Showing posts with label Social Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Democrats. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The Big Top Packs the Tents

So today was parliament's last day. As to be expected on the last day of work before vacation begins, people were antsy. Plus the last few days of parliament always sees a flood of activity - for example, they were in the building until about six o' clock this morning, and reconvened at eleven the same morning. I'm guessing they napped in their chairs or something.

Anyway, what did they vote on?

Well, one good thing was a resolution calling for greater freedom of expression, and greater protection for so-called whistleblowers who do investigative journalist articles on the rich and powerful. It's a great idea, and one that will hopefully lay the foundation for media and print laws to come.

Also, they voted to create a constitutional committee. This is a Very Big Deal, because this fall, there's going to be a "citizen's parliament" voted in whose job it will be to write a new constitution. Current MPs, alternate MPs, ministers, and the president are all banned from running for a spot in this. The citizen's parliament will go over the constitution, debate, propose changes and such, and then the constitutional committee will draft a new constitution for the country, which could be ready as soon as 2013.

Seeing your country write up a new constitution is pretty huge. But it's also badly needed in Iceland - we can talk about change for the better until we're blue in the face, but if the basic structure of the political system stays the same, so will virtually everything else.

Not that it was all sunshine and roses today in parliament, oh no. It seems a bill to combine several ministries together in order to save money could be in trouble. Many conservatives and Progressives were against it, yes, but so were also three members of the Leftist-Green Party: Jón Bjarnason, Atli Gíslason and Ásmundur Einar Daðason. As the ruling coalition of Social Democrats and Leftist-Greens has 34 of parliament's 63 seats, this bill - despite the fact that it was a part of the government's agreement for working together - is not as solid as it first seemed.

Also, a number of MPs from the Independence Party, the Progressives, and again, Leftist-Green Ásmundur Einar Daðason called for Iceland's application into the European Union to be withdrawn. In fairness to Ásmundur, the original platform of the Leftist-Green Party includes strong opposition to joining the EU, but that changed when they teamed up with the Social Dems. Ásmundur is just old school like that.

Anyway, that's just a bit of what these ladies and gentlemen are up to today. As you can see, it's not an easy job, so if you see one of them outside tomorrow enjoying Independence Day celebrations, offer to buy them a beer or something. They could probably use it.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

And Not a Drop to Drink

Parliament is currently drawing to a close, and as I type this, there are ten bills that still need to be voted on. One of them - a seemingly innocuous law on water rights submitted four years ago - has far-reaching ramifications on whether Iceland regards their natural resources as commodities or treasures.

The law, which was submitted in 2006 by the then-ruling coalition of the Independence Party and the Progressives, essentially gives land owners additional ownership of the water within their property boundaries. It's been delayed going into effect three times now and, if not withdrawn, was slated to go into effect at the end of this month. However, parliament voted just moments ago to put the law on ice until the fall, when they'll vote on it. And probably kill it.

As it is now, water belongs to the public, and it seems plenty of people want to keep it that way. A group of protesters gathered outside of parliament yesterday and used buckets to douse the building in water from a nearby pond in order to drive home their point that water should not be privatized. Public outrage over this has gotten to the point where one MP for the Social Democrats practically begged people via her blog to stop sending her emails about it.

Of course, not everyone is against the idea. The Federation of Icelandic River Owners are - surprise! - totally cool with privatizing water.

What's important to keep in mind here is that the very idea of privatizing water - which, to my mind, is sort of like privatizing air or sleep - goes against everything the Leftist-Greens stand for, as well as the Social Democrats. It is highly unlikely that they would support the law, especially with the large public outrage over it, and even the current Independence Party and Progressive MPs don't have the stones to outright support it, saying instead that they want to delay putting it into effect once again.

Which is pretty much delaying the inevitable. Parliament is going to axe this thing. If I'm wrong, I'll buy you a bottle of water.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Meet Your New Mayor, Reykjavík

It's official now. Jón Gnarr is going to be the next mayor of Reykjavík, Social Democrat Dagur B. Eggertsson is going to be the chairman of city council and, most importantly of all, the conservatives of Reykjavík are going to be benched this term.

I just want to repeat that: the Independence Party are not going to be in the city council majority. They will, instead, be in the opposition. Just like in parliament.

Man that felt good to say. Almost makes me want a cigarette or something. Am I an immature schadenfreude addict? You bet I am.

So what is this going to mean for the city? We don't know yet. But what I can tell you is, the two parties are negotiating their plan for the city, and you can take part in it via the website Betri Reykajvík, and submit your own ideas for what the new majority coalition can do.

Don't understand Icelandic? Don't worry - submit your suggestions in English anyway. In Gnarr's most recent interview with the Grapevine, currently in our new issue, the new mayor not only said he's going to have the website translated into English, he added:

"Every good thing in Iceland has come from abroad. It’s always been like that—it’s what Icelandic culture is made up of, and it’s created a diversity within our society. Ever since the island was settled. Our forefathers most likely came from abroad, you know.

Foreign influence enriches our culture and contributes greatly to creating a harmonious, diverse and multi-layered community. Enriching our culture is a personal ambition of mine, I am a fan of diversity and I abhor uniformity. A diverse community makes for a mature society, which is what we should strive for. "

You hear that? Every good thing in Iceland has come from abroad. Chin up, foreigners - you improve the country!

I gotta say, I have a good feeling about this guy. He might be feeling his way through his tasks, but you can't deny the clarity of his convictions.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Good Idea, Bad Idea

I remember once when I was in parliament, I told a colleague of mine how brilliant I thought the idea would be of ministers not being members of parliament - that those MPs who get voted in, and subsequently appointed to ministerial positions, should surrender their seats in parliament to whoever was beneath them on the list. To me, this seemed like a fine separation of powers. My colleague sort of smirked and shook his head and said, "You know why the Progressives once proposed that? Because they were in the ruling coalition then. Doing that basically puts the ruling coalition in an even stronger position than they already are."

And I realized he was right. There are 63 seats in parliament, 12 of which are ministerial seats. Now imagine that two parties - X and Y - have 35 seats combined and are the ruling coalition. 12 of their 35 seats are ministerial seats. But now, change it so that they have 35 seats in addition to 12 ministerial seats. Even if the ministers cannot vote on legislation, you can't very well prevent them from speaking on submitted bills or otherwise having influence. You can see why any party in the ruling coalition would consider this a good idea.

Well, guess what new bill is being stressed must be made into law now? And hey, big surprise, it's being proposed by one of the parties in the ruling coalition. The Social Democrats are calling for this to be made into law this month.

Interestingly enough, the Progressives are also on board. Great expectations, eh?

Don't get me wrong. I like the ruling coalition and what they're trying to do. I certainly don't think the right would do it much better. But I also don't think adding the proposed ten new MPs, and their subsequent salaries and benefits, is a very good idea. Especially if the right should happen to win next election year, heaven help us.

Monday, May 31, 2010

And the People Have Spoken

Welp, the results of the municipal elections are in, and as you might expect, all eyes were on Reykjavík. But the municipal elections around the country show some even more interesting trends.

The Best Party - originally created by comedian Jón Gnarr as a parody of Icelandic politics, but then turned into some kind of serious campaign - secured six of Reykjavík city council's fifteen seats. Right now, they're in coalition talks with the Social Democrats, who won three seats. Now, there's been talk that they might be better off teaming up with the Independence Party, but that's really not likely to happen. Yes, the conservatives won five seats, and only garnered 660 fewer votes than the Best Party, but philosophically and ideologically, the conservatives are pretty much the exact opposite of the Best Party.

Which is what made flipping through Morgunblaðið at the bakery today pretty funny. Apart from the headline - "Preparing for Power Grab" - they made it a special point to emphasize that Jón Gnarr hasn't called the Independence Party for coalition talks yet. They emphasized the hell out of that. Why is Morgunblaðið even pretending to be a neutral media source, I wonder? They might as well go ahead and stamp a giant blue eagle on the top of the banner now. Or officially call themselves "Sjallablaðið", the way everyone else does.

Anyway, what's more fun to pay attention to is how things went in the rest of the country.

All of the "big four" parties - the Independence Party, the Social Democrats, the Progressives and the Leftist-Greens - took hits in towns and villages all over Iceland.

The Progressives are finished in the capital area. They're just done. They managed to squeeze one person into Kópavogur town council, and another in Álftanes, but that's it. Nationwide, they secured 10.9% of the vote - down from 14.8% in the 2009 parliamentary elections, and also down from 11.8% in the 2006 municipal elections. I think Einar Skúlason - the Progressives' best chance in Reykjavík - was right when he said trust is something it can take years to earn back. Maybe the Progressives ought to go back to being the agricultural collectivist party from whence they originally came. With anti-EU sentiment running high among Icelanders, that'd certainly have a foothold, especially in the countrside, where the Progressives tend to do better anyways.

The Leftist-Greens took a pretty massive hit this year, too. They lost a seat in Reykjavík city council, but nationwide, their support ranked in at 9.6%. That's right - more people voted for the Progressives than for one of the parties currently in power in parliament. Furthermore, this number is down from 12.6% in the last municipal elections, and also down from 21.7% in last year's parliamentary elections. Personally, I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that they are in power, but the economy is still crap - last year, when the economy was crappier, they were seen as the guys who were likely to do a better job of running things. And factually speaking, unemployment is slowly dropping, Moody's has raised Iceland's financial ranking to stable, and the International Monetary Fund predicts a balanced budget by 2014. That's pretty remarkable, but isn't yet touching Icelandic homes tangibly enough for people to feel that change is being made.

The Social Democrats also took on losses. While they got about 30% of the vote both in 2006 and 2009, last Saturday they came in at 22.1%. Again, if you want reasons, look no further than the economy.

Now, while the Social Democrat Prime Minister has said that these results indicate the sun setting on the "big four" system, and the Leftist-Green Foreign Affairs committee chairman said everyone should be doing some serious reflection of their platforms, one party was having none of that humility and self-examination talk: the Independence Party.

It's true that the conservatives finished with 37.4% of the vote last Saturday - more than any other party on a national level - and that this figure is up from 23.7% in 2009's parliamentary elections. But we're talking about the Independence Party here. They've been around forever. They're the party of the establishment, and so seeing them plummet to single-digit support within the span of a couple of years after literal decades of control just isn't going to happen.

They are firmly entrenched in a number of municipalities around the country; namely Ísafjörður, Garðabær, Reykjanesbæ and the Westman Islands. They either held or gained their position in all of these towns. However, they also lost Reykjavík, Kópavogur, Akranes, and Akureyri - all large to mid-sized Icelandic towns. Again, within the context of history, this is a real punch in the gut to the conservatives, and they'd do well to stop patting themselves on the back and start thinking up a new game plan.

In any event, in case you missed our election liveblog, you can check it out here. It was a fun night, I have to say. One of those times that makes me proud to be living in Iceland.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

In Cops We Trust

Ah, polls. You can always count on polls to neatly condense complex issues into simple, snappy numbers. And they also happen to make great copy - easy to write, easy to read. Nothing perks up an otherwise slow news day like a nice poll.

Two recent polls grabbed my attention. The first, as most of you know, is that comedian Jón Gnarr's joke party Besti flokkurinn ( lit. "The Best Party") is now polling high enough to win six of Reykjavík city council's 15 seats.

This news was followed by some strong reactions from the party's opponents - that there's nothing funny about playing with the future of our children, that the joke has gone too far, and so forth.

It's unfortunate that reacting in this manner to The Best Party makes you look like a humorless square. After all, The Best Party is packed with actors, comedians, musicians and artists on the list. They are decidedly cooler than parties who actually have platforms.

A lot of people are saying that The Best Party has proved that people are unsatisfied with "The Four Parties", as they are known - the conservatives, the Progressives, the Social Democrats and the Leftist-Greens. This is wrong. What the groundswell of support for the Best Party largely means is that being an entertainer with no platform trumps being a politician who has one. There are actually eight parties running for city council right now, none of them polling nearly as well as The Best Party, and all of them have platforms.

On the other hand, I have to admit, the Four Parties have done an excellent job on their own in utterly ruining the trust of this town's residents. These past few years have seen the majority coalition swing from right to left to right again, and the in-fighting within some parties has been facepalm-inducing. I personally prefer parties who have platforms. It means you can hold them accountable. The Best Party is hedging their bets - by offering nothing, you can't say they never followed through if you're disappointed with their performance.

But I can understand why people would want to see Jón Gnarr as our next mayor. It's an admittedly tempting thought - I think he's a brilliant and genuinely all-around nice guy. Let's just hope he can actually deliver if it happens.

Speaking of trust, a new poll from Market and Media Research shows that, apparently, we trust cops a whole lot more than we trust the government, the media, and the ruling parties. 78.9% said they trust the police a great deal, with only 7.4% distrusting them. At the same time, 19.3% trust the ruling coalition a great deal while 58.9% don't trust it much; 15.4% trust the media a lot while 46.9% trust it very little, and only 10.5% trust parliament as a whole, with 56.4% saying they do not trust it much at all.

Here's my amateur, absolutely-no-schooling-in-psychology explanation of these numbers:

Just as the instability within city hall has helped contribute to support for The Best Party, politicians on the national level have changed hands due to early elections brought on by public protests. Today, the economy is still weak, but getting better - which is why the ruling coalition polls slightly better than the house of parliament in general - but people still associate parliament with insecurity and, with the release of the SIC report, even more so with corruption. Policemen, on the other hand, are always policemen. That you can count on.

Yep, polls are fun. Always great copy.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Cat Herding


As a leftist myself (and by that I mean, I am a registered member of the Leftist-Green Party), it pains me to say this, but I've noticed that the right wing seems to have an easier time sticking together and being in general agreement than the left wing does. Leftists argue and splinter off; righties grumble in mild disagreement, but stick together. Why this is would be a subject for a whole other article - what makes me think of this today is the outcome of yesterday's cabinet meeting.

In a nutshell, the government needs to make more cuts. Now, being leftist, this government doesn't possess the sort of merciless bloodlust for slashing social programs that comes so easily to the right. And so in order to avoid that as much as possible, the Social Democrats have proposed combining a few existing ministries: the ministries of social affairs and health would become one, and the ministries of fishing, agriculture and industry would become the tentatively-titled-but-catchy-sounding Ministry of Employment. This would take the number of ministries down from 12 to 9, which would mean it's reducing the size of the government, and thus, reducing spending. 9 is less than 12, after all, right?

Well, not everyone's on board with this idea, even within the ruling coalition itself. Eyjan.is is reporting that the Leftist-Greens are against the idea. The reasoning appears to be due to primarily to ego. Leftist-Green MP Ögmundur Jónasson used to be Minister of Health, but resigned from that position due to disagreements over Icesave. He's got a lot of supporters who'd like to see him back as some sort of minister. At the same time, current Minister of Fishing and Agriculture Jón Bjarnason has his share of fans who want to see him stay on in his capacity. Among them is Leftist-Green MP Ásmundur Einar Daðason, who has been dead set against the Ministry of Employment idea. Rather than combine ministries together, they would rather do away with the only two non-party-affilliated ministers - Minister of Business Gylfi Magnússon and Minister of Justice Ragna Árnadóttir - and replace them with politicians.

Now, as you can imagine, this caused a firestorm in the Icelandic blog world, the general sentiment being that the Leftist-Greens are willing to stand in the way of reducing the budget in order to get their own people into positions of power, they are all self-serving communists, they probably hate rainbows and puppies, and so on.*

The whole argument between the two parties is pretty much part and parcel of their relationship with each other. The Social Dems and the Leftist-Greens sprang forth around the same time, and are derived from similar ideologies. They're pretty much like siblings. They get along, sure, but occassionally they have little dramatic hissy-fits - such as the one sparked when Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir likened getting the Leftist-Greens to agree with each other to herding cats - going back and forth with snippy, passive-aggressive verbal barbs until they get bored with it and make up.

Every time they fight, conservatives chortle and chin-stroke, speculating that this time for sure the government is really on shakey ground. Inevitably, someone will pose the question to the parties, "Oh wow guys I can't believe you're fighting - are you breaking up???", and the response is always the same: "It's perfectly natural for two separate political parties to disagree from time to time. This government is sticking together." It'll stick together this time, too. If for no other reason than to keep conservatives out of power.

It's not like they argue all the time or anything. Just on minor, trifling issues such as Icesave, allowing a private military contractor to set up shop here, and how to organize the government. Other than that they're like BFFs.

*On the other hand, would combining ministries really reduce the budget? Assuming a best case scenario, where the upper-management of the combined ministries take a big ol' cut, and then have to oversee double the staff, what sort of workload would the new management be looking at? Delays in ministerial procedures themselves cost money. So does hiring assistants to take care of the backlog. Nine is less than twelve, sure. But is the answer to budget problems within the government really to give the already-overburdened management even more stuff to manage? I don't get invited to cabinet meetings, so I really have no idea just how concrete or well-thought-out these proposals are.