definitely not. Trud-ope was re-elected in a minority government and this fella here decided he wanted to ride the Liberal coat-tails to gain popularity. NDP have followed the Liberals around like a lost puppy and I don’t believe that party have the ability to run a federal government.
OK fine, BQ it is then 
PS. I’m messing with you
noted 
I don’t actually mind Poilievre, he was all over Trud-ope for the scandals that were happening.
Very exciting ! So few votes deciding if Christian Democrats and the Greens get above 4% or not, and Red is in with 9 at current, which is kind of historic. It is now in any case clear that Labour leader Jonas Gahr Støre will form a new government. Highly likely with the Agrarian Party (called the Centre Party, or Senterpartiet) and the Socialists, since they are slated to get a majority those 3 parties.
More surprisingly “Pasientfokus for Finnmark” is in with one mandate and thus a gets an MP 
! Yes, you read that right, it is Patient Focus Group Finnmark (our northern most county). And their elected MP, is surprise surprise, demanding a billion NOK to a new hospital + subsidies on patient travel in Alta (take a look at a map). A bit amusing. I love that our parliamentarian system makes it possible to get such focused interests groups from local politics into parliament 
1 Like
Haha, Fire Alarm just went off in the Election Wake of the Christian Democrats and they had to evacuate live on NRK while Kjell Inge Ropstad, their party leader, held a speech . They have a dark night. Lots of symbolism in this if you are religious 
They are at around 3.9% and desperately needs a few thousand votes now to get those crucial Equalisation Mandates.
88% of votes counted now.
They obviously won’t be in government, but I like that they are in with a small group of 9 representatives. Enough for a parliamentarian group. It is the kind of party that I would become hysterical and completely foaming at the mouth terrified, if they had something like 25% of the popular vote. But I like to have them as a social pressure group since I agree with many of their social politics. They serve as a barking dog that reminds Labour of important stuff that modern Social Democratic parties sometimes are in danger of forgetting. So yeah, I approve of them making the 4% goal.
1 Like
Erna Solberg has called Jonas Gahr Støre to congratulate him. As one does.
Graphic at 90 percent of votes counted
1 Like
You wouldn’t be terrified of them if they get that many votes, because to get that many votes they have to be less terrifying.
1 Like
Hehe, certainly less dogmatic !
But yeah, you have a point. Leftist are obsessed in doing things that won’t get them elected.
Red is not the kind of party to compromise on dogmatic stuff as well. They even voted with the Conservatives and the Far Right to throw the City Counciler in Oslo (Greens) who was in a coalition with Labour and the Socialists. She messed up with a contract and not informing her fellow politicians, so Red just voted hardcore and didn’t give a flying fuck that it was technically damaging the left. I got to say I liked that though. I really did. Made me respect their integrity more.
But yeah, kind of surprising that they made 9 mandates being that far left.
Lots of rejoicing from Folkets Hus, the Labour party’s house. And speeches. It has been a pretty good night in my own very biased opinion.
1 Like
What happens to the votes casted for parties that didn’t cross the 4% threshold? Is it ignored or redistributed among the parties who cross the threshold?
They can win mandates in direct elections (the Christian Democtars are in with 3 , same with Greens etc. and both parties failed to get 4%) but their votes in counties where they did not get a mandate through direct election are discarded and they do not get a share of the equalisation mandates. The vote is not redistributed.
This is hilariously petty
Has cost the French billions of dollars in the canceled contract.
Has excluded NATO allies from the process
Reduces EU influence in the area.
Seems like a US strategy to share the cost of “patrolling” this strategic area.
Does anyone feel safer because of this announcement or does it just antagonise friends and allies (and China) alike?
It was hamfistedly done by the Australian Govt but it’s drawing a line in the sand re China which will be very difficult to walk back but ultimately is crucial as many vested export interests have been trying to sit on the fence re China with disasterous consequences.
2 Likes
The French are understandably angry especially as they had been tasked with reengineering a nuclear sub to run on diesel. It’s clear that any FTA EU agreement wont be warmly received by French for a while but ultimately they should never have signed up in the first place which was then compounded by French intransigence. Ah well, its only about a 2.5b mistake - small by our liberal party’s recent standards.
It should be noted that the French electric motor comes with a Diesel or nuclear powered turbine so the original option by Aus was a concious one. The addition of why nuclear powered subs are ‘better’ is null and void. (Wasn’t Aus a nuclear free zone).
From what I can gather the delays incurred on delivery of the French subs was due to Aus insistance that Aus fournissers were used, I wonder if this is in the new arrangement?
So this ‘new’ pact could see a loss in French and aussie jobs. It’s definitely a big kick in the teeth to French maritime ambitions (though this was always a pie in the sky idea as far as I was concerned this just prooves how fragile this ‘market is’). If France does have these ambitions this should be the signal that they should first concentrate on boosting their own capacities rather than looking to sell it.
I know it’s all very hilarious and petty but did anyone really think France wouldn’t react?
This is an interesting question and the answer lies in how the EU react on the bigger picture. There’s been very little talk of the EU combined forces ‘project’ since Brexit. Perhaps this is the catalyst that was needed giving France the arguements to push it hard. If so it could be beneficial in the long run. European forces are highly depleted and need a boost (I would go as far as to say EU forces are pathetic).
If this leads to a concerted effort from France, Germany and Italy to create something viable then I think this will be seen as a beneficial landmark in EU history. Unfortuneately there’s still a long way to go so yes at the moment this deal break is highly weakening to our security and the NATO alliance.
1 Like
Why shoulodn’t they have signed up in the 1st place?
What French intranigence? What were they intransigent over? (they appear to have bent over backwards to incorporate Aussie demands and wishes only to be snubbed in a very unfriendly manner).