Every New Year’s Eve, the queen gives a brief speech on the state of Denmark, and the next evening, the prime minister does the same. The latter is not intended to be a definitive status report on the nation or a detailed program for the future, but it does usually offer an outline of the most important items on the political agenda. The tradition often produces well-intentioned sentiments and objectives that people can agree on, even if it lacks concrete measures for realizing them.
This year was Mette Frederiksen’s first such speech (UK) as the leader of the Social Democratic administration that came to power in June. Frederiksen appeared a little nervous, but she delivered it smoothly. Its substance was unusual. She spent most, perhaps two-thirds, of the 15 minute speech on a single subject and one that has never received such prominence in this context: children who should be removed from their homes. That is, children who are so neglected or abused by their parents that they should be transferred to foster parents or a foster home or even adopted by another family. On the face of it, that was an extreme, disquieting message at the conclusion of the biggest family holiday week of the year.
Save the children
But it was not wholly surprising. During the parliamentary election campaign, Frederiksen announced that she wanted to be the “children’s prime minister,” so she was expected to take steps to make good on her promise. The issue falls under the headings of social mobility, equal opportunity, protection of the weak, and solidarity, which are core Social Democratic principles that are generally shared by the entire political spectrum. One of Frederiksen’s first major acts in office was to make an official apology (DK) to a group of boys who were abused in a foster home in the years 1946 to 1976. Their treatment gave rise to an extensive report on the mistreatment of foster children, but Parliament had voted against a formal apology.
Besides its length, this part of the speech was striking for its hard line and blunt criticism of irresponsible parents. There was hardly a mention of support or counseling for such families. Far too many parents have had “too many chances” to redress their harmful behavior. Their children should get a new home earlier in their lives, and it should offer better conditions than such alternatives have previously afforded. They should not be shuttled around through foster homes and schools, for example. In a line that pleased the nationalist constituencies, Frederiksen added that children’s entitlement to these things superseded the customs of some “other cultures” that allow corporal punishment of children and do not allow girls the same freedoms as boys. She cited Denmark’s historical tradition of advances in these areas. It was the first country to require schooling for all children and one of the first to prohibit child labor; it banned corporal punishment in the 90s.
The other topics mentioned in the speech fit into the same general concern with fælleskab – solidarity, community, fellowship. The one that was the most widely anticipated, because of campaign proposals, was an effort to enable people who are physically debilitated from their work to take an early retirement. After a brief comment on a stronger line against terrorism threats, returning jihadis and gang crime, Frederiksen concluded on the urgency of measures to prevent climate change, with a nod to the young activists who helped to publicize the stakes.
Only in a welfare state
Imagine how this focus on adoption would have gone down in an American state of the union address: The “government” thinks it knows what’s best for my children and wants to kidnap them in a new sort of civil forfeiture? It’s inconceivable that this would be a headline topic in any presidential speech on the general condition of the country, even by a female democratic socialist. Frederiksen received the usual criticism (DK) that the plans, particularly for early retirement and climate change, were lacking in detail. But the other party spokespersons generally praised her emphasis on mistreated children, with few questioning whether it was the country’s most pressing issue.
Perhaps that came partly from politeness toward her first New Year’s Day performance, but it does seem rather odd. After all, foster care concerns about 15,000, or 1 percent, of Danish children. Frederiksen could have clarified the priorities in the recently adopted 2020 budget, such as day care and support for immigrant families, which benefit a great many more children. She could have dwelt longer on the terrorist plot that was discovered and prevented last month. The speech was also noteworthy for completely ignoring a topic that usually receives much attention on this occasion: the economy. But the reason for that is a positive one: the economy is sound and no emergency measures or drastic reforms are needed. Aside from climate, there was nothing on world affairs such as Brexit and on international relations, not even a little joke about defending Greenland from a greedy real estate developer.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
03 January 2020
13 December 2019
Left swerve
It’s that time of year again – not only for the winter holidays. The Danish Social Democratic administration, along with four smaller parties, reached a deal on the 2020 budget, the first one since the election that brought them to power in June. Since Denmark is one of the few remaining European countries with a left-leaning government in power, it is noteworthy as a barometer of what is possible for the welfare state these days.
More social services and taxes
Here are some of the main features of the agreement:
These measures will be financed by increases in taxes and duties on cigarettes, plastic shopping bags, estates, property registration, gambling, aircraft, and leased company cars and by a termination of tax deductions for work telephones and favorable treatment of parents’ purchases of apartments for their children.
The government needed the support of all the left-wing parties, so the crux of the negotiations was concessions to their demands. The increase in day-care staffing was controversial because it will result in higher user fees (DK) since parents usually end up paying 25 percent of the costs – an extra $200 to $400 per year in this case. The perception was that voters were willing to pay for more welfare as well as for more “humane” treatment of refugees and immigrants after the Liberal Party’s infamous series of restrictive measures.
Democracy in action
The right-wing opposition voiced its usual objections that higher spending and taxes, particularly for benefit of foreigners, will hamper business and the property market. Others complained that the green initiatives are too modest and that while domestic funding was increased, contributions to international collaboration were not.
Altogether the budget appears fairly typical of center-left initiatives that are intended to compensate for or undo the excesses of the preceding center-right administration. The Social Democrats have moved rightward in recent years, especially on immigration, and these measures represent only an incremental adjustment, not a realignment. The far Left wanted to avoid a further increase in wealth inequality, and the centrist faction wanted to avoid a net loss of jobs. The budget apparently does not quite fulfill either of these wishes, which is perhaps a sign of a fair compromise. Social services should improve somewhat, economic growth is likely to slow somewhat, and in a few years the country will probably be willing to let the pendulum swing back in the other direction.
Tackling climate Armageddon
The budget agreement was swiftly followed by the adoption of a historic climate bill (DK). It stipulates a 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 level by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050. It was hailed as a model program ready just in time for the COP meeting in Madrid next week. It was endorsed by all the parties in Parliament except for the two smallest right-wing parties, partly because it didn’t contain provisions for maintaining jobs. A crucial factor was an agreement on setting binding intermediate targets in the individual years from 2025 until the overall target dates.
There were no details about how this reduction will take place, however. That is to be determined by a broad majority of Parliament next spring, with recommendations of concrete measures from the Climate Panel. Those measures (DK) are likely to include a transition from fossil fuels for transportation to electricity and biofuels, more wind turbines and solar energy panels, less use of natural gas, better insulation in older homes, and changes in agriculture that will result in lower meat consumption and food waste.
Progressive landmark or worse than useless?
The initiative did not escape criticism. The targets were called misleading because they covered only domestic production and not emissions from imported goods. The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg of Copenhagen Consensus, maintains that the expensive plan will have a negligible effect on the climate (DK). The 70 percent reduction alone, which will cost DKK 842 billion ($125 billion), will reduce global warming by only one ten-thousandth (that’s 0.0001) of a degree in 80 years. Lomborg argues, as he has contended before, the money should be spent instead on research and development on alternative energy sources in order to help reduce emissions in the largest developing economies, particularly China and India.
Lomborg’s critique implies that the new law is merely a form of national virtue signaling. Denmark has had a rationale for such symbolism, though. Its politicians are well aware that it is far too small to have a significant effect on global trends by itself and have therefore sometimes argued that its achievements could serve as inspiring models for others, as formerly when it topped the list of foreign aid contributors. But if these are merely stopgap measures and a waste of resources, then it’s not even sending a good signal. Lomborg has often been dismissed out of hand by climate activists, but he’s not a denier and his position should be addressed directly.
More social services and taxes
Here are some of the main features of the agreement:
- Increased funding for staffing at day-care centers, for hiring additional nurses, for psychiatric services, for schools, and for green initiatives such as the removal of duties on electric cars.
- The termination of fees for instruction in Danish for foreigners, of a strict residence requirement for unemployment benefits for foreigners and Danes who have lived abroad, and of the “education ceiling,” a limit to one degree that had been intended to get dilatory college students into the workforce faster.
- A resumption of the policy of accepting “quota refugees.”
These measures will be financed by increases in taxes and duties on cigarettes, plastic shopping bags, estates, property registration, gambling, aircraft, and leased company cars and by a termination of tax deductions for work telephones and favorable treatment of parents’ purchases of apartments for their children.
The government needed the support of all the left-wing parties, so the crux of the negotiations was concessions to their demands. The increase in day-care staffing was controversial because it will result in higher user fees (DK) since parents usually end up paying 25 percent of the costs – an extra $200 to $400 per year in this case. The perception was that voters were willing to pay for more welfare as well as for more “humane” treatment of refugees and immigrants after the Liberal Party’s infamous series of restrictive measures.
Democracy in action
The right-wing opposition voiced its usual objections that higher spending and taxes, particularly for benefit of foreigners, will hamper business and the property market. Others complained that the green initiatives are too modest and that while domestic funding was increased, contributions to international collaboration were not.
Altogether the budget appears fairly typical of center-left initiatives that are intended to compensate for or undo the excesses of the preceding center-right administration. The Social Democrats have moved rightward in recent years, especially on immigration, and these measures represent only an incremental adjustment, not a realignment. The far Left wanted to avoid a further increase in wealth inequality, and the centrist faction wanted to avoid a net loss of jobs. The budget apparently does not quite fulfill either of these wishes, which is perhaps a sign of a fair compromise. Social services should improve somewhat, economic growth is likely to slow somewhat, and in a few years the country will probably be willing to let the pendulum swing back in the other direction.
Tackling climate Armageddon
The budget agreement was swiftly followed by the adoption of a historic climate bill (DK). It stipulates a 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 level by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050. It was hailed as a model program ready just in time for the COP meeting in Madrid next week. It was endorsed by all the parties in Parliament except for the two smallest right-wing parties, partly because it didn’t contain provisions for maintaining jobs. A crucial factor was an agreement on setting binding intermediate targets in the individual years from 2025 until the overall target dates.
There were no details about how this reduction will take place, however. That is to be determined by a broad majority of Parliament next spring, with recommendations of concrete measures from the Climate Panel. Those measures (DK) are likely to include a transition from fossil fuels for transportation to electricity and biofuels, more wind turbines and solar energy panels, less use of natural gas, better insulation in older homes, and changes in agriculture that will result in lower meat consumption and food waste.
Progressive landmark or worse than useless?
The initiative did not escape criticism. The targets were called misleading because they covered only domestic production and not emissions from imported goods. The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg of Copenhagen Consensus, maintains that the expensive plan will have a negligible effect on the climate (DK). The 70 percent reduction alone, which will cost DKK 842 billion ($125 billion), will reduce global warming by only one ten-thousandth (that’s 0.0001) of a degree in 80 years. Lomborg argues, as he has contended before, the money should be spent instead on research and development on alternative energy sources in order to help reduce emissions in the largest developing economies, particularly China and India.
Lomborg’s critique implies that the new law is merely a form of national virtue signaling. Denmark has had a rationale for such symbolism, though. Its politicians are well aware that it is far too small to have a significant effect on global trends by itself and have therefore sometimes argued that its achievements could serve as inspiring models for others, as formerly when it topped the list of foreign aid contributors. But if these are merely stopgap measures and a waste of resources, then it’s not even sending a good signal. Lomborg has often been dismissed out of hand by climate activists, but he’s not a denier and his position should be addressed directly.
06 December 2019
'Tis the season to be jolly
The first of December kicks off the Christmas season in Denmark. Christmas is big here, not only because it’s an overwhelmingly Christian country – it’s also one of the most unreligious societies you can find. Also because it’s very dark in the winter – up to 17 hours a day. Families and schoolchildren gather indoors to make decorations and ply other time-tested customs. Companies hold their annual, sometimes a bit profligate parties. The country leads the Western world in candle consumption by a sizeable margin. When you’re biking home during rush hour in the chilly, drizzling rain, the sight of flickering flames in the window reassures you of a cozy haven awaiting with seasonal delicacies and uplifting music.
Truth in food labeling
This strong tradition also leads certain people to defend its sanctity against possible incursions and slights. Thus the criticism that some supermarkets received (DK) from politicians and other cultural watchdogs for advertising items such as “vinterboller” (winter buns) and “vintermedister” (winter sausage). The critics, mostly on Facebook, the leading local forum for debating social and moral issues, assumed that these concoctions had replaced the traditional “juleboller” and “julemedister” (Christmas buns and sausage), presumably to placate the Muslim population that might feel excluded from such majoritarian observances.
The supermarkets were quick to correct that misapprehension. They had been wise enough not to drop the Christmas versions of those goods from the inventory. They had merely added an alternative secular variant. More enlightened commentators and media outlets criticized in turn the traditionalists’ alarm at a nonexistent problem while much more urgent issues such as climate change demanded their attention.
A-caroling we go
Lest anyone think that Denmark’s progressive tendencies have kept it on the straight and narrow politically correct path, however, another incident last week raised a slew of eyebrows and hackles. Bertel Haarder, a former cabinet secretary from the Liberal Party (the center-right mainstream party) and the longest-serving member of Parliament, continued his own Christmas tradition of presenting his colleagues with a humorous homemade song (DK). All in good fun until the last of the eight verses:
A much different hetero is the Hedeager boy:
One wasn’t enough, he wanted two in the mayor’s bed!
He went after them both and grabbed a little too much!
He thought that the Red-Green Party was common property!
BUT why should they be so strict
And prevent Red-Green sex.
Let him take a lovely witch
Home for Christmas!
(my literal translation, sans rhymes)
This rousing finale refers to an event from earlier in the year for which a former member of the Red-Green Party board was convicted of raping (DK) a woman at a gathering in the home of Ninna Hedeager Olsen, Copenhagen’s Deputy Mayor for Technology and the Environment. The victim was judged to have been defenseless because of sleep and alcohol, and the man was also found by the court to have groped the mayor at the same time. The small Red-Green Party (Enhedslisten, a.k.a. the Unity Party) is the furthest to the left in Danish politics. It has advocated the nationalization of private enterprise and other collectivist measures. Multicultural Copenhagen is its prime stronghold, and environmentalism is its strongest position.
No sense of decency?
Outrage ensued across almost the entire political spectrum. WTF was he thinking – joking about rape and referring to the victim as property and a witch to boot! It sounded like he even approved of the assault. Haarder had a single supporter in the parliamentarians’ email thread (DK), from the Danish People’s Party’s, the most strident proponents of Danish family values (“Get with the Christmas spirit!”). Haarder made a rather mild apology saying that he was sorry if anyone was hurt by the verse and he had never intended to condone or make fun of rape. A party spokesperson reiterated his disavowal of any disrespectful intentions.
The 75-year-old Haarder has often extolled Christianity and traditional cultural values and played the moral watchdog himself. That an intelligent, well-educated, respected high officeholder could be so tone-deaf (while being a prosodic craftsperson) to the growing sentiment about rape culture tells us something about this country. It has seen the arrival of identity and diversity politics, but it is not yet under great pressure to conform to intersectional ideology. It’s nevertheless surprising that none of Haarder’s aides forwarded him the #metoo memo. His freewheeling boorishness prompts a comparison to the U.S. Troll in Chief, who has done more than anyone else to lower the standards of decorum for the highest ranking officials. Few others have achieved the cultish devotion that grants him virtual immunity, however.
Poetic licentiousness
It’s unlikely that Haarder was influenced by Trump, though. He’s been cranking out these songs since Trump started playing with his daddy’s money in New York real estate market. He just got carried away with his composition. He was thinking as a poet, not as a politician who consults his spin doctors and their polls, and reveling in a saturnalian tradition that is not above a touch of bawdry. The perp’s covetousness must have offered a tempting opportunity to exploit the trope of abolishing private property, but did he really wish to characterize the event as typical of an entire political party’s style of sex – to wit, a drunken orgy – hinting at its origins in the hippie-communist milieu decades ago? Such an indiscretion, at the expense of an unconscious woman, shows that while Scandinavian social democracy might serve as a model for economic progressivism, it offers less inspiration for the cultural warriors battling sexism and other abuses of the patriarchy.
In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that the convicted rapist is appealing his sentence on the grounds that he believed the victim had been awake, although that would not exonerate him from the charge of indecent exposure to Mayor Hedeager Olsen, who took an extended sick leave after the incident. During that time she was spotted serving draft beer at an inn run by a friend, for which she is being investigated for a violation of labor market rules.
Cheers (in moderation), holiday revelers!
Truth in food labeling
This strong tradition also leads certain people to defend its sanctity against possible incursions and slights. Thus the criticism that some supermarkets received (DK) from politicians and other cultural watchdogs for advertising items such as “vinterboller” (winter buns) and “vintermedister” (winter sausage). The critics, mostly on Facebook, the leading local forum for debating social and moral issues, assumed that these concoctions had replaced the traditional “juleboller” and “julemedister” (Christmas buns and sausage), presumably to placate the Muslim population that might feel excluded from such majoritarian observances.
The supermarkets were quick to correct that misapprehension. They had been wise enough not to drop the Christmas versions of those goods from the inventory. They had merely added an alternative secular variant. More enlightened commentators and media outlets criticized in turn the traditionalists’ alarm at a nonexistent problem while much more urgent issues such as climate change demanded their attention.
A-caroling we go
Lest anyone think that Denmark’s progressive tendencies have kept it on the straight and narrow politically correct path, however, another incident last week raised a slew of eyebrows and hackles. Bertel Haarder, a former cabinet secretary from the Liberal Party (the center-right mainstream party) and the longest-serving member of Parliament, continued his own Christmas tradition of presenting his colleagues with a humorous homemade song (DK). All in good fun until the last of the eight verses:
A much different hetero is the Hedeager boy:
One wasn’t enough, he wanted two in the mayor’s bed!
He went after them both and grabbed a little too much!
He thought that the Red-Green Party was common property!
BUT why should they be so strict
And prevent Red-Green sex.
Let him take a lovely witch
Home for Christmas!
(my literal translation, sans rhymes)
This rousing finale refers to an event from earlier in the year for which a former member of the Red-Green Party board was convicted of raping (DK) a woman at a gathering in the home of Ninna Hedeager Olsen, Copenhagen’s Deputy Mayor for Technology and the Environment. The victim was judged to have been defenseless because of sleep and alcohol, and the man was also found by the court to have groped the mayor at the same time. The small Red-Green Party (Enhedslisten, a.k.a. the Unity Party) is the furthest to the left in Danish politics. It has advocated the nationalization of private enterprise and other collectivist measures. Multicultural Copenhagen is its prime stronghold, and environmentalism is its strongest position.
No sense of decency?
Outrage ensued across almost the entire political spectrum. WTF was he thinking – joking about rape and referring to the victim as property and a witch to boot! It sounded like he even approved of the assault. Haarder had a single supporter in the parliamentarians’ email thread (DK), from the Danish People’s Party’s, the most strident proponents of Danish family values (“Get with the Christmas spirit!”). Haarder made a rather mild apology saying that he was sorry if anyone was hurt by the verse and he had never intended to condone or make fun of rape. A party spokesperson reiterated his disavowal of any disrespectful intentions.
The 75-year-old Haarder has often extolled Christianity and traditional cultural values and played the moral watchdog himself. That an intelligent, well-educated, respected high officeholder could be so tone-deaf (while being a prosodic craftsperson) to the growing sentiment about rape culture tells us something about this country. It has seen the arrival of identity and diversity politics, but it is not yet under great pressure to conform to intersectional ideology. It’s nevertheless surprising that none of Haarder’s aides forwarded him the #metoo memo. His freewheeling boorishness prompts a comparison to the U.S. Troll in Chief, who has done more than anyone else to lower the standards of decorum for the highest ranking officials. Few others have achieved the cultish devotion that grants him virtual immunity, however.
Poetic licentiousness
It’s unlikely that Haarder was influenced by Trump, though. He’s been cranking out these songs since Trump started playing with his daddy’s money in New York real estate market. He just got carried away with his composition. He was thinking as a poet, not as a politician who consults his spin doctors and their polls, and reveling in a saturnalian tradition that is not above a touch of bawdry. The perp’s covetousness must have offered a tempting opportunity to exploit the trope of abolishing private property, but did he really wish to characterize the event as typical of an entire political party’s style of sex – to wit, a drunken orgy – hinting at its origins in the hippie-communist milieu decades ago? Such an indiscretion, at the expense of an unconscious woman, shows that while Scandinavian social democracy might serve as a model for economic progressivism, it offers less inspiration for the cultural warriors battling sexism and other abuses of the patriarchy.
In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that the convicted rapist is appealing his sentence on the grounds that he believed the victim had been awake, although that would not exonerate him from the charge of indecent exposure to Mayor Hedeager Olsen, who took an extended sick leave after the incident. During that time she was spotted serving draft beer at an inn run by a friend, for which she is being investigated for a violation of labor market rules.
Cheers (in moderation), holiday revelers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)