This is actually one of my contributions to a discussion, I’m having on e-mail with a couple of colleagues. My starting point is that the Social Democrats are out of the tax negotiations while the Social Liberals and New Alliance are still on board:
Now that the Social Democrats have been thrown out of the negotiations, the interesting question is what priority the government would give having the Social Liberals/Det radikale Venstre in a deal (I’m assuming for the sake of argument that Anders Fogh gives a policy compromise higher priority than an election).
The SLP is not needed for a majority, but there could still be some advantages in having the SLP on board. Even if the party would not be committed normatively to support the contents of a welfare and tax policy agreement in an electoral campaign or after the next election, it would still be a problem for the party to advocate a SD-led government as its prime goal. If the SLP stance should make sense to voters, the party would – with all the risks – have to be relatively uncommitted with regard to office in an electoral campaign.
On the other hand, the SLP is famous for performing acts that make sense in a narrow Christiansborg context but are absolutely incomprehensible to anyone outside of the castle’s thick walls (and one or two political scientists).
But on balance: If I were AFR, throwing out the SD and keeping the SLP on board along with the DPP would make perfect sense, even in the medium-to-long term. Provided there is some kind of common ground with regard to policy, of cause.
Ask Rostrup on dr.dk – Thomas Larsen in Berlingske (focusing on the woes of the Conservatives)