Austria is mainly down to the refugee crisis situation in 2015/2016, bordering Hungary etc.
1 Like
Iāll just point out that the conversation about asylum/refugees/economic migration is going to get a lot more complicated as the climate crisis escalates.
4 Likes
Complicated?
Not really: rich countries, you caused the problem. Now deal with the consequences.
1 Like
I agree with you, but am somewhat skeptical thatās how it will play outā¦
2 Likes
Ignoring the climate crisis for a moment sorting all this war shit would be a good start.
How to put the lunatics in an asylum and stop them getting into senior political roles is as decent a starting position as any. Then throwing the internet loonies in the asylum with them.
1 Like
Problem is, you only end up replacing them with another shower who +/- 50% of the country donāt want in power and believe the other side would do a better job.
My brother in law is visiting, heās lived in Norway for 35 years.
He tells me one of the reasons Norway is run so well is that the government is always a coalition.
Any of our Norwegian friends on here elaborate on this?
1 Like
Well, our governments here are always a coalition too. So nope, that canāt be the reason then.
Isnāt Norway a mess politically?
Everywhere is a mess politically isnāt it, according to half the population?
Apparently we wanted Norway+ at one point a few years ago. On that scale Iād say that politically the UK must be UK+++
There is probably some truth in that. Although historically, Norway was governed (historical view) by the Labour Party post-war and that period is the āblossoming of Norwayā period. But later, governments change more and parties become smaller. I think there is some truth that coalitions have some positive effect. When you govern by coalition there is some healthy horse trading going on. Various parties, according to MP strenght, get togheter and after long, long negotiations, come up with a unified platform. Everyone gives, everyone takes. Some promises must go, many points in a parties platform must be ammended (those points are there if they get a majority alone anyway), and you get a Government Coalition Declaration and platform and then a budget.
Of course, this makes it so that one party does not completely dominate with their ideas and policies are then tempered.
As an example, right now, Labour and the Centre Party are in government. They donā
t have majority though. So they negotiated with Socialist Left party (who wanted to be in government, but the Centre Party refused to govern with them etc.) and was also supported in parliament by Red (hard left). The previous coalition before this, was with Erna Solberg and the Conservative party, who again reigned alongside the progressive party (far right), the Liberal Party and Christian Democrats (although they left the government because of disagreements with the progressive party).
So of course, in such a government, Labour will be tempered by the Centre party and their rural interests and need for district politics. The Cons were tempered by the Liberal and the Christian Democrats in their coalition. So the effect of the progressive party in government was less awful (for those of us skeptical of the far right) than it would have been without the Liberals and so on. Because the nationalism and (really racism) of the progressive party was tempered.
So I think there is a lot of truth to this. Coalitions are generally a good thing I think. One party rule can work for a period in time, but as a general trend, I am skeptical of One Party rule.
5 Likes
How so and compared to who or what entity ?
We have less polarisation than most, socialists can drink coffe and talk in a civil manner with nationalists. Not every country is so politically āpeacefulā. Our Sociopolitical cleavages are less than you find in most countries, including the UK and US certainly.
I am curious why you think itās a mess and who you then think is better. We have a fairly strong democracy, at least according to academic criterias.
3 Likes
Not advocating for one party rule, but I can look at plenty of countries with coalition based, multiple party systems that are in a constant mess politically.
I think there are other reasons at play in Norway. One being Norwegians.
2 Likes
Oh, sometimes I wish we could be governed by just one party. But itās also useful that in a coalition the parties must have strong priorties and yield on other matters. As a person, living in rural Norway, I have to confess I am happy that the āCity-partiesā canāt decide everything on their own. I would probably not vote for the Centre Party, but I regard them as very, very useful in tempering other parties and highligting needs of the districts and in rural areas.
Because the large parties, focus on cities always. Also, I find the Socialist Left and even the party Red, useful. Because they bitch and whine about the poor, the environment and social services, forcing Labour to not forget them and just focus on economic growth and employment (just an example) despite those parties not being in government (but it is useful, I think, that there is an attack from the left). The same is true with the Cons. I would dread them governing alone, but since they need the Liberals and often the Christian Democrats, itās not so bad in the end.
4 Likes
Couldnāt you just answer the question with a simple reply like, no!?
Honestly I donāt know much about Norway and itās politics, I have watched some series that didnāt exactly paint a great picture. A country so tied up in energy can not avoid some mess.
Iām quite surprised by your reoly in some ways. Setting challenges in a nationalistic manner. Your normally more thoughtful than that.
I think that perhaps you touched on something with your comments about rural communities and the cities. If a country has a good balance here it is surely ābetterā. So I donāt think itās so much coalition governments more the balance.
Anyway I didnāt mean to offend anyone, just found the original posts naive and requiring some scorn. These cliches have more to do with ignorance than many other things.
With all respect, you said politics in Norway is a mess. Obviously there are many political issues in Norway, nothing in Norway is close to perfect, but when you say itās a mess, you imply itās worse than most other developed states, which I find absurd since it it technically the opposite . And of course, I canāt answer with a yes or no, I donāt do non-informative answers and I am not about to start now.
When you say the politics of Norway is a mess, the very least one ought to expect is you writing why.
And bluntly speaking, if Norway is a mess politically, which developed state is less messy ? There are not many (maybe Finland or Iceland ? Do we have more contenders really ?). But obviously everything is always relative. Anyway, politics is always a bit messy everywhere.
7 Likes
What a mess!
I think the (relative) monoculturalism of the Scandinavian countries helps them in so far as there is evidence that there is less opposition to welfare and income redistribution to your neighbours when they are culturally people like you with shared histories. I love the positive aspects of multiculturalism (which in conjunction with efforts of inclusion worked wonders in Australia up to the Howard years) but I do think it makes a comprehensive welfare state a harder sell.