Election day in Denmark

[plindboe]

You need to find a better translator.

 

[Kerberos]

Could somone here explain what they mean when they say the Liberal Party has turned its back on "liberalism?"

Have they abandoned free-market reforms?

They certainly haven't innitiated any, they have however passed laws that says that you can't bring your wife to Denmark unless your both over 24 and that you have a greater total connection to Denmark than to another country. They also tried to forbid people from carrying swiss army knives and similar. Also they campaigned on not doing any welfare reforms. Hardly liberal IMO.

 

[plindboe]

Jeg ved det faktisk ikke. Men hvis du finder et godt sted så lad mig det venligst vide!

Will do.

 

[Kerberos]

I think it's very much comparable. The "extreme" party has the power to bring down the government. Whether they can do so by witholding one or ten crucial votes makes little difference.

I'm not concerned with either DPP or the Unity list bringing down the governement, doing so would be electoral suicide so they won't.

Most of the legislation both under this and previous governments has been passed on a broad basis. Exactly what proportion will depend on how much both sides want to compromise. Not just the government.

I said major legislation, I'm familiar with the statistics but most of the major legislation has been passed with a narrow majority. Sure both sides have to cooperrate in order to read a compromise, but IMO the reason for the for of broad agreements on important legislation is more the governement than the Social Liberal Party, of course the governement has little reason to compromise with us since our votes are insignificant.

And I do seem to remember the previous government passing very important legislation including a major tax reform with a majority of a single vote which included the commies and our friends from the North Atlantic.
So while I can well understand their frustration - because I myself felt it back then - I don't feel they're entitled to complain much.

I'd content that the cases you produce are the exeption where under the current governement they have become the norm. AFAIR all the state budgets under this governement has been passed mainly with DPP.

 

[Kerberos]

I agree that they've become substantially less liberal under Fogh (who'd have thought, given his history?). I used to be a fan of Fogh, but no longer am. As far as having sold out completely, I obviously disagree.

I honestly can't think of anything Liberal Fogh has done, so I'd say his sell-out is complete. I don't think Fogh is significantly more Liberal than Lykketoft. I do agree that it's suprising "Fra hulemand til julemand".

I like the Tax-stop very much. I'd like to see an actual Tax-decrease vow, but I guess it isn't politically viable at the moment.

I don't like the Tax-stop at all. Not because I support increasing taxes, but because it's designed for the sole purpose of gaining votes, rather than say, improve the economy.

Yes they oppose restrictions on immigration, something I'm for. They are also against the military. I could never vote for them.

I'm sorry but you impression of Danish politics seem fairly anachronistic, the Social Liberal Party hasn't been pacifistic for a number of years. As for emmigration they oppose some of the current restrictions on emmigration, they don't oppose restrictions in general.

 

[Kerberos]

Something wrong with using support from the Danish People's Party?

Not automatically, I suppose, I just happen to disagree with them on almost any issue you'd care to name, so I tend to oppose any law they support

Oh, and have a look at the economy. It's going fabulously well.

They inherited a good economy, they didn't create it, nor have they done anything to maintain it. I supose we'll see how much liberalism is left in Fogh when the welfare commision comes out and tells us, suprise, suprise, that we have to do something about the increase in older people.

BTW, remember how an extra 23 billion Kroner in surplus on the State finances was suddenly found? Loved that.

Sure that was nice, but apparently the increase is mainly caused by pensions and company-tax which is hard to predict, sometimes they're higher than expected and sometimes lower. Also with some of the money they don't even know where they're from, so I don't think that this pleasent surprise nececarilly justifies the governements economic policies.

I like results, not pretty words.

You must have loved the last governement then.

Wait and learn.

Back at ya.

 

[BPSCG]

My prefered governement would actually have been a Social Liberal- Conservative one, but that obviously wasn't in the cards. As for the actual alternative you're right that they would have depended on the commies, but I don't think the situation is quite comparable. First of all the Unity List is much smaller than DPP, and thus could expect less influence, and secondly it isn't given that all the major legislation would be passed using their votes. The current administration with it's "contract politics" has very limited ability to compromise, and will thus be forced pass most of it's major legislation with DDP, just as they did this period. The previous governement passed much more of the major with the opposition, than the current governement has.

Just to educate an ignorant Yank, here...

When no party in a parliamentary system gets a clear majority and the leader of the largest party has to form a coalition or a "national unity" party or somesuch, does anyone ever challenge the legitimacy of the resulting coalition, and yell that "they have no mandate!"?

I'm just wondering, because I'm sure you've heard (and are probably sick of hearing about US politics by now) about how Democrats here argue that Bush has no mandate because he won "only" 52% of the popular vote. That despite the fact that he was the first presidential candidate to win over 50% since 1988, and his party added seats in both legislative houses in the recent elections.

Just wondering...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Based on the election result, the various parties get seats in the parliament. Decisions are reached by vote. So if you can collect more than half the votes in the parliament, you HAVE a mandate. In principle, the smallest party might lead a government. We have had governments that did not have a fixed majority, but fended their way from case to case (they usuallydon't last long).

The present coalition does not have majority, but has a one more party supporting them.

Hans

 

[BPSCG]

The present coalition does not have majority, but has a one more party supporting them.

Okay, so when a coalition is formed (15% party joins up with 36% party), does that mean they agree to vote in lockstep on all legislation? If not, how does anything get accomplished?

 

[mbp]

Just to educate an ignorant Yank, here...

When no party in a parliamentary system gets a clear majority and the leader of the largest party has to form a coalition or a "national unity" party or somesuch, does anyone ever challenge the legitimacy of the resulting coalition, and yell that "they have no mandate!"?

If, at any time, the parliament passes a motion of no confidence in the government it must resign. So that's how the mandate is established in our system. The government could be made up of parties totalling far below 50% of the votes, but as long as there isn't a majority willing to vote against it in parliament that doesn't matter.

When the govenment resigns - voluntarily or not - the new one is not necessarily formed by the leader of the largest party. This is how it works in Denmark:

The various political parties tell the King/Queen who they would like to lead the negotiations for forming a coalition government. Whoever has the most support is then appointed "royal investigator" and given some time to find out if he is able to form a government which will not be rejected by parliament. If he can, the new government is formed - if not a new investigator is appointed. If noone can form a viable government a new election may have to be held.

None of this happened this time around, as the government didn't resign when it called the election. Had they lost their majority support in the new parliament they would then have had to resign right away, but they didn't so the old government can in principle continue unchanged.
There's likely to be a cabinet reshuffle, though.

 

[mbp]

Okay, so when a coalition is formed (15% party joins up with 36% party), does that mean they agree to vote in lockstep on all legislation? If not, how does anything get accomplished?

The memebers of a coalition will agree on a common position and always (or very nearly so) vote in lockstep. But the coalition member will usually not themselves be enough for a majority so they usually need the support of other parties as well if they want to pass legislation.

We can also have a situation where a majority in parliament passes legislation that's against the wishes of the government. If it's on an important matter this may cause the government to resign or call for a new election. But they don't have to if there isn't a majority for a motion of no confidence. This led to some odd situations in the 80s...

 

[CFLarsen]

I am waiting for the Queen to step in and dictate how she wants the government to look like. After all, she has dictatorial Constitutional powers.......

......waaaaaaaaaaaaaait......

 

[Kerberos]

Just to educate an ignorant Yank, here...

When no party in a parliamentary system gets a clear majority and the leader of the largest party has to form a coalition or a "national unity" party or somesuch, does anyone ever challenge the legitimacy of the resulting coalition, and yell that "they have no mandate!"?

I'm just wondering, because I'm sure you've heard (and are probably sick of hearing about US politics by now) about how Democrats here argue that Bush has no mandate because he won "only" 52% of the popular vote. That despite the fact that he was the first presidential candidate to win over 50% since 1988, and his party added seats in both legislative houses in the recent elections.

Just wondering...

Other people have answered this, but I'll just add that the concept of gettign a "mandate" doesn't really exist in Denmark, at least I've never heard of it. The closest thing would be that legislation is often considered more legitimate if it's passed with a broad majority. Fx there has been some criticism of the governement for sending that submarine to the Persian Golf to aid the invasion of Iraq, with a narrow majority.

ETA: The finecount has given the Social Liberal party another mandate at the expense of the conservatives. They now have 17 mandates which is an increase of 8 from the precious election, a major victory, but one that has no direct effect, because theese 17 mandates can't be used to form any realistic majority.