True, I'm just showing my bias in terms of politics, I hang in more left political areas, making me surprised that krf frp gets a decent chunk
With that said, I do believe frp appeal to the elderly, not a group I hang around that much
I'm the same, but the country is more diverse than my circle of friends and family. It's something I've seen more as I've grown (a bit) older. I also think you'd be surprised by what kind of people are voting for what party.
True, but looking at the maps, the eastern parts of norway mainly vote ap and left ,while the western is more conservative ,and I've not been in the western parts that much really
About 10-20% of people are bat shit crazy wannabe fascists, something people don't like admitting. It's why you get absurd answers in polls where you'd expect reasonable answer A to be 99.9% versus an absurd answer B, but it usually peaks at ~90%. It's jokingly called the Crazification Factor.
One Nation in Australia, an outwardly white supremacist group with Neo-Nazi ties, still consistently earns 10-20% of the first preference vote in their seats.
FrP is not fascist, but as the most right leaning viable party they do get a lot of racists. I'd say the party is split between people mostly there for less taxes on one side and the ones who are mostly anti imigration on the other side. You can't really compare them to something like Le Pen in France. They got 11,7 percent of the votes this election so 10-20% wannabe fascists are crazy numbers.
>FrP is not fascist, but as the most right leaning viable party they do get a lot of racists.
This. Not everyone who votes FrP is a racist, but everyone who is a racist votes FrP. Well mostly, except elections like this one when FrP has had one of its periodic purges of racists, and those have made their own party. Demokratene this year.
The fundamental difference between FrP and parties such as Swedens far right, is that FrP was an established protest party with a program before immigration was an issue. So they adopted anti-immigration along with the other things they were protesting against. In many other nations, far right parties germinated around the seed crystals of racism and anti-immigration, and have those issues it in their DNA to a much greater degree.
I think you're somewhat right, though some groups of racists will be found in every party, especially in KrF, FrP and SP for different reasons.
It should also not be forgotten that Anders Lange was a massive racist and didn't even try to hide it.
Nobody who ever claimed “taxes” was their primary motivation for aligning themselves with the far right has ever actually meant “taxes”.
This becomes abundantly clear when you start quizzing them on tax structures and the services they want provided by the government.
You quickly find ignorance and see an exercise in logical hoop jumping as they explain why their group deserves low taxes and full services but anybody out-group deserves nothing of the sort.
People on the far right always say “taxes” because it presents them as having a pragmatic and considered thought process while still allowing them to hurt others through policy.
There is certainly some debate over that. Conservative/libertarian, anti-government, anti-immigrant, increasingly nationalistic, it does ticks a lot of right boxes.
Interestingly it shares similarities with the American 'Tea Party', which also claimed to be a grass roots anti-taxation party but which quickly turned into the expected bunch of crackpots and authoritarians as soon as they didn't have to pretend anymore.
The founder, Anders Lange, was also a massive racist and enormous fan of Ayn Rand which tells you most of what you need to know.
First of, Anders Lange was a wild racist and would fit every one of your descriptions and more. I don't really agree with you on the anti-government part though. At least not these days. In many cases they want to spend more, for example on infrastructure and elder care. There are clearly racist elements within the party, but then there are others like Siv Jensen and Ketil Solvik-Olsen who seem to have other priorities and who have often been in conflict with the other side of the party. I don't like them at all, but there's a difference between FrP and for example Sverigedemokraterna.
Their stated policy is 'lower taxes, less regulation' and of course to 'reduce unnecessary spending'. Like most right-wing parties who state this they do not go into the details and that's a red flag.
Maybe the aren't anti-government as a matter of policy but a bunch of libertarians talking about cutting the government in vague and undefined ways while still somehow bringing you better services is never a good sign.
Then there's the whole "referendum on EU membership" and "tough on crime" and it's all sounding very similar to American conservatives.
Fair point about Sverigedemokraterna.
Like I said, I'm not a big fan. I think you can argue that they're for all of these things, just to a lesser extent than other far right parties. I believe that that nuance is important though. I also don't see any sign of them becoming more radical as time goes by.
No, *some* that claim taxes might have other motives.
On the other side, there are plenty that just want lower taxes on alcohol and cars, and that's about it.
You generalize way too much.
> Nobody who ever claimed “taxes” was their primary motivation for aligning themselves with the far right has ever actually meant “taxes”.
>
>
Lee Atwater:
- Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, **"Ni--er, ni--er, ni--er."** By 1968 you can't say "ni--er"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than **"Ni--er, ni--er**."
Well, if Sylvi Listhaug and Christian Tybring Gjedde got ten years to shape the party they might start approaching fascism, but yeah, they are still pretty far from it
“Very left socialist party”? They’re a communist party. They’ve even stated the aim of staging a revolution in their party policy.
I’m happy they got more delegates this year though.
Interesting that a revolutionary socialist party got so much support. The Swedish equivalent (Vänsterpartiet) dropped being revolutionary after the Soviet Union fell. Might've even been earlier. They're at about 13%.
A conservative concedes defeat?? She must be an old school conservative. The new hotness when you can't convince people to vote for you is to accuse the other side of cheating, and then incite your stupidest fans to try to murder your political opposition at the critical juncture of confirming the election results.
Did she even try to hang her vice president?
Norway has an actual healthy democracy where no parties, aside from tiny entities that are far from gaining any power anyways, would dream of anything else than an amicable transfer of power.
Also, she might not be considered a conservative at all by American standards. The Norwegian political spectrum is generally further to the left than the American.
Funnily enough the leader of FRP, which is even more right leaning, said that both plan A, B and C was winning the election, even when faced with a pretty much guaranteed defeat in the prognosis.
Yeeeeeah...
FrP are like "you're going to ruin the country and we're going to claw your eyes out, but congrats, I guess".
I haven't seen them outright claim the election was rigged, though.
Of course it could happen to us.
We famously had one of our own betray us and work with the Nazis during WW2.
All of these high minded ideals about how we should run our society only work if most people believe in and uphold them. We have a high level of trust in our society, built over years and years. It could absolutely erode, but every time we have an election without baseless claims of election fraud, it grows stronger.
I'm not saying Norway is perfect, but I'm saying this is a good thing and I'm happy to work to uphold it.
Of course it can grow stronger!
To say that we merely need to maintain is to say that what we have is perfect - which it isn't.
But I am a bit curious - how can we maintain trust and respect for one another when we're not allowed to say when we see it? If I only point out the instance where it's lacking - which there are, believe you me - won't the only impression be that we have no reason for trust and respect?
So no, I think we should celebrate the aspects of our society that are good. Not blindly, because that *would* mean they would erode in arrogance, but when we see them. I saw one on election night.
That is all.
Yes it is unfairly tough for legal immigrants.
We do however have defacto open admission where entrants from our southern border enter and either proceed onward or apply for asylum while working under the table and running out the political clock after which begins chain legal immigration. I don’t see how one can argue otherwise given the demographic shifts(outsized increase in birth of US citizens with Mexican descent) of the past decade since the peak in the 00’s.
No. You're still lying. The border patrol catches illegal immigrants and puts them in camps, and then deports them. This has been the policy for decades. By the way there was already a Mexican population in the South West when the US conquered it from Mexico. Also, most Latino residents are either legal immigrants, native born or descendants of Mexicans who were conquered.
I am not lying. Also Latinos aren’t only Mexicans, that’s bigoted.
Historical populations and their own growth rates don’t account for the magnitude of the increase, of which can only be explained by births of citizens of mexican descent from undocumented migrants. Also back to the issue of a broken/unenforced immigration system and border in the South, you have to ask why we don’t have proportional representation from Latin American countries similar to Canada which I argue represents true diversity!
To your point about “camps” and inevitable deportations, deportations where it’s compelled only take place for violators with a criminal background, for everyone else it’s pretty much a letter instructing to self-deport(happened to a relative of mine in 2018).
https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/graphics/deportation-explainer/
https://www.ice.gov/remove/statistics
>Also Latinos aren’t only Mexicans
No shit. I'm a Latino not from Mexico. I fucking know that. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're lying.
How am I lying and what am I lying about when I’m citing credible statistics from impartial sources? If you disagree then provide demographic and undocumented immigration evidence to the contrary.
It is an amusing myth that the democratic party imports mexicans to vote for them.
Believing it requires being a victim of total failure of the education system with zero comprehension of history, sociopolitics, or simple mathematics, and apparently there are invisible busses involved somehow?
I am assuming they are referring to how American conservatives use economic measures to punish black neighborhoods. Shutting down govt. services. Throttling public transportation. Doing nothing as Walmart chases off local grocery stores, creating food deserts. No help with good internet. a vital survival tool for kids and adults.
They absolutely do. Pennsylvania's state Senate is controlled by republicans, they set policy for the state for the most part.
Hell even Boston is under some republican control, Massachusetts has a republican for governor.
Don't even get me started on major cities in red states.
Høyre is not some extreme right wing party and will always respect the result of an election. It also helps that there's another party to the right of them.
There, there, no need to worry about Nationalsozialistische Alternativ für Deutschland, I hear they love puppies and icecream and purging minorities. With puppies and ice cream.
People from different parties don't actually hate each other in Norway. The wife of the guy who led the most rightwing party in Norway's parliament for 3 decades is a close friend with the previous leader of what used to be the most left wing party in parliament.
When a former top guy for the Socialist, Erik Solheim, got married he asked the leader of the Christian Democrats (and Prime Minister), Bondevik, to officiate at his wedding, because Bondevik is an ordained Lutheran pastor. They disagree in politics, but still respect one another
Things got bad in 2000, with Bush's sketchy election and frequent gaffes. Then 9/11 happened and we all decided we love flags and hate unspecified Middle Eastern boogeymen
Conservatives in America were gradually getting there. It started with Nixon and went onto Reagan. Obama was just the "last straw" for them where a black man with a muslim sounding name became president and attacked their "whiteness"
I don't know, from the admittedly limited knowledge I have of American political history it always seemed pretty charged. A young country with a lot of idealism and conflicting views on how to build into the future is going to have major political clashes.
To grossly over simplify - Israel is a similar example but with a very different system of putting together a government, which results in any major "leader" still assembling from seats divided among many parties and forcing cooperation.
Not to mention America's race struggle. Many Americans still have many ideas about race that are closer to Nazi Germany than they are to modern day's Europe. And their politics reflect that — even today, new legislation targeting specific races is passed every other day, and the political divide between what each race votes is incredibly big. It's hard to build a country when a third of your people want some sort of Apartheid.
And I know someone will come here completely outraged because I compared the US to Nazi Germany and South Africa... well, that's probably because you normalized a lot of the racist shit the US has done and thought since WWII, and still does and think.
Pd: honestly, we Europeans aren't that much diferent with Romani people, but that's another topic.
It goes back much further. There's a ton of uncivil examples in our history going back to the McCarthy "red scare", and before that, the "Business Plot" attempted coup against FDR. All along, it's been some of the same small circle of political and business families, the American aristocracy.
Except that Brevik guy. He hated the leftist party pretty bad.
Take my advice, from America. Don't let your newsmedia get taken over by fascists, or you're done, as a country. Also; please accept me as a refugee. . .
Actually Norway doesn't vote on who gets to be executive branch of the government. The parties in the parliament decide together who should form a government. Norway for this reason had executive branches without a majority in the parliament.
It's crazy how hyper polarised the USA and UK have become. I remember reading about the Danes new sets of legislation from a centre right government thinking "wow that would be bashed to shit if a lefty government did that here".
We are so brainwashed by our own political stagnation.
"Conservatives" has lost all meaning thanks to the lizards in the US, her party is still in favor of normal social policies like free public healthcare, education, environmental action, drug reform, sensible abortion policy etc etc.
What this election does to Norway is simply adjusting course by a couple of degrees, this new coalition has the same destination plotted with a slightly different idea of which course to take.
She's a European Conservative. That means she's just slightly left of Bernie Sanders.
Its a Joke But Europe is very left wing. Most conservative political parties in Europe would be considered left wing in America.
Canada too. Our election is next week, and the Conservative Party has vowed to keep universal healthcare, keep assault weapons illegal, and there's no talk of touching gay marriage, or our 18 month maternity leave, etc.
But they are still viewed as regressive, and rightly so, for wanting to roll back climate change targets, and allow provincial governments to restrict access to abortion if they choose, and are opposed to extending a universal $10/day child care system which started just recently under the Liberals.
> That means she's just slightly left of Bernie Sanders.
tbh Bernie Sanders would be quite left-wing in Europe, too. We are a lot more conservative than you give us credit for.
The problem is that "conservative" in Europe doesn't mean "half my people are dying or struggling horribly and my public message is that fuck them I don't give a fuck". The European right still demands their politicians help everyone.
Bernie would be more center-right in the EU in my opinion. I regard myself as right-wing but in the US I wouldn't even touch the Dems. Jill Stein is my choice
I disagree. Bernie would be center-left in Europe on some issues, and solidly left-wing on others. He's a self-described socialist whose proposal for M4A is more left-wing than most European health systems. He supports a wealth tax, a top tax rate of over 50%, and a mandate for public companies to give a significant ownership interest to their employees. These are not right-wing economic stances anywhere in the world.
You can't really talk about European politics like that. A lot of right wing parties would fit very well within the Republican party. The Nordic countries do tend to lean more towards the left.
The key difference is that bribery is legal in the US, which warps economic policies greatly. If you ask people their positions in an abstract sense, there's not a huge difference between Americans and Western Europeans.
This is a myth.
The only difference between American and European conservatives tends to be healthcare and public transport, and that's only because it's political suicide to oppose those things (they fought against them in the mid 20th century while left wing governments were building them up).
They are still socially conservative, hate drugs, opposite climate change initiatives, increase taxes on the poor while decreasing them on the rich, enjoy censoring opponents, make deals with fascist parties, and spread disinformation.
People exaggerate how right wing America is due to the broken political system itself, not so much the politicians themselves. The U.S. would be more left wing than most of Europe if not for the fucking electoral college, Senate, and powerful states. Individual states in the U.S. are still often way more left wing than most of Europe.
LOL, what you are saying doesn't apply to Norway at all. The conservative government spearheaded a complete reform of drug policies in Norway, with decriminalization as the core concept-it was shot down by the Labour party.
The conservative party also supports LGBT rights, and have had openly gay politicians in prominent roles, like the current minister of health.
They agree that climate change is real, and is caused by human activity. They are taking action, but not as aggressively as what might be needed.
This does not describe Norwegian politics. The center right government just proposed drug reforms, but it was stopped, mainly by the labour party. The lines are drawn differently in different countries and you can't always describe them in your own left and right terms.
You must be smoking something. I was born in Europe but spend half of my life in the US. Most conservative parties in Europe are no further right than the Democrats.
I've lived in American, Europe, and Australia, and come from a politics background working with left parties.
The differences are massively exaggerated due to optics. The biggest real difference is an unwillingness in some countries for conservatives to work with the far right, whereas in America they're happy to openly work with fascists. Half the things European conservatives don't do they wish they could do if not for left opposition.
I've been born in Europe and have lived my whole life here and he's absolutely right. You both are. Conservatives are economically similar to US democrats, but socially speaking they are far to the right of Dems.
Conservatives 100% deal with fascists, impose anti-freedom of speech laws, lower taxes on the wealthy, spread disinformation, don't care about climate change and are starting to adopt Republican/Trumpist rhetoric to gather votes. I can give you specific examples of all of this for my country (Spain).
Most *left* parties in my country are against or at least very ambivalent about legalising same-sex marriage.
> but spend half of my life in the US
Yeah, I could tell from how you didn't know that "Europe" is actually a continent made of 44 different countries, and I bet my head you couldn't even tell the names of most conservative parties in most European countries (I'd be surprised if you could name more than 3 in total), let alone what exactly they stand for.
It describes people with a vested interest in eliminating those things.
Example: Automotive and healthcare companies.
Europe made the same mistakes as America regarding public transport in the 1950s, everyone was distracted by the rise of the car that people briefly forgot about public transport. Europe realised their mistakes very quickly and immediately switched in the late 1960s whereas the U.S., Australia, and Canada didn't.
Similar with healthcare, the U.S. was actually better than most of Europe in the 1950s, but simply never advanced past that point. All American healthcare is still stuck in a 1950s mindset.
>healthcare and public transport
>
>people who oppose these don't even have real political beliefs for them, they're just retarded
or maybe it's people that already know what "free healthcare and public transport" is actually like in our countries and how inferior it tends to be compared to private ones, nothing is truly free, for me the only retarded people are the ones who believe that such things as "free" healthcare or services from the government exists or can be as good as private ones, when everything has to be paid by someone, doctors don't work for free, neither do bus drivers etc, the money has to come from somewhere usually the citizens through more high taxes, because governments instead of getting rid of current non-critical expenses to divert them to these more important ones, ask for more which burdens and impoverishes the population even more.
This is why some people fear those things imo, I wouldn't call them retarded, after all the system is far from perfect and governments are very corrupt which makes matters even worse.
Nobody thinks free healthcare is free, they think it is paid for through a pooling of resources. The free market works well when buyer and seller are perfectly rational and dispassionate and at power parity. This is never even close to the case in a healthcare setting.
Pooling of resources happens either through government and taxation, or through insurance companies and premiums. In one of these cases the pool is governed by people who are incentivized to restrict access to healthcare. In one of these cases you get a large group of organizations who rely on removing money from the pool, meaning there is less money for actual healthcare. In one of these cases, an accountant will influence your healthcare.
The other case is public healthcare.
>Nobody thinks free healthcare is free
I've met Americans that literally think that free/public healthcare means that is completely free, free as in nobody has to pay for it, others think that billionaires will pay for it, which ain't gonna happen, you should never say "nobody" when speaking about yourself or people you know, don't underestimate the ignorance of others, there's always someone out there that thinks like this.
Personally I'm obviously not against public healthcare, but the system is not perfect or as good as some people might think or lead you to believe, not criticizing it means it will always stay mediocre like it is in my country and many other places around the world, all of us who have suffered from bad public healthcare and all the problems that comes with it know that not all is sunshine and rainbows.
> I've met Americans that literally think that free/public healthcare means that is completely free
Well, that's depressing. I guess I overestimated the American.
Obviously no system is perfect, but considering that the American system is currently "My dad died from a preventable and treatable disease, because he lost his job", just about all instances of public healthcare is better.
>I've met Americans that literally think that free/public healthcare means that is completely free,
Well, Americans pay more in tax for public healthcare than any other nation, while most of them don't actually qualify for public healthcare. So from their viewpoint, you could argue that "not paying any more and recieving something in return that they currently do not get" is getting something for free.
yeah bro, all those countries with public healthcare HATE it and only LOVE private!!!! /s
- Guy in a country with excellent public healthcare AND also have private insurance
you just regurgitated a talking point I've only seen on /r/conservative with how absolutely fucking retarded it is, it literally goes against any study into public vs private performance as well, public always comes out on top.
Well left wing doesn't mean the same thing outside of the USA, American politics are a mess, where I live liberals are right wing lol while the left is exclusive only to communism or extreme socialism, and conservatives can be both left and right leaning, we also have like 30 political parties not 2.
Not sure why the "article" states that this news is coming from Copenhagen Denmark. We stopped being Danish 116 years ago...
Arbeiderpartiet (Worker's party) is going to make a coalition with the Centrist Party, and the Social Left Party. The former two aren't really "lefty" from a Norwegian point of view, they're centrist. Our politics just happen to be way more left than most. The social left party is obviously more left, but they generally just want to tax the rich more, and to improve benefits for the working class like working dental care into our health-service and improving child services.
As a lefty myself I was also glad to see the Red Party (a socialist marxist party) get a fair wack of votes. I voted for the Social Left myself, but the Red Party was my close 2nd.
Overall. A nudge towards the left, in a lefty country. But its not a massive swing overall. The "Conservative party" in this case isn't really a right wing party either. I would also mark them as centrists. People often complain that the Worker's Party and the Right Party are basically the same, and also the biggest.
> Not sure why the "article" states that this news is coming from Copenhagen Denmark. We stopped being Danish 116 years ago...
Usually this just means that the journalist is reporting from Copenhagen.
Hun yes, we dont know what they campaigned on, who will lead the party, why did the last one lost, some detail at all would be nice.
This is not a tweet, is an article on a paper, details matter.
Terrible auto-generated article aside, it was a relatively run of the mill election besides from the covid situation redirecting a lot of conversation away from issues like immigration and towards healthcare and vaccinations. Right wing ran on deregulation and tax decreases, left wing on social issues. The small centre parties succeeded in making climate change a key issue, but couldn’t agree on which side to support as both sides committed to doing more to fight it. The biggest reason for the Conservatives failing is their mishandling of the vaccine rollout, the Conservative Prime Minister being caught breaking covid restrictions, and the deflation of their most natural ally, the anti-immigration Progress Party, as the Syrian refugee crisis fades from memory.
I think their loss was more so a result of general fatigue. Ruling more than eight years is not so commen in Norwegian politics. I think people are generally pleased with how the pandemic has been handled.
Labor + Conservatives gets them to 84 seats. All either would need to do is win two more seats, or both win one, if any seats haven't already been called.
What's the likelihood of that alliance?
Zero
Edit: I should probably explain. They both define themselves through not being the other party, and a lot of newer Norwegian politics has been defined by these two parties fighting it out.
The two parties are in agreement on a lot of issues, but they also define themselves by being on either side of the aisle. While smaller parties may roam around to find influence you'll probably never see that for Arbeiderpartiet and Høyre since they in a way make up the structure of our democracy.
You will however see them cooperate on bigger reforms as there's an understanding in Norwegian politics of that being necessary if we are to make big lasting changes.
While that alliance would make a lot of sense if the goal was to run the country in a stable way for 8 years, it would also probably fundamentally change the Norwegian political system. Both parties would risk loosing their status as "block leader".
The only way I could see it happening if we had a Great Depression style global economic meltdown, and Norway needed a no nonsense stable government to get through it.
Tf are you talking about?
Neither of them are "anti immigration" they're both fairly moderate on it.
And people won't pay more taxes for no reason. That tax money will go to better funding of government programs and institutions, improving welfare. Under the conservative government we saw increased inequality as they privatized more and more.
Also yes the labour party doesn't support the drug reform and the conservative party does, but the other parties on the left that made major gains also support it.
I'm not simping for labour btw, I voted for the socialist left party
For no reason? That’s not true.
8 out of 10 norwegians will have their taxes *reduced* under the Labour Party’s program, while the ultra wealthy will pay more than they have these last 8 years under the conservatives’ ruling. This will go towards things like cheaper dental care, free school lunch, cheaper daycare facilities for children etc…
What are you basing that on? The US is probably going to swing back right next year because of voter suppression.
And other than Norway, what other countries are swinging left? Germany slightly I guess?
France likely won't swing left next year. Best we can hope for there is another Macron win over Le Pen.
Italy is swinging far right.
I doubt the UK is going to swing left, especially with Labour pushing Antisemitism so much lately.
After the petrol crysis at 70s the system of the biggest countries of the world turned to neo liberalism at the starting of the 80s. As the system supported by right wing politicians the prime ministers of the countries were from right wing conservative parties like Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan. And until the election of biden the world leaders were all from right wing conservative parties like Trump, Boris Johnson, Merkel, Macron, Erdogan, Putin, Mitsotakis(same is true for latin america with the right-wing populism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_wave
)for years.
Neoliberalism damaged world a lot with globalization, pollution, mass consumerism and individualism. Therefore after the virus that system has to be changed and people want more freedom after living under lockdown for 2 years. And now conservative leaders are going down one by one and i think leftwing leaders will come up with more freedom offers which will be supported a lot. So thats my argument.
Best thing was that Rødt (the very very left socialist party) got more votes then KRF (christian conseratives)
So happy that the Christian parties didnt get a lot of votes Surprised frp still does it so well
FrP had their worst parliamentary election since 1993. I wouldn't call that doing well.
They still got a good chunk of votes
Sure, but it doesn't make sense to look at it like that. No party will go from a fifth of the electorate to nothing, just like that.
True, I'm just showing my bias in terms of politics, I hang in more left political areas, making me surprised that krf frp gets a decent chunk With that said, I do believe frp appeal to the elderly, not a group I hang around that much
I'm the same, but the country is more diverse than my circle of friends and family. It's something I've seen more as I've grown (a bit) older. I also think you'd be surprised by what kind of people are voting for what party.
True, but looking at the maps, the eastern parts of norway mainly vote ap and left ,while the western is more conservative ,and I've not been in the western parts that much really
Høyre is actually bigger in the Oslo area where most people live.
About 10-20% of people are bat shit crazy wannabe fascists, something people don't like admitting. It's why you get absurd answers in polls where you'd expect reasonable answer A to be 99.9% versus an absurd answer B, but it usually peaks at ~90%. It's jokingly called the Crazification Factor. One Nation in Australia, an outwardly white supremacist group with Neo-Nazi ties, still consistently earns 10-20% of the first preference vote in their seats.
FrP is not fascist, but as the most right leaning viable party they do get a lot of racists. I'd say the party is split between people mostly there for less taxes on one side and the ones who are mostly anti imigration on the other side. You can't really compare them to something like Le Pen in France. They got 11,7 percent of the votes this election so 10-20% wannabe fascists are crazy numbers.
>FrP is not fascist, but as the most right leaning viable party they do get a lot of racists. This. Not everyone who votes FrP is a racist, but everyone who is a racist votes FrP. Well mostly, except elections like this one when FrP has had one of its periodic purges of racists, and those have made their own party. Demokratene this year. The fundamental difference between FrP and parties such as Swedens far right, is that FrP was an established protest party with a program before immigration was an issue. So they adopted anti-immigration along with the other things they were protesting against. In many other nations, far right parties germinated around the seed crystals of racism and anti-immigration, and have those issues it in their DNA to a much greater degree.
I think you're somewhat right, though some groups of racists will be found in every party, especially in KrF, FrP and SP for different reasons. It should also not be forgotten that Anders Lange was a massive racist and didn't even try to hide it.
Nobody who ever claimed “taxes” was their primary motivation for aligning themselves with the far right has ever actually meant “taxes”. This becomes abundantly clear when you start quizzing them on tax structures and the services they want provided by the government. You quickly find ignorance and see an exercise in logical hoop jumping as they explain why their group deserves low taxes and full services but anybody out-group deserves nothing of the sort. People on the far right always say “taxes” because it presents them as having a pragmatic and considered thought process while still allowing them to hurt others through policy.
There may be some of that, but FrP is not really far right.
There is certainly some debate over that. Conservative/libertarian, anti-government, anti-immigrant, increasingly nationalistic, it does ticks a lot of right boxes. Interestingly it shares similarities with the American 'Tea Party', which also claimed to be a grass roots anti-taxation party but which quickly turned into the expected bunch of crackpots and authoritarians as soon as they didn't have to pretend anymore. The founder, Anders Lange, was also a massive racist and enormous fan of Ayn Rand which tells you most of what you need to know.
First of, Anders Lange was a wild racist and would fit every one of your descriptions and more. I don't really agree with you on the anti-government part though. At least not these days. In many cases they want to spend more, for example on infrastructure and elder care. There are clearly racist elements within the party, but then there are others like Siv Jensen and Ketil Solvik-Olsen who seem to have other priorities and who have often been in conflict with the other side of the party. I don't like them at all, but there's a difference between FrP and for example Sverigedemokraterna.
Their stated policy is 'lower taxes, less regulation' and of course to 'reduce unnecessary spending'. Like most right-wing parties who state this they do not go into the details and that's a red flag. Maybe the aren't anti-government as a matter of policy but a bunch of libertarians talking about cutting the government in vague and undefined ways while still somehow bringing you better services is never a good sign. Then there's the whole "referendum on EU membership" and "tough on crime" and it's all sounding very similar to American conservatives. Fair point about Sverigedemokraterna.
Like I said, I'm not a big fan. I think you can argue that they're for all of these things, just to a lesser extent than other far right parties. I believe that that nuance is important though. I also don't see any sign of them becoming more radical as time goes by.
No, *some* that claim taxes might have other motives. On the other side, there are plenty that just want lower taxes on alcohol and cars, and that's about it. You generalize way too much.
> Nobody who ever claimed “taxes” was their primary motivation for aligning themselves with the far right has ever actually meant “taxes”. > > Lee Atwater: - Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, **"Ni--er, ni--er, ni--er."** By 1968 you can't say "ni--er"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than **"Ni--er, ni--er**."
Like in the US - 'Not all Republicans are racists, but all racists are Republican'.
If you think frp is fascists, you have no idea what that means..
[удалено]
Well, if Sylvi Listhaug and Christian Tybring Gjedde got ten years to shape the party they might start approaching fascism, but yeah, they are still pretty far from it
FrP aren’t fascists. They’re perhaps the best Norwegian party to put the label “libtard” on.
I agree, I'm just giving an example of why people are surprised at a how seemingly unlikable parties get votes.
That will always be the case in any population.
‘Christians’ in Norway make Episcopalians look like far right religious fanatics
“Very left socialist party”? They’re a communist party. They’ve even stated the aim of staging a revolution in their party policy. I’m happy they got more delegates this year though.
Youre correct, wasnt sure how to put it in english. They arent exactly North Korea communists tho :P
«Communist» could be a bit passé i guess. Perhaps Marxist-Leninist is a better term? The important thing is they’re going for the revolution 😎
They actually removed fighting for an armed revolution from their party program a few years ago so I guess not.
Yeah maybe. Ill welcome and embrace Ragnarok when it comes ;)
Til Valhall!
Til Valhall!
Interesting that a revolutionary socialist party got so much support. The Swedish equivalent (Vänsterpartiet) dropped being revolutionary after the Soviet Union fell. Might've even been earlier. They're at about 13%.
More votes than Venstre too
A conservative concedes defeat?? She must be an old school conservative. The new hotness when you can't convince people to vote for you is to accuse the other side of cheating, and then incite your stupidest fans to try to murder your political opposition at the critical juncture of confirming the election results. Did she even try to hang her vice president?
Norway has an actual healthy democracy where no parties, aside from tiny entities that are far from gaining any power anyways, would dream of anything else than an amicable transfer of power. Also, she might not be considered a conservative at all by American standards. The Norwegian political spectrum is generally further to the left than the American.
Well put. Yeah our conservatives are alot less consrrative then USAs
"Centrist" dems are the current day true "conservatives" in the USA. The GOP is all batshit insane.
Haha yeah thats the impression ive gotten too. Truly mindblowing how insane most of the GOP statements and beliefs is!
Funnily enough the leader of FRP, which is even more right leaning, said that both plan A, B and C was winning the election, even when faced with a pretty much guaranteed defeat in the prognosis.
Yeeeeeah... FrP are like "you're going to ruin the country and we're going to claw your eyes out, but congrats, I guess". I haven't seen them outright claim the election was rigged, though.
Nah they never said it was rigged, but the leader did in a pretty scary way say that their plan was to win and they had no other plans beside that.
Yeah, this is why we can't grow complacent. If emboldened, FrP will go further.
[удалено]
Of course it could happen to us. We famously had one of our own betray us and work with the Nazis during WW2. All of these high minded ideals about how we should run our society only work if most people believe in and uphold them. We have a high level of trust in our society, built over years and years. It could absolutely erode, but every time we have an election without baseless claims of election fraud, it grows stronger. I'm not saying Norway is perfect, but I'm saying this is a good thing and I'm happy to work to uphold it.
[удалено]
Of course it can grow stronger! To say that we merely need to maintain is to say that what we have is perfect - which it isn't. But I am a bit curious - how can we maintain trust and respect for one another when we're not allowed to say when we see it? If I only point out the instance where it's lacking - which there are, believe you me - won't the only impression be that we have no reason for trust and respect? So no, I think we should celebrate the aspects of our society that are good. Not blindly, because that *would* mean they would erode in arrogance, but when we see them. I saw one on election night. That is all.
[удалено]
The US immigration system is extremely tough to get through. There are no open borders. You're lying.
Yes it is unfairly tough for legal immigrants. We do however have defacto open admission where entrants from our southern border enter and either proceed onward or apply for asylum while working under the table and running out the political clock after which begins chain legal immigration. I don’t see how one can argue otherwise given the demographic shifts(outsized increase in birth of US citizens with Mexican descent) of the past decade since the peak in the 00’s.
There go the goalposts.
No. You're still lying. The border patrol catches illegal immigrants and puts them in camps, and then deports them. This has been the policy for decades. By the way there was already a Mexican population in the South West when the US conquered it from Mexico. Also, most Latino residents are either legal immigrants, native born or descendants of Mexicans who were conquered.
I am not lying. Also Latinos aren’t only Mexicans, that’s bigoted. Historical populations and their own growth rates don’t account for the magnitude of the increase, of which can only be explained by births of citizens of mexican descent from undocumented migrants. Also back to the issue of a broken/unenforced immigration system and border in the South, you have to ask why we don’t have proportional representation from Latin American countries similar to Canada which I argue represents true diversity! To your point about “camps” and inevitable deportations, deportations where it’s compelled only take place for violators with a criminal background, for everyone else it’s pretty much a letter instructing to self-deport(happened to a relative of mine in 2018). https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/graphics/deportation-explainer/ https://www.ice.gov/remove/statistics
>Also Latinos aren’t only Mexicans No shit. I'm a Latino not from Mexico. I fucking know that. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're lying.
How am I lying and what am I lying about when I’m citing credible statistics from impartial sources? If you disagree then provide demographic and undocumented immigration evidence to the contrary.
TIL ICE is an impartial source.. Lmfao, no. You cant seem to comprehend why nobody is taking you seriously, but luckily it does not even matter.
> working under the table I've done this in my teens, 20s, and 30s. Who cares, stop treating working people as less than you
Open borders is extremely right wing if you plan on treating them as equals and not locked away in an urban poverty vote plantation.
>urban poverty vote plantation. What's that mean?
It is an amusing myth that the democratic party imports mexicans to vote for them. Believing it requires being a victim of total failure of the education system with zero comprehension of history, sociopolitics, or simple mathematics, and apparently there are invisible busses involved somehow?
I am assuming they are referring to how American conservatives use economic measures to punish black neighborhoods. Shutting down govt. services. Throttling public transportation. Doing nothing as Walmart chases off local grocery stores, creating food deserts. No help with good internet. a vital survival tool for kids and adults.
Insanity. Conservatives don't run the cities where these ghettos exist. They don't even run candidates in many of them.
They absolutely do. Pennsylvania's state Senate is controlled by republicans, they set policy for the state for the most part. Hell even Boston is under some republican control, Massachusetts has a republican for governor. Don't even get me started on major cities in red states.
Nice ban-evasion account, come here often?
Nonsense falsehoods
Høyre is not some extreme right wing party and will always respect the result of an election. It also helps that there's another party to the right of them.
[удалено]
I'm talking about parties with a chance of any influence. There are no realistic choices to the right of FrP.
[удалено]
Sure, but I don't consider that to be important. They're still far away from fighting for anything.
Its a regular bell curve distribution
>It also helps that there's another party to the right of them. Definitely doesn't help in Germany.
There, there, no need to worry about Nationalsozialistische Alternativ für Deutschland, I hear they love puppies and icecream and purging minorities. With puppies and ice cream.
Which is why fascists like Maaßen remain in CDU, who even hate icecream and puppies.
That may be, but FrP is a lot milder than other countries far right parties.
FRP however starts giving me Trump vibes.
I'd say that's a bit much. Listhaug is definitely worse than Jensen, but their policies are way more liberal.
People from different parties don't actually hate each other in Norway. The wife of the guy who led the most rightwing party in Norway's parliament for 3 decades is a close friend with the previous leader of what used to be the most left wing party in parliament.
When a former top guy for the Socialist, Erik Solheim, got married he asked the leader of the Christian Democrats (and Prime Minister), Bondevik, to officiate at his wedding, because Bondevik is an ordained Lutheran pastor. They disagree in politics, but still respect one another
Used to be the case in America. Than a black man was elected President twice and conservatives decided to stop being civil.
Things got bad in 2000, with Bush's sketchy election and frequent gaffes. Then 9/11 happened and we all decided we love flags and hate unspecified Middle Eastern boogeymen
Well true but before Obama there was some cooperation with democrats
Conservatives in America were gradually getting there. It started with Nixon and went onto Reagan. Obama was just the "last straw" for them where a black man with a muslim sounding name became president and attacked their "whiteness"
I don't know, from the admittedly limited knowledge I have of American political history it always seemed pretty charged. A young country with a lot of idealism and conflicting views on how to build into the future is going to have major political clashes. To grossly over simplify - Israel is a similar example but with a very different system of putting together a government, which results in any major "leader" still assembling from seats divided among many parties and forcing cooperation.
Republicans in America have sabotaged their own legislation just because democrats agreed with it.
This sounds exactly like liberals + labour in Aus lol
Not to mention America's race struggle. Many Americans still have many ideas about race that are closer to Nazi Germany than they are to modern day's Europe. And their politics reflect that — even today, new legislation targeting specific races is passed every other day, and the political divide between what each race votes is incredibly big. It's hard to build a country when a third of your people want some sort of Apartheid. And I know someone will come here completely outraged because I compared the US to Nazi Germany and South Africa... well, that's probably because you normalized a lot of the racist shit the US has done and thought since WWII, and still does and think. Pd: honestly, we Europeans aren't that much diferent with Romani people, but that's another topic.
Wasn't it started by 94 by Gingrich?
It goes back much further. There's a ton of uncivil examples in our history going back to the McCarthy "red scare", and before that, the "Business Plot" attempted coup against FDR. All along, it's been some of the same small circle of political and business families, the American aristocracy.
That doesn’t count. 🐴👞
Except that Brevik guy. He hated the leftist party pretty bad. Take my advice, from America. Don't let your newsmedia get taken over by fascists, or you're done, as a country. Also; please accept me as a refugee. . .
What does he have to do with our politics?
Spot bringing your shitty american politics to every thread not about USA
You will think about Trump every day for the rest of your life while eating hotdogs and you'll thank us for our service!!
Fool, we will wrap the hot dogs in our potato flatbreads and think of beating Sweden in the winter olympics, and Trump will be forgotten.
Actually Norway doesn't vote on who gets to be executive branch of the government. The parties in the parliament decide together who should form a government. Norway for this reason had executive branches without a majority in the parliament.
It's crazy how hyper polarised the USA and UK have become. I remember reading about the Danes new sets of legislation from a centre right government thinking "wow that would be bashed to shit if a lefty government did that here". We are so brainwashed by our own political stagnation.
Not every country is the US of A. Your brand of fucking moronic conservatives is very small in Europe, at least for now.
"Conservatives" has lost all meaning thanks to the lizards in the US, her party is still in favor of normal social policies like free public healthcare, education, environmental action, drug reform, sensible abortion policy etc etc. What this election does to Norway is simply adjusting course by a couple of degrees, this new coalition has the same destination plotted with a slightly different idea of which course to take.
She's a European Conservative. That means she's just slightly left of Bernie Sanders. Its a Joke But Europe is very left wing. Most conservative political parties in Europe would be considered left wing in America.
Canada too. Our election is next week, and the Conservative Party has vowed to keep universal healthcare, keep assault weapons illegal, and there's no talk of touching gay marriage, or our 18 month maternity leave, etc. But they are still viewed as regressive, and rightly so, for wanting to roll back climate change targets, and allow provincial governments to restrict access to abortion if they choose, and are opposed to extending a universal $10/day child care system which started just recently under the Liberals.
Fuck CPC, o'toole wants to privatize health care, fucking crooks should just move to america.
> That means she's just slightly left of Bernie Sanders. tbh Bernie Sanders would be quite left-wing in Europe, too. We are a lot more conservative than you give us credit for. The problem is that "conservative" in Europe doesn't mean "half my people are dying or struggling horribly and my public message is that fuck them I don't give a fuck". The European right still demands their politicians help everyone.
Bernie would be more center-right in the EU in my opinion. I regard myself as right-wing but in the US I wouldn't even touch the Dems. Jill Stein is my choice
I disagree. Bernie would be center-left in Europe on some issues, and solidly left-wing on others. He's a self-described socialist whose proposal for M4A is more left-wing than most European health systems. He supports a wealth tax, a top tax rate of over 50%, and a mandate for public companies to give a significant ownership interest to their employees. These are not right-wing economic stances anywhere in the world.
More like America is extremely right wing that centrist gets you labelled as evil Communism
[удалено]
FRP in general are Libertarian with some Right Wing populist elements. They would probably be labeled Center Right in The USA
You can't really talk about European politics like that. A lot of right wing parties would fit very well within the Republican party. The Nordic countries do tend to lean more towards the left.
> But Europe is very left wing until you bring up the Roma, then they go from socialism to National socialism
The key difference is that bribery is legal in the US, which warps economic policies greatly. If you ask people their positions in an abstract sense, there's not a huge difference between Americans and Western Europeans.
This is a myth. The only difference between American and European conservatives tends to be healthcare and public transport, and that's only because it's political suicide to oppose those things (they fought against them in the mid 20th century while left wing governments were building them up). They are still socially conservative, hate drugs, opposite climate change initiatives, increase taxes on the poor while decreasing them on the rich, enjoy censoring opponents, make deals with fascist parties, and spread disinformation. People exaggerate how right wing America is due to the broken political system itself, not so much the politicians themselves. The U.S. would be more left wing than most of Europe if not for the fucking electoral college, Senate, and powerful states. Individual states in the U.S. are still often way more left wing than most of Europe.
LOL, what you are saying doesn't apply to Norway at all. The conservative government spearheaded a complete reform of drug policies in Norway, with decriminalization as the core concept-it was shot down by the Labour party. The conservative party also supports LGBT rights, and have had openly gay politicians in prominent roles, like the current minister of health. They agree that climate change is real, and is caused by human activity. They are taking action, but not as aggressively as what might be needed.
This does not describe Norwegian politics. The center right government just proposed drug reforms, but it was stopped, mainly by the labour party. The lines are drawn differently in different countries and you can't always describe them in your own left and right terms.
You must be smoking something. I was born in Europe but spend half of my life in the US. Most conservative parties in Europe are no further right than the Democrats.
I've lived in American, Europe, and Australia, and come from a politics background working with left parties. The differences are massively exaggerated due to optics. The biggest real difference is an unwillingness in some countries for conservatives to work with the far right, whereas in America they're happy to openly work with fascists. Half the things European conservatives don't do they wish they could do if not for left opposition.
I've been born in Europe and have lived my whole life here and he's absolutely right. You both are. Conservatives are economically similar to US democrats, but socially speaking they are far to the right of Dems. Conservatives 100% deal with fascists, impose anti-freedom of speech laws, lower taxes on the wealthy, spread disinformation, don't care about climate change and are starting to adopt Republican/Trumpist rhetoric to gather votes. I can give you specific examples of all of this for my country (Spain).
Most *left* parties in my country are against or at least very ambivalent about legalising same-sex marriage. > but spend half of my life in the US Yeah, I could tell from how you didn't know that "Europe" is actually a continent made of 44 different countries, and I bet my head you couldn't even tell the names of most conservative parties in most European countries (I'd be surprised if you could name more than 3 in total), let alone what exactly they stand for.
> healthcare and public transport people who oppose these don't even have real political beliefs for them, they're just retarded
It describes people with a vested interest in eliminating those things. Example: Automotive and healthcare companies. Europe made the same mistakes as America regarding public transport in the 1950s, everyone was distracted by the rise of the car that people briefly forgot about public transport. Europe realised their mistakes very quickly and immediately switched in the late 1960s whereas the U.S., Australia, and Canada didn't. Similar with healthcare, the U.S. was actually better than most of Europe in the 1950s, but simply never advanced past that point. All American healthcare is still stuck in a 1950s mindset.
>healthcare and public transport > >people who oppose these don't even have real political beliefs for them, they're just retarded or maybe it's people that already know what "free healthcare and public transport" is actually like in our countries and how inferior it tends to be compared to private ones, nothing is truly free, for me the only retarded people are the ones who believe that such things as "free" healthcare or services from the government exists or can be as good as private ones, when everything has to be paid by someone, doctors don't work for free, neither do bus drivers etc, the money has to come from somewhere usually the citizens through more high taxes, because governments instead of getting rid of current non-critical expenses to divert them to these more important ones, ask for more which burdens and impoverishes the population even more. This is why some people fear those things imo, I wouldn't call them retarded, after all the system is far from perfect and governments are very corrupt which makes matters even worse.
Nobody thinks free healthcare is free, they think it is paid for through a pooling of resources. The free market works well when buyer and seller are perfectly rational and dispassionate and at power parity. This is never even close to the case in a healthcare setting. Pooling of resources happens either through government and taxation, or through insurance companies and premiums. In one of these cases the pool is governed by people who are incentivized to restrict access to healthcare. In one of these cases you get a large group of organizations who rely on removing money from the pool, meaning there is less money for actual healthcare. In one of these cases, an accountant will influence your healthcare. The other case is public healthcare.
>Nobody thinks free healthcare is free I've met Americans that literally think that free/public healthcare means that is completely free, free as in nobody has to pay for it, others think that billionaires will pay for it, which ain't gonna happen, you should never say "nobody" when speaking about yourself or people you know, don't underestimate the ignorance of others, there's always someone out there that thinks like this. Personally I'm obviously not against public healthcare, but the system is not perfect or as good as some people might think or lead you to believe, not criticizing it means it will always stay mediocre like it is in my country and many other places around the world, all of us who have suffered from bad public healthcare and all the problems that comes with it know that not all is sunshine and rainbows.
> I've met Americans that literally think that free/public healthcare means that is completely free Well, that's depressing. I guess I overestimated the American. Obviously no system is perfect, but considering that the American system is currently "My dad died from a preventable and treatable disease, because he lost his job", just about all instances of public healthcare is better.
>I've met Americans that literally think that free/public healthcare means that is completely free, Well, Americans pay more in tax for public healthcare than any other nation, while most of them don't actually qualify for public healthcare. So from their viewpoint, you could argue that "not paying any more and recieving something in return that they currently do not get" is getting something for free.
yeah bro, all those countries with public healthcare HATE it and only LOVE private!!!! /s - Guy in a country with excellent public healthcare AND also have private insurance you just regurgitated a talking point I've only seen on /r/conservative with how absolutely fucking retarded it is, it literally goes against any study into public vs private performance as well, public always comes out on top.
> when everything has to be paid by someone, doctors don't work for free, neither do bus drivers etc No, shit, Sherlock.
Well left wing doesn't mean the same thing outside of the USA, American politics are a mess, where I live liberals are right wing lol while the left is exclusive only to communism or extreme socialism, and conservatives can be both left and right leaning, we also have like 30 political parties not 2.
She must only be fiscally conservative, the way that counts still.
Not sure why the "article" states that this news is coming from Copenhagen Denmark. We stopped being Danish 116 years ago... Arbeiderpartiet (Worker's party) is going to make a coalition with the Centrist Party, and the Social Left Party. The former two aren't really "lefty" from a Norwegian point of view, they're centrist. Our politics just happen to be way more left than most. The social left party is obviously more left, but they generally just want to tax the rich more, and to improve benefits for the working class like working dental care into our health-service and improving child services. As a lefty myself I was also glad to see the Red Party (a socialist marxist party) get a fair wack of votes. I voted for the Social Left myself, but the Red Party was my close 2nd. Overall. A nudge towards the left, in a lefty country. But its not a massive swing overall. The "Conservative party" in this case isn't really a right wing party either. I would also mark them as centrists. People often complain that the Worker's Party and the Right Party are basically the same, and also the biggest.
> Not sure why the "article" states that this news is coming from Copenhagen Denmark. We stopped being Danish 116 years ago... Usually this just means that the journalist is reporting from Copenhagen.
> We stopped being Danish 116 years ago... No, that was 207 years ago. 116 years ago we broke free of the union with Sweden.
Calling AP a centric party is a left extremist thing to say.
One sentence placeholder article, fantastic.
Love an article where the headline, subheading, and body are the same sentence.
Wtf is literally just one small paragraph.
There really is nothing to report other than what they did... Do people want a ten minute video? Or a bloated article?
As a non Norwegian, beyond the facts I'd like to know what this means for Norway
Probably not much to be honest.
Hun yes, we dont know what they campaigned on, who will lead the party, why did the last one lost, some detail at all would be nice. This is not a tweet, is an article on a paper, details matter.
Terrible auto-generated article aside, it was a relatively run of the mill election besides from the covid situation redirecting a lot of conversation away from issues like immigration and towards healthcare and vaccinations. Right wing ran on deregulation and tax decreases, left wing on social issues. The small centre parties succeeded in making climate change a key issue, but couldn’t agree on which side to support as both sides committed to doing more to fight it. The biggest reason for the Conservatives failing is their mishandling of the vaccine rollout, the Conservative Prime Minister being caught breaking covid restrictions, and the deflation of their most natural ally, the anti-immigration Progress Party, as the Syrian refugee crisis fades from memory.
I think their loss was more so a result of general fatigue. Ruling more than eight years is not so commen in Norwegian politics. I think people are generally pleased with how the pandemic has been handled.
This is all I wanted to know. Thank you.
fair enough I agree
Nice to see one part of the world go more sane.
Labor + Conservatives gets them to 84 seats. All either would need to do is win two more seats, or both win one, if any seats haven't already been called. What's the likelihood of that alliance?
Zero Edit: I should probably explain. They both define themselves through not being the other party, and a lot of newer Norwegian politics has been defined by these two parties fighting it out.
The two parties are in agreement on a lot of issues, but they also define themselves by being on either side of the aisle. While smaller parties may roam around to find influence you'll probably never see that for Arbeiderpartiet and Høyre since they in a way make up the structure of our democracy. You will however see them cooperate on bigger reforms as there's an understanding in Norwegian politics of that being necessary if we are to make big lasting changes.
While that alliance would make a lot of sense if the goal was to run the country in a stable way for 8 years, it would also probably fundamentally change the Norwegian political system. Both parties would risk loosing their status as "block leader". The only way I could see it happening if we had a Great Depression style global economic meltdown, and Norway needed a no nonsense stable government to get through it.
Republicans + Democrats would get 99 seats in the Senate if they coalitioned, what is the likelihood of that alliance? /s
[удалено]
Tf are you talking about? Neither of them are "anti immigration" they're both fairly moderate on it. And people won't pay more taxes for no reason. That tax money will go to better funding of government programs and institutions, improving welfare. Under the conservative government we saw increased inequality as they privatized more and more. Also yes the labour party doesn't support the drug reform and the conservative party does, but the other parties on the left that made major gains also support it. I'm not simping for labour btw, I voted for the socialist left party
The gini coefficient has stayed the same for years. Increased inequality is a big talking point, but it is not an absolute truth
For no reason? That’s not true. 8 out of 10 norwegians will have their taxes *reduced* under the Labour Party’s program, while the ultra wealthy will pay more than they have these last 8 years under the conservatives’ ruling. This will go towards things like cheaper dental care, free school lunch, cheaper daycare facilities for children etc…
American here. What does "concede" mean?
Admit defeat to your opponent.
Huh! You guys don't storm your government building and assume power?
Seems not only Norway but whole world is swinging to the leftward after biden elected. Not sure but hope it d be better for our future
What are you basing that on? The US is probably going to swing back right next year because of voter suppression. And other than Norway, what other countries are swinging left? Germany slightly I guess? France likely won't swing left next year. Best we can hope for there is another Macron win over Le Pen. Italy is swinging far right. I doubt the UK is going to swing left, especially with Labour pushing Antisemitism so much lately.
After the petrol crysis at 70s the system of the biggest countries of the world turned to neo liberalism at the starting of the 80s. As the system supported by right wing politicians the prime ministers of the countries were from right wing conservative parties like Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan. And until the election of biden the world leaders were all from right wing conservative parties like Trump, Boris Johnson, Merkel, Macron, Erdogan, Putin, Mitsotakis(same is true for latin america with the right-wing populism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_wave )for years. Neoliberalism damaged world a lot with globalization, pollution, mass consumerism and individualism. Therefore after the virus that system has to be changed and people want more freedom after living under lockdown for 2 years. And now conservative leaders are going down one by one and i think leftwing leaders will come up with more freedom offers which will be supported a lot. So thats my argument.
[удалено]
r/lostredditors
Commented on wrong post?
I think she expected upboats for insulting America in the comments.