On Saturday the people of Iceland went to the polls to elect the successor to President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who will step down from the post he has held for twenty years on 1 August. The choice fell on the historian Guðni Jóhannesson, who received 39.1 % of the votes.
The incoming President, who turned 48 the day after his election, is an historian and assistant professor at the University of Reykjavik. Among his fields of research is the Icelandic presidency and among his books is one on the presidency of Kristján Eldjárn. He has also translated four Stephen King books into Icelandic.
The president-elect is unaffiliated to any political party, but this is not unusual in Iceland.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Monday, 27 June 2016
Wednesday, 20 April 2016
President of Iceland to stand for sixth term
At a press conference on Monday, President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson of Iceland announced that he will after all stand for a sixth term in the presidential election to be held on 25 June. In his New Year's Speech, the President announced that he would retire at the end of his fifth term, but the uncertainty caused by the developments of the last weeks has made him reconsider. Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson was felled by the Panama Papers revelations and parliamentary elections will now be held in the autumn of this year rather than next year as previously planned. In this situation, a wish for the experienced president to continue grew into a "wave of pressure". As the formation of a new government may prove difficult, the President wants to ensure that the country is not without leadership, he said.
The office of President of Iceland is largely ceremonial, but unlike his predecessors, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who has led Iceland through difficult times, has repeatedly used the powers vested in the President. In 2010, he vetoed the so-called Icesave deal whereby the government had agreed to compensate Britain and the Netherlands for the financial losses suffered by citizens of those countries when the Icelandic banks collapsed. The President's veto led to a referendum being held, in which the majority endorsed his veto. In February the following year, he vetoed another similar deal, a veto which was again supported by the people in the referendum that followed. Recently he also refused the scandalised Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson's request for a dissolution of Parliament.
Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson is the fifth President of Iceland since the country abolished the monarchy in 1944 and is already the longest-serving. For decades, no incumbent president was challenged for re-election, but in 1988, President Vigdís Finnbogadóttir was challenged when she stood for a third time. Having won a resounding victory, she served until 1996, when she decided to stand down and Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson won the election to succeed her. He was challenged when he stood for re-election in 2000, but was unopposed in 2004 and then again challenged in 2008. In 2012, he announced he would not stand for re-election, but changed his mind after being petitioned by 30,000 citizens and was eventually elected with 52.78 % of the vote against 33.16 % for his closest opponent. This year he seems likely to face at least ten contenders who have already announced their candidacies.
Postscript: A few weeks later, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson again changed his mind and announced that he would after all not stand for a sixth term. This decision came after it was revealed that his wife Dorrit Mousaieff and her family were mentioned in the Panama papers. A spokesperson for the President said that the couple live completely independent lives and that he had no knowledge of her or her family's financial affairs.
The office of President of Iceland is largely ceremonial, but unlike his predecessors, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who has led Iceland through difficult times, has repeatedly used the powers vested in the President. In 2010, he vetoed the so-called Icesave deal whereby the government had agreed to compensate Britain and the Netherlands for the financial losses suffered by citizens of those countries when the Icelandic banks collapsed. The President's veto led to a referendum being held, in which the majority endorsed his veto. In February the following year, he vetoed another similar deal, a veto which was again supported by the people in the referendum that followed. Recently he also refused the scandalised Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson's request for a dissolution of Parliament.
Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson is the fifth President of Iceland since the country abolished the monarchy in 1944 and is already the longest-serving. For decades, no incumbent president was challenged for re-election, but in 1988, President Vigdís Finnbogadóttir was challenged when she stood for a third time. Having won a resounding victory, she served until 1996, when she decided to stand down and Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson won the election to succeed her. He was challenged when he stood for re-election in 2000, but was unopposed in 2004 and then again challenged in 2008. In 2012, he announced he would not stand for re-election, but changed his mind after being petitioned by 30,000 citizens and was eventually elected with 52.78 % of the vote against 33.16 % for his closest opponent. This year he seems likely to face at least ten contenders who have already announced their candidacies.
Postscript: A few weeks later, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson again changed his mind and announced that he would after all not stand for a sixth term. This decision came after it was revealed that his wife Dorrit Mousaieff and her family were mentioned in the Panama papers. A spokesperson for the President said that the couple live completely independent lives and that he had no knowledge of her or her family's financial affairs.
Sunday, 28 December 2014
Swedish general election cancelled
The extraordinary Swedish general election which it was recently announced would take place on 22 March will now not take place after all, it was announced on Saturday. This follows from an agreement reached between the governing Social Democrats and Green Party and the four parties of the centre-right block which aims at making it possible for a minority government to survive despite the stated intention of the right-wing extremist Sweden Democrats, who hold the parliamentary balance, to defeat any government that will not do the extremists' bidding.
The decision to hold an extraordinary parliamentary election in March was announced by Prime Minister Stefan Löfven on 3 December, after the Sweden Democrats ensured that his government's budget was defeated and the budget proposed by the four centre-right parties, which ruled for eight years until they were defeated in September's general election, was adopted instead.
However, the Social Democrats and the Green Party on one side and the Conservatives, the Liberal People's Party, the Centre Party and the Christian Democrats on the other have now reached an agreement, valid from 2015 till 2022, which says that neither of them will block the election of the leader of the largest party constellation to the premiership and ensures that the government will be able to get its budget proposal through Parliament, while it will also no longer be possible for the opposition to amend single parts of the budget.
This agreement across the divide between the two blocks cancels out the influence of the Sweden Democrats, who responded by stating their disgust that it will be possible for a "very small minority" to decide over a majority, which seems to be an ironic statement from a party which after receiving thirteen percent of the votes made clear their intention to defeat any government and budget that would not do their bidding. he Sweden Democrats will now call for a vote of no confidence against Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and have demanded that the four centre-right parties join them in defeating the government, something those parties have again made it clear they will not do.
The decision to hold an extraordinary parliamentary election in March was announced by Prime Minister Stefan Löfven on 3 December, after the Sweden Democrats ensured that his government's budget was defeated and the budget proposed by the four centre-right parties, which ruled for eight years until they were defeated in September's general election, was adopted instead.
However, the Social Democrats and the Green Party on one side and the Conservatives, the Liberal People's Party, the Centre Party and the Christian Democrats on the other have now reached an agreement, valid from 2015 till 2022, which says that neither of them will block the election of the leader of the largest party constellation to the premiership and ensures that the government will be able to get its budget proposal through Parliament, while it will also no longer be possible for the opposition to amend single parts of the budget.
This agreement across the divide between the two blocks cancels out the influence of the Sweden Democrats, who responded by stating their disgust that it will be possible for a "very small minority" to decide over a majority, which seems to be an ironic statement from a party which after receiving thirteen percent of the votes made clear their intention to defeat any government and budget that would not do their bidding. he Sweden Democrats will now call for a vote of no confidence against Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and have demanded that the four centre-right parties join them in defeating the government, something those parties have again made it clear they will not do.
Thursday, 4 December 2014
Right-wing extremists oust Swedish government
When the King and Queen of Sweden return from their state visit to France on Thursday night they may perhaps wonder if their kingdom has turned into a banana republic in their absence. At least that may seem to be the case after the right-wing extremist party the Sweden Democrats on Wednesday ousted the government which took office two months ago and declared their intention to defeat any government or budget which does not comply with the Sweden Democrats' anti-immigration policy, thus threatening to make Sweden ungovernable. The Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven, will now dissolve the Parliament that was elected in mid-September and an extraordinary election will be held on 22 March next year, something which has not happened since 1958.
The crisis erupted when the Sweden Democrats, who hold the parliamentary balance, broke with the parliamentary custom that a party lays down its votes after its own budget proposal has been defeated in the first round. Rather than doing this the Sweden Democrats voted in favour of the budget proposal of the four centre-right parties who formed the previous government, but lost power in the election in September, which was thereby passed instead of the one proposed by the current government, a coalition of the Social Democrats and the Green Party.
The government are obviously unwilling to govern Sweden according to the opposition's budget and Prime Minister Stefan Löfven was therefore left with three choices: to send the budget back to the financial committee to try to achieve a compromise with the centre-right, to resign and let the Speaker of Parliament try to find someone capable of forming a new cabinet or dissolving Parliament. After it became clear on Tuesday evening that the Sweden Democrats would indeed use their power to defeat the government Löfven invited the leaders of the four centre-right parties for talks to try to reach an agreement across the divide between the two blocks, but all such attempts were rejected by the centre-right, who despite insisting that they would not give the extremists any influence seem to relish this opportunity to humiliate the Social Democrats, who has traditionally been viewed as the natural party of stable government.
This does however seem like a dangerous game to play, as the centre-right seem to have no plans for how to be able to form a cabinet or pass a budget if the extraordinary election leaves them as the largest parliamentary block but the Sweden Democrats still hold the parliamentary balance. After losing their parliamentary majority in the 2010 election the centre-right governed for four years with the tacit support of the Sweden Democrats, but this opportunity has now been blocked by the extremists' vow to defeat any government and budget that will not do their anti-immigration bidding.
Parliament will be formally dissolved on 29 December, but will continue to sit until the date of the extraordinary election on 22 March. In the meantime Prime Minister Stefan Löfven will carry on, but with the opposition's budget having been passed stalemate will reign in Swedish politics until the end of March.
The crisis erupted when the Sweden Democrats, who hold the parliamentary balance, broke with the parliamentary custom that a party lays down its votes after its own budget proposal has been defeated in the first round. Rather than doing this the Sweden Democrats voted in favour of the budget proposal of the four centre-right parties who formed the previous government, but lost power in the election in September, which was thereby passed instead of the one proposed by the current government, a coalition of the Social Democrats and the Green Party.
The government are obviously unwilling to govern Sweden according to the opposition's budget and Prime Minister Stefan Löfven was therefore left with three choices: to send the budget back to the financial committee to try to achieve a compromise with the centre-right, to resign and let the Speaker of Parliament try to find someone capable of forming a new cabinet or dissolving Parliament. After it became clear on Tuesday evening that the Sweden Democrats would indeed use their power to defeat the government Löfven invited the leaders of the four centre-right parties for talks to try to reach an agreement across the divide between the two blocks, but all such attempts were rejected by the centre-right, who despite insisting that they would not give the extremists any influence seem to relish this opportunity to humiliate the Social Democrats, who has traditionally been viewed as the natural party of stable government.
This does however seem like a dangerous game to play, as the centre-right seem to have no plans for how to be able to form a cabinet or pass a budget if the extraordinary election leaves them as the largest parliamentary block but the Sweden Democrats still hold the parliamentary balance. After losing their parliamentary majority in the 2010 election the centre-right governed for four years with the tacit support of the Sweden Democrats, but this opportunity has now been blocked by the extremists' vow to defeat any government and budget that will not do their anti-immigration bidding.
Parliament will be formally dissolved on 29 December, but will continue to sit until the date of the extraordinary election on 22 March. In the meantime Prime Minister Stefan Löfven will carry on, but with the opposition's budget having been passed stalemate will reign in Swedish politics until the end of March.
Saturday, 20 September 2014
Walburga Habsburg Douglas loses Parliament seat
A week after the Swedish general election all the votes have now been counted and the distribution of Parliament seats between parties and candidates finalised. Some of my readers may be interested in knowing that Walburga Habsburg Douglas, the former Archduchess of Austria-Hungary and daughter of that country's last crown prince, Otto von Habsburg, was not re-elected to the Swedish Parliament.
Walburga Habsburg Douglas was first elected to Parliament for the Conservative party in 2006 and was re-elected in 2010. In this year's election she was demoted to the eighth position on her party's list for the county of Södermanland, meaning that she would need a lot of personal votes to supersede those ahead of her on the list. However, as the Conservatives won three seats from Södermanland and Walburga Habsburg Douglas received only 117 votes she will be neither an MP nor a substitute (i.e. one of those who step in if an MP is absent or renounces his or her seat). Her parliamentary career thus seems to have come to an end.
Walburga Habsburg Douglas was first elected to Parliament for the Conservative party in 2006 and was re-elected in 2010. In this year's election she was demoted to the eighth position on her party's list for the county of Södermanland, meaning that she would need a lot of personal votes to supersede those ahead of her on the list. However, as the Conservatives won three seats from Södermanland and Walburga Habsburg Douglas received only 117 votes she will be neither an MP nor a substitute (i.e. one of those who step in if an MP is absent or renounces his or her seat). Her parliamentary career thus seems to have come to an end.
Monday, 15 September 2014
Social Democrats win power in Sweden
Fredrik Reinfeldt has announced his resignation as Prime Minister of Sweden and leader of the Conservative party after having taken a severe beating in Sunday's general election, whose only real winner is the right-wing extremist party the Sweden Democrats. The Speaker of Parliament will ask the leader of the Social Democrats, Stefan Löfven, to form a new government.
Given the election results, Löfven's task will not be an easy one. His party won 31.2 %, a gain of only 0.4 % from its result in the 2010 election, which was its worst since 1911. His prospetive coalition partner, the Green Party, won 6.8 % of the votes, back 0.4 % from 2010, while the third party of the left, the Left Party, gained 0.1 % and achieved 5.7 %. Thus the left wing's total gain was a mere 0.1 %.
Yet the left wins power as all of the four parties which have governed Sweden since 2006 lost support. The Conservative party backed no less than 6.7 %, winning only 23.2 % of the votes. The Liberal People's Party received 5.4 % (-1.7), the Christian Democrats 4.6 % (-1 %) and the Centre Party 6.1 % (-0.4 %).
What is lost by the four governing parties is won by the Sweden Democrats, who achieved 12.9 %, a gain of 7.2 %. The Sweden Democrats thus hold the parliamentary balance, but all the other parties have made it clear that they will under no circumstances co-operate with the extremists, whose roots lie in Nazism.
This creates a very difficult parliamentary situation, as the new government, which is widely expected to consist of the Social Democrats and the Green Party, will not be able to form a majority with neither the Left Party nor the Centre Party nor the Liberal People's Party. Indeed the support of either the Left Party and the Centre Party or the Left Party and the Liberal People's Party or the Centre Party and the Liberal People's Party will be needed, but the Centre Party and the Liberal People's Party have made it clear that they will not support a Social Democratic government. However, if the "established" parties are to continue to isolate the Sweden Democrats, some sort of co-operation across the line that divides the two blocks will be necessary.
If Stefan Löfven, a former trade union boss who has until now never been an MP or a minister, succeeds in forming a coalition with the Green Party it will be the first time that party enters government and the first time since the 1950s that the Social Democrats govern with another party. Another option is that the Social Democrats form a government alone, but dependent of support from some of the smaller parties.
There is also a theoretical possibility that an impossible parliamentary situation may lead to Parliament being dissolved and an extra election called before 2018, but this has not happened after the introduction of the new Constitution in 1974.
Given the election results, Löfven's task will not be an easy one. His party won 31.2 %, a gain of only 0.4 % from its result in the 2010 election, which was its worst since 1911. His prospetive coalition partner, the Green Party, won 6.8 % of the votes, back 0.4 % from 2010, while the third party of the left, the Left Party, gained 0.1 % and achieved 5.7 %. Thus the left wing's total gain was a mere 0.1 %.
Yet the left wins power as all of the four parties which have governed Sweden since 2006 lost support. The Conservative party backed no less than 6.7 %, winning only 23.2 % of the votes. The Liberal People's Party received 5.4 % (-1.7), the Christian Democrats 4.6 % (-1 %) and the Centre Party 6.1 % (-0.4 %).
What is lost by the four governing parties is won by the Sweden Democrats, who achieved 12.9 %, a gain of 7.2 %. The Sweden Democrats thus hold the parliamentary balance, but all the other parties have made it clear that they will under no circumstances co-operate with the extremists, whose roots lie in Nazism.
This creates a very difficult parliamentary situation, as the new government, which is widely expected to consist of the Social Democrats and the Green Party, will not be able to form a majority with neither the Left Party nor the Centre Party nor the Liberal People's Party. Indeed the support of either the Left Party and the Centre Party or the Left Party and the Liberal People's Party or the Centre Party and the Liberal People's Party will be needed, but the Centre Party and the Liberal People's Party have made it clear that they will not support a Social Democratic government. However, if the "established" parties are to continue to isolate the Sweden Democrats, some sort of co-operation across the line that divides the two blocks will be necessary.
If Stefan Löfven, a former trade union boss who has until now never been an MP or a minister, succeeds in forming a coalition with the Green Party it will be the first time that party enters government and the first time since the 1950s that the Social Democrats govern with another party. Another option is that the Social Democrats form a government alone, but dependent of support from some of the smaller parties.
There is also a theoretical possibility that an impossible parliamentary situation may lead to Parliament being dissolved and an extra election called before 2018, but this has not happened after the introduction of the new Constitution in 1974.
Thursday, 11 September 2014
Elizabeth, Queen of independent Scotland?
In a week from today, the Scots will vote over whether Scotland should become an independent country. While the no campaign has had a clear lead for months, the opinion polls are now so close that the dissolution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a real possibility. If a majority of the Scots votes yes, Scotland will become independent on 24 March 2016. If they vote no, we have now been told that Scotland will immediately be offered greater autonomy within the United Kingdom.
A yes vote will obviously have great consequences, so it is rather surprising that many crucial issues remain unclear, most significantly the financial issue. While the Scottish government insists that Scotland will maintain the pound as its currency, the leaders of the three main British parties have insisted Scotland will not be allowed to do so, and should they change their mind a currency union between Scotland and Britain would clearly involve some sovereignty being ceded. It is also quite surprising that the British government insist they have no plans for what will happen if Scotland votes yes.
The question of what will happen to the monarchy has on the other hand been settled, although it includes unanswered questions. The referendum is about the dissolution of the parliamentary union of 1707, not the union of crowns of 1603. Therefore a vote in favour of independence means that Scotland and the remainder of Britain will revert to the previous arrangement, i.e. a personal union between two independent states. This is roughly the same arrangement as the union between Britain and Hanover between 1714 and 1837 and the union between Norway and Sweden between 1814 and 1905.
This means that Elizabeth II will become Queen of Scotland or of Scots, the latter (and, I believe, older) title apparently being favoured by the Scots. She will obviously drop the numeral in Scotland, as she is the first Scottish monarch of that name. This will put Scotland in the same position as Australia, Canada and numerous other kingdoms of which Elizabeth II is queen, i.e. of having a monarch resident abroad, although I can imagine the Scots will expect her to come to Scotland more frequently. As Queen of an independent Scotland Queen Elizabeth would be bound to take constitutional advice from the Scottish government, which may mean that she could at some stage receive conflicting advice from the Scottish and British governments in her roles as head of state of both countries (the union kings of Norway and of Sweden would have had much to say about such a scenario). One possibility is that her functions as Queen of Scotland is delegated to a governor general or a similar office when she is not in residence in Scotland, as is the case in her other kingdoms, but this has not been officially discussed.
There is also the issue of how long such a personal union would last. A YouGov poll conducted on 2-5 September found 54 % to be in favour of keeping the British monarch as head of state in the event of independence, while 31 % favoured an elected head of state and 15 % were undecided.
The same opinion poll found, for the first time, a majority to be in favour of independence, which has unleashed what seems like panic in London and some rather desperate calls for Queen Elizabeth to intervene and speak out in favour of the union. At the time of her silver jubilee in 1977, when a referendum on devolution of powers within the United Kingdom was coming up, the Queen for once indicated her personal opinion in an address to the Houses of Parliament, saying: "I number Kings and Queens of England and of Scotland, and Princes of Wales among my ancestors and so I can readily understand these aspirations. But I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps this Jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom".
On Tuesday the conservative Daily Telegraph used its editorial to call on Queen Elizabeth to speak out in favour of the union. This was rejected outright by a spokesperson who insisted: "The sovereign's constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy and one which the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign. As such the monarch is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure that this remains the case. Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong. Her Majesty is firmly of the view that this is a matter for the people of Scotland". It would in my opinion have been unwise if she had indeed intervened. It would have jeopardised the monarchy's political neutrality, and might also have alienated it from roughly half the Scottish people. It would also have undermined the Queen's standing, as it would have made a yes vote a personal defeat for Elizabeth II.
A yes vote will obviously have great consequences, so it is rather surprising that many crucial issues remain unclear, most significantly the financial issue. While the Scottish government insists that Scotland will maintain the pound as its currency, the leaders of the three main British parties have insisted Scotland will not be allowed to do so, and should they change their mind a currency union between Scotland and Britain would clearly involve some sovereignty being ceded. It is also quite surprising that the British government insist they have no plans for what will happen if Scotland votes yes.
The question of what will happen to the monarchy has on the other hand been settled, although it includes unanswered questions. The referendum is about the dissolution of the parliamentary union of 1707, not the union of crowns of 1603. Therefore a vote in favour of independence means that Scotland and the remainder of Britain will revert to the previous arrangement, i.e. a personal union between two independent states. This is roughly the same arrangement as the union between Britain and Hanover between 1714 and 1837 and the union between Norway and Sweden between 1814 and 1905.
This means that Elizabeth II will become Queen of Scotland or of Scots, the latter (and, I believe, older) title apparently being favoured by the Scots. She will obviously drop the numeral in Scotland, as she is the first Scottish monarch of that name. This will put Scotland in the same position as Australia, Canada and numerous other kingdoms of which Elizabeth II is queen, i.e. of having a monarch resident abroad, although I can imagine the Scots will expect her to come to Scotland more frequently. As Queen of an independent Scotland Queen Elizabeth would be bound to take constitutional advice from the Scottish government, which may mean that she could at some stage receive conflicting advice from the Scottish and British governments in her roles as head of state of both countries (the union kings of Norway and of Sweden would have had much to say about such a scenario). One possibility is that her functions as Queen of Scotland is delegated to a governor general or a similar office when she is not in residence in Scotland, as is the case in her other kingdoms, but this has not been officially discussed.
There is also the issue of how long such a personal union would last. A YouGov poll conducted on 2-5 September found 54 % to be in favour of keeping the British monarch as head of state in the event of independence, while 31 % favoured an elected head of state and 15 % were undecided.
The same opinion poll found, for the first time, a majority to be in favour of independence, which has unleashed what seems like panic in London and some rather desperate calls for Queen Elizabeth to intervene and speak out in favour of the union. At the time of her silver jubilee in 1977, when a referendum on devolution of powers within the United Kingdom was coming up, the Queen for once indicated her personal opinion in an address to the Houses of Parliament, saying: "I number Kings and Queens of England and of Scotland, and Princes of Wales among my ancestors and so I can readily understand these aspirations. But I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps this Jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom".
On Tuesday the conservative Daily Telegraph used its editorial to call on Queen Elizabeth to speak out in favour of the union. This was rejected outright by a spokesperson who insisted: "The sovereign's constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy and one which the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign. As such the monarch is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure that this remains the case. Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong. Her Majesty is firmly of the view that this is a matter for the people of Scotland". It would in my opinion have been unwise if she had indeed intervened. It would have jeopardised the monarchy's political neutrality, and might also have alienated it from roughly half the Scottish people. It would also have undermined the Queen's standing, as it would have made a yes vote a personal defeat for Elizabeth II.
Tuesday, 10 September 2013
Norway veers to the right
Yesterday Norway went to the polls and the results of the general election show that the country took a huge step to the right. Having lost his majority, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, leader of the centre-left coalition which has governed for eight years, has informed the King that he will step down, paving the way for a new government, which will most likely be a coalition of the Conservative Party and the far right wing Progress Party, possibly also with one or both of the centre-right parties.
With 99.9 % of the votes counted the results are as follows:
The Labour Party, 30.8 % (-4.6), 55 seats (-9)
The Conservative Party, 26.9 % (+9.6), 48 seats (+18)
The Progress Party, 16.3 % (-6.7), 29 seats (-12)
The Christian People's Party, 5.6 % (no change), 10 seats (no change)
The Centre Party, 5.4 % (-0.8), 10 seats (-1)
The Liberal Party, 5.3 % (+1.4), 9 seats (+7)
The Socialist Left Party, 4.1 % (-2.1), 7 seats (-4)
The Green Party, 2.8 % (+2.5), 1 seat (+1)
The Red Party, 1.1 % (-0.2), no seats (no change).
This means that the governing coalition of Labour, the Socialist Left and the Centre Party have 72 seats out of 169, falling well short of the 85 needed for a majority, while the four parties to the right have 96. The Green Party, which enters Parliament for the first time, does not (yet) belong to either block.
As a consequence of this, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg (Labour) announced last night that he will submit his resignation to the King after the new Parliament has been opened on 9 October and the fiscal budget presented five days later. The new Prime Minister will most likely be the leader of the Conservative Party, Erna Solberg. She has throughout the election campaign and beyond been rather unwilling to go into detail about what sort of coalition she envisages, only stating that she would prefer all four of the parties to the right to join the government, which seems unlikely as the centre-right Christian People's Party and the Liberal Party are very reluctant to sit in the same cabinet as the far-right Progress Party. Thus the most likely scenario seems to be a coalition of the Conservatives and the Progress Party, which will be dependent on either the Christian People's Party or the Liberal Party to reach a parliamentary majority. If so, Erna Solberg will be one of the first Conservative leaders in Europe to allow a right wing populist party into the government offices.
Given that she succeeds in forming a government, Erna Solberg will be the second female Prime Minister of Norway after Gro Harlem Brundtland (Labour), who was Prime Minister in 1981, 1986-1989 and 1990-1996.
With 99.9 % of the votes counted the results are as follows:
The Labour Party, 30.8 % (-4.6), 55 seats (-9)
The Conservative Party, 26.9 % (+9.6), 48 seats (+18)
The Progress Party, 16.3 % (-6.7), 29 seats (-12)
The Christian People's Party, 5.6 % (no change), 10 seats (no change)
The Centre Party, 5.4 % (-0.8), 10 seats (-1)
The Liberal Party, 5.3 % (+1.4), 9 seats (+7)
The Socialist Left Party, 4.1 % (-2.1), 7 seats (-4)
The Green Party, 2.8 % (+2.5), 1 seat (+1)
The Red Party, 1.1 % (-0.2), no seats (no change).
This means that the governing coalition of Labour, the Socialist Left and the Centre Party have 72 seats out of 169, falling well short of the 85 needed for a majority, while the four parties to the right have 96. The Green Party, which enters Parliament for the first time, does not (yet) belong to either block.
As a consequence of this, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg (Labour) announced last night that he will submit his resignation to the King after the new Parliament has been opened on 9 October and the fiscal budget presented five days later. The new Prime Minister will most likely be the leader of the Conservative Party, Erna Solberg. She has throughout the election campaign and beyond been rather unwilling to go into detail about what sort of coalition she envisages, only stating that she would prefer all four of the parties to the right to join the government, which seems unlikely as the centre-right Christian People's Party and the Liberal Party are very reluctant to sit in the same cabinet as the far-right Progress Party. Thus the most likely scenario seems to be a coalition of the Conservatives and the Progress Party, which will be dependent on either the Christian People's Party or the Liberal Party to reach a parliamentary majority. If so, Erna Solberg will be one of the first Conservative leaders in Europe to allow a right wing populist party into the government offices.
Given that she succeeds in forming a government, Erna Solberg will be the second female Prime Minister of Norway after Gro Harlem Brundtland (Labour), who was Prime Minister in 1981, 1986-1989 and 1990-1996.
Sunday, 1 July 2012
Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson re-elected President of Iceland
Yesterday the Icelandic voters went to the polls to decide who would be the country’s president for the next four years and, as expected, the incumbent President, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, was elected for a fifth term. The President won more than 50 % of the votes, while his main challenger, 37-year-old TV journalist Thora Arnórsdóttir, won some 33 % of the votes cast.
69-year-old Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who is a political scientist by profession, has been President of Iceland since 1996. He initially announced in his new year’s speech that he would not stand for re-election, but a petition signed by 30,000 voters caused him to change his mind.
At the start of the campaign he trailed in the polls behind the politically inexperienced Thora Arnórsdóttir, but his campaign gained momentum while she was on maternity leave and in recent months polls had predicted the eventual outcome quite accurately.
This means that Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson becomes the first Icelandic President to serve more than four terms in office. The role of President of Iceland is largely ceremonial, but Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson has been more politically active than his predecessors and has twice used his right to veto legislation, a right no earlier president had used. During the severe financial crisis which has hit Iceland in recent years, the President has thus distanced himself somewhat from the government. The main political difference between him and Thora Arnórsdóttir was her declared intention to return the presidency to its more passive, non-political role.
Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson was first elected President, with 41.4 % of the votes, in 1996 in succession to the universally beloved Vigdís Finnbogadóttir. He was re-elected unopposed in 2000, with 67.5 % of the votes in 2004 and again unchallenged in 2008.
69-year-old Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who is a political scientist by profession, has been President of Iceland since 1996. He initially announced in his new year’s speech that he would not stand for re-election, but a petition signed by 30,000 voters caused him to change his mind.
At the start of the campaign he trailed in the polls behind the politically inexperienced Thora Arnórsdóttir, but his campaign gained momentum while she was on maternity leave and in recent months polls had predicted the eventual outcome quite accurately.
This means that Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson becomes the first Icelandic President to serve more than four terms in office. The role of President of Iceland is largely ceremonial, but Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson has been more politically active than his predecessors and has twice used his right to veto legislation, a right no earlier president had used. During the severe financial crisis which has hit Iceland in recent years, the President has thus distanced himself somewhat from the government. The main political difference between him and Thora Arnórsdóttir was her declared intention to return the presidency to its more passive, non-political role.
Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson was first elected President, with 41.4 % of the votes, in 1996 in succession to the universally beloved Vigdís Finnbogadóttir. He was re-elected unopposed in 2000, with 67.5 % of the votes in 2004 and again unchallenged in 2008.
Monday, 6 February 2012
Sauli Niinistö elected President of Finland
The election result is something of a watershed as it means that the President of Finland will, for the first time since 1982, not be a Social Democrat, and that, unusually, the President and the Prime Minister will belong to the same party.
In the first round of the election, held on 22 January, Sauli Niinistö won 36.96 % of the votes, while Pekka Haavisto received 18.76 % of the votes and thus narrowly bypassed Paavo Värynen of the Centre Party (17.53 %) as the second candidate in the second round. The Social Democrat candidate, former Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen, received only 6.7 % of the votes.
Sauli Väinämö Niinistö, who was born on 24 August 1948, is a jurist by profession and was an MP 1987-2003 and 2007-2011. He served as leader of the Conservative party 1994-2001, was Minister of Justice 1995-1996 and Minister of Finance 1996-2003. He was his party’s candidate in the 2006 presidential election and gave the incumbent President, Tarja Halonen, tough competition, winning 48.2 % of the votes against Halonen’s 51.8 %. From 2007 till 2011 he served as Speaker of Parliament. He will be sworn in as President on 1 March, when Tarja Halonen’s second six-year term comes to an end.
Widowed in 1995, Niinistö remarried in 2009 to Jenni Haukio. The incoming First Lady of Finland is 34 years old, a poet and head of communication of the Conservative party.
The once significant powers of the President have been cut in recent years, most recently in October last year. The role of the President is now mostly ceremonial, but he or she retains a modest influence in foreign policy. The political scientist Ann-Cathrine Jungar wrote an interesting essay (external link) on the development of the presidential office in the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet yesterday.
The photo shows the Presidential Palace in Helsinki.
Monday, 2 January 2012
President of Iceland to stand down
The President of Iceland, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, used his New Year speech to announce that he will not seek re-election to the office of President. After sixteen years as head of state he will thus leave office when his fourth and current term comes to an end on 1 August this year.
A political scientist by profession, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who will be 69 this year, was elected President with 41.4% of the votes in succession to Vigdís Finnbogadóttir in 1996. He was re-elected unopposed in 2000, won 67.5% of the votes cast in 2004 and again re-elected unopposed in 2008.
The role of President of Iceland is largely symbolical, but Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson has twice used his right to veto parliamentary legislation (and thus cause a referendum to be held), a right which none of his four predecessors had ever used.
The next President of Iceland will be elected by popular vote in June.
This means that both Nordic republics will get new heads of state this year, as the second term of the current President of Finland, Tarja Halonen, also expires this year and she is not constitutionally eligible for re-election.
A political scientist by profession, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who will be 69 this year, was elected President with 41.4% of the votes in succession to Vigdís Finnbogadóttir in 1996. He was re-elected unopposed in 2000, won 67.5% of the votes cast in 2004 and again re-elected unopposed in 2008.
The role of President of Iceland is largely symbolical, but Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson has twice used his right to veto parliamentary legislation (and thus cause a referendum to be held), a right which none of his four predecessors had ever used.
The next President of Iceland will be elected by popular vote in June.
This means that both Nordic republics will get new heads of state this year, as the second term of the current President of Finland, Tarja Halonen, also expires this year and she is not constitutionally eligible for re-election.
Monday, 17 October 2011
French Socialists elect François Hollande presidential candidate
In the second round of the first primary elections to be hold in France the Socialist Party yesterday chose its former leader François Hollande to be its candidate for president in 2012. Hollande defeated the current party leader, Martine Aubry, with some 56 % to 44 % of the estimated 2.7 millions votes cast. The first round of the presidential election is to be held on 22 April, with a second round on 6 May unless one candidate wins more than 50 % of the votes in the first round. Opinion polls have indicated that whichever candidate the Socialists chose would defeat the deeply unpopular President Nicolas Sarkozy and that Hollande might defeat him with 60 % to 40 % of the votes, but obviously it is in the nature of politics that much may change in six months (Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a living testimony to that).
However, it seems safe to say that Hollande currently stands the best chance of being President of France by next summer, which would make him the country’s first Socialist president since the presidency of François Mitterrand in 1981-1995.
There are no major political differences between Hollande and Aubry, but the latter is considered to be slightly more to the left of the party. Thus Hollande may perhaps stand a better chance than Aubry of attracting voters from and across the political centre, while voters further to the left may on the other hand rather vote for other parties in the first round.
Hollande is 57 years old and has been an MP from 1988 to 1993 and since 1997. However, he has never held a government post, which may turn out to be one of his weaker points in the election. Since 2008 he is President of the General Council of the region of Corrèze. He has four children with Segolène Royal, who was the Socialist Party’s candidate in the 2007 presidential election, but their relationship ended at about that time.
However, it seems safe to say that Hollande currently stands the best chance of being President of France by next summer, which would make him the country’s first Socialist president since the presidency of François Mitterrand in 1981-1995.
There are no major political differences between Hollande and Aubry, but the latter is considered to be slightly more to the left of the party. Thus Hollande may perhaps stand a better chance than Aubry of attracting voters from and across the political centre, while voters further to the left may on the other hand rather vote for other parties in the first round.
Hollande is 57 years old and has been an MP from 1988 to 1993 and since 1997. However, he has never held a government post, which may turn out to be one of his weaker points in the election. Since 2008 he is President of the General Council of the region of Corrèze. He has four children with Segolène Royal, who was the Socialist Party’s candidate in the 2007 presidential election, but their relationship ended at about that time.
Friday, 16 September 2011
Female PM and end of right-wing rule in Denmark
Yesterday’s general election in Denmark turned out to be quite a thriller, but when all the votes had been counted it was clear that the right-wing coalition which has governed the country for ten years had been narrowly defeated by the centre-left opposition, with 50.3 % against 49.7 % of the votes, which translates into 89 seats in Parliament for the red block and 86 for the blue block. Consequently Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen an hour ago tendered his resignation to Queen Margrethe. He will be succeeded by the leader of the Social Democrats, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who will become the country’s first female Prime Minister, making this an historic hour.
The results of the election are:
- The Social Democrats: 24.9 % (-0.6), 44 seats (-1).
- The Socialist People’s Party: 9.2 % (-3.8), 16 seats (-7).
- The Danish Social Liberal Party: 9.5 % (+4.4), 17 seats (+8).
- The Red-Green Alliance: 6.7 % (+4.5), 12 seats (+8).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- The Liberal Party: 26.7 % (+0.5), 47 seats (+1).
- The Danish People’s Party: 12.3 % (-1.6), 22 seats (-3).
- The Conservative Party: 4.9 % (-5.5), 8 seats (-10).
- The Liberal Alliance: 5 % (+2.2), 9 seats (+4).
Historically, Danish governments, whether of the left or the right, have “always” been dependent on the political centre. This changed dramatically in 2001, when the two right-wing parties the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party were able to form a majority with the far-right wing Danish People’s Party (DF). The latter did not formally become part of the government, but had a formalised agreement with the government which enabled them to demand political “payment” for parliamentary support. DF being an openly racist party (with Muslims and Germans singled out), this usually took the form of increasingly restrictive rules of immigration. Sadly the ten years of this unholy alliance have in many ways permanently changed the country’s political landscape, so that even parties in the red block now supports some of DF’s ideas.
Following the election Danish politics may seem set for a return to the more usual situation in that the two leading opposition parties, the Social Democrats and the Socialist People’s Party, have entered into an agreement with the Danish Social Liberal Party (R), which belongs to the political centre.
However, the interesting - and complicating - factor is that while both the Social Democrats and the Socialist People’s Party backed in the election, the red majority was salvaged by the increases of R and the far-left wing Red-Green Alliance. While R is considering joining the government, the Red-Green Alliance will remain outside, but provide parliamentary support. Obviously this will be at a price and it will be interesting to see the outcome as the four parties of the red block disagree on some significant issues.
Although Helle Thorning-Schmidt is celebrating today, her party actually achieved its worst election result since 1903. The Socialist People’s Party also did worse than expected, but will now become part of the government for the first time in its history.
Having received Lars Løkke Rasmussen’s resignation a short time ago, the Queen has, as is the custom, asked him to remain in charge of a caretaker government until a new cabinet has been formed. In what has been the custom since 1909 two representatives of each party will now go to the Queen (who this time has Crown Prince Frederik at her side) to advice her about who should be given the task of forming the new government. They will then point to Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who will be entrusted with the task by the Queen and then start the negotiations with the other parties which will lead to the formation of the new government. How much time will be necessary for the negotiations remains to be seen, meaning that the day of the actual change of government has not yet been settled.
The incoming Prime Minister is 44 years old and joined the Social Democrats as late as in 1993. She was an MEP 1999-2004 and was elected to the Danish Parliament in 2005, only two months before becoming the party’s leader. Foreign readers may be interested in the fact that she is the daughter-in-law of Neil Kinnock, the former leader of the British Labour Party.
When Helle Thorning-Schmidt becomes Prime Minister Sweden will be the only Nordic country never to have had a female head of government.
The results of the election are:
- The Social Democrats: 24.9 % (-0.6), 44 seats (-1).
- The Socialist People’s Party: 9.2 % (-3.8), 16 seats (-7).
- The Danish Social Liberal Party: 9.5 % (+4.4), 17 seats (+8).
- The Red-Green Alliance: 6.7 % (+4.5), 12 seats (+8).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- The Liberal Party: 26.7 % (+0.5), 47 seats (+1).
- The Danish People’s Party: 12.3 % (-1.6), 22 seats (-3).
- The Conservative Party: 4.9 % (-5.5), 8 seats (-10).
- The Liberal Alliance: 5 % (+2.2), 9 seats (+4).
Historically, Danish governments, whether of the left or the right, have “always” been dependent on the political centre. This changed dramatically in 2001, when the two right-wing parties the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party were able to form a majority with the far-right wing Danish People’s Party (DF). The latter did not formally become part of the government, but had a formalised agreement with the government which enabled them to demand political “payment” for parliamentary support. DF being an openly racist party (with Muslims and Germans singled out), this usually took the form of increasingly restrictive rules of immigration. Sadly the ten years of this unholy alliance have in many ways permanently changed the country’s political landscape, so that even parties in the red block now supports some of DF’s ideas.
Following the election Danish politics may seem set for a return to the more usual situation in that the two leading opposition parties, the Social Democrats and the Socialist People’s Party, have entered into an agreement with the Danish Social Liberal Party (R), which belongs to the political centre.
However, the interesting - and complicating - factor is that while both the Social Democrats and the Socialist People’s Party backed in the election, the red majority was salvaged by the increases of R and the far-left wing Red-Green Alliance. While R is considering joining the government, the Red-Green Alliance will remain outside, but provide parliamentary support. Obviously this will be at a price and it will be interesting to see the outcome as the four parties of the red block disagree on some significant issues.
Although Helle Thorning-Schmidt is celebrating today, her party actually achieved its worst election result since 1903. The Socialist People’s Party also did worse than expected, but will now become part of the government for the first time in its history.
Having received Lars Løkke Rasmussen’s resignation a short time ago, the Queen has, as is the custom, asked him to remain in charge of a caretaker government until a new cabinet has been formed. In what has been the custom since 1909 two representatives of each party will now go to the Queen (who this time has Crown Prince Frederik at her side) to advice her about who should be given the task of forming the new government. They will then point to Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who will be entrusted with the task by the Queen and then start the negotiations with the other parties which will lead to the formation of the new government. How much time will be necessary for the negotiations remains to be seen, meaning that the day of the actual change of government has not yet been settled.
The incoming Prime Minister is 44 years old and joined the Social Democrats as late as in 1993. She was an MEP 1999-2004 and was elected to the Danish Parliament in 2005, only two months before becoming the party’s leader. Foreign readers may be interested in the fact that she is the daughter-in-law of Neil Kinnock, the former leader of the British Labour Party.
When Helle Thorning-Schmidt becomes Prime Minister Sweden will be the only Nordic country never to have had a female head of government.
Friday, 26 August 2011
Danish PM calls snap election
After months of increasingly frantic speculations the Prime Minister of Denmark, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, has just announced that Parliament is being dissolved and that new elections will be held on 15 September.
The current government has been in power since 2001, although Lars Løkke Rasmussen has only been Prime Minister since 2009, when he succeeded Anders Fogh Rasmussen when the latter became Secretary General of NATO. Løkke’s government is a coalition of his own Liberal Party and the small Conservative Party, but for a parliamentary majority it has been dependent on formal support agreements with the far-right wing Danish People’s Party, which has used their powerful position to force through much of their policies.
The opinion polls indicate that it might be tight race, but most of them show the government falling behind the opposition. Thus it seems most likely that the next Danish government will be a coalition between the Social Democrats, the Socialist People’s Party and the Danish Social Liberal Party, possibly dependent on the Red-Green Alliance for support. If so, the leader of the Social Democrats, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, will become Prime Minister (the country’s first female PM).
In any case it is to be hoped that Denmark will finally get a government which is not held hostage by an openly racist party which seems to consider human rights a four letter word.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
French presidential election set for 22 April and 6 May next year
22 April and 6 May 2012 have been announced as the dates for the two rounds of the upcoming French presidential election (the second round is only held if no candidate wins 50 % in the first round, but that seems unlikely to happen).
Having been in office since 2007, President Nicolas Sarkozy from the conservative UMP party is eligible for re-election, but recent polls leave him little hope of winning a second term, indicating that he will be voted out already in the first round and that the second round will be between whoever stands for election for the Socialist party and Marine Le Pen, leader of the right-wing extremist party Front National.
One year before the election the polls indicate that Sarkozy’s only chance would be if he came to the second round against Marine Le Pen, in which case he would win a landslide victory.
In such circumstances one might perhaps expect that Sarkozy would face a challenge for his party’s nomination, but so far possible candidates seem reluctant to challenge the President.
The Socialist Party will hold primaries in October to elect its candidate for the presidency. Among the possible choices are Ségolène Royal, who was defeated by Sarkozy in 2007; Martine Aubry, who narrowly defeated Royal over the party leadership in 2008; former party leader François Hollande (who has four children with Ségolène Royal); and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the managing director of the IMF, whose chances seem lost after the news today that he has been arrested in New York suspected of sexual assault on a hotel maid - which shows how much may yet change in the coming year.
Having been in office since 2007, President Nicolas Sarkozy from the conservative UMP party is eligible for re-election, but recent polls leave him little hope of winning a second term, indicating that he will be voted out already in the first round and that the second round will be between whoever stands for election for the Socialist party and Marine Le Pen, leader of the right-wing extremist party Front National.
One year before the election the polls indicate that Sarkozy’s only chance would be if he came to the second round against Marine Le Pen, in which case he would win a landslide victory.
In such circumstances one might perhaps expect that Sarkozy would face a challenge for his party’s nomination, but so far possible candidates seem reluctant to challenge the President.
The Socialist Party will hold primaries in October to elect its candidate for the presidency. Among the possible choices are Ségolène Royal, who was defeated by Sarkozy in 2007; Martine Aubry, who narrowly defeated Royal over the party leadership in 2008; former party leader François Hollande (who has four children with Ségolène Royal); and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the managing director of the IMF, whose chances seem lost after the news today that he has been arrested in New York suspected of sexual assault on a hotel maid - which shows how much may yet change in the coming year.
Monday, 22 November 2010
My latest article: Just a regular party
Following the outcome of this autumn’s Swedish general election and the resignation of its party leader Mona Sahlin the Social Democrats find themselves in a deep crisis. Until recently they were the natural party of government and its leader was certain to become prime minister.
Now they find themselves only narrowly the largest party in parliament and with no obvious candidate to take over the leadership. The Social Democrats have become a party a party just like all the others.
In an op-ed in Dagsavisen (external link) today I look at the reasons for the crisis which engulfs the party and the dangers it faces as it attempts to find the way forward.
Now they find themselves only narrowly the largest party in parliament and with no obvious candidate to take over the leadership. The Social Democrats have become a party a party just like all the others.
In an op-ed in Dagsavisen (external link) today I look at the reasons for the crisis which engulfs the party and the dangers it faces as it attempts to find the way forward.
Sunday, 14 November 2010
Mona Sahlin resigns as leader of Swedish Social Democrats
Mona Sahlin today announced her resignation as leader of the Swedish Social Democrats, as I predicted she would do if her party lost the general election in September. The election results were a disaster for the party which until recently was the natural party of government in Sweden; with only 30 % of the votes the Social Democrats were only marginally bigger than the Moderate Party, whose centre-right coalition lost its majority but remained the largest block in Parliament. It also meant that the Social Democrats, who used to poll some 40 or 45 % of the votes, had lost 10 % in two elections.
A "crisis committee" was established shortly after the election and an extraordinary party congress scheduled for the spring to deal with the crisis. Earlier this week the party leader decreed that the enitre party leadership should put their posts at the disposal of the party congress. Today Mona Sahlin announced that she had reached the conclusion that she will herself not seek re-election to the party leadership.
She will also leave her seat in Parliament after the party congress. 53-year-old Mona Sahlin is presently the longest-serving Member of Parliament, having been first elected at the age of 25 in 1982. In 1990 Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson appointed her Minister of Employment and following the government’s electoral defeat in 1991 she became party secretary.
When Carlsson resumed the reins of government in 1994 Sahlin was appointed Deputy Prime Minister. She was considered the natural successor when Carlsson announced in 1995 that he would resign the following year, but revelations that Sahlin had used her official credit card for personal purchases caused her to withdraw her candidature, resign from the government and to leave Parliament in 1996.
Göran Persson became Prime Minister instead and brought her back into the government as a Minister without Portfolio. She re-entered Parliament in 2002 and served in the cabinet until Persson’s electoral defeat in 2006.
Following his resignation she was elected leader of the Social Democrats in 2007, but was by many considered the third choice in the absence of the popular Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, who was assassinated in 2003, and Margot Wallström, who had left Swedish politics for the EU Commission and subsequently the UN.
Her resignation means that she will be the first leader of the Social Democrats in a century not to become Prime Minister.
Some had predicted that the lack of a natural, or indeed suitable, successor might have saved the party leadership for Sahlin. Polls of party members have shown that they would prefer Margot Wallström as party leader, but she has so far shown no interest in returning to Swedish politics and is furthermore not an MP, which would create difficulties for her as leader.
The same goes for another more popular politician, Thomas Bodström, who has just left Parliament and moved to the USA and is furthermore considered a lightweight by many in the party. Sven-Erik Östberg, leader of the parliamentary group, and Thomas Östros, financial spokesman, may be possible candidates, but so may several others.
A "crisis committee" was established shortly after the election and an extraordinary party congress scheduled for the spring to deal with the crisis. Earlier this week the party leader decreed that the enitre party leadership should put their posts at the disposal of the party congress. Today Mona Sahlin announced that she had reached the conclusion that she will herself not seek re-election to the party leadership.
She will also leave her seat in Parliament after the party congress. 53-year-old Mona Sahlin is presently the longest-serving Member of Parliament, having been first elected at the age of 25 in 1982. In 1990 Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson appointed her Minister of Employment and following the government’s electoral defeat in 1991 she became party secretary.
When Carlsson resumed the reins of government in 1994 Sahlin was appointed Deputy Prime Minister. She was considered the natural successor when Carlsson announced in 1995 that he would resign the following year, but revelations that Sahlin had used her official credit card for personal purchases caused her to withdraw her candidature, resign from the government and to leave Parliament in 1996.
Göran Persson became Prime Minister instead and brought her back into the government as a Minister without Portfolio. She re-entered Parliament in 2002 and served in the cabinet until Persson’s electoral defeat in 2006.
Following his resignation she was elected leader of the Social Democrats in 2007, but was by many considered the third choice in the absence of the popular Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, who was assassinated in 2003, and Margot Wallström, who had left Swedish politics for the EU Commission and subsequently the UN.
Her resignation means that she will be the first leader of the Social Democrats in a century not to become Prime Minister.
Some had predicted that the lack of a natural, or indeed suitable, successor might have saved the party leadership for Sahlin. Polls of party members have shown that they would prefer Margot Wallström as party leader, but she has so far shown no interest in returning to Swedish politics and is furthermore not an MP, which would create difficulties for her as leader.
The same goes for another more popular politician, Thomas Bodström, who has just left Parliament and moved to the USA and is furthermore considered a lightweight by many in the party. Sven-Erik Östberg, leader of the parliamentary group, and Thomas Östros, financial spokesman, may be possible candidates, but so may several others.
Friday, 24 September 2010
Final results of Sweden’s general election
Yesterday the final results of the Swedish general election on Sunday were announced with only a small change from the preliminary results. With all votes having been counted and checked the centre-right coalition which has been in power for the last four years wins 173 mandates rather the expected 172 – the Centre Party takes one seat in Parliament from the Social Democrats.
Nevertheless the fact remains that the government coalition, known as the Alliance, has lost its majority in Parliament. The Alliance was some 2,000 votes short of winning 50 % of the votes and fell two seats short of a renewed majority in Parliament.
However, the results show that a majority was even closer. The Liberal People’s Party was only 19 votes short of winning another seat from Gothenburg and only seven votes short of yet another mandate from Wermlandia, which means that the Alliance in reality was only 26 votes short of winning 175 of the 349 seats in Parliament. The Liberal People’s Party has made known its intention to file a complaint over the election results.
Fredrik Reinfeldt of the Moderate Party maintains that, because the Alliance remains the largest block in Parliament, he will go on being Prime Minister. When the Social Democrat Göran Persson lost his parliamentary majority in 2002, the Moderate Party tabled a motion of no confidence. Its then party leader, Bo Lundgren, back then said it was self-evident that a majority government which lost its majority in an election should resign, a motion for which also Fredrik Reinfeldt voted. But in politics there is of course a significant difference between what one considers a self-evident principle opponents should adhere to when it will benefit oneself and what one thinks about the same principle when one finds oneself in the same position and is not likely to benefit from it.
With neither the Alliance nor the opposition, the Red-Greens, having won a majority, the right-wing extremist party the Sweden Democrats remains in a position to tip the balance in Parliament.
The government coalition has been toying with the idea of reducing the number of seats on each parliamentary committee from 17 to 15 in order to keep the Sweden Democrats out of the committees – this is actually legally possible, although it would obviously be undemocratic and play into the hands of the Sweden Democrats, who would then be able to cast themselves even more strongly in the role as martyrs. Nevertheless there is a parliamentary majority for keeping the number of seats on each committee at 17, which means that the Sweden Democrats will hold the deciding vote on every issue dealt with in the committees every time the two blocks stand against each other.
The correct share of the votes for the Moderate Party has been corrected from 30 % to 30.1 %, for the Social Democrats from 30.9 % to 30.7 % and for the Green Party from 7.2 % to 7.3 %. Voter turnout was 84.6 %.
The final results also show that Donald Duck received 120 votes, King Carl Gustaf three, Jesus Christ and “God” both two, while Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter each received one vote. It should be added that neither of these gentlemen actually ran for a seat in Parliament, but as Sweden allows handwritten ballots one may vote for just about anyone.
Monday, 20 September 2010
Walburga Habsburg Douglas re-elected to Swedish Parliament
For those who care more for royalty than for politics it might be of interest to note that Walburga Habsburg Douglas, a former Archduchess of Austria-Hungary, was re-elected to the Swedish Parliament in yesterday’s election.
Douglas, who is the daughter of the last Austro-Hungarian crown prince and former MEP Otto von Habsburg and the late Archduchess Regina, played a minor but interesting part in the events of 1989. She later moved to Sweden when marrying a Swedish nobleman, Count Archibald Douglas.
She was first elected to Parliament in 2006, representing the conservative Moderate Party from the county of Sudermania (Södermanland). In 2006 she was the second candidate on the party’s list in that county, where the Moderates back then won two mandates. In this election she had been demoted to third place on the list, but the Moderates doing their best election ever also meant their winning three seats in Parliament from Sudermania. Although the personal votes have not yet been counted she is not in danger of losing her seat that way.
During the previous Parliament (2006-2010) Walburga Douglas sat in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and was leader of the Swedish delegation to OSCE.
Douglas, who is the daughter of the last Austro-Hungarian crown prince and former MEP Otto von Habsburg and the late Archduchess Regina, played a minor but interesting part in the events of 1989. She later moved to Sweden when marrying a Swedish nobleman, Count Archibald Douglas.
She was first elected to Parliament in 2006, representing the conservative Moderate Party from the county of Sudermania (Södermanland). In 2006 she was the second candidate on the party’s list in that county, where the Moderates back then won two mandates. In this election she had been demoted to third place on the list, but the Moderates doing their best election ever also meant their winning three seats in Parliament from Sudermania. Although the personal votes have not yet been counted she is not in danger of losing her seat that way.
During the previous Parliament (2006-2010) Walburga Douglas sat in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and was leader of the Swedish delegation to OSCE.
Centre-right retains power in the city of Stockholm – and a Nazi elected elsewhere
Yesterday’s Swedish election was not only a general election, but regional and local elections were held on the same day. An interesting outcome of the local elections is that the centre-right coalition which has governed the city of Stockholm during the last four years won a renewed majority, which has not happened since 1954. This must count as another sign of the deep crisis which has afflicted the Social Democrats.Even more hair-raising than the fact that the right-wing extremists the Sweden Democrats won 20 seats in Parliament and are thereby able to tip parliamentary balance is the fact that a Nazi won a seat in a democratically elected assembly for the first time after World War II. With 2.8 % of the local vote the Swedes’ Party, until last year known as the National Socialist Front, won one seat in the municipal assembly of Grästorp in Westrogothia (Västergötland).
The photo shows the City Hall in Stockholm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
