by svip at 31-01-2008 01:36
Most of my readers (if I have any) have probably never heard of New Alliance in Danish politics. So I'd like to tell you their story, because it is fun.
Naser Khader is well known public image in Danish politics. Partly because he is Muslim, and gather some hype around him.
Naser Khader used to be a member of the Radical Left (B) party. Khader became especially famous in Denmark during Muhammad cartoon controversy when he made a group called "Moderate Muslims" in a response to the Danes' discontent over Muslims, because they were burning our flag in their streets.
While the group may seem like a good thing, it mainly remained PR. And the group never managed to pull off anything significant as the controversy died out by itself...
But that did not stop Khader in making himself appear public as much as possible. Khader, like most people in Denmark, was getting tired of the Danish People's Party (DF)'s almost veto right in Danish politics. You see, while DF is not part of the government, it is the support party of it. Without the mandates of DF, the government cannot effectively get any laws through. And thus the government wishes to avoid DF disagreeing with them, thus at times bending over for their needs.
So Khader did what he thought had to be done, B was simply not good enough, so he founded a new party, named "New Alliance" (NA). Its purpose: to get DF's veto right gone. Now, I can understand why he would like that, but founding a new party? Was that really necessary?
Indeed, while early opinion polls should 16 mandates for his party in its early days, people soon realised that beside the DF battling, the party did not really have any political issues.
And when it did make one about 40% flat income tax, people were again discontent with its lack of thought. One of their candidates even suggested that they should use one region of Denmark as a "test area" for this new flat tax. How would you feel about paying more tax so someone else can pay less?
Their display were horrible during the election campaign up til the elections 13th of November last year. They could not make anything clear to the public, no one were sure who they were going to point for prime minister and they were talking about all sorts of formalities they wanted through with the prime minister before they would appoint him.
Needless to say, they came in with 5 mandates. Lucky them. Sadly for them, it was not enough to get the government and DF off its majority. And thus their mission was somewhat unsuccessful. But to NA's luck, one of the mandates from the Conservative party (K) (which is part of the government) left it in protest. And with her, the majority of the government was gone. Indeed, after the last election, they had relied on one mandate majority.
So when the prime minister needed the new asylum agreement in place last week, he invited Khader up. What happened at that meeting remains confidential, but before it Khader was against the agreement, and when he came out, he was for it. And since NA seems to be trailing with less than 4 mandates (minimum requirement for getting into parliament), some suggested the prime minister threaten him with a possible new election.
Be that as it may, NA then declared itself as a right-wing party, until then it had claimed it self as a middle-wing party. And even though its opinion polls were low, they became lower. And thus one of its founders dropped out.
Now why am I discussing all this? Because it is hilarious. They base their party programme on something almost trivial, especially not needing an entire new party. And I agree with DF's leader when she criticised NA for that, despite I rarely agree with her. And with all its hype during its creation, it just shows that this man is just not confident for it. He is good at being himself, but not good at being the leader of a party.
NA's days are already counted. I have a very difficult time believing they will be able to pick up the pieces from this, and they won't get reelected into parliament.
I hope I managed to entertain you somewhat.
0 comments - Add comment
by svip at 23-01-2008 23:09
The current election primaries in the US will at one point result in a candidate for each party. And will then result in the picking of a new president! That was rather obvious, wasn't it?
Now, this new president will be faced with foreign politics, and hopefully whoever is elected into office will be able to fix up the relationship between Europe and the US. Cause seriously, the current administration have not done much for that part.
(Some) Europeans however are hoping that either Clinton or McCain become the next president, because of their foreign politics experience. Which the other candidates do not have or have enough of.
To be honest, I think Obama will do pretty well on foreign politics as well. But of course, here in Europe we are being told that we should not expect a change in tone from the US over night. And indeed not, but I think we have the right to be pissed if doesn't happen shortly after though.
And to quote my good friend, Stephen Colbert, for picking the next president; "Indecision 2008 - Don't fuck this up, America!"
As for Canada, who cares about Canada? Whenever they talk about relations over the Atlantic ocean, they always forget Canada. What is it? Part of the US? Or part of Europe? Or perhaps neither?! Wait, the last thing is actually true.
Personally, I think of Canada as Europe's extension in North America. I mean they speak English and French! They use the Metric system, Celsius and probably uses 24 hour clocks!
0 comments - Add comment
by svip at 13-01-2008 17:26
Denmark is in the EU. But on certain restrictions. We do not use the Euro (what a load) and we are not in the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) and the citizenship of the European Union. Note: The last thing doesn't really matter any more. More info.
This of course means that we cannot participate in discussions about the Euro, but since our currency is pegged to the Euro, we have to follow whatever they say. Keeping our currency (the krone) is only sensible in some sort of nationalistic value. Which is just stupid. But of course, every country has their nationalists and wishes to abandon reason for what is old fashioned and makes us us.
We have our own language damnit, aren't you happy enough? And if you need a currency to make you feel you, you need to get out more (and that is coming from me — me!).
As for the defence and justice opt-outs, people are not so tacky. They are more willing to give in to those, especially the defence part. But people are not that in favour of abandoning the justice opt-out.
Now here is the real thing about it. Cause so far it has just been me ranting like a crazy person (I am crazy, so obviously I rant like crazy!). They are now considering elections to get rid of them. Which of course is good, but it probably won't be until 2009. So another year of doing nothing.
But the debate has turned into how to do it. Some suggest that we get to vote for them all at once. Some suggest that you can vote specifically for each on the same ballot. And some even suggest separated elections for each!
But hold on to that last thought right there, now it may seem expensive setting up three different elections (remember, the fourth opt-out is of no concern now), but it is merely for having more debate about each opt-out. I cannot disagree with that, but personally, I'd like to get rid of them as soon as possible.
This is typical about Danes though, they are too scared to try new things. But I am still sort of pissed at the Brits and Swedes as well. You think you are smart not using the Euro as well, and as far as I remember, some Swedes only picked not to because we did! Stupid Swedes, cannot make up their own minds. And the Brits, the British pound is not such a fashionable currency as it used to be.
I'll let you know if something happens on this subject... in a year or so apparently.
2 comments - Add comment
by svip at 10-01-2008 15:49
You have probably heard about Clinton's "tears". And more importantly how people are discussing whither or not they were real. And of course raising the question if they changed the outcome of the vote in New Hampshire!
I say; who cares? Could tears really change that much? I still blame opinion polls and weather. But the point is merely that now she appears human. Oh, she did not before? I may not know a lot about your human emotions, but she appears a lot more human than most of you, especially those of you dress up like clowns.
If you want a human as president, sure go ahead, be my guest. But I would prefer it if you picked for the reason of logic. Hell, if a monkey was cunning enough, I'd vote for it.
So can we please move on? I, of course, won't be mentioning this issue again, unless people are getting too tired up their arses and can't keep their nose out of it.
Whatever that whole last thing meant...
2 comments - Add comment
by svip at 09-01-2008 17:07
Yesterday (again, sort of), New Hampshire voted in the US Primary. And while it appeared Obama would win it in opinion polls, Clinton won. Just as I predicted.
It is a clear showcase that the weather might just have played the important factor in Iowa as I thought. But this is of course not the end for Obama, much can change. And as you can tell from the results, they were rather close. My real question is why the opinion polls were so wrong?
The problem with opinion polls is that they are opinion polls. And believe it or not, they change results. If you were watching the opinion polls, and saw your candidate/party (depended on what country you live in, election systems, etc.) being the underdog, you would most likely go out and make sure that does not happen. So when people (who would vote for Clinton) realise that Obama seems to be getting the New Hampshire primary, they stand up and go out to vote. And since the weather was fine, they could be bothered!
As for the Republican vote, John McCain was a clear winner, and personally, I think he deserves it. While most of the Internet is all about Ron Paul, I just don't think Ron Paul is a serious enough candidate (not that he himself isn't serious, but rather because voters are not going to vote for him). And I would not like to see Giuliani or Romney as the Republican's candidate.
Huckabee or McCain, I don't really care, but I am predicting it will be one of them for the Republicans. But that might just change.
Now we just have to wait for Michigan to see if anything is going to change.
0 comments - Add comment
by svip at 06-01-2008 21:49
In 1948, Truman beat Dewey in the US presidential election. Not a super exciting vote, but became famous for the newspaper stating that Dewey had won the election, because it seemed so obvious close to the end that Dewey would win. This of course amused Truman.
But here is where the weather comes in. How could they predict that Truman lost, when he didn't? I know it is like the prediction during the evening that Al Gore won in 2000 (shame he didn't). The reasoning is because the republican voters who were supposed to make the final votes stayed home due to bad weather. Indeed, republican voters are less likely to go to vote than democratic voters.
Therefore I have wondered why no one has labelled the fact that the elections occur in November (not a great month for great weather, I should say) as a conspiracy to the Democratic party's favour. I mean, I was sort of surprised to hear that Conservatives considered the report about Iran's nuclear weapons to be a payback for the discredit the Bush Administration had given the intelligences in the US for the Iraq reports. So now they would contradict them on purpose. I have never heard a bigger load of "bull pies".
But the weather showed its face this 3rd of January in Iowa. It was -10 degrees on that day in Iowa. Pretty cold if you ask me, in fact, cold enough for people - even Estonians - to stay home if they can be excused. But we all know some voted, and who are most likely to go out and vote in such weather? Young people. So the weather alone should explain why Obama and Huckabee won.
I think I can safely claim that Obama and Huckabee will not win (or if either of them do, not by such a wide margin) in New Hampshire, where they are predicting +10 degrees on the 8th of January.
1 comment - Add comment
by svip at 06-01-2008 15:49
It was quite funny when Naser Khader was named Denmark's "Kennedy" (Danish link), but funnier (and more true) is it to label TV2 News as Denmark's answer to the American FOX News.
In Denmark we have three national wide channels; DR1, TV2 and DR2. DR1 and DR2 are public service channels, and thus funded using licenses paid by citizens. TV2 is (while owned partly by the government) a commercial station. However, in order for TV2 to stay on the average amount of viewers they have realised that creating new sister channels like we others get a haircut keeps the average amount of viewers spread out on all their channels.
And while some of these extra channels are quite good (actually only really one of them (TV2 Zulu)), they are mainly just extras. But in December, 2006, we were introduced to an entirely new concept, namely TV2 News, a 24 hour news channel in Danish. This of course had not been seen before in Danish history (and I still sort of believe we are too small a nation for it, but okay).
But like with most of TV2 there is no "stick it to the man" (like my brother (Danish link) would call it). And to clarify just what "stick it to the man" means, it means asking tough questions to politicians and other celebrities. Very few news outlets do that. And why? Cause they apparently have credibility to loose.
Which is most likely why - my good friend - Jon Stewart does it a lot on The Daily Show. Cause since his show is basically a fake news show, he doesn't really have anything to loose, and more importantly, his audience expect him to do it.
Sadly though, there are really none like him in Denmark (except perhaps Reimer Bo (my hero)). But TV2 is an obvious government friendly channel, and their only "really" hard going journalism goes against those on the opposition of the government.
However, Fox News itself is just a manner of blahing about how great the current administration is. And a flock of morons labelling themselves as "journalists" reporting for the conservative right in the US. I am wondering if even the conservatives are a bit tired of it.
So, it would not really be fair to label TV2 News as Denmark's answer to Fox News, but they sure are trying.
0 comments - Add comment
by svip at 04-01-2008 19:42
Yesterday - sort of - the state of Iowa voted for which candidate from each of the American political parties they would like to see as their candidates for president in November. I know the US have more than just two parties, but you never hear about them. Curse the two-party system!
Enough friendly banter though. However, the winners was - not surprisingly in my opinion - Obama for the Democrats and Huckabee for the Republicans. Now now, I know that both started out as underdogs, but came up and scored on the rebound.
Obama has a clear advantage over his "rivals"; Edwards and Clinton, he has little past. He was not in the Senate to vote to go into Iraq, Edwards and Clinton were. And especially Clinton have been criticised for voting yes on that issue. It was one of those things that made Kerry loose the 2004 elections, some suggest.
But Obama also reaches out more to the younger generations and those who usually go for the independent candidates, which remarkably seems to be a majority on the Democratic side in Iowa. Similar Huckabee sort of does the same on the Republican side. And of course, it helps that he is religious for the religious right in the Republican party, which plays an important part for the Republican side.
Of course, the most interesting thing about the Iowa primary vote is the losers. I know, I know, Chris Dodd did not seem to have it all working out, and sadly he did not get far in the Iowa primaries, almost as if they left him in the car park (The Daily Show references, if any of you caught it). Rudy Giuliani also suffered major defeat, but not as much as expected. Update: I previously stated that Giuliani got more votes than Ron Paul, this however is wrong. He got less than half as many. My apologies. Wikipedia knows best.
Mitt Romney and John McCain were also trailing, though, the McCain crowd were glad that he did better than Romney. Sometimes, it just works that way, I guess.
As for the Democratic side, the thing that surprised me the most was the fact that Edwards got more votes than Clinton. I presume Clinton simply has too much past.
Like a quote I once read said; "experience is our largest obstacle."
And while we are at it, New Hampshire may prove differently. Maybe Huckabee and Obama just got lucky in Iowa, who knows?
1 comment - Add comment
by svip at 01-01-2008 18:46
Every year, TIME magazine names a person of the year. And while Stalin and Hitler and even George W Bush have been the person of the year, they still continue to do so. And for 2007, it is Putin, president of the Russian Federation.
Now, while I do not entirely disagree with some of these candidates, I still find the idea of naming a person of the year laughable. They may have been influencing the year, but it is like forgetting the other people making important agendas during the year. Sort of why I thought TIME jumped the shark when the named "You" as the person of the year last year.
Vladimir Putin had the ability to get us all to think about Russia again. And not as in a former Soviet Republic, but rather a new Russia (which sort of seems to go the other way of Boris Yeltsin's ideas)! The choice of Putin is perhaps obvious, but in these modern times, it should be more difficult picking a single person - another reason to stop doing so.
And while I haven't read TIME's reasoning for this selection, I guess it is because he reminded TIME that Russia still exists. Good job on the parliamentary elections though, Mr Putin.
1 comment - Add comment
by svip at 01-01-2008 18:14
Welcome to the year 2008. A year which is still young and innocent, and not abused and wrecked as its predecessor 2007. But it is also the time of year where we look backward and notice what we did, and what we did wrong. What did right is not so funny, is it?
2007 saw a lot of tragedies, but none that stands out so we can remember them. More of the more exciting events was the beginning of the US President Campaigns for 2008. And in a country where it is all about having the most money to appeal the voters and telling them what they want to hear, it is important to start early. To make the primaries which will be around the corner this January.
But 2007 was also the year where we thought of Burma again (and was reminded it had changed name to Myuammamr or something). These poor monks rebelling against a military regime. It makes you feel better to live in the Western world for once.
Of course what interested me a lot was that 2007 was the first year a country threw an Internet election on national wide level. Namely the parliamentary elections in Estonia in March. According to officials, this event went successfully. But did it really? Who knows! I haven't checked it out.
And of course, our (Denmark) government were re-elected on a more narrow majority than previous - in fact on a single candidate.
But we have much to look forward for in the next year. And p shall attempt to capture as many of them as possible as they come (of course, only if they are remotely interesting).
0 comments - Add comment
