Jacob Christensen

It’s a bit of an anticlimax but now that I have watched “The Duel” (there will be a lot of shoot-outs during this campaign, it seems), I don’t really have too much to add. It was a fairly lacklustre performance where both parties played the expected roles: Helle Thorning-Schmidt attacked Lars Løkke Rasmussen for his (and Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s) record while Lars Løkke Rasmussen criticised Thorning-Schmidt for not presenting specific proposals.

For better or for worse, I had the feeling that both were good at delivering the lines they had rehearsed with their advisors but neither really engaged in a discussion. Very much like your typical debate in the Folketing, in other words.

After the previous debate (or duel, or whatever) which was on TV2, I felt that it was obvious that there were some fundamental (though not surprising) differences in Thorning-Schmidt’s and Løkke Rasmussen’s positions. For some reason, this never really showed in the same way during this debate.

The commentariat is busy discussing who the winner of the duel was. I’m not really sure this is a relevant topic, so I’ll just give both parties a “7″ (or a “C” in the ECTS scale) and move on. The early retirement benefit will continue to play a role in the campaign but I seriously doubt that this debate will have much of an impact.

PS: Over at The Economist, Johnson made some observations.

It is always tricky to evaluate a political debate and predict the effects and in the case of the Løkke vs. Søvndal even more so, because viewers had the opportunity to watch the women’s handball match between Denmark and Russia.

What we should remember is that these debates in general rarely move voters, but serve to mobilise supporters.

So what we had was Lars Løkke Rasmussen (again) rejecting the conclusions in the Audit Office’s report and using the health policies (as portrayed by Liberal campaigners for the last decade) of the 1990s as his main arguments. Taken directly, Søvndal didn’t kill off Løkke but as the debate was more about the past than future health policy Løkke didn’t manage to get at the inconsistencies in SF’s policies. On the positive side for Løkke, he avoided using technocratic lingo ad libitum. Søvndal on the other hand didn’t have to address specific numbers.

As I understand the polls, the government has a general problem because it doesn’t lead the opposition on health policy any more. Despite Løkke’s reasonably good performance, I doubt that today’s debate did much to change this.

The thing is: It is not immediately obvious who will be Dennis Weaver and who will be the demonic truck in tonight’s duel between Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Villy Søvndal even if Løkke was the one calling the fight and determining the setting (with the friendly assistance of TV2 News, headed by his former spin doctor).

Some interesting points:

1. We’ve had “duels” between Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Helle Thorning Schmidt as well as between Helle Thorning Schmidt and Pia Kjærsgaard. Now Lars Løkke and Villy Søvndal. The challenges go in all directions – which probably mirrors the movements among voters between the Liberals, the Social Democrats, the Danish People’s Party and SF.

2. A number of the smaller parties have been left out in these rounds – the Conservatives, the Social Liberals, Liberal Alliance and the Red-Green Alliance. I would expect the first three to form one cluster of voter movements while the RG’s mainly compete with SF.

3. Villy Søvndal is not famous for being strong on facts. Løkke is – often too much for his own good. On the other hand it is obvious by now that Løkke Rasmussen has a bad case as he withheld information about the deals made with private hospitals.

4. Much have been made about the recent decline in support for SF in opinion polls. Perhaps we should remember that a) 2007 was a very good result for SF in a historical perspective, b) the party may be covering a very diverse section of the electorate, c) we should never mistake polls of the public mood for voting intention and d) the Social Democrats are still flat-lining.

In any event, I’ll try an live-tweet my impressions tonight at twitter.com/jacobchr.

If you are among my regular followers on Twitter, you should already have an impression of my view of Wednesday’s “Duel” between prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Social Democratic leader Helle Thorning Schmidt.

Executive summary: I was underwhelmed by the set-up and the moderator and both participants showed their well-known weaknesses in full measure. Helle Thorning Schmidt seriously needs a vocal coach and Lars Løkke Rasmussen still has an annoying tendency to use technocratic lingo.

That said, Løkke basically wanted to make public finances the main issue while Thorning focused on employment. Unfortunately, the set-up managed to obscure this fundamental difference in outlook. Perhaps the lesson is that neither politician is able to maintain an agenda? To the degree there was a debate, it was thin on arguments which were substituted by attempted one-liners.

The duel format is difficult and it takes a good moderator to keep the discussion to the point. Maybe TV2 should have used their regular twosome Mogensen & Kristiansen if the station wanted the moderator(s) to play an active role? I didn’t watch any of the debates leading up to Swedish election, but it is obvious that as debaters Løkke and Thorning play in a different league than Messrs. Cameron, Clegg and – yes – Brown.

One final note: Media like to talk about “presidential elections”. Could we please note that it is very likely that the two largest parties in Denmark will only win around 50-55 percent of the vote combined in the coming election.

I considered writing a post about Lars Løkke’s anniversary but then I realised that I had published comments on his speech at the opening of the 2009-2010 parliamentary year and his New Year’s speech which in many ways still stand.

So, I point you to: 1. The Prime Minister Speaks (October 2009) and 2. The Prime Minister’s New Year’s Speech (January 2010).

Together with Flemming Juul Christiansen I wrote a summary for the PSA about the recent Danish reshuffle and the revised programme presented by Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Lene Espersen the day after the reshuffle. It can be found here if you scroll down a bit.

Updates and corrections are in italics.

Well, I had to complain about something, didn’t I? But the truth is that the real McCoy will only be revealed tomorrow – in a way the reshuffle was only the primer.

1. In terms of the distribution of portfolios, we have two changes: The Liberals exchange Social Affairs with the Conservatives in favour of Health, and the Conservatives get Science and Higher Education (which could be seen as an exchange for losing Climate and Energy last November). Otherwise, the parties have held on to their portfolios. And the distribution between the two parties is very much what we would expect in terms of their share of portfolios and their distribution.¹

Update: Two changes? I’m counting like the Spanish Inquisition here: The Liberals got Transport from the Conservatives which would be the direct swap for Science and Higher Education. The Conservatives usually hold Transport in a coalition government – exceptions were 1968-1971 (Ove Guldberg, Liberal) and 1982-1988 (Arne Melchior and later Frode Nør Christensen, CD).

2. Did Søren Gade jump or was he pushed? Did he trigger the reshuffle or was it a convenient moment for everybody to have him leave the government? Everybody agree that Gade was a dead man in the Defence Ministry and I think the timing made it possible for Lars Løkke to relieve him of his duties without it becoming too embarrassing. Taking a complete time-out is not unknown in Swedish politics, so Gade might still make a return to national politics in 2011.

3. If we look at the ministers who left/were sacked, Kristian Jensen is the only real surprise. As somebody noted, the Liberals have lost their Nos. 2 and 3 in the government. (Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard – in Danish – discusses KJ here).

4. The Conservatives sent two ministers back to the parliamentary group and recruited two outsiders. Indications of a group which is not exactly filled with talent. I, too, think Lene Espersen is taking a chance in bringing Charlotte Sahl-Madsen into government. On the other hand, Science and Higher Education is not exactly a portfolio which makes or breaks a government.

5. Hans Christian Schkidt and Henrik Høegh as new Liberal ministers? So much for the green Liberal politics.

6. I am among those who were sceptical about the rumours of Lene Espersen wanting to take over the Foreign Office. The FO is not as big as it used to be and there will be quite a lot of travelling, even if Espersen in all likelihood will not be following Carl Bildt’s lead. On the other hand, she had been painted into a corner by Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Bendt Bendtsen with the Business portfolio. The only way out of the predicament was up. I am not convinced by the argument that Foreign Ministers are popular and that this will spill over on the Conservatives at the next election.

7. When all is said and done, then this is probably the biggest reshuffle in terms of persons that we have seen in Denmark.

The Kommentariat: Peter Mogensen, Niels Krause-Kjær, Kristian Madsen, Ask Rostrup, Jarl Cordua.

1. I know: Women’s rights and Nordic Cooperation. But these are Mickey Mouse-portfolios. [↩]

1. Now that Lars Løkke Rasmussen has held three programme speeches, there should be little doubt about what we will be getting from him. Do not expect flaming liberal rhetoric or Big Plans. This does not mean, however, that there is no ideology or big (or at least biggish) plan.

2. There is a curious contrast between Anders Fogh and Lars Løkke. If the recently published biographies are to be believed, Fogh was generally a pragmatist who posed as an ideologist, while Løkke is ideologically driven but presents himself as a pragmatist.

My guess is that Fogh deliberately used a polarising rhetoric in order to separate two groups of opposition (and potential opposition) voters – the 10-15%, who would never ever consider voting for the Liberals, and the rest, who would. Alienating 10-15% of the electorate is not a problem, even if they are very vocal in media, if you win 10-15% among the rest. And the Liberals and the Danish People’s Party did win those 10-15% in 2001, 2005 and 2007.

3. Politically, Løkke is in a different position than Fogh. First, while Fogh was generally cruising on an economic upturn (except 2003) and the property boom made a lot of people feel richer, Løkke will be fighting an uphill battle. No matter how we twist and turn it, we are in an economic downturn and signs are that some of the underlying basics of Danish economy (productivity, level of education) are not as good as many would have liked to believe.

4. This means that Løkke’s political task will be to raise crisis awareness among voters – including those who may be tempted to vote for the Social Democrats or the Socialists at the next election. But this is much, much easier to do if you are not in government, cf. Poul Schlüter in 1982 (in 1984 he could still rely on the spectre of Anker Jørgensen) and Poul Nyrup Rasmussen in 1993. Ironically, the crisis consciousness may be at its highest among Conservatives and Social Liberals.

5. I, too, noted that Løkke did not mention the EU with one single world. Only that “Denmark and Europe” are challenged by the emerging Asian and Latin American economies. No Lisbon Strategy II here. And a referendum on one or more of the Danish opt-outs before 2011 looks increasingly unlikely.

While we’re at it: Here is the speech wordled

And just to repeat myself: My notes about Løkke Rasmussen’s speech at the opening at the parliamentary year.

Links:
The speech (in Danish)
The blogotariat: Peter Mogensen, Niels Krause-Kjær, Jarl Cordua.

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. [↩]

Today, Danish media brought a joyous message for Lars Løkke Rasmussen: He is suddenly astonishingly popular, the Liberals have gained support and the government supported by the Danish People’s Party has a projected majority over the Social Democrats and their allies.¹

Does this ring a bell? An old party leader is quietly (well, relatively quietly) replaced, the new suddenly gets very popular and there is a spike in support for the party.

Ah, yes: The Conservatives and Lene Espersen.

Journalists have short memories.

1. Not that TV2 bothers to publish a table with the detailed results [↩]