danish People's Party, an MP and member of Give local council) as second deputy.
Back in 1993 Flemming Christensen became mayor in this otherwise traditionally Social Democratic town by securing the support of Liberals and Conservatives. In 2001 local business magnate Olaf Haahr created his own Citizens’ List to secure Christensen’s re-election.
* Horsens. Horsens is another new municipality where a town is being merged with a number of smaller rural municipalities. Here former minister Jan Trøjborg (SD) somewhat surprisingly cruised to victory.
* Åbenrå. Åbenrå is included for good measure. Here the incumbent mayor of Rødekro Tove Larsen (Social Democrat) won a convincing victory in all parts of the new Åbenrå municipality and will command an own majority in the new local council.
POLITICAL EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL
The effects on the national level are hard to gauge today. The Social Democrats may take some comfort in their relatively good results, which broke a string of blunders on the national level. On the other hand, the Liberal Party cannot be said to have suffered significant losses.
Maybe the loser of these elections are the Conservative Party, which is still feeling the competition from the Liberal Party in the major cities and which is finding it hard to maintain its share of the vote.
-----
Best,
Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | SE-901 87, Sweden | www.pol.umu.se
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested. To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know. See also www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/scandinavia/
Yesterday were the Danish local and regional elections, the first in that country's radically new administrative landscape. My colleague here in Umeå, Jacob Christensen, has written the following commentary.
(Incidentally, members of the list may well be interested in Jacob's shrewd observations on, inter alia, Scandinavian and European politics. Most of his blog is in Danish. A fair bit, though, is in English: see http://homepage.mac.com/jacob_christensen/english_blog/index.html.)
-----
THE BACKGROUND
The elections were part of the wholesale reform of Danish local and regional government, which will take effect from January 1st 2007.
As a consequence of the reform the existing 271 municipalities will be merged to
98 larger units – 32 municipalities will stay unchanged while the other 239 municipalities merge to 66 new municipalities.
The existing 14 counties will be abolished and replaced by 5 regions. The regions will have fewer competences than the counties had and, in particular, the regions will not have the power to raise taxes. On the other hand, the cities of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, which until now have not belonged to a county, will be part of the new Metropolitan Region.
In the new municipalities and regions, the newly elected local and regional councils will act as transitional councils during 2006 while the existing local and county councils have had their terms prolonged until December 31st 2006.
One thing that the reforms will not change is the ”Swiss” style of local government: municipalities and regions will continue to be led by a mayor who is elected by the council for the entire term. The larger cites (Copenhagen, Århus, Ålborg and Odense) have several mayors or councillors, and these posts are distributed on a roughly proportional basis. In the smaller municipalities and the regions, the posts of chairmen of committees are important political spoils.
Unlike in national elections, parties can form electoral alliances. The parties present individual lists, but votes are counted as votes on one common list in the first instance, and only distributed among individual party lists in the second round of counting.
THE CAMPAIGN
The campaign has generally been described as unusually dull, with very few interesting themes. One reason may be that the financing of the new bodies hasn’t been settled yet, so it has been difficult for the candidates to make clear promises.
The national parties kept a relatively low profile. The Social Democrats declared that their aim was to win the posts of mayor in all four big cities (Copenhagen, Århus, Ålborg and Odense), or at least in ”three of the four big cities”. The Liberals declared that their aim was to win ”a plurality” of mayoral posts.
The campaign in Copenhagen attracted some national interest. The Social Democrats in Copenhagen failed to recruit a mayoral candidate from their own ranks. Instead, they chose to field the 64-year-old veteran Ritt Bjerregaard – who first entered national politics in 1971, and has been a minister and a European commissioner – as their candidate for the post of "first mayor" and successor to Jens Kramer Mikkelsen (who left office in late 2004 and was replaced by interim candidate Lars Engberg).
Two other politicians presented themselves as candidates for the office of first mayor. One was Søren Pind (Liberal), who had been "housing and infrastructure mayor" since 1997 and who is generally seen as belonging to the hard-line faction of his party. Pind’s relationship with the leadership of his party is notoriously bad. A dirty campaign between Pind and his ally Martin Geertsen, on the one hand, and the party leadership and Jens Rohde, on the other about, a safe parliamentary seat in the run-up to the 2005 national elections was the high – or low – point.
Pind ran a hard-line campaign focusing on law-and-order (in itself not an issue for local government) and integration policy. He announced tough measures against young immigrants who committed crimes. The campaign turned out to be a complete failure both in terms of choice of issue and stance.
The other main candidate was Klaus Bondam (Social Liberal), who is best known as an actor (in the last episode of the popular crime series Rejseholdet/Mordkommissionen he played a justice minister who may have murdered an African prostitute) and a successful theatre manager. He also succeeded in easing out long-time party faithful Inger Marie Bruun Vierø as the party’s local political leader. Bondam is also one of the few openly gay politicians in Denmark.
Finally, the main candidate of the Danish People’s Party, Louise Frevert, caused a scandal when articles posted on her homepage were criticised for being racist. Frevert managed to survive this by blaming her webmaster for the postings.
The campaign in Århus, attracted some interest as incumbent Louise Gade (Liberal), who broke 82 years of Social Democrat rule, tried to win re-election as mayor against the new Social Democratic candidate, Nicolai Wammen.
In Odense, incumbent Anker Boye (Social Democrat) had problems with a number of minor scandals – mostly related to the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the writer H.C. Andersen – and was challenged in the local elections by the outgoing Conservative county mayor, Jens Boye. (The two are not related.)
In both Århus and Odense, it was predicted that the Social Liberals would hold the balance. That party’s national leadership decided to take a demonstratively neutral stance.
The merger of municipalities meant that the relationship between old towns and countryside and suburban municipalities attracted some attention. As it turned out, the mergers did hold some surprises for established politicians in many municipalities.
Comic relief was provided by the campaign in Rudersdal, which is a merger of Søllerød and Birkerød municipalities – both among the most affluent suburbs of Copenhagen. The Conservative Party decided to choose industrialist and socialite Christian Kjær as the party’s front candidate. This led the Conservative mayor of Birkerød to leave his party, while the Liberal mayor of Søllerød ridiculed Kjær as a “National Enquirer”-kind of candidate. (Verbatim: “En ugebladskandidat” and “en Se-og-Hør-figur”.)
THE RESULTS
National trends
The turnout stayed at the level from 1997, which is slightly surprising, given the lack-lustre campaign and uncertainties about the new administrative bodies. Turnout was reported as 69.4% against 70.1% in 1997 and 85% in 2001. The unusually high turnout in 2001 was due to the fact that local, regional and national elections were held on the same day.
The results on a national level have not been announced yet, but the Social Democrats may have won some votes compared to 2001, while Venstre also increased its share of the vote. On the other hand the Social Democrats can still claim to be Denmark’s largest party in local government. The movements for most of the other parties seem to be neglible on a national level.
Some interesting results
* Copenhagen. The Social Democrats under Ritt Bjerregaard won a convincing victory, with nearly 38% of the votes cast. This is a massive increase in the party’s share of the vote. The Social Liberal Party also increased its share even though their gains were smaller than expected.
On the other hand, the Liberal Party under Søren Pind lost votes and Pind announced that he would retire from local politics.
In a surprising move, Bjerregaard is expected to make an agreement on mayoral posts with the Social Liberal Party, while not including the Socialist People's Party and the Red-Green Alliance.
* Århus. Even though the Liberals under Louise Gade recorded gains, it was not enough to keep her in office. Nicolai Wammen will be the new mayor supported by the left wing.
* Odense. Incumbent Anker Boye suffered massive losses and will be replaced by Jens Boye, despite a desperate late-night offer to the Social Liberal Party, in which the Social Democrats offered the post of mayor to that party.
* Vejle. Vejle is being merged with three minor suburban and rural municipalities. Here Socialist Flemming Christensen (no relative) who has been mayor since 1993, lost office to an unusual coalition of Social Democrats, Liberals and Danish People’s Party.
Leif Skov (Social Democrat), who is the incumbent mayor in the suburban municipality of Børkop, will be the new mayor, with Arne Sækkenbjerggaard (Liberal and mayor of Jelling) as deputy mayor and Kristian Thulesen Dahl (Danish People's Party, an MP and member of Give local council) as second deputy.
Back in 1993 Flemming Christensen became mayor in this otherwise traditionally Social Democratic town by securing the support of Liberals and Conservatives. In 2001 local business magnate Olaf Haahr created his own Citizens’ List to secure Christensen’s re-election.
* Horsens. Horsens is another new municipality where a town is being merged with a number of smaller rural municipalities. Here former minister Jan Trøjborg (SD) somewhat surprisingly cruised to victory.
* Åbenrå. Åbenrå is included for good measure. Here the incumbent mayor of Rødekro Tove Larsen (Social Democrat) won a convincing victory in all parts of the new Åbenrå municipality and will command an own majority in the new local council.
POLITICAL EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL
The effects on the national level are hard to gauge today. The Social Democrats may take some comfort in their relatively good results, which broke a string of blunders on the national level. On the other hand, the Liberal Party cannot be said to have suffered significant losses.
Maybe the loser of these elections are the Conservative Party, which is still feeling the competition from the Liberal Party in the major cities and which is finding it hard to maintain its share of the vote.
-----
Best,
Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | SE-901 87, Sweden | www.pol.umu.se
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested. To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know. See also www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/scandinavia/
2005-10-18
Scandinavian Politics latest
Hej to members of the Scandinavian Politics Specialist Group's mailing list,
There have been several interesting and/or entertaining developments in Scandinavian politics recently, and I thought I'd send a brief summary to the list.
- In NORWAY, unprecedented coalition talks between the parties of the "red-green" alliance that won a majority of seats (though not votes) in last month's election have concluded successfully. The new government was announced yesterday.
* Labour's leader, Jens Stoltenberg, will of course be the new prime minister. Including his, Labour gets ten of the 19 cabinet seats. One of those is the new foreign minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, described by Aftenposten as "a cosmopolitan, a European [he studied political science in France, apparently] and a red flag for the EU opponents" in the two other coalition parties (although the "suicide clause", by which the coalition agrees to dissolve if one of its number mentions EU membership, remains).
* The Socialist Left gets its first five cabinet positions. More notable is that its leader, Kristin Halvorsen, gets the finance minister's job.
* The Centre Party gets the four remaining places. They include the regional-government portfolio, taken by party leader Åslaug Haga, and the oil-and-energy job, which goes (surprisingly) to an ex-leader, the splendidly named Odd Roger Enoksen.
- In SWEDEN, with less than a year to go now before the election, the field has become even more crowded and even more interesting.
* Two weeks ago, the June List (www.junilistan.se), which did so well in last year's European election, decided that it would contest the national election, too. A recent poll gave it nearly 5 per cent support, which would take it into parliament.
In addition to its soft Euroscepticism ("Yes to Europe, No to an EU state"), the party's preliminary platform has two other pillars: decentralisation ("Shift power into the country") and employment ("A people in work"). The mix could be described as modestly economic liberal, with things like tax rebates for work to improve incentives. But there are a few classic populist crowd-pleasers – decisive referendums on citizens' initiatives, a big cut in the number of MPs – thrown in.
It is far from clear how the coalition of cross-spectrum Eurosceptics that the List attracted so successfully last year will be maintained on the basis of even this fairly parsimonious policy stance. A selection of issues on which the June List's candidates will be expected to set out their "own platforms" implies that a very wide range of opinions among its candidates is envisaged – yet it seems unlikely that many away from the centre-right would sign up to the core platform.
Then there's the organisational challenge. Party leader Nils Lundgren is already talking of "democratising" the List's entirely elite-led internal structure; as yet, it doesn't even have members. How he attempts that will be fascinating to watch.
* What's more, there may be yet more competition in that part of the spectrum. On Sunday a conference of numerous regional "healthcare parties" decided on a basic platform of their own. This, too, looks cautiously to the right. It expresses opposition, for instance, to the government's attempts to stop the engagement of more private companies in delivering healthcare. Still, some of the regional parties are against forming a "Swedish Healthcare Party" to run in the national election. The big decision on whether to do so will be taken on December 3rd.
* Last but certainly not least, Feminist Initiative (www.feministisktinitiativ.se) has had more than its fair share of attention in the Swedish media recently. Just over a month ago, its founding conference confirmed that it would stand in the 2006 election. Even before that congress, however, and certainly since, Feminist Initiative has tested sternly the old dictum that there's no such thing as bad publicity.
For some time, three broad ideological elements have been observable in Feminist Initiative's ranks. There are the "old feminists", associated with earlier political movements and concerned primarily about basic distributional issues. Then there are the radical feminists, who share a sweeping view of the structural oppression of women by men. They have probably been most visibly represented by one of the three "spokespeople" elected by the congress, the former Left Party leader, Gudrun Schyman. Third, there are the "gender feminists", who push "HBT" (homosexual, bisexual, transsexual) interests, and who are often academics associated with post-modern or "queer" theories of gender-construction.
The trouble is, the first and the third of those groups have been in increasingly acrimonious conflict. Last week some astonishingly bitter personal attacks appeared in the media. Several traditional feminists have resigned from their executive positions in Feminist Initiative in protest at the influence exercised by the gender-feminist element. Last week, a central figure in that element - a professor of gender studies and, by all accounts, a rather abrasive personality - had accusations of academic plagiarism thrown at her. She too then resigned from Feminist Initiative's national executive, declaring that, with her subject under such "systematic" attack, she had decided to prioritise its defence over her political engagement.
It will be quite a task for Schyman to lead Feminist Initiative over this disastrous period of infighting. In stark contrast to its profile in the headlines, the new party is currently invisible in the opinion polls.
- Finally, DENMARK has also seen some colourful politics recently. Three weeks ago, the minister of social affairs, Eva Kjer Hansen, declared that inequality can be a dynamic force in society. This, of course, is a scandalous assertion in Scandinavia, and she was forced to retract immediately.
But some of her party colleagues have been less prepared to avoid controversy. A couple of weeks ago, Liberals frustrated at the ultra-pragmatism of Anders Fogh Rasmussen's government launched a new party, which seeks the sort drastic tax-reductions and scaling back of the welfare state that Fogh Rasmussen himself, in his youth, used to advocate. The new party's name in Danish, Liberalisterne (www.liberalisterne.dk), I think is best translated as "Libertarians". But I'm open to alternative suggestions.
Best,
Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | SE-901 87, Sweden | www.pol.umu.se
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested. To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know. See also www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/scandinavia/
There have been several interesting and/or entertaining developments in Scandinavian politics recently, and I thought I'd send a brief summary to the list.
- In NORWAY, unprecedented coalition talks between the parties of the "red-green" alliance that won a majority of seats (though not votes) in last month's election have concluded successfully. The new government was announced yesterday.
* Labour's leader, Jens Stoltenberg, will of course be the new prime minister. Including his, Labour gets ten of the 19 cabinet seats. One of those is the new foreign minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, described by Aftenposten as "a cosmopolitan, a European [he studied political science in France, apparently] and a red flag for the EU opponents" in the two other coalition parties (although the "suicide clause", by which the coalition agrees to dissolve if one of its number mentions EU membership, remains).
* The Socialist Left gets its first five cabinet positions. More notable is that its leader, Kristin Halvorsen, gets the finance minister's job.
* The Centre Party gets the four remaining places. They include the regional-government portfolio, taken by party leader Åslaug Haga, and the oil-and-energy job, which goes (surprisingly) to an ex-leader, the splendidly named Odd Roger Enoksen.
- In SWEDEN, with less than a year to go now before the election, the field has become even more crowded and even more interesting.
* Two weeks ago, the June List (www.junilistan.se), which did so well in last year's European election, decided that it would contest the national election, too. A recent poll gave it nearly 5 per cent support, which would take it into parliament.
In addition to its soft Euroscepticism ("Yes to Europe, No to an EU state"), the party's preliminary platform has two other pillars: decentralisation ("Shift power into the country") and employment ("A people in work"). The mix could be described as modestly economic liberal, with things like tax rebates for work to improve incentives. But there are a few classic populist crowd-pleasers – decisive referendums on citizens' initiatives, a big cut in the number of MPs – thrown in.
It is far from clear how the coalition of cross-spectrum Eurosceptics that the List attracted so successfully last year will be maintained on the basis of even this fairly parsimonious policy stance. A selection of issues on which the June List's candidates will be expected to set out their "own platforms" implies that a very wide range of opinions among its candidates is envisaged – yet it seems unlikely that many away from the centre-right would sign up to the core platform.
Then there's the organisational challenge. Party leader Nils Lundgren is already talking of "democratising" the List's entirely elite-led internal structure; as yet, it doesn't even have members. How he attempts that will be fascinating to watch.
* What's more, there may be yet more competition in that part of the spectrum. On Sunday a conference of numerous regional "healthcare parties" decided on a basic platform of their own. This, too, looks cautiously to the right. It expresses opposition, for instance, to the government's attempts to stop the engagement of more private companies in delivering healthcare. Still, some of the regional parties are against forming a "Swedish Healthcare Party" to run in the national election. The big decision on whether to do so will be taken on December 3rd.
* Last but certainly not least, Feminist Initiative (www.feministisktinitiativ.se) has had more than its fair share of attention in the Swedish media recently. Just over a month ago, its founding conference confirmed that it would stand in the 2006 election. Even before that congress, however, and certainly since, Feminist Initiative has tested sternly the old dictum that there's no such thing as bad publicity.
For some time, three broad ideological elements have been observable in Feminist Initiative's ranks. There are the "old feminists", associated with earlier political movements and concerned primarily about basic distributional issues. Then there are the radical feminists, who share a sweeping view of the structural oppression of women by men. They have probably been most visibly represented by one of the three "spokespeople" elected by the congress, the former Left Party leader, Gudrun Schyman. Third, there are the "gender feminists", who push "HBT" (homosexual, bisexual, transsexual) interests, and who are often academics associated with post-modern or "queer" theories of gender-construction.
The trouble is, the first and the third of those groups have been in increasingly acrimonious conflict. Last week some astonishingly bitter personal attacks appeared in the media. Several traditional feminists have resigned from their executive positions in Feminist Initiative in protest at the influence exercised by the gender-feminist element. Last week, a central figure in that element - a professor of gender studies and, by all accounts, a rather abrasive personality - had accusations of academic plagiarism thrown at her. She too then resigned from Feminist Initiative's national executive, declaring that, with her subject under such "systematic" attack, she had decided to prioritise its defence over her political engagement.
It will be quite a task for Schyman to lead Feminist Initiative over this disastrous period of infighting. In stark contrast to its profile in the headlines, the new party is currently invisible in the opinion polls.
- Finally, DENMARK has also seen some colourful politics recently. Three weeks ago, the minister of social affairs, Eva Kjer Hansen, declared that inequality can be a dynamic force in society. This, of course, is a scandalous assertion in Scandinavia, and she was forced to retract immediately.
But some of her party colleagues have been less prepared to avoid controversy. A couple of weeks ago, Liberals frustrated at the ultra-pragmatism of Anders Fogh Rasmussen's government launched a new party, which seeks the sort drastic tax-reductions and scaling back of the welfare state that Fogh Rasmussen himself, in his youth, used to advocate. The new party's name in Danish, Liberalisterne (www.liberalisterne.dk), I think is best translated as "Libertarians". But I'm open to alternative suggestions.
Best,
Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | SE-901 87, Sweden | www.pol.umu.se
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested. To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know. See also www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/scandinavia/
2005-09-13
More on Norway's election
You've had the raw figures, now here comes the analysis - from Professor Nick Sitter of the Norwegian School of Management BI in Oslo.
-----
The final counts are still being adjusted; Labour now seems to be getting 61 seats, not 62 (the Conservatives pick up the seat, and get 24, not 23).
Bondevik will tender his resignation after presenting the budget on October 14th, three days after the official opening of parliament. A new 'red-green' government of Labour, the Socialist Left and the agrarian Centre Party could be in place by Monday the 17th.
As Nick [ie, me – NA] says, Labour and the Progress Party are the big winners, partly because Labour promised more spending on public services; and Progress has long promised more spending across the board. The big question is how these two electoral successes will affect Norwegian politics, and not least public expenditure in an oil-rich country.
First, local commentators appreciate that it may seem somewhat odd to outside observers that parties presiding over such economic results (and the country's repeated high rankings in UN and World Economic Forum league tables on standard of living and competitiveness, respectively) are punished so severely by voters. Much of the answer is (as Nick notes) that the left promised higher spending on public services. The results confirm that the election was more about how to spend than about economic performance. Kindergartens, schools and the elderly dominated the campaign. The EU was not mentioned.
Rising incomes evidently do generate rising expectations, as many academics have argued. Economic prosperity is not enough; when countries accumulate (oil) wealth, the debate soon turns to how to spend it. Progress has been keen to spend more, as has the Socialist Left. The Conservatives and Labour have generally been more reluctant to spend oil money. So far Norway has kept the brakes on 'oil-spending', but even the outgoing centre-right government spent more than its own guidelines allowed for. This might be the emergence of a new 'curse' for Norwegian governing parties: a dilemma that reflects the need to maintain prudent fiscal policy in the face of popular demands for more spending. The Conservatives look forward to 2009.
Second, the Norwegian Labour Party has moved considerably to the left, both in its own campaign and in its choice of partners. The party is now considerably further from the Blairite Third Way than it was at the time of the last election. Given the particularly bad result in 2001, when the party lost votes to the Socialist Left, Labour seems to have feared that the unions might shift their support to (or share it with) that party. So this shift leftwards was hardly a surprise. But it raises the interesting question of how far the centre-left government will actually go in reversing recent industrial relations initiatives (the Confederation of Trade Unions, LO, has already made a series of 'urgent demands').
The big question here is whether this is a real (ideological?) change, or merely a tactical (opportunistic?) shift on the part of Labour. The campaign certainly helped not only to recapture votes lost to the Socialist Left, but also to strengthen the centre-left as a whole. Labour has been considerably more oriented toward 'public sector modernisation' in the recent past (i.e. positive towards Third-Way-style ideas).
Third, despite Labour's (apparent?) turn to the left, the coalition of Labour, the Socialist Left and the Centre Party faces a big challenge, given their policy differences. Labour has the advantage not only of being the major partner, but also of a comparatively strong election result. The election result was clearly not ideal as far as the Socialist Left is concerned, but whether this will make the party weaker in negotiations with Labour, or whether it will make it more recalcitrant, remains to be seen. Informal negotiations are already underway.
It is perhaps surprising that the 'red-greens' managed to cobble together a pre-election pact at all, given policy differences on a range of topics including environmental policy and industrial policy; spending the 'oil money'; schools reform; kindergartens vs paying mothers to stay at home; and spending on roads or public transport. However, distances between the mainstream Norwegian parties on economic policy are relatively small (this also hold across to the centre-right) and should not be exaggerated. Consensus remains the norm.
This does, however, raise the question of whether the three-party majority coalition will prove stronger in terms of policy-making than the minority governments that have ruled Norway for the last two decades. Labour claims that it will.
Fourth, turning to the centre-right, the rise of the Progress Party to a clear place as Norway's second-biggest party in the Storting may change the dynamics of opposition considerably! Progress has been the exception to the general rule of consensual economic policy, particularly in its demand for spending 'oil money'. On occasion, it out-performs the Socialist Left and Centre in terms of spending demands, which could leave these two smaller coalition parties in an awkward position, defending themselves against charges of 'low' spending.
Fifth, the EU question is (in all probability) on ice for another four years. The Conservatives and Labour are pro-EU, but the Conservatives agreed a 'suicide clause' for the 2001-2005 coalition with the Liberals (Eurosceptical, turning neutral) and Christian People's Party (oppose EU membership). This meant that the government would collapse if the EU issue was raised; and Labour is now set to embark on a similar pact with its two hard Eurosceptical partners.
Finally (and as Bernt Aardal pointed out on TV on election night), this was an election for which a high turnout should be expected: a close race between two clearly defined alternatives. Admittedly, the 76.1% turnout was up 1.6 points from 2001, but it is still the third-lowest since world war two (and below any average of the last two, three, four, etc elections that one might want to calculate).
It might also be worth noting that in terms of the actual number of votes cast, the three governing parties and the Progress Party together now seem to have outpolled the three red-green parties (Labour, the Socialist Left and the Centre) by 21,000 votes – about 1,271,000 votes to 1,250,000.
-----
Best,
Nick Aylott.
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested. To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know. See also www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/scandinavia/
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | SE-901 87, Sweden | www.pol.umu.se
-----
The final counts are still being adjusted; Labour now seems to be getting 61 seats, not 62 (the Conservatives pick up the seat, and get 24, not 23).
Bondevik will tender his resignation after presenting the budget on October 14th, three days after the official opening of parliament. A new 'red-green' government of Labour, the Socialist Left and the agrarian Centre Party could be in place by Monday the 17th.
As Nick [ie, me – NA] says, Labour and the Progress Party are the big winners, partly because Labour promised more spending on public services; and Progress has long promised more spending across the board. The big question is how these two electoral successes will affect Norwegian politics, and not least public expenditure in an oil-rich country.
First, local commentators appreciate that it may seem somewhat odd to outside observers that parties presiding over such economic results (and the country's repeated high rankings in UN and World Economic Forum league tables on standard of living and competitiveness, respectively) are punished so severely by voters. Much of the answer is (as Nick notes) that the left promised higher spending on public services. The results confirm that the election was more about how to spend than about economic performance. Kindergartens, schools and the elderly dominated the campaign. The EU was not mentioned.
Rising incomes evidently do generate rising expectations, as many academics have argued. Economic prosperity is not enough; when countries accumulate (oil) wealth, the debate soon turns to how to spend it. Progress has been keen to spend more, as has the Socialist Left. The Conservatives and Labour have generally been more reluctant to spend oil money. So far Norway has kept the brakes on 'oil-spending', but even the outgoing centre-right government spent more than its own guidelines allowed for. This might be the emergence of a new 'curse' for Norwegian governing parties: a dilemma that reflects the need to maintain prudent fiscal policy in the face of popular demands for more spending. The Conservatives look forward to 2009.
Second, the Norwegian Labour Party has moved considerably to the left, both in its own campaign and in its choice of partners. The party is now considerably further from the Blairite Third Way than it was at the time of the last election. Given the particularly bad result in 2001, when the party lost votes to the Socialist Left, Labour seems to have feared that the unions might shift their support to (or share it with) that party. So this shift leftwards was hardly a surprise. But it raises the interesting question of how far the centre-left government will actually go in reversing recent industrial relations initiatives (the Confederation of Trade Unions, LO, has already made a series of 'urgent demands').
The big question here is whether this is a real (ideological?) change, or merely a tactical (opportunistic?) shift on the part of Labour. The campaign certainly helped not only to recapture votes lost to the Socialist Left, but also to strengthen the centre-left as a whole. Labour has been considerably more oriented toward 'public sector modernisation' in the recent past (i.e. positive towards Third-Way-style ideas).
Third, despite Labour's (apparent?) turn to the left, the coalition of Labour, the Socialist Left and the Centre Party faces a big challenge, given their policy differences. Labour has the advantage not only of being the major partner, but also of a comparatively strong election result. The election result was clearly not ideal as far as the Socialist Left is concerned, but whether this will make the party weaker in negotiations with Labour, or whether it will make it more recalcitrant, remains to be seen. Informal negotiations are already underway.
It is perhaps surprising that the 'red-greens' managed to cobble together a pre-election pact at all, given policy differences on a range of topics including environmental policy and industrial policy; spending the 'oil money'; schools reform; kindergartens vs paying mothers to stay at home; and spending on roads or public transport. However, distances between the mainstream Norwegian parties on economic policy are relatively small (this also hold across to the centre-right) and should not be exaggerated. Consensus remains the norm.
This does, however, raise the question of whether the three-party majority coalition will prove stronger in terms of policy-making than the minority governments that have ruled Norway for the last two decades. Labour claims that it will.
Fourth, turning to the centre-right, the rise of the Progress Party to a clear place as Norway's second-biggest party in the Storting may change the dynamics of opposition considerably! Progress has been the exception to the general rule of consensual economic policy, particularly in its demand for spending 'oil money'. On occasion, it out-performs the Socialist Left and Centre in terms of spending demands, which could leave these two smaller coalition parties in an awkward position, defending themselves against charges of 'low' spending.
Fifth, the EU question is (in all probability) on ice for another four years. The Conservatives and Labour are pro-EU, but the Conservatives agreed a 'suicide clause' for the 2001-2005 coalition with the Liberals (Eurosceptical, turning neutral) and Christian People's Party (oppose EU membership). This meant that the government would collapse if the EU issue was raised; and Labour is now set to embark on a similar pact with its two hard Eurosceptical partners.
Finally (and as Bernt Aardal pointed out on TV on election night), this was an election for which a high turnout should be expected: a close race between two clearly defined alternatives. Admittedly, the 76.1% turnout was up 1.6 points from 2001, but it is still the third-lowest since world war two (and below any average of the last two, three, four, etc elections that one might want to calculate).
It might also be worth noting that in terms of the actual number of votes cast, the three governing parties and the Progress Party together now seem to have outpolled the three red-green parties (Labour, the Socialist Left and the Centre) by 21,000 votes – about 1,271,000 votes to 1,250,000.
-----
Best,
Nick Aylott.
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested. To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know. See also www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/scandinavia/
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | SE-901 87, Sweden | www.pol.umu.se
2005-08-24
website and Norwegian election
Dear members of the Scandinavian Politics mailing list,
Just a quick message on two matters.
1. SCANDINAVIAN POLITICS GROUP WEBSITE (www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/scandinavia).
This is now up and running, so do give it a quick surf. I hope you like its basic, simple style, which is carefully designed to promote a sense of rawness and edginess.
Can I draw your attention to two things in particular?
* If you'd like your name, institutional details and basic research/teaching interests mentioned on the members page (strictly speaking, the mailing-list recipients page), can you let me know? I thought I'd get people actively to say that they're happy for me to post their details.
* There was talk in the last few months about the possibility of the group's holding a special workshop or seminar some time in 2005. That is now off the agenda – pressure of work, etc, etc. Sorry. But something next spring, some time around the PSA conference (at which I expect us to hold panels as usual), is still a strong possibility.
2. NORWEGIAN ELECTION CAMPAIGN. With less than three weeks to go (the vote is on Monday September 12th), this is now in full swing. With thanks to my colleagues Nick Sitter and Niklas Bolin for their comments, here's a concise summary of the state of play.
* Unusually, two clear alternative governments are on offer to Norwegian
voters: (i) the governing minority coalition of the Christian People's Party (who provide the prime minister, Kjell Magne Bondevik), the Conservatives and the tiny Liberals; and (ii) a centre-left alliance of Labour, the Centre Party and the Socialist Left.
This opposition alliance is a real departure in Norway: wartime apart, Labour has never governed in a coalition, never mind pledged to do so before an election. After getting his fingers badly burnt during a short, unhappy time in government in 2000-1, the Labour leader, Jens Stoltenberg, is determined to have a firmer parliamentary base for his next spell in office.
* The polls, usefully summarised by political scientist Bernt Aardal on his website (http://home.online.no/~b-aardal/), suggest that the left alliance will indeed win a bare majority of the vote, which – if, as predicted, the Liberals fall below the 4 per cent threshold - should be enough for a comfortable parliamentary majority. But precisely how votes will translate into seats remains to be seen. The Norwegian periphery is overrepresented, although this time the seats reserved for making the overall result more proportional has risen from 8 to 19.
* What's more, there's always the great unpredictable player in Norwegian
politics: Carl I. Hagen, leader of the right-wing Progress Party. He implicitly backed the Christian-Conservative-Liberal government when it was formed in 2001, which gave it a parliamentary majority, and has mostly continued to do so in budget deals since then. But in June Hagen threw a grenade into the campaign when he said that Progress would NOT support another Bondevik government.
This has been a big blow to the governing parties' credibility. It's seen as an attempt by Hagen to force the Conservatives into thinking about doing a Schüssel – ie, to risk the condemnation of everyone to their left and bring the radical right into government, as happened in Austria in 2000. But could there possibly be a parliamentary majority that would accept that scenario?
And would Hagen really tolerate a left government in preference to a Christian-led one? (He did topple a centre-right coalition in 1986.) These and many other questions remain tantalisingly open.
* Policy-wise, some say that Labour has moved to the left for this campaign.
True, its foreign policy has pretty much nothing in common with that of the Centre Party, which is against EEA membership, or that of Socialist Left, which is against both EEA and NATO membership. But the three parties have simply agreed not to raise such tricky issues. Indeed, the question of EU membership has not reached the agenda, and is highly unlikely to in the next parliament. With their respective alliances both containing strongly anti-EU parties, Norway's only two pro-EU parties, Labour and the Conservatives, each know that pushing the issue would be political suicide.
Best,
Nick Aylott.
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested.
To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | SE-901 87, Sweden | www.pol.umu.se
Just a quick message on two matters.
1. SCANDINAVIAN POLITICS GROUP WEBSITE (www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/scandinavia).
This is now up and running, so do give it a quick surf. I hope you like its basic, simple style, which is carefully designed to promote a sense of rawness and edginess.
Can I draw your attention to two things in particular?
* If you'd like your name, institutional details and basic research/teaching interests mentioned on the members page (strictly speaking, the mailing-list recipients page), can you let me know? I thought I'd get people actively to say that they're happy for me to post their details.
* There was talk in the last few months about the possibility of the group's holding a special workshop or seminar some time in 2005. That is now off the agenda – pressure of work, etc, etc. Sorry. But something next spring, some time around the PSA conference (at which I expect us to hold panels as usual), is still a strong possibility.
2. NORWEGIAN ELECTION CAMPAIGN. With less than three weeks to go (the vote is on Monday September 12th), this is now in full swing. With thanks to my colleagues Nick Sitter and Niklas Bolin for their comments, here's a concise summary of the state of play.
* Unusually, two clear alternative governments are on offer to Norwegian
voters: (i) the governing minority coalition of the Christian People's Party (who provide the prime minister, Kjell Magne Bondevik), the Conservatives and the tiny Liberals; and (ii) a centre-left alliance of Labour, the Centre Party and the Socialist Left.
This opposition alliance is a real departure in Norway: wartime apart, Labour has never governed in a coalition, never mind pledged to do so before an election. After getting his fingers badly burnt during a short, unhappy time in government in 2000-1, the Labour leader, Jens Stoltenberg, is determined to have a firmer parliamentary base for his next spell in office.
* The polls, usefully summarised by political scientist Bernt Aardal on his website (http://home.online.no/~b-aardal/), suggest that the left alliance will indeed win a bare majority of the vote, which – if, as predicted, the Liberals fall below the 4 per cent threshold - should be enough for a comfortable parliamentary majority. But precisely how votes will translate into seats remains to be seen. The Norwegian periphery is overrepresented, although this time the seats reserved for making the overall result more proportional has risen from 8 to 19.
* What's more, there's always the great unpredictable player in Norwegian
politics: Carl I. Hagen, leader of the right-wing Progress Party. He implicitly backed the Christian-Conservative-Liberal government when it was formed in 2001, which gave it a parliamentary majority, and has mostly continued to do so in budget deals since then. But in June Hagen threw a grenade into the campaign when he said that Progress would NOT support another Bondevik government.
This has been a big blow to the governing parties' credibility. It's seen as an attempt by Hagen to force the Conservatives into thinking about doing a Schüssel – ie, to risk the condemnation of everyone to their left and bring the radical right into government, as happened in Austria in 2000. But could there possibly be a parliamentary majority that would accept that scenario?
And would Hagen really tolerate a left government in preference to a Christian-led one? (He did topple a centre-right coalition in 1986.) These and many other questions remain tantalisingly open.
* Policy-wise, some say that Labour has moved to the left for this campaign.
True, its foreign policy has pretty much nothing in common with that of the Centre Party, which is against EEA membership, or that of Socialist Left, which is against both EEA and NATO membership. But the three parties have simply agreed not to raise such tricky issues. Indeed, the question of EU membership has not reached the agenda, and is highly unlikely to in the next parliament. With their respective alliances both containing strongly anti-EU parties, Norway's only two pro-EU parties, Labour and the Conservatives, each know that pushing the issue would be political suicide.
Best,
Nick Aylott.
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested.
To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | SE-901 87, Sweden | www.pol.umu.se
2005-07-08
News
Dear all on the Scandinavian Politics list,
Even though many of you will already be well into your summer breaks, I thought I'd send out a quick message about more Nordic-orientated events.
1. The Scandinavian Specialist Group now has its own website! To be honest, it doesn't contain very much more information that many of you will already have. But it can be built upon, of course. So do give it a quick surf (...). I hope you like its basic, simple style, which is carefully designed to promote a sense of rawness and edginess.
Can I draw your attention to two things in particular?
* If you'd like your name, institutional details and basic research/teaching interests mentioned on the members page (strictly speaking, the mailing-list recipients page), can you let me know? I thought I'd get people actively to say that they're happy for me to post their details.
* There was talk in the last few months about the possibility of the group's holding a special workshop or seminar some time in 2005. That is now off the agenda – pressure of work, etc, etc. Sorry. But something next spring, some time around the PSA conference (at which I expect us to hold panels as usual), is still a possibility.
2. Election fever is mounting in Norway and Sweden. All sorts of coalition-related flirting and rejections are going on in Norway, where there will be an election in September. Meanwhile, in Sweden, where the vote will be held in September 2006, the four-party centre-right "Alliance for Sweden" holds a commanding lead in all the polls over the governing Social Democrats and their two support parties. This raises the real possibility of the first change of government for what would be fully 15 years. But plenty can still happen. Excitingly, this is not least because several new parties look like they will enter the contest – and, unusually, each looks as if it could just arch itself over the bar and win parliamentary seats.
* One likely to entrant is a version of the Eurosceptical JUNE LIST that did so amazingly well in last summer's European elections. It's chair, Nils Lundgren, frequently sounds doubtful (with good reason, if you ask me) about whether his type of cross-spectrum list could work in a national election, in which government office is at stake. But it sounds like his lot are going to try, anyway.
* Another likely contender might be called "WELFARE IN SWEDEN". It would run largely on a more-resources-for-healthcare platform (and if you want my opinion again, the grievance, if not necessarily the proposed remedy, is far from unreasonable). While such a party's chances of clearing the national 4 per cent threshold for gaining parliamentary seats are slim, what it might do is to get in through the back door – in other words, by getting at least 12 per cent in at least one constituency. This is what the Norbotten Party got moderately near to achieving in 2002, and the northern unhappiness that it highlighted then might well be exploited again. A "Healthcare Party" won nearly a quarter of the vote in Norbotten in the county election of 2002.
* The hottest tip of all is the FEMINIST INITIATIVE (Fi), launched with much fanfare in May. But its chances may have been dealt a serious setback by an astonishingly intense debate that has blown up in Sweden (and which I should have written to the list about earlier).
This year, at least two well-known (male) political scientists had written about what they saw as the intolerant and extreme characteristics of certain elements within Swedish feminism. But this latest furore was sparked by a two-part documentary on Swedish televsion, entitled "Könskriget" (The war of the sexes). Screened soon after Fi's launch, it presented an exposé of these radical elements, centred on the main network of women's refuges, an influential professor at Uppsala University and a circle around Margareta Winberg, the former minister for equality of the sexes. Although some of these subjects have bitterly questioned the methods of the (female) investigative reporter behind the programmes, some of the positions attributed to them were eyebrow-raising, to put it rather mildly.
Former Left Party leader Gudrun Schyman, the main figure in Fi, was counter-attacking this week during the annual gathering for political speeches, debate and seminars on the island of Gotland. But although she didn't feature in the documentaries, it might be tough for Schyman's project to recover from her wilingness to associate it to the most radical bits of feminism in the country.
* One group of almost certain non-runners can be among modernisers in the Left Party, some of whom co-ordinate through an association called (roughly) the LEFT'S CHOICE (Vägval vänster). Its congress recently decided that, despite its unhappiness at the Left's apparent shift back towards its communist roots, a breakaway party would not be formed, at least not before the 2006 election. The congress preceded a rash of resignations by Left modernisers at all levels; some, including an MP, have defected to the Greens.
* During last week's seminars on Gotland, credulous journalists also reported that yet another party was to enter the race, when a batch of well-known actors and other arty types launched a CULTURE PARTY. The next day, however, the "party" admitted on its website, and in full-page adverts in the newspapers, that it was a hoax.
The declared aim of the Culture Party, and that of the hoaxers, was and is to attract more public subsidies for "culture" in Sweden. Given that its cost was estimated at SKr200,000 (€21,000) of taxpayers' money, which came via the National Theatre, some observers have suggested that this hilarious bluff might just have undermined rather than promoted its political objective.
Best,
Nick Aylott.
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested. To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know.
Even though many of you will already be well into your summer breaks, I thought I'd send out a quick message about more Nordic-orientated events.
1. The Scandinavian Specialist Group now has its own website! To be honest, it doesn't contain very much more information that many of you will already have. But it can be built upon, of course. So do give it a quick surf (...). I hope you like its basic, simple style, which is carefully designed to promote a sense of rawness and edginess.
Can I draw your attention to two things in particular?
* If you'd like your name, institutional details and basic research/teaching interests mentioned on the members page (strictly speaking, the mailing-list recipients page), can you let me know? I thought I'd get people actively to say that they're happy for me to post their details.
* There was talk in the last few months about the possibility of the group's holding a special workshop or seminar some time in 2005. That is now off the agenda – pressure of work, etc, etc. Sorry. But something next spring, some time around the PSA conference (at which I expect us to hold panels as usual), is still a possibility.
2. Election fever is mounting in Norway and Sweden. All sorts of coalition-related flirting and rejections are going on in Norway, where there will be an election in September. Meanwhile, in Sweden, where the vote will be held in September 2006, the four-party centre-right "Alliance for Sweden" holds a commanding lead in all the polls over the governing Social Democrats and their two support parties. This raises the real possibility of the first change of government for what would be fully 15 years. But plenty can still happen. Excitingly, this is not least because several new parties look like they will enter the contest – and, unusually, each looks as if it could just arch itself over the bar and win parliamentary seats.
* One likely to entrant is a version of the Eurosceptical JUNE LIST that did so amazingly well in last summer's European elections. It's chair, Nils Lundgren, frequently sounds doubtful (with good reason, if you ask me) about whether his type of cross-spectrum list could work in a national election, in which government office is at stake. But it sounds like his lot are going to try, anyway.
* Another likely contender might be called "WELFARE IN SWEDEN". It would run largely on a more-resources-for-healthcare platform (and if you want my opinion again, the grievance, if not necessarily the proposed remedy, is far from unreasonable). While such a party's chances of clearing the national 4 per cent threshold for gaining parliamentary seats are slim, what it might do is to get in through the back door – in other words, by getting at least 12 per cent in at least one constituency. This is what the Norbotten Party got moderately near to achieving in 2002, and the northern unhappiness that it highlighted then might well be exploited again. A "Healthcare Party" won nearly a quarter of the vote in Norbotten in the county election of 2002.
* The hottest tip of all is the FEMINIST INITIATIVE (Fi), launched with much fanfare in May. But its chances may have been dealt a serious setback by an astonishingly intense debate that has blown up in Sweden (and which I should have written to the list about earlier).
This year, at least two well-known (male) political scientists had written about what they saw as the intolerant and extreme characteristics of certain elements within Swedish feminism. But this latest furore was sparked by a two-part documentary on Swedish televsion, entitled "Könskriget" (The war of the sexes). Screened soon after Fi's launch, it presented an exposé of these radical elements, centred on the main network of women's refuges, an influential professor at Uppsala University and a circle around Margareta Winberg, the former minister for equality of the sexes. Although some of these subjects have bitterly questioned the methods of the (female) investigative reporter behind the programmes, some of the positions attributed to them were eyebrow-raising, to put it rather mildly.
Former Left Party leader Gudrun Schyman, the main figure in Fi, was counter-attacking this week during the annual gathering for political speeches, debate and seminars on the island of Gotland. But although she didn't feature in the documentaries, it might be tough for Schyman's project to recover from her wilingness to associate it to the most radical bits of feminism in the country.
* One group of almost certain non-runners can be among modernisers in the Left Party, some of whom co-ordinate through an association called (roughly) the LEFT'S CHOICE (Vägval vänster). Its congress recently decided that, despite its unhappiness at the Left's apparent shift back towards its communist roots, a breakaway party would not be formed, at least not before the 2006 election. The congress preceded a rash of resignations by Left modernisers at all levels; some, including an MP, have defected to the Greens.
* During last week's seminars on Gotland, credulous journalists also reported that yet another party was to enter the race, when a batch of well-known actors and other arty types launched a CULTURE PARTY. The next day, however, the "party" admitted on its website, and in full-page adverts in the newspapers, that it was a hoax.
The declared aim of the Culture Party, and that of the hoaxers, was and is to attract more public subsidies for "culture" in Sweden. Given that its cost was estimated at SKr200,000 (€21,000) of taxpayers' money, which came via the National Theatre, some observers have suggested that this hilarious bluff might just have undermined rather than promoted its political objective.
Best,
Nick Aylott.
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested. To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know.
2005-04-14
a briefing and another event
It's all go on the Scandinavian front. There are two more items for your attention.
-----
1. EU CONSTITUTION. Having got its fingers burnt so painfully in 2003 on the euro, the Swedish government is determined to resist the rumbling pressure (eg, www.folkomrostning.nu) for a referendum on the constitution. The Danish government has much less room for manoevre in that respect.
For a concise and interesting report on the Danish situation, you could do a lot worse than read "A Perilous Democratic Exercise: The Referendum on the Constitutional Treaty in Denmark", by Catharina Sørensen and Anne Mette Vestergaard. It's a contribution to the Constitutional Ratification Monitor that's run by the European Policy Institutes Network, and the paper can found on the institute's homepage (www.epin.org).
-----
-----
2. Then there's a very interesting-looking seminar next week.
THE EURO-OUTSIDERS AND THE POLITICS OF ASYMMETRY: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
EWC WORKSHOP (in association with the Journal of European Integration)
Arts and Social Sciences Graduate Centre, 12 Abercromby Square, University of Liverpool
Thursday 21 April 2004
The workshop organised by the Europe and the World Centre (EWC) at The University of Liverpool and held in association with the Journal of European Integration represents the final part of a major research project that seeks to examine the common challenges and responses to those EU member states that are presently not members of the euro-area. The workshop provides an opportunity for information dissemination and for contributors to the project to present their key findings and conclusions to interested parties drawn from academia, public authorities and regional bodies and practitioners. The findings of the project have also been published in a special issue of the Journal of European Integration (March 2005).
1 – 2.30 pm Open Session 1: Introduction, Finnish and British EMU Studies
1 – 1.30 pm ‘Introduction: Euro-Outsiders and the Politics of Asymmetry’, Lee Miles (University of Liverpool and Karlstad University)
1.30 – 2.pm ‘Finland: Any Lessons for the Euro-Outsiders?’, Teija Tiilikainen (University of Helsinki)
2.- 2.30 pm ‘The United Kingdom: A Cautious Euro-Outsider’, Lee Miles (University of Liverpool and Karlstad University) and Gabriel Doherty (University of Hull)
2. 30 – 2.45 pm Coffee
2.45 - 3.45 Open Session 2; The Nordic Euro-Outsiders
2.45 – 3.15 ‘Denmark and European Monetary Integration: Out But Far From Over’, Martin Marcussen (University of Copenhagen)
3.15 – 3.45 ‘Sweden: The Twin Faces of a Euro-Outsider’, Rutger Lindahl (Göteborg University) and Daniel Naurin (Göteborg University)
3.45 – 4 pm Coffee
4 – 5 pm Open Session 3: Central and Eastern European Euro-Outsiders
‘The New Outsiders of Central and Eastern Europe – with Specific Reference to Poland’, Debra Johnson (University of Hull)
‘The Euro-Outsiders: Conclusions’, David Howarth (University of Edinburgh)
Funded by the European Commission as part of the The University of Liverpool’s Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence
Contact Lee Miles (L.S.Miles@liverpool.ac.uk) for further information.
-----
Best,
Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | www.pol.umu.se
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested.
To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know.
-----
1. EU CONSTITUTION. Having got its fingers burnt so painfully in 2003 on the euro, the Swedish government is determined to resist the rumbling pressure (eg, www.folkomrostning.nu) for a referendum on the constitution. The Danish government has much less room for manoevre in that respect.
For a concise and interesting report on the Danish situation, you could do a lot worse than read "A Perilous Democratic Exercise: The Referendum on the Constitutional Treaty in Denmark", by Catharina Sørensen and Anne Mette Vestergaard. It's a contribution to the Constitutional Ratification Monitor that's run by the European Policy Institutes Network, and the paper can found on the institute's homepage (www.epin.org).
-----
-----
2. Then there's a very interesting-looking seminar next week.
THE EURO-OUTSIDERS AND THE POLITICS OF ASYMMETRY: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
EWC WORKSHOP (in association with the Journal of European Integration)
Arts and Social Sciences Graduate Centre, 12 Abercromby Square, University of Liverpool
Thursday 21 April 2004
The workshop organised by the Europe and the World Centre (EWC) at The University of Liverpool and held in association with the Journal of European Integration represents the final part of a major research project that seeks to examine the common challenges and responses to those EU member states that are presently not members of the euro-area. The workshop provides an opportunity for information dissemination and for contributors to the project to present their key findings and conclusions to interested parties drawn from academia, public authorities and regional bodies and practitioners. The findings of the project have also been published in a special issue of the Journal of European Integration (March 2005).
1 – 2.30 pm Open Session 1: Introduction, Finnish and British EMU Studies
1 – 1.30 pm ‘Introduction: Euro-Outsiders and the Politics of Asymmetry’, Lee Miles (University of Liverpool and Karlstad University)
1.30 – 2.pm ‘Finland: Any Lessons for the Euro-Outsiders?’, Teija Tiilikainen (University of Helsinki)
2.- 2.30 pm ‘The United Kingdom: A Cautious Euro-Outsider’, Lee Miles (University of Liverpool and Karlstad University) and Gabriel Doherty (University of Hull)
2. 30 – 2.45 pm Coffee
2.45 - 3.45 Open Session 2; The Nordic Euro-Outsiders
2.45 – 3.15 ‘Denmark and European Monetary Integration: Out But Far From Over’, Martin Marcussen (University of Copenhagen)
3.15 – 3.45 ‘Sweden: The Twin Faces of a Euro-Outsider’, Rutger Lindahl (Göteborg University) and Daniel Naurin (Göteborg University)
3.45 – 4 pm Coffee
4 – 5 pm Open Session 3: Central and Eastern European Euro-Outsiders
‘The New Outsiders of Central and Eastern Europe – with Specific Reference to Poland’, Debra Johnson (University of Hull)
‘The Euro-Outsiders: Conclusions’, David Howarth (University of Edinburgh)
Funded by the European Commission as part of the The University of Liverpool’s Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence
Contact Lee Miles (L.S.Miles@liverpool.ac.uk) for further information.
-----
Best,
Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | www.pol.umu.se
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested.
To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know.
2005-04-13
news and events
Here is an unusually large number of notices. They concern:
1. last week's PSA conference;
2. the Nansen Colloquium in Manchester;
3. a chair in Scandinavian Studies at University College London;
4. the Danish Social Democrats' new leader;
5. a new, feminist Swedish party;
6. welcome to new members of the list.
-----
1. PSA CONFERENCE. Thanks to all who took part - as paper-presenter, discussant or member of the audience - in our two panels on Scandinavian politics in Leeds last week. I thought they went very well.
-----
-----
2. NANSEN COLLOQUIUM IN MANCHESTER...
...on the subject of 'Promoting Peace', to be held on Tuesday 3 May 2005 in Manchester, as part of the Nansen Series. The colloquium is to be hosted by the Manchester European Research Institute (MERI), Manchester Metropolitan University, in cooperation with the Royal Norwegian Embassy in London as part of the Series celebrating Norway's centennial as an independent nation.
Using experience from the Nordic region and the United Kingdom, the utility of 'peace processes' will be examined, using examples of the Balkans, Africa and Sri Lanka.
Speakers and discussants include: Vidar Helgesen, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Elisabeth Rehn, former UN Under-Secretary-General, Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Bosnia and Herzegovina; Miles Wickstead, DFID, London; Alyson Bailes, Director of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute; Geir Lundestad, Secretary of The Nobel Peace Prize Committee and Director of the Nobel Institute; Sverre Lodgaard, Director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
The organizer is Clive Archer, Director of MERI, from whom more details can be obtained (c.archer@mmu.ac.uk).
The University Association for Contemporary European Studies can be found at http://www.uaces.org/
-----
-----
3. A CHAIR IN SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES...
...is being advertised by University College London. "The successful candidate will have a distinguished international reputation in any area of Scandinavian/Nordic Studies." Further details can be found at UCL's website (www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/vacancies/adverts/AY1.html).
-----
-----
4. NEWS: NEW LEADER OF THE DANISH SOCIAL DEMOCRATS
Last night, party members elected the first woman chair of the party organisation. "Gucci" Helle Thorning-Schmidt won 53% of the votes to the 47% obtained by her more leftish rival, Frank Jensen.
If anyone has time to write a quick commentary on the election, on Thorning-Schmidt and on the state of her faction-ridden party, please send it to me, and I'll gladly post it on the list.
-----
-----
5. NEWS: FEMINIST PARTY IN SWEDEN
Since last week, and after months of rumours, Sweden has a new player, a "Feminist Initiative" (www.feministisktinitiativ.se), that aims to field candidates at the next election, in 2006. Not surprisingly, the group's leading figure - though formally, she's just one among 15 members of its executive - is Gudrun Schyman, former Left Party leader. Indeed, although there's been no programme worked out yet, the executive's members have a clearly radical-left profile. Perhaps slightly more surprisingly, the Initiative seems to want to build up a traditional-looking party organisation, with paid-up members and local chapters.
With the left bloc already struggling in the opinion polls, the Social Democrats, the Left and the Greens are all obviously unsettled by this newcomer. And, with the launch of yet another new entrant, a "Healthcare Party", apparently becoming likelier, we could be in for some fun in Swedish party politics.
-----
-----
6. NEW MEMBERS OF THE LIST
Welcome to several new members of the list. The idea is to use it for sending out news, commentaries, book reviews, requests - whatever, really, as long as it has something to do with Nordic politics, public adminstration or international relations. If you have something for distribution, just send it to me, and I'll do the honours.
There is also a group meeting in the pipeline, some time this year. Further information will follow in due course.
-----
Best,
Nick.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | www.pol.umu.se
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested.
To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know.
1. last week's PSA conference;
2. the Nansen Colloquium in Manchester;
3. a chair in Scandinavian Studies at University College London;
4. the Danish Social Democrats' new leader;
5. a new, feminist Swedish party;
6. welcome to new members of the list.
-----
1. PSA CONFERENCE. Thanks to all who took part - as paper-presenter, discussant or member of the audience - in our two panels on Scandinavian politics in Leeds last week. I thought they went very well.
-----
-----
2. NANSEN COLLOQUIUM IN MANCHESTER...
...on the subject of 'Promoting Peace', to be held on Tuesday 3 May 2005 in Manchester, as part of the Nansen Series. The colloquium is to be hosted by the Manchester European Research Institute (MERI), Manchester Metropolitan University, in cooperation with the Royal Norwegian Embassy in London as part of the Series celebrating Norway's centennial as an independent nation.
Using experience from the Nordic region and the United Kingdom, the utility of 'peace processes' will be examined, using examples of the Balkans, Africa and Sri Lanka.
Speakers and discussants include: Vidar Helgesen, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Elisabeth Rehn, former UN Under-Secretary-General, Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Bosnia and Herzegovina; Miles Wickstead, DFID, London; Alyson Bailes, Director of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute; Geir Lundestad, Secretary of The Nobel Peace Prize Committee and Director of the Nobel Institute; Sverre Lodgaard, Director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
The organizer is Clive Archer, Director of MERI, from whom more details can be obtained (c.archer@mmu.ac.uk).
The University Association for Contemporary European Studies can be found at http://www.uaces.org/
-----
-----
3. A CHAIR IN SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES...
...is being advertised by University College London. "The successful candidate will have a distinguished international reputation in any area of Scandinavian/Nordic Studies." Further details can be found at UCL's website (www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/vacancies/adverts/AY1.html).
-----
-----
4. NEWS: NEW LEADER OF THE DANISH SOCIAL DEMOCRATS
Last night, party members elected the first woman chair of the party organisation. "Gucci" Helle Thorning-Schmidt won 53% of the votes to the 47% obtained by her more leftish rival, Frank Jensen.
If anyone has time to write a quick commentary on the election, on Thorning-Schmidt and on the state of her faction-ridden party, please send it to me, and I'll gladly post it on the list.
-----
-----
5. NEWS: FEMINIST PARTY IN SWEDEN
Since last week, and after months of rumours, Sweden has a new player, a "Feminist Initiative" (www.feministisktinitiativ.se), that aims to field candidates at the next election, in 2006. Not surprisingly, the group's leading figure - though formally, she's just one among 15 members of its executive - is Gudrun Schyman, former Left Party leader. Indeed, although there's been no programme worked out yet, the executive's members have a clearly radical-left profile. Perhaps slightly more surprisingly, the Initiative seems to want to build up a traditional-looking party organisation, with paid-up members and local chapters.
With the left bloc already struggling in the opinion polls, the Social Democrats, the Left and the Greens are all obviously unsettled by this newcomer. And, with the launch of yet another new entrant, a "Healthcare Party", apparently becoming likelier, we could be in for some fun in Swedish party politics.
-----
-----
6. NEW MEMBERS OF THE LIST
Welcome to several new members of the list. The idea is to use it for sending out news, commentaries, book reviews, requests - whatever, really, as long as it has something to do with Nordic politics, public adminstration or international relations. If you have something for distribution, just send it to me, and I'll do the honours.
There is also a group meeting in the pipeline, some time this year. Further information will follow in due course.
-----
Best,
Nick.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, research fellow (docent/forskarassistent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | www.pol.umu.se
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested.
To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)