Danish Parliamentary Election 2022

[nelson]

Jul 8, 2022 14:46:54 GMT ilerda said:

Sorry if I’ve missed it, but who/what exactly are the Denmark Democrats?

Jamie made a write-up before I got around to it (it's on the first page), so that's why there isn't one in the OP as intended. But it's a populist party (anti "metropolitan elite", mildly eurosceptic, mildly Islamophobic, and against "mass immigration") founded by former Liberal deputy leader and Minister of Integration Inger Støjberg, who had to leave parliament after being convicted by a so-called Realm Court (a special court with 50/50 judges and politically appointed members) for illegally blocking cohabitation of grown men and underage girls married to them on asylum centers, a case where many thought she was being unfairly treated while others agreed with her critics that it was about the principle (illegal administration and misleading parliament) rather than the decision itself. The party doesn't have much in the way of an actual program yet, so it's essentially a personal vehicle (like a couple of the other new parties). 

I made this post in the Denmark thread about her potential base. 

There obviously isn't room for all of these parties, but it's not a given that it'll be the existing ones that survive. Støjberg's main problem is likely to be a lack of high profile co-defectors from the Liberals. But she has a far more well-defined niche than The Moderates (which'll either not get in or be a 1-2 term micro party). She is counting on being able to attract the hardliner wing of the Liberals and pick up the pieces from an imploding DPP.

The Liberals are split between three broad tendencies.

Urban liberals: primarily motivated by economics, very pro-EU, socially liberal with some acceptance of woke tendencies, fairly green, post-nationalist, often republican (esp. in Copenhagen), care a lot about appearing modern and "forward thinking".

Rural traditionalists: Mainly in Jutland, culturally (and often personally) Christian, often associated with the Grundtvigian layman movement (folk high schools, free schools, elective congregations), believe in a strong and vibrant civil society, lots of local community engagement and volunteer work, fairly humanistic view of refugees and development aid.

Hardliners: also primarily rural/small town, patriotic/nationalist, culturally conservative (by Danish standards), materialist, anti-green but usually not into climate change denialism, hates "the Copenhagen elite" which they see as arrogant, incompetent and out of touch with "Production Denmark" (the places where people work in industry and farming, mainly in western Denmark), de facto conservatives who don't care about the non-economic parts of the liberal tradition, dislike the EU but don't believe Danish economy can survive a Daxit, think that Denmark's approach to the EU should be more like Poland and Hungary ("just ignore them when they get too silly, they won't throw us out anyway"). They also tend to view big parts of the Urban Liberals as "Radikale Light".

Støjberg's base is the hardliners and there is a lot of overlap between the hardliners and the moderate part of the DPP (which Thulesen Dahl represented), their main difference being on economics, but probably bridgeable. If Støjberg could actually unite the moderate part of the DPP base (incl. some of those who have left the party since 2015) and most of the Liberal hardliners she'd have a decent size party (15% or so), but that's unlikely unless she's able to attract other well-known Liberals or ex-Liberals. It could go either way, but her potential base is much bigger than Løkke Rasmussen's.

DPP is now, due to pressure from NB, in favour of immediate Daxit, whereas the old line was a pragmatic "let's wait and see how Brexit goes and maybe that'll open up some possibilities down the line". NB argue that Brexit has been a tremendous success for the UK and that Denmark should just leave asap, but that's not how most people whose livelihood depend on industry, farming or trade (aka "Production Denmark") view it.

[Deleted]

How do the letters work then? Do they appear on the ballot alongside the party name? What are they for?

[nelson]

Jul 8, 2022 19:01:52 GMT @europeanlefty said:

How do the letters work then? Do they appear on the ballot alongside the party name? What are they for?

Yes, they appear before the party name. The idea is to make counting and tabulation easy by having a short and unequivocal symbol for each party, abbreviations varied too much in the early 20th century and a single letter was considered a better solution than an official abbreviation or acronym. They also establish a fixed order of the parties on the ballot. 

[nelson]

jamie I've now read your description of the parties, I'd previously just skimmed it. I have a few comments on things I find odd and a couple of errors you should correct. 

a) what do you base the idea that The Alternative has been "taken over" by the fundamentalist wing of the Vegans on? Vegan co-founder Michael Monberg joined The Alternative in spring and became their animal rights spokesperson, but I can't find any reference to him and his tiny fan club taking over the party (and it sounds very unlikely, it's not that much of a husk). The former Mayor of Culture in Copenhagen's city government Franciszka Rosenkilde is still chairman. 

c) saying LA don't care about "Social Liberalism" is a bit odd, they're pretty good on civil liberties (best on the right at least); and they were never Social Liberals in the economic sense in the first place so it can't be a reference to that.  

d) calling New Right far right is incorrect given the nazi/fascist associations of that term - it's a fairly generic right wing populist party, though maybe more hard right (anti-poor) than most. It's Islamophobic and anti-refugee, but not really anti-immigration per se. They basically want Denmark to accept wealthy and highly skilled immigrants, and have easy family unification with foreign spouses for regular Danes. Their main selling point on immigration is that having to obey "outdated and naive" international conventions means Denmark can't take "good immigrants" and has to harass "ordinary Danes" wanting to get their Brazilian, Thai, Vietnamese, Jamaican etc. spouse into the country and throw out/harass "productive" immigrants rather than keep out people from problematic countries in the Muslim world and the most "backwards" part of Africa, and kick out convicted foreigners and those unable to sustain themselves, basically they want to be able to discriminate based on nationality and how those nationalities on average integrate into Danish society. It's more hard right in the sense of being anti-poor/vulnerable than anything racialist. Besides that it's basically an "if only Denmark was more like (German speaking) Switzerland" party: low tax, private initiative, open for business - but closed for paupers, law & order, extensive decentralisation, insurance based welfare, and outside of the EU. Your comment on "wanting to back a guy who'd start a race war" (Rasmus Paludan; a war of religion would be more apt) rather than Frederiksen was a flippant remark by their leader Pernille Vermund that they'd rather see him in parliament than the SocDems because he'd back their immigration policies, not that they'd want him as PM. I suppose Islamophobia being seen as a more extreme view in the UK than in Denmark plays a part, but I still find you're making them sound far more extremist than the party is. Their Danish name Nye Borgerlige means the New Civic Party (litt. New "Civics" as it's a plural noun) btw with civic (borgerlig) being the traditional term for the mainstream centre-right, a supporter of free market economy, patriotism, rule of law and civil liberties. It's basically the Islamophobic and more populist version of LA (which they have a lot of ties to locally, and a lot of ex-members from). 

e) you call Lars Løkke Rasmussen "Lars Locke" several times, I assume that's a spell check related error and not a John Locke pun I don't get.

f) it's the Denmark Democrats and not the Danish Democrats. 

[jamie]

nelson Thanks for the comments, I originally typed it quite quickly so will make a few edits. The LA comment was based on the fact they define themselves more on economic than social policy, and easily accepted the more authoritarian impulses of the right wing parties when they were in government. The New Right comment was to illustrate that they’re very much the most right wing party running, and it’s not like Vermund was forced to make the comment on Paludan (he was a member of her party at one point and she was clearly trying to pander to his voters in a way no other party would). 

[Khunanup]

Jul 10, 2022 8:14:28 GMT nelson said:

jamie I've now read your description of the parties, I'd previously just skimmed it. I have a few comments on things I find odd and a couple of errors you should correct. 

a) what do you base the idea that The Alternative has been "taken over" by the fundamentalist wing of the Vegans on? Vegan co-founder Michael Monberg joined The Alternative in spring and became their animal rights spokesperson, but I can't find any reference to him and his tiny fan club taking over the party (and it sounds very unlikely, it's not that much of a husk). The former Mayor of Culture in Copenhagen's city government Franciszka Rosenkilde is still chairman. 

c) saying LA don't care about "Social Liberalism" is a bit odd, they're pretty good on civil liberties (best on the right at least); and they were never Social Liberals in the economic sense in the first place so it can't be a reference to that.  

d) calling New Right far right is incorrect given the nazi/fascist associations of that term - it's a fairly generic right wing populist party, though maybe more hard right (anti-poor) than most. It's Islamophobic and anti-refugee, but not really anti-immigration per se. They basically want Denmark to accept wealthy and highly skilled immigrants, and have easy family unification with foreign spouses for regular Danes. Their main selling point on immigration is that having to obey "outdated and naive" international conventions means Denmark can't take "good immigrants" and has to harass "ordinary Danes" wanting to get their Brazilian, Thai, Vietnamese, Jamaican etc. spouse into the country and throw out/harass "productive" immigrants rather than keep out people from problematic countries in the Muslim world and the most "backwards" part of Africa, and kick out convicted foreigners and those unable to sustain themselves, basically they want to be able to discriminate based on nationality and how those nationalities on average integrate into Danish society. It's more hard right in the sense of being anti-poor/vulnerable than anything racialist. Besides that it's basically an "if only Denmark was more like (German speaking) Switzerland" party: low tax, private initiative, open for business - but closed for paupers, law & order, extensive decentralisation, insurance based welfare, and outside of the EU. Your comment on "wanting to back a guy who'd start a race war" (Rasmus Paludan; a war of religion would be more apt) rather than Frederiksen was a flippant remark by their leader Pernille Vermund that they'd rather see him in parliament than the SocDems because he'd back their immigration policies, not that they'd want him as PM. I suppose Islamophobia being seen as a more extreme view in the UK than in Denmark plays a part, but I still find you're making them sound far more extremist than the party is. Their Danish name Nye Borgerlige means the New Civic Party (litt. New "Civics" as it's a plural noun) btw with civic (borgerlig) being the traditional term for the mainstream centre-right, a supporter of free market economy, patriotism, rule of law and civil liberties. It's basically the Islamophobic and more populist version of LA (which they have a lot of ties to locally, and a lot of ex-members from). 

e) you call Lars Løkke Rasmussen "Lars Locke" several times, I assume that's a spell check related error and not a John Locke pun I don't get.

f) it's the Denmark Democrats and not the Danish Democrats. 

Picking on and scapegoating, especially, small minorities is very much part of the far right playbook, not matter how much excuses are made for those who indulge in it.

The whole way that those parties try to legitimise themselves, and are indeed indulged by the mainstream, is by having areas which are not particularly out of the ordinary in their policy platform, while their virulent hatred for said minority remains unchallenged by many.

[nelson]

Former DPP group chairman Peter Skaarup has become one of a handful of members of the Denmark Democrats (they accept "friends" of the party, but so far only people hand-picked by Støjberg are allowed to join), which means they're now represented in parliament. Skaarup is generally considered a very capable negotiator and organizer and isn't prone to saying controversial things so it's logical that Støjberg has accepted him. It'll be interesting to see which of the other DPP defectors will be accepted (if any).

The Vegan Party has merged with the small green liberal party The Greens and the new party will be known as the Green Alliance, that's a bit interesting because The Greens are in favour of lower taxes on income from work which they want to be replace with taxes on CO2 emission, and generally has a centre-right-ish economic policy whereas the Vegans were leftist. It makes sense to move towards the centre while keeping the radical animal rights and climate profile because the eco-leftist position is far too crowded with the Red Greens, The Alternative and Free Greens. If they do I think that would give them a 5% chance of making it rather than 0.1%.

[nelson]

First post-summer vacation poll, from Epinion for public broadcaster DR, surprisingly good for the Liberals. Lars Løkke Rasmussen would become kingmaker on those numbers.

Centre-left & Left 47.9% (84)

Social Democrats 24.2% (45)
SPP 8.1% (15)
Red-Greens 7.3% (13)
Social Liberals 5.8% (11)

The Alternative 1.3% 
Independent Greens 0.8% 
Vegan Party (aka the Green Alliance) 0.4% 

Moderate centre-right  4.1 (5)

Moderates 3.1% 5
Christian Democrats 1.0% 

"Blue Bloc" 46.8% (86)

Liberals 14.2% (26)
Conservatives 11.5% (21)
Liberal Alliance 3.8% (7)

DPP 2.1% (4)
Denmark Democrats 10.8% (20)
New Right 4.4% (8)

[nelson]

Voxmeter poll with DD at 11.2%, so similar level to Epinion. Voxmeter was the most accurate pollster last time. Even better for the Liberals, who are clearly ahead of the Conservatives and with the Moderates below the threshold. A bit lower for the SocDems and the worst SocDem result in a Voxmeter poll since March 2015. DPP clearly above the threshold.

In other news:

The SocLib leader Sofie Carsten Nielsen has restated the party's ultimatum to Frederiksen (call an election or we'll table a motion of no confidence as soon as parliament reconvenes) emphasizing that Frederiksen inviting them to join the government instead is not an option.
Fierce media infighting between parliamentary candidates in New Right (both social media and tabloid), which will likely damage them if it's to brought under control.


Left/centre-left: 38.4%
Social Democrats 22.9%
SPP 8.3%
Red-Greens 7.2%

Greens: 1.7%
The Alternative 1.2%
Independent Greens 0.3%
Vegan Party (aka the Green Alliance) 0.2%

Moderate centre-right: 10.8%
Social Liberals 7.2%
Moderates 1.9%
Christian Democrats 1.7%

Mainstream centre-right: 30.9%
Liberals 15.2%
Conservatives 12.5%
Liberal Alliance 3.2%

Right wing populists: 18.7%
DPP 2.8%
Denmark Democrats 11.2%
New Right 4.7%

Others 0.6%

[nelson]

Aug 8, 2022 12:04:30 GMT nelson said:

Voxmeter poll with DD at 11.2%, so similar level to Epinion. Voxmeter was the most accurate pollster last time. Even better for the Liberals, who are clearly ahead of the Conservatives and with the Moderates below the threshold. A bit lower for the SocDems and the worst SocDem result in a Voxmeter poll since March 2015. DPP clearly above the threshold.

The two big losers on those polling numbers would be Mette Frederiksen who would have no chance of staying on as PM and Lars Løkke Rasmussen, the Moderates would likely still get in despite being below 2% by winning a constituency seat for Løkke Rasmussen but that would just give them 3 to 4 irrelevant seats.

[nelson]

YouGov poll of preferred Blue Bloc PM has 70% for Conservative leader Søren Pape Poulsen and only 30% for the Liberals' leader Jakob Ellemann-Jensen. Pape Poulsen has so far declined to say whether he's a candidate for PM, but both Liberal Alliance, NB and DPP urge him to declare. Back when it looked like Frederiksen would easily hold on it might make sense for Pape to avoid being tainted by a defeat, but with a centre-right majority in the post-vacation polls and the Conservatives trailing the Liberals the internal pressure on him to put his name forward is likely considerable, the Conservatives should be able to pass the Liberals if Pape is an official candidate for PM.

[nelson]

Average of the first post-vacation polls from the five regular pollsters. That includes YouGov, which is usually not very accurate, but omitting YouGov doesn't change the average much. 


Left/Centre-left: 39.3% (71)

SocDems 23.7% (43)
SPP 8.4% (15)
Red-Greens 7.2% (13)


Greens: 1.7 (0)

The Alternative 0.9% 
Independent Greens 0.4% 
Vegan Party / Green Alliance 0.4% 


Centrists: 10.7 (17)

Social Liberals 6.4% (11)
Moderates 3.5% (6)
Christian Democrats 0.8% 


Mainstream centre-right: 29.6% (54)

Liberals 13.1% (24)
Conservatives 12.6% (23)
Liberal Alliance 3.9% (7)

Right wing populists: 18.2% (33)

Denmark Democrats 11.0% (20)
New Right 4.9% (9)
DPP 2.3% (4)

Likely distribution of North Atlantic seats:

Faroe Islands

Union Party: 1
SocDems or People's Party: 1

Greenland

Siumut 1
IA 1

The Union Party is aligned with the Liberals so 88 seats behind a centre-right PM even without the Moderates. The main separatist right wing party the People's Party is running a populist anti-Russia sanctions campaign accusing the SocDems of hypocrisy (they were against sanctions in 2014) and sucking up to Frederiksen, and I think they've got a good chance of getting the second Faroese seats. Greenlandic IA said last time they'd support whichever side gave Greenland the best offer, and with two right wing Faroese seats they could be alternative kingmakers if the "Blue Bloc" leaders want to ignore Lars Løkke Rasmussen. 

[matureleft]

The election has yet to be called and isn’t required until next year. Is there an indication as to when it will be?

[nelson]

Aug 12, 2022 11:14:04 GMT matureleft said:

The election has yet to be called and isn’t required until next year. Is there an indication as to when it will be?

Mette Frederiksen has two main options:

She can call the election before parliament reconvenes on the first Tuesday of October (she'd need the Speaker to call a special session for that), in which case the election will likely be in late September (with the last Tuesday in the month as the single most likely option), or she can force the Social Liberals to table af motion of no confidence and let the opposition vote her out. 

If she prefers the latter it's expected that she'll go for a short three week campaign, so ultimo October (with the last Tuesday in the month as the single most likely option) in order to minimize the accusation of having dragged her feet. It would allow her to potentially squeeze the SocLib vote, arguing they've jeopardized a progressive climate policy etc. Most SocLib voters (75-80%) prefer a SocDem government to a "Blue Bloc" one. 

In principle Frederiksen could step down following a MoNC without calling an election and stay on as acting PM during what would be long and complicated government negotiations (which might very well drag on until the four year term expires next year). But that would be perceived as irresponsible in a time of crisis (Ukraine, cost of living) and almost certainly result in a major electoral backlash, and the cost of living crisis would likely be even worse by then, so that's considered highly unlikely. 

She could also wait to parliament reconvenes and step down before a motion of no confidence is voted on, but it's hard to see how that would benefit her party. 

The SocDems have already engaged in negative campaigning against the Liberal leadership, and that's never done apart from in the run-up to an election, so that's considered a sign she'll call it before October. 

There has only ever been three instances of a government being voted out in Denmark (1909, 1947, 1975), so it would be unusual if Frederiksen went for an option that hasn't been used for nearly half a century. Usually a PM just steps down when it's clear that the government has lost its majority, and it would make cooperation with the SocLibs after the election more difficult. But a lot of political norms have been broken lately, so who knows. Some voters, especially elderly ones, would consider Frederiksen a drama queen if she insists on provoking a motion of no confidence, so it might backfire. 

[nelson]

Basically there is a norm that the PM should either step down or call an election as soon as the government has lost its majority, but there's also a norm that you don't have election campaigns during the summer when a significant part of the electorate is on vacation, which has allowed Frederiksen to wait for a while without it being viewed as  controversial. So a September election would be the most natural and the only uncontroversial option.

[nelson]

Aug 12, 2022 13:59:51 GMT nelson said:

Mette Frederiksen has two main options:

She can call the election before parliament reconvenes on the first Tuesday of October (she'd need the Speaker to call a special session for that), in which case the election will likely be in late September (with the last Tuesday in the month as the single most likely option), or she can force the Social Liberals to table af motion of no confidence and let the opposition vote her out.

Well, it turns out there is no formal requirement for the PM to call an election in parliament, it is merely tradition. Formally the PM asks the Queen to issue an open letter to the people stating that an election is to be held on a particular date and it is then published in Statstidende (the State Times) along with other official notifications.

But there is a special parliamentary session scheduled on 6 September to debate the government's budget proposal, three weeks (considered the shortest possible campaign period) before Tuesday the 27th, the last Tuesday in September.

One potential problem with a September election is that the celebration of the Queen's Golden Jubilee in January was postponed to September because of the pandemic and it may be a bit odd to have an election campaign simultaneously.

Most pundits and commentators seem to assume that Frederiksen will either call the election at the SocDems parliamentary group meeting on 16-17 August in which case it could be held as early as 6 September, or at the special parliamentary session on 6 September.

Danish elections are by tradition held on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Tuesday, with Tuesday being the preferred option.

[jamie]

Pape officially wants to be prime minister. Given he says the Blue leader with the most seats in support of their premiership should become prime minister, this would mean Pape becomes prime minister in a Blue Bloc majority. The Conservatives should also benefit from a prime ministerial leader and therefore finish ahead of the Liberals (and if the latter said it was the largest party, this would be even more likely). Mixed picture for the Red Bloc, who now face a popular de facto leader of the Blue Bloc, but who is more right wing and risks making the election a referendum on welfare (lots of Social Democrats are already attacking him for wanting to cuts pensions and not grow healthcare/elderly services with the aging population etc).

[Georg Ebner]

Aug 15, 2022 16:18:05 GMT jamie said:

Pape officially wants to be prime minister. Given he says the Blue leader with the most seats should become prime minister, this should mean the Conservatives finish ahead of the Liberals given his personal popularity.

I guess, Pape meant, whoever has most MPs behind him, knowing, that the smaller blue parties prefer him.

[maxque]

Aug 15, 2022 16:59:43 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Aug 15, 2022 16:18:05 GMT jamie said:

Pape officially wants to be prime minister. Given he says the Blue leader with the most seats should become prime minister, this should mean the Conservatives finish ahead of the Liberals given his personal popularity.

I guess, Pape meant, whoever has most MPs behind him, knowing, that the smaller blue parties prefer him.

No, he meant the leader of the largest party. His goal is to steal their votes so there is more Conservative MPs, not give the small parties more power.

[jamie]

Aug 15, 2022 17:06:47 GMT maxque said:

Aug 15, 2022 16:59:43 GMT Georg Ebner said:

I guess, Pape meant, whoever has most MPs behind him, knowing, that the smaller blue parties prefer him.

No, he meant the leader of the largest party. His goal is to steal their votes so there is more Conservative MPs, not give the small parties more power.

I’ve checked and his position seems to be that the leader with the most Blue seats backing them becomes prime minister, not necessarily the largest party. Given LA, DD and NB all prefer Pape, that would virtually guarantee him the premiership if they win a majority.