Jacob Christensen

A while back I (unsuccessfully) solicited advice about my gift subscription to Berlingske Tidende. Or rather: What to do, when the subscription ended.

You see, I was certain that Berlingske Tidende wanted subscribers and consequently would somehow approach me in time before the end of the gift subscription. Like in soccer: A loan with the possibility of a permanent move. So the question was: How should I reply to Berlingske’s expected offer to relieve me of some 4500 DKK?

Now the subscription has ended and … well, nothing. Berlingske Tidende hasn’t called me or written or sent an e-mail (they have my address).

Nothing.

Radio silence.

So the only conclusion I can draw is that Berlingske Tidende, whose editor is anxiously pushing web micro-payments and gated content as a way of making up for lost revenue from the printed paper doesn’t want me as a subscriber.

Yep, that’s right: Lisbeth Knudsen doesn’t want my money.

I’m, like, heartbroken.

And Berlingske: Don’t call me. I won’t be calling you. Politiken called me. They got my money.

Via Dan Drezner and Crooked Timber: The Republicans¹ want to eliminate political science as a research discipline.

Actually, the real surprise would be if anybody from the Republican Party would support something called science these days.

1. Yes, yes, I know: One stupid senator. But given the state of the Republican Party these days… [↩]

So Lars Løkke (here in Denmark we skip “Rasmussen”. After all, all Danish prime ministers are called Rasmussen, so it is Poul Nyrup, Anders Fogh and now Lars Løkke) held his first throne speech yesterday and tomorrow the political verdict will be in.¹

I noted that Rune Lykkeberg in a comment called it a DJØF-speech – to non-Danes this means a kind of technocratic management-oriented approach to politics, much like Poul Nyrup’s or Gordon Brown’s but unlike Anders Fogh’s. This may well lead to problems: As Lykkeberg pointed out, one of Anders Fogh’s major talents was identifying a political enemy – the “elite”, technocrats, Social Liberals, immigrants – and use it in mobilising support for his political project. LLR is more careful, and that leaves a flank open for criticism from the Danish People’s Party and the Socialists.

Anyway, to me the most interesting subject was the tip-toeing around the EU and foreign policy in general. LLR argued that due to the expected deficits in the Danish state budget, Denmark would no longer qualify for the EMU. You could almost hear the sigh of relief, because that meant that any discussion of a referendum on the EMU opt-out would be irrelevant in the foreseeable future. Interestingly, LLR didn’t mention any of the other opt-outs – JHA and CFSP seem to have just disappeared in the political discourse.

So, the government leads by following and the likelihood of any referendum on any of the opt-outs is somewhere between minimal and non-existent. Never mind that experts claim that with the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the opt-outs will start hurting Danish interests in the EU system.

Democratisation and nation-building were also spectacularly absent from the speech even if Afghanistan got a token mention.

What else? In economic terms, Denmark faces two – or perhaps – three major problems in the coming years: Since 2001 (!) the share of 18-25 year olds taking a vocational or theoretical education has stalled, productivity growth is slow and whatever green competences Denmark earned during the 1990s will be facing stiff international competition. While we are at it: I suspect that AFR’s reinvention of himself as a green politician had very little to do with a sudden interest in environmental policy (Danish Liberals are spectacularly and manifestly uninterested in nature and the environment) and more with the Confederation of Danish Industry making noises about the declining competitiveness of high-tech industries.

So, what to do? First of all cut child benefits for (parents of) 15-17 year olds who are not working or studying. Now, let’s see: Where do we find them? The Danish People’s Party is certain to wholeheartedly support an initiative which will hit immigrants. I expect some interesting polemics here. Similarly, the specific promise in crime policy was a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 14 (not that Berlingske Tidende’s sensationalist stories have been substantiated, but the only surprise here is that it isn’t Jyllands-Posten which is spinning for the government).

Exactly what is meant by a 360 degree revision of primary and lower secondary schooling is a bit opaque. Still, anybody who has studied public administration knows that just throwing money after problems helps. But it is damn expensive.

The promise to finance five new central hospitals (get your bl§§&ing a## moving, Region Sjælland!) is not exactly surprising: This was in the health plans published earlier this year.

Ah yes: The anti-bureaucracy drive. A perennial favourite. Even Jim Hacker fought red tape. The government promises to present 105 proposals to simplify rules and regulations in the welfare sector. And increased measurements of hospital and school performance. Yeah, right: We are still in New Public Management territory so my cynical inner political scientist expect that responsibility for a lot of regulations and measurements will simply be shifted to the regions and local councils. Passing the buck, if you prefer that formulation. And we all know what “the buck stops here” means in Danish politics these days.

Bonus link #1: The government’s youth crime initiative is here. Executive summary: The Danish People’s Party wants the age of criminal responsibility lowered to 12 years, the government offers 14. I expect an agreement on 13 years as part of the 2010 budget negotiations.

Bonus link #2: Løkke’s speech wordled.

1. LLR strayed from the manuscript to address the translation-gate but this is not in the manuscript and the minutes from the Folketing have not been published yet. [↩]