The Danish Election, 2019

Explaining Danish politics to non-Danes is an extremely difficult task. For example, the largest right-wing party is called the “Left” (Venstre). Also, the “red” and “blue” party or bloc colors have the opposite meaning of those in the US [I personally I think the Danish colors make more sense]. Moreover, it is common for Danish parties to be formed around a single issue or a single set of related issues and with the low election threshold in Denmark, they get elected to parliament. The Danish parliament thus typically has many parties – 10 will be sitting in the newly elected Folketing (Danish parliament). These parties have either almost no effect unless they’re in the inevitable coalition government or, if they are, an outsized effect in that they can take down the government. Anyway…

The final result overall was just over 52% to the red bloc (the lefty parties) and the remainder to the right, which includes the various votes lost on other parties. The new party, Stram Kurs did not make it although its nicer, better behaved sibling, the Nye Borgerlige (ie, the New Bourgeois or New Middle Class) did. As you might expect, the Danish blogs and commenters that I follow were quite disappointed. Let’s explore this.

The most adult of the synopses I read as well as the one I found most correct was from Den Korte Avis (The Compact Newspaper) The Electoral Results May Mean That Immigration Policies Will Stagnate Fatally (Valgets resultat kan betyde, at der kommer en fatal stilstand i udlændingepolitikken). Here is a portion (original below the fold):

The Parliamentary election resulted in a great victory for the red bloc and a dramatic loss to the Dansk Folkeparti (ie, Danish People’s Party, the largest and oldest of the anti-immigration parties).

If one wants to understand the result, it is necessary to examine it in relation to the last election in 2015.

The voters have reacted to what happened last time and this has caused a new and powerful swing.

The election in 2015 was to no small degree about immigration – with the Dansk Folkeparti as clear victor. Many voters saw the party as those who would ensure that control would be imposed on immigration problems.

Other parties reacted by changing their policies according to this new situation. The two largest parties, Venstre and Socialdemokratiet (the Social Democrats), promised to implement strict immigration policies. They were aware that if they didn’t, they would adversely affected.

International events and a series of actions taken by the blue bloc (the right) led to a significant decrease in the stream of refugees to Europe and especially to Denmark.

Prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Venstre) could declare that control had now been imposed on the problems. The leader of Socialdemokratiet, Mette Frederiksen, indicated that she would keep these tight policies if she came to power.

A large percentage of the voters thus got the idea that there was now no longer a need for further tightening in immigration policies.

Moreover, they were also given to believe that it was not necessary to vote for Dansk Folkeparti to keep these tight immigration policies.

As the Dansk Folkeparti showed it could work with Socialdemokratiet, there were many voters, not the least the blue collar voters, who thought that they could safely return to Socialdemokratiet.

And as Dansk Folkeparti also had worked in close cooperation with Venstre, there were many Venstre voters who thought the same.

The electoral result is not an indication that the majority is against a tight immigration policy. It is, on the contrary, an indication that many had the idea that the problems were under control.

This is an illusion. There is still a need for a great effort in a tightened immigration policy. The electoral result means a real danger of a fatal stagnation in immigration policies.

The second synposis I want to use comes from Snaphanen, In the Heat Of the Election Night (I Valgnattens Hede)

It become the year’s first evening at 20 C. Even those who aren’t overweight were sweating at the Castle [the nickname for Christiansborg, the seat of the Folketing]. Never in my wildest dreams had I thought there were so many journalists employed at the identical, irrelevant media outlets. It was in itself an experience to see the “hot blooded” Christiansborg show. [...]

The Danish voters would, yet again, for the sixth time since 2001, not solve the problems with immigration and Islam via the ballot box. By solve, I mean, exit or cancel the treaties and massively repatriate the people who have no reason to be in Denmark. First and foremost, Muslims. “As far as the eye can see, there will be 800,000 people on the dole and use 36B Danish Kroner ($6 billion) per year on clients from exotic countries who can’t take care of themselves. The ‘deep state’ protects those rejected for asylum forever”, wrote Asger Aamund.

Danes are too well off. It will need to get worse – and it will.

Europeans use Muslims as a club in their political battles with each other. They might seriously think that Islam will behave differently in the 21st century than when it conquered some 50 other countries over the past centuries. They don’t see the obvious in daily life that many, many Muslims have arrived here to conquer their country. Conquest is Islam’s standard operating procedure and if any particular Muslim should forget that, the mosques will hammer it home again.

Danes will, like the Swedes, wait until their self-afflicted misfortune is unresolvable for good. Head-slappingly stupid. “Things need to get worse – and then that’s how they’ll remain”, wrote the historian Michael Pihl. Things are still going too well for Danes and there have been far too few dead from Muslim terror. Swedes are much closer to hitting the multi-cultural pain threshold.

It seems to me that Snaphanen is describing that old Winston Churchill comment about Neville Chamberlain:

You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.


Den Korte Avis

Folketingsvalget gav et stort flertal til rød blok og et dramatisk nederlag til Dansk Folkeparti.

Hvis man skal forstå resultatet, må man se det i sammenhæng med det sidste valg i 2015.

Vælgerne har reageret på, hvad der skete sidste gang. Og det har fået dem til at tage et nyt kraftigt sving.

Valget i 2015 var i høj grad et udlændingevalg – med Dansk Folkeparti som den store sejrherre. Mange vælgere så partiet som dem, der skulle sikre, at der kom styr på udlændingeproblemerne.

Andre partier rettede ind efter denne nye situation. De to store partier, Venstre og Socialdemokratiet, forpligtede sig på at føre stram udlændingepolitik. De var klar over, at de kunne blive hårdt ramt, hvis de ikke gjorde det.

Den internationale udvikling og en række indgreb fra den blå regering førte til en markant nedgang i asylstrømmen – i Europa og især i Danmark.

Statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen kunne erklære, at der nu var kommet styr på problemerne. Socialdemokratiets leder Mette Frederiksen kunne tale om, at hun ville fastholde den stramme udlændingepolitik, hvis hun fik magten.

Da Dansk Folkeparti samtidig lagde op til et tæt samarbejde med Socialdemokratiet, var der mange vælgere – ikke mindst arbejdervælgere – der tænkte: ”Nå, men nu kan vi trygt vende tilbage til Socialdemokratiet”.

Og da Dansk Folkeparti samtidig havde et nært samarbejde med det store regeringsparti Venstre, var der mange Venstre-folk, der tænkte det samme.

En stor del af vælgerne fik således det indtryk, at der nu ikke længere var så meget brug for at lave yderligere stramninger i udlændingepolitikken.

Dermed fik de også det indtryk, at de ikke længere behøvede at flytte deres stemmer til Dansk Folkeparti for at få udlændingeproblemerne under kontrol.

Valgresultatet i går er ikke udtryk for, at befolkningens flertal nu er imod en stram udlændingepolitik. Det er derimod udtryk for, at mange har fået den opfattelse, at problemerne er ved at være under kontrol.

Dette er en illusion. Der er brug for en stor indsats for stram udlændingepolitik. Valgets resultat betyder en alvorlig fare for, at der kommer en fatal stilstand i udlændingepolitikken.

Snaphanen

Skriver Fjordman. “Det skal svært intensiv hjernevask til for å overbevise en nasjon om at CO2 er viktigere enn deres overlevelse som folk.”

Det blev årets første tyvegraders nat. Selv de, der ikke var overvægtige, svedte på Borgen. Aldrig havde jeg forestillet mig at alle de ens, ligegyldige medier havde så mange journalister ansat. Det var i sig selv en oplevelse at opleve det opgejlede Christiansborg-show. [...]

Danskerne ville endnu engang, – for sjette gang siden 2001 – ikke løse indvandrings- og islamproblemet via stemmesedlen. Med ‘løse’ mener jeg fratræde konventioner og repatriere massivt af mennesker, der ingen grund har til at befinde sig i Danmark. Først og fremmest muslimer. “Så langt øjet rækker, vil vi have 800.000 borgere på støtten og bruge 36 milliarder kroner om året på klienter fra eksotiske lande, der ikke kan forsørge sig selv. Den dybe stat beskytter afviste migranter, som bliver i landet til evig tid,” skriver Asger Aamund.

Danskerne har det for godt. Det skal blive værre – og det vil det blive
Men europæerne bruger muslimer som boldtræ i den politiske kamp mod hinanden. De må i ramme alvor tro, at islam vil opfører sig anderledes i det 21 århundrede, end da det erobrede små 50 lande gennem århundrederne. De ser ikke det åbenlyse i det daglige, at vældig mange muslimer er kommet hertil for at erobre deres land. Erobring er islams standardindstilling, skulle enkeltmuslimer have glemt det, banker moskeerne det ind i hovederne på dem.

Danskerne vil, som svenskerne, vente til deres selvpåførte ulykke er uløselig i al evighed. Man tager sig til panden. “Det skal blive værre – og det vil det blive,” skrev historikeren Michael Pihl. Danskerne har det endnu for godt, og endnu er alt for få døde af muslimsk terror. Svenskerne er meget nærmere ved at ramme den multikulturelle smertetærskel. I denne tid den økonomiske del af den.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.