Is this Guardian statement wrong then?: "The [SD] strategy of “winning back” voters from the DPP by adopting many of their positions on refugees and migration seems to have paid off."
This from the BBC site on the Danish election: Immigration: Major parties on the right and left adopted anti-immigration policies. Both the Liberal Party and the Social Democrats said doing so would help to protect the welfare system
This is the article I read in the Guardian,and is as I read in much of the Danish media, far more nuanced than the bits you pluck from it to suit your far right agenda Goldie. "Europe, take note: in Denmark, the humanitarian left is on the rise Michael Strange In Denmark’s elections, the far right fell and socially-conscious parties surged. Let’s hope it’s a litmus test for Europe Thu 6 Jun 2019 16.20 BSTLast modified on Thu 6 Jun 2019 19.30 BST please log in to view this image ‘The victory for Mette Frederiksen’s Social Democrats owes much to the rise in pro-humanitarian parties within the Danish Folketinget.’ Frederiksen speaks to the press on 5 June after the election results were released. Photograph: Philip Davali/EPA The Social Democrats’ electoral victory in Denmark was by no means surprising, and in many ways feels like the regular cycle of politics. Yet the result, which saw the coalition of leftwing parties win 52.1% of the vote compared with 41% for their rightwing adversaries, embodies a series of developments with a wider significance for Europe as a whole. Once the result of Wednesday’s elections was known, the Social Democrat leader, Mette Frederiksen, reiterated two of her party’s key electoral promises – that they want to put welfare back at the centre of the Danish model, and that they will place strict controls on refugees and asylum seekers. That last position has become common globally, and within Frederiksen’s party it was seen as a pragmatic necessity if they were to win votes from what had been, back in the 2015 election, Denmark’s second largest party – the Danish People’s party (DPP). The DPP has always been something of a paradox, given that it appeals to many of the working-class voters who were once the Social Democrats’ base, has frequently put welfare at the centre of its campaigning, but has supported a series of rightwing governments that have radically curtailed the Danish model. The strategy of “winning back” voters from the DPP by adopting many of their positions on refugees and migration seems to have paid off. Several factors support this initial reading. The big news of the election was that the DPP lost more than half its seats, decimating their influence and plunging the party into a crisis it might not survive. Yet the Danish election becomes more interesting if we take into consideration a series of other results. First, the Social Democrats gained only one seat, and saw a 0.4% drop in their share of the national vote. Second, the leftwing coalition includes four other parties – two of which doubled their number of seats – that have run campaigns advocating humanitarianism and will, in many cases, find themselves opposing the Social Democrats. Frederiksen’s election-night speech pledged that her party would form a minority government, something both unusual and rarely sustainable within the coalition politics of the proportionally elected Danish Folketinget. The combined votes of the other leftwing parties (the Red-Green Alliance, Alternative, Radical Left, and the Socialist People’s party) equal those of the Social Democrats. Given their success, while it might be fairly assumed that many DPP voters have been won over to the Social Democrats, the maths shows a different story in which there has been a massive swing to pro-humanitarian parties. please log in to view this image ‘Losing more than half its seats means the Danish People’s Party leadership no longer has the authority it once had.’ Kristian Thulesen Dahl, leader of the DPP. Denmark is one of those blessed countries which through a mixture of good planning, alliances, geography and luck is often at the top end of many international indicators of social and economic wellbeing. It is also, as a developed small country, observed alongside others like New Zealand as a test-ground for new politics and policies. Perhaps tellingly, one of the campaign slogans used by the DPP in this election to dissuade voters from supporting the leftwing parties was “Det er ikke tid til eksperimenter” (“It is not the time to experiment”). Yet, as one of the most successful and earliest rightwing populist parties, the DPP has been just that – an experiment, to test the electoral chances and strategy of an anti-immigrant party. At first glance, the fact that the Social Democrats have adopted similar policies suggests the DPP has been successful, even if the party itself now faces decline. Yet with a reduced share of the vote and only one more seat, the Social Democrats’ victory owes much more to the rise in pro-humanitarian parties within the Danish Folketinget combined with the DPP’s collapse. The crash in support for the DPP is due to many factors, but arguably a key explanation was the alienation of its working-class voters by its continuing support for a series of rightwing governments that rolled back pension and social protections, as well as its parliamentary backing for policies that contradicted the welfare claims made in its campaigns. The party managed to survive through its anti-immigrant rhetoric, which drowned out more serious media scrutiny of its wider role in the Folketinget. Losing more than half its seats means the DPP’s leadership no longer has the authority it once had – and while the latest elections have seen four seats go to a new anti-immigrant party, Nye Borgerlige, as an experiment, the fate of the Danish People’s party and the rise of pro-humanitarian parties has been shown to be worth taking note of. • Michael Strange is a senior lecturer in global political studies at Malmö University in Sweden"
I don't have a far right agenda, Oz, but I've always said that the scale of immigration into the UK, and Europe is a growing problem. I don't want to see the rise of the far right in Europe, but I do think it's interesting that the immigration penny seems to have dropped, even in full on liberal democracies like Denmark. The no-border type approach to immigration isn't going to cut it, and increasingly the left is lifting policies from the right
Ok, so your saying the Guardian extract I quoted and the BBC report I quoted (which you refused to address) are wrong
No. Not the Guardian anyway whose article I posted in full. If you read the full article, including the parts I put in bold type, maybe you will see votes went from the Right to Parties on the Left not supporting far right immigration policy and not to the Social Democrats. Or you can see it from the f***** results if you take off the blinkers.
A female young gay couple taunted and beaten up on a London night bus by 4 young men. For ****s sake, what’s happening to us.
Complete ****s. I work alongside many gay people at times and consider them to be my friends. Perhaps these morons would like to have a go at me because of the company I keep? ****ers.
Doumma was a last stronghold for jaysh al Islam I think and they were destroying the place but at the time of the event, reports were stating that the Syrian army were close to defeating them. Then this happened, followed by the US/UK/France air strikes, weakening the Syrian position and perhaps strengthening the terrorist's. Why weren't the air strikes held off until the OPCW had submitted their report? Why was the media virtually completely peddling the government line? There were independent journalists, not mainstream, who visited the areas suspected of suffering chemical attacks, reporting that it was a set up. I remember citing Robert Fisk to you at the time, but you discredited him. John Pilger, Eva Bartlett, all people with credibility who gave a very different account of what was going on in Syria. Yes, I think we are routinely lied to, I think very little is as it seems. I think the theatre of politics, domestic and international is becoming increasingly transparent, the internet enabling the alternative voice to be heard. I think vast swathes of the mainstream media is controlled and pushes lines to suit agendas, that there is little or no proper investigation into important events, this, the Skripal case and 9/11 are perfect examples. This is not about supporting Assad, just like my interpretation of the skripal case was not about supporting Putin and my position on 9/11 was not about supporting Bin Laden. This is further confirmation that our political/media/military approach to destroying and dominating other parts of the world is corrupt. We are not the good guys the propaganda machine would like us to think. I am interested in a better future, but convinced that we'll not see one by continuing along these lines. There is no political party that will save the day, there is no hunger to make the country or the world a peaceful, trouble free, debt free, equal place. It's one big business market, power, wealth and control is all that matters. You're either in the team, or you're a slave to the system. Bit doom and gloom, I apologise, but I'm sure I'm right.
So, essentially, you are an anti imperialist, which is why you will be drawn to Pilger, Fisk etc who are anti imperialists first, journalists second. It’s a noble cause and not one which I have any dispute with, unless, like Pilger, it makes you an apologist for the Chinese and Venezuelan regimes. Why believe these people, or the alternative internet sources, any more than you would mainstream sources, apart from the fact that the alternative sources reaffirm your prejudices? I get the sentiment of your last paragraph, but I just don’t believe things are that organised or planned. The world is in fact much more peaceful and trouble free than it has been ever before (see Rosling, Pinker). Of course this doesn’t mean everything is good, it’s still a nightmare for many. But it’s the mainstream media telling us that we will be killed in a war or murdered if we step out of our houses. I’d love to live in a world organised on fundamentally different lines, but suspect it would take incredible amounts of violence to get there, and that is not a route to success. I have more hope in technology forcing some really big changes (if you don’t need workers but still need to sell stuff a really big reordering is needed), if climate change and pollution don’t see us off first. Not in my lifetime though. On your last sentence, we have a fundamental difference. I have (changeable) beliefs and opinions which help me navigate life, but I have no idea if they are right, and it’s not actually that important to me, as long as they help me as an individual.
And why would he be speaking Spanish to blokes who don’t? Unless they spotted that the victims spoke Spanish (don’t know if they do).
But they didn't win, the Tory and Brexit combined vote was much higher so there! I demand another vote... * This post was made using 'Remoaner' logic so spare me the Men in White Coats...
Cheers. For some reason I think ‘liking’ your response would be inappropriate. Makes you want to wander the streets with a baseball bat.
It always makes me laugh when me and my crewmate are out on the road and we get to deal with the racist homophobic twats, who always spout their **** and think we agree with them....me being married to a black woman and him being gay .
