|
I'm writing a master's thesis on Finnish parliamentary politics right now, but to my embarrassment I don't really have anything significant to add to the opening post. I've voted Green since I was able to*, but I'm contemplating switching to the Lefties this election because of how mystifying the Greens' role in the coalition has been. I think the two biggest losers in this election will be the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats. Not necessarily in terms of an absolute change in seats, but in terms of what could have been. If Soini had collapsed of a smug attack in Brussels a few years back, easily 10% of that True Finn gallup share might be split between Social Democrats and Christian Democrats now. The SD seem to be falling to the same problem that took out Labour in the UK and lead to the current coalition of ghastlies: a reluctance to change leadership in the face of political necessity. Urpilainen was a mistake and should have been out of the door by last year. Even Heinäluoma, the long-faced goat, would do a better job. If Tuomioja didn't have the leadership skills of a small cantaloupe he might be their leader now and doing even better, but he's just not the type. It pains my heart to see people vote SD just out of a sense of duty when their vote would be better spent on the actual left-wing party. The Christian Democrats' problem was pretty incisively analyzed by Bjarne Kallis, a veteran MP of theirs who announced his retirement from the Parliament last week - when social inequality is on the rise, unemployment is rife and people feel insecure, you really shouldn't go after the homosexuals. While this seems to work in the US, it - thankfully - doesn't seem to work in Finland. It got the extremists all riled up, but people unsatisfied with the economy and the welfare state's... state promptly went to the True Finns. Who will probably just help the Coalition make things worse, kinda like the Greens who have sold their principles for a coalition seat. And that I think is the worst thing here - while a lot of TF support will be anti-immigration BS, a lot of people are simply unhappy with the various dangers imposed on the welfare system, but won't vote Social Democrat because who wants to vote the Social Democrats, and won't vote Leftie because they're full of tree-hugging unemployed homosexual pro-EU students, like those Greens. Oh, and the Centre will hold, as it always does. They are not a political party, but a lobbyist organization. Vanhanen should be remembered as a hero by his party because he had the sense to fall on the sword when no one in his party was willing to stab him in the back with it. That the major partners of the incumbent government are leading the polls right now is testament to the Centre's ability to squirrel out of trouble, and the Coalition's ability to replace people like Ilkka Kanerva and Ville Itälä with people like Alex Stubb and Jyrki Katainen. * To qualify this, I always thought the "we're not left or right, we're ahead" slogan was smarmy as hell. In the rest of the world, that'd probably work as a good soundbite, but smarmy doesn't work here. Unless it's Timo Soini cracking jokes your dad thinks are funny.
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2011 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
Any government coalition needs at least 110 seats because ministers will be travelling a lot and losing a critical vote because your EU ministers were off in a meeting would be just silly. If you throw TF in you're going to need a coalition of at least 120-130 seats as someone said. I think Katainen will start with an NC+SDP+TF mix and go from there. There will be a lot of compromising. This will hurt TF support.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
konna posted:Doesn't the new election law mean that smaller parties have less of a chance to get in? If I remember correctly it includes a cutoff of 3%. If a party does not get 3% of the national vote it does not get in. (is bad) The current system has a pretty huge hidden treshold in it in any case. For a small non-parliament party to stand a chance it would need a significant showing in either Helsinki or Uusimaa to get someone through and that usually only happens with local, one-hit wonder charismatic candidates like Halme, not with an actual political movement (like the one we saw last night). National popularity counts for absolutely nothing. In the smaller electoral districts the hidden treshold can be as bad as 12-13%. 3% isn't ideal, but the reform shouldn't be scrapped just for that. It's like the AV debate in the UK where I roll my eyes at people voting against it because "it's not PR". Once you reform in the right direction, the idea of reform itself becomes more appealing. Heck, dropping the treshold to 2% would only take a single bill. TL,DR: Smaller parties have a snowball's chance in Hell to get in already.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2011 09:00
|
|
|
TF economics leanings are a mystery. The programme was rather left-leaning in a gently caress-you-got-mine way, but we have no idea what they'll stick to in the negotiations with NC if they're dangled the carrot of screwing over immigrants and the unemployed. It's really just the kind of class warfare where the disadvantaged are set to fight each other; the working poor and the lower middle class wanting to screw over the really poor. It's not guaranteed that Katainen will be PM, of course. He has to cobble together a coalition first. If he can't, the buck probably goes to Urpilainen next. I do feel however that the NC will in the end budge a lot on the EU loan guarantees if they find harmony with the TF on economic policy otherwise. And that is chilling.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2011 13:11
|
|
|
CTerry posted:What is the new electoral law btw? I know that the districts are changing and electoral alliances are being eliminated but beyond that? Candidates are still chosen from each district, but the seat totals are allocated on a nation-wide basis, instead of a by-district basis. So first you add up the vote totals per list of the entire country, and use the d'Hondt method to work out the seat totals for 199 seats (all but Åland). Then the division of seats per list within a district is worked out by determining the proportion of district vote to the national vote. There's some funky math scenarios where this doesn't work out quite so elegantly, and there's a bunch of special rules that I haven't looked into for such contingencies. Essentially the formula is: List votes in district (divided by) List votes in the country (times) Seats list won in the entire country. So if Party A wins 50 seats in the country, got 400,000 votes nationwide and 50,000 in a district: 50,000/400,000*50=6.25 You'll have non-whole numbers; you first give seats with the whole numbers, so they'd get 6. Then you look at the decimal figures and the remaining seats are distributed according to those. I.e. Party A would be left with .25, and if Party B got 5.75, they'd be left with 0.75 and win the remaining seat, also getting 6 in total. At the end of the day what it does is make the national vote more proportional with the seat division in the parliament. Considering that some electoral districts have 21 seats and others have something like 6, it's a good change. You could just redistrict the country, but you'd have to keep doing that periodically to keep it up to date and we have examples abroad of how well that works. 
Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Apr 18, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2011 13:22
|
|
|
Yeah, those statistics seem to back up the assertion that the TFs are not a protest movement by the downtrodden* of society. They're definitely a "duunari" (blue-collar worker/middle-class) party, and duunaris don't want their tax money to go to welfare bums and such. Soini also used the phrase "karvapersedemari" before, but that was more a take on the conservative/liberal dimension, not the left/right dimension. The SDP/union welfare model has been strongly based on full employment and basing advantages and benefits on working, of course. In this sense they are reminiscent of the Tea Party. I'd be curious what their stance on tuition fees will be in the end, though I am sure they want them for non-EU students. Of course the problem here is that the TFs represent a ridiculously broad spectrum of political opinion on the individual MP level. I remember reading about a 19-year old female TF candidate in Helsinki who's for same-sex marriage and everything. Not exactly matching type there. Her main concern was immigrant integration. (She didn't get elected, mind.) * Except people who think they are the downtrodden of society, i.e. white heterosexual males. PS. The people poor, unemployed, displaced by society don't vote. That voter activity was just barely over 70% confirms this suspicion. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Apr 18, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
CTerry posted:This all demonstrates the trouble with True Finns - they're a fractured mess of a party. An incoherent coalition of eccentric egotists who run on very different platforms. They are united only by the EU and an anti-establishment feeling. In government they can only fracture further, disappoint a large portion of their voters (even if True Finns did have a coherent platform they wouldn't be able to get it through coalition negotiations) and begin to implode. Normality will be resumed by the next election I'll bet. Soini had TF candidates sign loyalty pledges before the election because he remembers how the Rural Party fractured and imploded in the eighties. Never mind that he has to herd a 39 member caucus with only a handful of veteran parliamentarians (where veteran means they've at least been there before). I wouldn't be surprised if he'd secretly wanted a more manageable but still impressive win in the 20-30 range, meaning there's no pressure to join the government, and the caucus would be of a handleable size. This sort of growth is too dramatic. Random note: I was very amused when a few fresh TF MPs on TV invoked the name of Kekkonen. Vennamo (who was also pro-EEC) is spinning in his grave. quote:On SKL's article I would like to point out that it relies on polling data to be really accurate(at least i know I mess with that by telling I'm busy when they call) This is a common argument against any poll on SA as well and, well, people who draw up these things aren't morons. They poll people until they have a representative enough sample and use different factors based on history and experience to adjust. That's how the Yle election forecast is always so accurate. Do you think taxi drivers and duunaris are more likely to respond than others? They are supposed to be the overrepresented ones in this sample if it's skewed. It's not plausible to me. quote:Also "welfare bum" isn't same as person on welfare/unemployment in blue collar language to my understanding(I have worked in construction, factory etc.), it means something closer to a lifetime drunkard on welfare. Generally you can narrow their definition of welfare bum to exclude a lot of people on welfare/unmployment benefits with few questions. Considering the widespread misinformation on issues like immigration, I wouldn't count on voters having a very nuanced view on socioeconomic issues. "So you don't like people on unemployment? What about your cousin Arttu?" "Oh well Arttu isn't one of the bums!" The fact is that lifetime drunkands on welfare are not at all common and not really a systemic issue worthy of note. It's like the welfare abuse memes in the UK and the US where abuse is an insignificant portion of expenses. Even if they only really want to screw over the hopeless cases (which in itself is rather F-U-G-M, since we aren't exactly going broke over it), any reforms will hit everyone. I readily admit I'm being pessimistic, though. Maybe the TF and SDP won't stand by as PM Katainen dismantles the welfare state. I was already somewhat cheered up by Soini's interview in HS where he said raising the VAT would be out of the question. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
uncleTomOfFinland posted:What about Elomaa? The amount of votes she got was just plain staggering and that has to count for something, right? Counter-example: Marja Tiura. I doubt Guzenina-Richardson or Halla-aho will be in the cabinet, Vistbacka, Filatov, and Koskinen are more likely names, and the TFs might look outside of Parliament too. I also suspect there won't be quite 20 posts, maybe 15-18. Having less posts makes it easier when it comes to dredging up TF ministers. Though I kinda suspect Koskinen will be Speaker if Katainen is PM.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
ToxicAsset posted:Guzenina-Richardson I see as one of the "woman ministers" where the minor spot is given to a vote queen who is popular with in the party. Also I'm not so sure that she isn't more competent than Filatov if the minister spot is right. SDP does let her be one of the public faces of SDP after all. Oh, this is certainly possible. The counter-counter example is Tanja [insert surname here]. I do however think the SDP can find more competent female ministers, though whether competency counts can be another thing entirely. They will definitely try to get a 50/50 cabinet put together, and the TF's lack of experienced women might be an issue there (I guess there's Ruohonen-Lerner). quote:Halla-Aho I see as a minister because of his supporters being far more loyal to him than the party, so they might be easily offended if their precious doesn't get a minister spot offered to him. I kinda see inner party trouble hitting TF if one faction's "leader" doesn't get a minister spot but Kike Elomaa does. Also TF could to Halla-Aho what others claim being in government does to TF's: show his inexperience. It's possible Soini might do this to him, but I think the Halla-aho wing is already pleased with his position at the head of the committee that - among other things - is responsible for immigration affairs. Halla-aho himself said the post of Immigration Minister should be abolished, which would mean those responsibilities will go back to the Minister of the Interior, and Soini will not give that post to an inexperienced first-termer (he'll probably take it himself). I am going to work in a government agency that's a part of the IntMin, so Soini will probably be my boss. quote:Also, current goverment has 20 minister spots, so I based my estimate of 6-7 each on that. Yeah, that's fair, but there are reasons for paring it down. I'd say a cabinet of 18 people, with a split of 7/7/4. NCP for PM and Foreign Affairs, SDP for Finance and "softer" spots like Education, Social & Health, Transportation & Communication and so on, and TF get some "harder" posts to compensate for the smaller amount of ministers, i.e. Interior (Soini), Defence (J. Niinistö), Justice (That law professor they've talked about) and maybe Agriculture (Vistbacka)? I think giving them three heavy-weight posts out of four is the only way to legitimately leave them at 4 posts. If they do 6/6/6, it gets that much harder to find competent TFs. Of course I'm still assuming they can drag the TFs kicking and screaming into government
Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 20:38 on May 2, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
Social and Health isn't that important (or at least prestigious) per se because what you'll be doing most of the time will be either cutting funding (always popular) or trying to scrounge up money from Finance. No one has really built a career in Social and Health, though this is probably related to it traditionally being a female minister's position. Sinikka Mönkäre maybe? She became Minister of Trade and Industry in Lipponen II. It's almost a poisoned chalice like Employment. Ask Urpo Leppänen from Sorsa IV. I think Interior is what Soini personally prefers.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
Oldsmobile posted:Social and health is the biggest single chunk of the budget, ten billion euros. Most of it is undiscretionary spending, spending that the Minister will not have any power over save for large legislative changes that the entire government will be involved in. It looks big on paper, but the actual influence you wield isn't as big. It's kinda like how a massive share of the US budget is social and health spending, but when you look at discretionary spending, that's dominated by military spending. In fact, the actual part of the 50 billion budget that there's political leeway over is quite small. The knowledge base involved is so huge that most of the expertise and thus de facto control lies in the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Finance, which has its impact on Social and Health because its policy is so funding-oriented compared to posts like Defence and Foreign Affairs and even Interior where policies aren't as contingent on moving around large sums of money in the budget. The Parliament for its part has fairly little power over the budget compared to countries like the US or France. quote:E: If Katainen fails, SPD+TF+Left+RKP (swedish party) is 104 seats, so that's something. A coalition will need a cushion of roughly a dozen seats to account for ministers travelling and absentees. Anything less than 110 will be very precarious.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2011 12:57
|
|
|
Oldsmobile posted:I see Mr. Katainen is really working hard to get his financial market masters lubed up with cheap government loans. He's trying to get the loan deal for Portugal worked out before the government gets formed. And after there was media speculation the old coalition partners would vote for the package, it looks like both the Centre and the Greens are going "nuh uh, it's your mess now Jyrki".
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2011 12:49
|
|
|
It really is a Pyrrhic victory for Katainen, at least in the sense that if he keeps "winning" elections like this, where NCP are largest but can't actually get anyone to work with them, NCP's policies will never get implemented. Some people were sagely foreseeing this on election night already (don't think it was me, but there were some). I hope it also helps people comprehend that the leader of the largest party is not automatically prime minister.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2011 13:09
|
|
|
Honestly the Kihniö figures are kind of striking in the opposite way. The only background I have to reflect this on is the US 2008 election (racial matters have hardly ever figured into Finnish politics before unless you go back to the late 19th/early 20th and the language issue), where Obama's share of the vote strongly correlated with the amount of racial minorities (esp. blacks) in a state, but in a somewhat counter-intuitive way in that states with little to no minorities, or very large shares of them, voted in Obama's favour, whereas states with a share of 10-20% (roughly) went against Obama. The logic apparently being that if there are a lot of minorities, they overpower any racial tension and turn the state for Obama; if there are very few minorities, there aren't any racial tensions and white voters were comfortable voting for Obama; and if it was in the "sweet spot", the tension effect crowded out the minority vote and turned the state for McCain (Clinton in the primaries). This is obviously hugely reductionistic, but it does pose some questions to the Kihniö statistic. It doesn't help that we're talking about an entire country the size of Minnesota. It seems that in rural areas, TF votes are explained primarily by discontent in the Centre Party and in EU policy in general, whereas TF votes in urban areas might be about the "halla-ahoism" (since urban voters don't vote Centre anyway). I look forward to more research on this and hope to be doing some of that research myself. I should go reread Kyösti Pekonen's "Politiikkaa urbaanissa betonilähiössä", actually. It's more relevant than ever now.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2011 12:10
|
|
|
I read the original but the new version is a bit shorter and to the point, though admittedly some of the more colourful language has been excised as well. Editing and streamlining texts is natural, but it's a bit odd that they changed the text after it had gone out. Maybe they published the original unedited version by accident? I also wouldn't be surprised if Soini had agreed to some sort of waiver where he consented to editorial changes of the text as long as its message is not altered.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
Halla-aho doesn't think he needs a new audience. He's going to rely on the Internet as his base of support; that way he can sidestep the media part of the equation entirely and stick to communicating directly to the disciples. Maybe grab a few voters who valorize people "sticking it to the southern media" as well. It will be interesting to see how well it works. You need the media for other things than reaching your supporters, such as helping you in your work as a committee chairman.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
This is awful. I wanted the True Finns in the cabinet, and I wanted the Greens to stay the hell out. Of course this is just the negotiations. Some parties will now begin talks on forming a coalition, presumably enough parties to form a majority. If the majority is razor-thin, it's going to give the minor partners a lot of power. I wonder if Urpilainen couldn't have managed to force Katainen to drop the negotiations and start them herself.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2011 11:29
|
|
|
Kasakka posted:Not so. A party promises to oppose a bailout, a party opposes a bailout. That's what real parties with testosterone and chest hair do. Yes, this also means not being able to have an actual impact on policies, because most of the Parliament won't agree with you, and until the True Finns get over 100 seats, they can't unilaterally dictate coalition policy. Being absolutist about things other people don't agree on will get you marginalized, just as if the National Coalition would have attempted to form a government on the basis that the progressive income tax and the national healthcare service are abolished. The end result is that the bailouts are passed all the same, except the rest of the TF agenda gets left on the side of the road as well. SDP was willing to compromise and got its suggestions implemented and their seat in the coalition. Of course, this conundrum was what made me want the TFs in the coalition in the first place: populism dies by compromise. This is why I am not surprised if the TFs were planning to remain in the opposition all along. Between influence and power now, and the chance of a greater electoral victory down the road, the TFs went with the latter.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2011 13:34
|
|
|
"Turncoat" doesn't capture the precise meaning, I think. In English it's used to describe people changing sides, like moving from one party to another. I'd use "flip-flopping" and "flip-flopper" instead; someone following American politics in particular will instantly understand the meaning.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2011 14:42
|
|
|
We might have a majority on paper, somewhere between 100 and 110 seats, but a de facto minority government since they might have to rely on some opposition votes in some situations.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
I don't think I've accused the TFs of flip-flopping this way or that way. But they are giving up the rest of their agenda because of their refusal to compromise. This isn't a "bad" or a "good" thing, it is a strategic choice. I hope the Greens won't go into government unless they can extort Katainen for some concrete concessions like a gender neutral marriage law.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2011 15:25
|
|
|
slowdave posted:Greens and KD in the same cabinet would be quite...something. This is also why I want the Greens to demand a gender neutral marriage law. Let's put some pressure on the Christian Democrats. How badly do you want to be in government?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
It's certainly feeling like only SDP, NC and CD really even want to be in government for the next term. It's just that that's only a little over 90 seats in all.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2011 15:44
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Everyone on this thread can agree on one thing at the least... Ice hockey, like most team sports, is a violent masculine spectacle for boorish people who embrace outmoded ideals of nationalism and who am I kidding that was amazing.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
My problem with the nuclear power demand is that it's pointless. In the election the parliament swung strongly against nuclear power, with over 100 MPs stating in questionnaires and quizes that they oppose adding more plants. Since 1993 nuclear power has always been a matter of conscience, i.e. there's no whip on the vote, the MPs can vote however they individually please. The government's role is more that of a "post office", though of course the Ministry of the Economy has always been strongly pro-nuclear and if TVO puts in an application it'll almost certainly be brought to the Parliament. Thus I can only conclude that they are putting it there to appease the hardcore Green voters who they fear didn't vote in April at all as a protest to plants #6 and #7, since it shouldn't have an impact on actual policy. Regardless of what I think about nuclear, it feels like a poor strategic choice. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 11:35 on May 14, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2011 11:32
|
|
|
Yeah, you can't form a majority government on the whim of 39 seats. Katainen just announced he's inviting the Left Alliance along, so there will be a coalition of 126 seats if this combination comes to an agreement. It needs to be robust for legitimacy. I am going to watch with interest what the programme will be like, because I'm sure all parties involved realize the danger that TF will pose in the opposition. It's possible we'll have a four year long election campaign with TF vs. everyone else. Having Centre and TF in the opposition will be interesting. I think the Centre was gambling on remaining in opposition and reclaiming their voters from TF after TF spends a term in government. Not so this time; hooray for marginalizing the rural areas. Of course, it's also possible that the TF will conduct better opposition politics and the Centre will cease to exist as a major political entity.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2011 14:36
|
|
|
The winners don't want to govern. That leaves slim pickings.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2011 02:34
|
|
|
Katainen's grasping. The Greens should bow out too at this point or lose all credibility. I think Urpilainen might have a go with an SDP+TF+CP+LA formation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
If their EU policy is the only thing they want to push for, and if they want to keep to an EU policy that is diametrically different from the rest of the Parliament, then they will have to wait for over 100 seats to get anything accomplished. That's how parliamentarism works, yet I am sure we'll hear a lot of TF blathering about the "will of the people" over the next term.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2011 10:57
|
|
|
This is just like the two nuclear plants last term. The coalition agreement didn't say "no nuclear plants", it just had no mention of building more of them at all. Also, the Christian Democrats could leave the coalition and it'd still have a healthy majority in Parliament. Parties have left coalitions before without a new election (again, Greens and nuclear power...). Sounds like the same kind of argument against gay marriage as "oh but we have more important things to worry about!" And considering that marriage reform will probably be there to last for foreseeable generations to come once it gets done and everyone will realize there was no reason for the brouhaha in the first place, I'd call keeping an eye on the current polls short-sighted and pushing for equal rights the exact opposite. Hell, if other parties go for it, I'd call it bold.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
Looking at the slate of presidential candidates, with the exception of Haavisto, those reforms to remove power from the President can't come soon enough. Reforms that Haavisto supports, coincidentally.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 16:37
|
|
|
The Prime Minister is the (almost always, these days) leader of the party that can marshal the most votes in Parliament behind them; and, again these days the leader of the largest party in Parliament to boot; and MPs are elected by vote in a democratic election. Ministers are almost always elected representatives as well, despite there being no constitutional requirement for it! What's not democratic about all this? Yes, I am being facetious. But I find the argument that parliamentarism is somehow "undemocratic" similarly disingenuous. It's plenty democratic, it's just not the type of democracy that bans minarets and gay marriage. The marvel of elected representatives is that sometimes they do, in fact, know better to do the right thing. I also like the fluidity and dynamism of parliamentarism, where the government can be turned over if the Parliament so desires, and where elections are every four years as opposed to every six (and with the re-election of the incumbent a near certainty, meaning Presidents actually serve for twelve years). The fact that presidential elections still attract more of a turnout than parliamentary ones, even though the latter ones actually matter, just speaks of the kind of gas station café populism that is so widespread these days, and the kind of politics that focuses on singular people instead of ideology or parties. I mean I still don't get why Niinistö is so immensely popular. My best guess is that he hasn't actually been "in politics" for several years.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
I just don't want Niinistö vs. Lipponen for the second round because then my vote will be entirely pointless. If it's Paavo V. or Soini at least I have a lesser of two evils to pick.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2011 17:05
|
|
|
Haavisto in second, Väyrynen in third, Essayah dead last. Today is a good day.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
Presidential elections are more about the people than the parties they represent and this has lead to interesting voting patterns before (Rehn in 1994). This explains Haavisto's success (he ran away from his party pretty hard in some cases) and Soini's relatively poor showing. International-minded Centre party voters went for Niinistö, while the Eurosceptics from Centre and SDP stuck to Väyrynen, where also a lot of TF voters went, if only for tactical voting. If you add up Väyrynen's and Soini's totals you get well over a quarter of the vote. That's where the jytky is, it hasn't gone anywhere. I also concur that Soini just isn't seen presidential, even by his own supporters. This is still their best result in a presidential election, second or third best if you include SMP.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2012 07:17
|
|
|
Even Rick Santorum wants to bomb Iran because they stone homosexuals there. It's a clever rhetorical way to try to brand "multiculturalists" as hypocrites by presenting the strawman that if you want multiculturalism then why do you hate homosexuals, given the way they are treated in some Muslim countries. At the end of the day, Santorum just wants to bomb Iran.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
It's not that big a number if you consider that only so many voted and only so many voted Niinistö. Not a really surprising number, really. Out of the top of my head, something like 20% of the voting age population? Certainly it'd be great if it were zero. I'm more concerned that a lot of people say they voted Niinistö because of his "superior" foreign policy experience.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:If your parents were married when you were born and your father's a Finnish citizen, you ought to have jus sanguinis citizenship already and you should be able to contact a consulate and simply declare citizenship. IANAL, so you ought to check this poo poo up with your nearest consulate but as far as I know that's how it is. Since he's already 23 and has lived abroad and hasn't filed an application to retain his citizenship, I'm fairly sure he has lost it, but he may be able to reacquire it through declaration (which is a cheaper and faster process). http://www.migri.fi/finnish_citizenship/former_finnish_citizen The consulate will almost certainly refer you to Migri, so you may want to just contact Migri directly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:(Oh, and the movie cost only 20 000 euros, which is certainly cost effective compared to Renny Harlin's project.) The Finnish Film Foundation (Suomen elokuvasäätiö) poured nearly half a million euros into the Harlin-Selin Mannerheim project. Be sure to bring this up next time someone rants to you about Yle's Mannerheim movie misusing public funds.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
My friend's father ran on the local PS list as a joke and "because they asked me first", in a small town. He didn't campaign at all. The entire list got elected.  This really is just an afterglow of the jytky, with people throwing their vote at any PS candidate they remotely recognize.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2012 21:36
|
|