There used to be two sides to politics in Norway - one left wing, with the Labour party (Arbeiderpartiet) as the major player, and one conservative wing, headed by Høyre. It's been like that since just after WWII. Those two parties commanded well in excess of 50% of the votes. Now, we've got a socialist coalition government with Arbeiderpartiet holding the coveted prime minister post. And the featured opposition party is now Fremskrittspartiet, which has completely bypassed and pimp-slapped Høyre with respect to position in media and, one would suspect, polls.
So my question is; how in the blue hell did Høyre screw up this bad and let a relatively newcomer take its slot as the number two political party in Norway? It's always been a rule that in order to take the champ out, you've got to knock him out, not just win by points. Høyre had a number of things going for them, not the least tradition (including pre-conceived notions in both people's and media's minds) and sheer votes. The path of least resistance is the most travelled, and when someone's looking for an interview with the number one contender, it's by far easiest to look up the one who's been holding that bag the longest. Every time a socialist government has been up for evaluation in the form of election, that's been Høyre.
So how did Fremskrittspartiet manage to pull this off? Despite having several of its members making public statements more suitable for political suicide than for strengthening their position, even.
I figure it comes down to two things; sheer incompetence from Høyre, and a fantastic job by the leader of Fremskrittspartiet, Siv Jensen. So; even though they're so not getting my vote - well done Fremskrittspartiet. Høyre better dig up someone who's actually charismatic to lead them - something they've been sorely lacking since Willoch in the 80's........
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
The growth of fremskrittspartiet really started with Carl I Hagen. And the politics and popularity of the party was based around his person and charisma. I personally believed that Frp would fade away when Hagen retired. So I'm impressed if Siv Jensen manage to keep Frp at it's current size. And Hagen's peronal style made it difficult for other conservative parties to collaborate with Frp. So if Jensen manage to keep the voters, she has an golden opportunity to manouver the party towards some real power.
That's what i thought too, that there was no way the seemingly one-person organization that is Fremskrittspartiet would survive the retirement of Hagen.
So I'm really impressed with what Siv Jensen appears to pull off.
Aren't you supposed to soak up some rays?
Hoeyre (bloody greek keyboard) really needs a charismatic leader type. I think that would be the best way to fight Frp (the politics would also have to be there, of course). Per-Kristian Foss has survived several party leaders. Although not the most charismatic person around, he has the respect of his fellow politicians and voters, and it general considered to be a likable guy among the voters. I believe that he would have done a better job leading the party then both Erna Solberg and Jan Petersen.
Yes, I'm soaking some rays. Wrote the comment from my cell phone during lunch.
PS: Man, your blog looks funky in greek...
Yeah; PK to da F is a good politician, albeit tends to come across as arrogant and talks too complicated for many to follow.
So my blog looks funky in Greek, eh? Who'd have thunk it, eh?
Yes, PK used to come across as an arrogant SoB, especially against other politicians. However, the last few years he has become more softer and likable. I think some (media advisors?) made him aware on how he came aross to the voters, and that he has made an effort to change that image. I still uses them long words, though, but the Høyre has always been a party for the inttu.. inttel... um, smart people. But I think PK is still making an effort to improve the way he present himself to the voters, and I like the dude.
It's been made a big deal that all of a sudden the politicians appear to have used the same media consultants, being as how they've changed their mannerisms almost simultaneously, towards similar templates.
As for whether using big words is a good or bad thing in politics, I would be comforted if I knew that whomever lead the nation could use these terms and embrace them rather than spew out fortune cookie nuggets of pre-packaged wisdom.
There are just so many media consultants in a small country like Norway, and not everybody is born Carl I. Hagen. I'm not surprised that the politicans uses the same few consultants.
I find comfort in the fact that Norway is so wealthy at this time, that no single goverment/ party can run the country down the drain (at least not in just 4 to 8 years).
Although no single political party (with the possible exceptions of the more stalinistically inclined) could turn Norway into Namibia in four years, it could do irreparable damage in terms of relations etc.
Post a Comment