Finally Christian Democrats?

Norway's Christian People's Party (KrF) has never been a large including Christian-democratic people's party like the dominating parties on centre-right in Continental western Europe since the war. More they've been a narrow counter-cultural phenomena of the peripheral west/south-west of Norway promoting pietistic and today anachronistic ideas. However, with the proposals of their 2. deputy leader, the young Inger Lise Hansen, a pragmatic, liberal and cosmopolitan up-date of their current program, this might change.

Moderating their pro-Israel policy in line with mainstream views, removing the party clause that party officers must be Christians, accepting civic same-sex marriage, change their view on EU membership to "yes", and accepting wine outlets in all municipalities. With these changes KrF might still be a compassionate party based on Christian core values, but without being fundamentalistic low-church evangelists.

Ms Hansen, you have my full support.

Copenhagen and Versailles(?)

So COP15 didn't end with an agreement that actually will save the world. No surprise there. The Norwegian Minister of the Environment and International Development Mr Erik Solheim came back to Oslo disappointed that the final text wasn't as far-reaching as he would have liked it to be. Also, he was furious with Sudan, Saudi-Arabia and Venzuela for their behavior. However, there was one positive point - that US President Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabo making an apparence and negotiating.

For the record, Mr Solheim was the chief mediator in Sri Lanka before he first became Minister of International Development in 2005.

So, Mr Solheim praises Obama and Wen, saying without them it might not have been any agreement at all. He says it's unique that heads of state and government from the USA, China and Europe sits down and negotiates an agreement. It's comparable to the Versailles Conference in 1919!

Now, we've established that Mr Solheim doesn't have the best track-record when it comes to negotiating, but even he should know that to compare an international conference to the one in Versailles in 1919 is not a compliment.

Back to the future

The Noughties are rapidly approaching their end. Although the decade technically doesn’t end until 31 December 2010 (remember all the fuzz about the third millennia beginning on 1 January 2000 or 2001? Same thing, just on a lesser scale), for rhetorical purposes it ends in roughly three weeks. Borrowing from others the 1990s was as a decade what the 1800s were as a century – a long and somewhat peaceful one.

The 19th century famously started with the French Revolution in 1879 and ended with the onset of the Great War in 1914. It was a century of hope, peace and progress. It saw liberal revolutions, the first attempts of democracy, the industrial revolution in Europe, an urban middle class paving the way for meritocracy over aristocracy and a globalised wave of free trade and free thoughts. And in the end the most advanced countries, industrially as well as culturally, went to war with one another and a generation of young men lost their lives on the fields Europe.

The decade of the 1990s were in many ways a rerun of the 19th century. It was in many ways a post-20th century decade. It kicked of with the Berlin wall being torn down in 1989 and it saw the spread of democracy, this time beyond the borders of Europe. Francis Fukuyama talked about the End of History and the victory of liberal democracy over all other forms of political systems, Boris Yeltsin made Russia part of the West and internet flattened the world and brought the most valuable commodity of all, information, to the poorest and most remote places of our planet. Utopia, here we come! Then came 11 September 2001.

The attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. were very much the starting point of this decade. They effectively ended the illusion of a liberal world order and brought us back into the age of rivalry. The Noughties haven’t only been the years of Islamic terrorism, although the people of London and Madrid have had their fair share. They have also been the years that ended the monopolar world of the Nineties, and brought back not the bipolarity of the Cold War and the 20th century, but rather the old multipolar system of Europe.

The 19th century, 1789-1914, was a long one. The 20th, 1914-1989, a short one. The 1990s, 1989-2001, was a long decade. There are those that argue that the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States and his subsequent reach-out to the Arab world represents the emergence of a new world order and thus that the Noughties ended in 2009. I am not one of those, I think neither he is Our Savior nor that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, but I shall not dwell further on this. History is easier to judge in hindsight and there is not often you can see, and realize that you’re seeing era-changing events in the happening.

The Noughties have been, in my eyes, a trip back to the future. In addition to the US and Russia, the superpowers of the 20th century, Brazil, India and China are stepping onto the plate as elite players. South Africa has successfully made the transition to democracy, although they have yet to have a change of government since the transition, is a role model for the rest of Africa and represents a leading voice of the global South. In Latin America Venezuela has taken the role of a leader, and together with Iran they reject the notion of liberal ideas as we see them in Western Europe. International politics is no longer about the fight between Communism and The Free World, as it was in the Cold War. Nor is it about spreading Human Rights and liberal ideas. We have returned to Realpolitik and the era of national interest, only on a larger scale. It is no longer the European states that fight among themselves over control and influence in other parts of the world. Rather, it is Europe as a whole that competes or cooperates with Russia, China, the US, Iran and other emerging powers over influence in places like Africa, Latin and South America, the Middle East and Central and South-East Asia. It’s back to normal.

I cannot see a single event marking the end of the Noughties. If Copenhagen is a success it might be the one. If the world leaders in Copenhagen manages to come to a responsible agreement that will actually lead the way into a green and sustainable future that will be the end of the Noughties and a realization of what we believed in in the Nineties. But I don’t think so. What I can see is the re-emerging of a world order where nations don’t have friends, only common interests. It is a world where countries like France and the UK, as well as my own Norway, must realize their limitations but also the potentials of constructive and institutionalized cooperation. It is a world were autocratic regimes, like Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela, together with the US and regional powers such as Brazil, India and South Africa will play leading roles, but were Europe, it acting as one and being aware of its potential can still take the lead. This is not the world for idealist, but rather for leaders like Bismarck and Kissinger.

Sir Humphrey vs. populism

Just watching an old "Yes, Minister"-episode, "The middle-class rip-off", on art subsidies.

Bernard to Sir Humphrey: - But the people want it!
Sir Humphrey: [calmly] Bernard, subsidy is for art, for culture. [almost furiously] It is not to be given to what the people want! It is for what the people don't want but ought to have! If they really want it they'll pay for it themselves!

So much for populist culture policies!

Ireland on the tracks towards Lisbon

In a resent poll 54% of Irish voters said they would now vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, against 24% who said they would vote against. Might we actually get a new and sort-of proper Treaty in the EU soon? I dear not be confident but there's hope.

Goodbye General Motors, welcome Government Motors

General Motors is bankrupt and will be restructured with new ownership within the next three months international media reports. The new company will be owned by the old's creditors, unions and, wait for it, 60% by the US Government.

I'm glad GM finally went bankrupt. The company was unable to reinvent itself and its production line in accord with consumer trends, higher gas prices and the financial crisis and had as such no longer a right to survive in a capitalist society. With the American Government allowing the old GM to go bankrupt they send a clear signal to other car makers that unless they restructure and find their place in today's economy they as well might go bankrupt. Also, the new GM, trimmed down without many of its daughter companies, such as the European SAAB, Opel and Vauxhall and American Hummer, might emerge as an example of the lessons learned from the last years; focus on your core activity and understand that the old way is not necessarily the best way today. The downfall of GM might prove an excellent example of what Schumpeter described as creative destruction, that the innovation of some entrepreneurs, although driving the economy forward, in this case by producing more fuel efficient cars and having leaner business organisations, can destroy old and otherwise seemingly profitable companies. I believe GM's fall may prove to be a major step towards a cleaner, leaner and more efficient automobile industry.

I opened the last paragraph by stating that I am glad GM went bankrupt. This I stand by. Nevertheless, tens of thousand workers may, and probably will, loose their jobs because of the bankruptcy. Additional tens and tens of thousands of family members, people employed by GM's sub-contractors and so on will also be affected by this. Let us not forget that for these people GM's fall is not a good thing. Most of these people were highly qualified workers in a field in rapid change and they will need help and incentives to get back into the work market. Some of them will hopefully start their own businesses, and we need business- and employment laws that helps them along. Others need training and re-education and it is in society's interest that they get this. Not because we should be nice to these people, but because in the long run it is better to pay for their training and get them back as workers than to have them on unemployment schemes for a prolonged period.

A second point worth looking at is the Government's position. They will own 60% of the company. The Government used taxpayer's money to help GM and this is money the Government should ensure that they get back. After having helped GM back on its feet the Government should sell its shares an use the money for public goods, such as schooling and health care. However, the Government should not wait until GM is the world's biggest car producer again. They should sell as soon as possible.

But once again, GM went bankrupt because they were unable to adjust. This is Capitalism 101. Therefore I am glad they went bankrupt.

When pollsters get it wrong.

One of the wonders of living in today's media society, especially if you're interested in politics and elections are due, is that you get a continuous stream of polls showing you movements in the electorate. Sometimes, however, pollsters get it wrong.

The pollster Synovate, polling for the Norwegian tabloid Dagbladet show in their newest poll that the Progress Party (Frp), a right-wing petro-populist, pseudo-libertarian/pseudo-social-democratic, slightly xenophobic party, goes from 25.2% to 20.6% in a month, the same month they had their national convention. In the same month the Socialist Party (SV), an anti-globalisation, anti-capitalism, anti-NATO, anti-EU, intellectual middleclass party, almost doubles their figures and goes from 6.4% to 11.1%

In itself, such dramatic changes in such a short time raise a few eye brows. What make it more interesting is the two parties in question. Had the change occurred between the Conservative Party and Frp it might have been explained by internal movement on the Right, as these two parties often exchange votes, and the Conservative Party had a very successful national convention as well this month. Had it been between SV and Labour, traditionally the biggest party in Norway and the uncontested Party of the Left, it might have been explained by the same reasons as for on the Right. Had the changes been in Frp and Labour, one on the Right and one on the Left, it would likewise had been fairly easy to explain, as these two parties often appeal to the same sociological voter segment. But between SV and Frp?!? Most Frp-voters would not dream of voting SV, and any good SV-voter would feel simply dirty by as much as thinking about voting Frp.

Looking at the other parties (Conservatives +0.5 to 14.5%, Liberals +1.5 to 5.4%, Christian Democrats back 1.4 to 5.9%, Communist +1.3 to 2.4% and Coastal Party +0.3 to 0.8)% there are overall quite a few significant changes, especially for the Liberals, Christian Democrats and Communists, who all have changes of about 1.5 percentage points.

No, this time until I see other polls showing the same tendency I cannot possibly believe this. Synovate, you got it wrong.

Would you like to pay more tax for better health care?

A new survey from FAFO, a Norwegian research institute, reveals that most people are willing to pay more tax if they know it will be used to improve health care and care for the elderly. "It is clearly a myth that most people do not wish to pay more taxes" states Dagbladet, a leading Norwegian tabloid situated on the Left, quoting the news agent NTB.

There are two major flaws here. The first is the question: "Are you willing to pay more taxes if it will be used to improve health care?" No-one in their right mind having grown up in Western Europe would object to paying more taxes if they KNEW it would mean a better heath care system. The premise of the question is wrong, however. We do not pay taxes for an individual task to be done, taxes are not earmarked, we pay into the big pool. The second flaw of the question is the assumption that more money would fix health care. It is a bottom-less hole where pouring more money does no good. We've increased spending on heath care for decades and it is no better than before. It is not more money, but better organisation and more freedom for doctors and nurses to do their job that will fix the problem.

EU ban on snus is illiberal and illegal

I'm neither a smoker nor a snuser (user of snus), and only a moderate drinker. A few years ago when the Christian Democrat Dagfinn Høybråten, then Norwegian Minister for Health, introduced a law banning smoking in pubs and restaurants in Norway I applauded it, and I'm still a bit taken back when I come to countries where smoking indoors, in pubs and restaurants as well as in private homes, is not only completely legal but also common. Okay, so smoking in private homes is not outlawed in Norway, but it is becoming less and less commonplace. I think people should have the right to use substances that might hurt their health, such as tobacco and alcohol, as long as the use of these substances does not inflict harm on others. Which is why I support the ban on smoking in indoor public places. What I neither support nor understand, however, is the ban on substances that have practically no harmful effect on third parties and what's health risks are debatable. I am here talking of snus. Being very common in Sweden as well as Norway as an alternative to smoking, as the only external harm it inflicts is that the use of (old fashion) snus is not very aesthetically pleasing. Unlike cigarettes, snus does not give of smoke stuck on bystanders' clothes. Whether it causes cancer in the same way as regular tobacco is debatable. Nevertheless, albeit being completely legal in most Scandinavian countries, it has since 1989 been banned in the rest of the EU Inner Market. This inflicts not only with the basic freedom of movement of goods, as established in the Treaties, it also contradicts with the principle of mutual recognition, so famously established with the Cassis de Dijon case in 1979. Snus is a legal good according to Swedish health standards and should therefor be able to be legally sold in all countries members of the Internal Market. To forbid it is not only a paternalistic infringement of citizens right to make individual decision for their life, it is also a clear breach of basic Community law and ECJ jurisprudence, and the ban should thus be lifted.

Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs declines any canditature for new NATO Secretary General

Mr Jonas Gahr Støre, Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, has long been mentioned as a dark horse in the competition for the post of Secretary General in NATO. The top candidate has long been Danish PM Andres Fogh Rasmussen, who is popular with a vast majority of NATO-member governments, and Mr Støre's Polish counterpart Mr Radoslaw Sikorski. While Mr Rasmussen's drawback has been the cartoon-incident a few years back, resulting in Turkey founding it difficult to support a Danish candidate, Mr Sikorski has come off as a little too anti-Russian for some of the major Western European countries. For the part of Mr Støre, non of these are the case; he managed more or less well (I'd argue more to towards less than more well) with the cartoon-incident, appeasing most Middle Eastern countries, and he is on a good standing with Russia. What has counted against him, however, is that he is not from an EU Member State, as this has been seen as a bit of a pre-requisite for the new Secretary General. Also, Mr Støre's party colleague, former PM and Minister of Foreign Affairs and currently President of the Norwegian Parliament, Mr Torbjørn Jagland, has long been a broadly supported candidate for the Council of Europe Secretary General. The chances of Norway getting both of these posts are at best slim and normally next to none, and Mr Støre's bid for the NATO job would only have undermined the chances of Mr Jagland. This, however, is yesterday's news today. Mr Støre has stated that he prioritised his jobs in Norway, running for Parliament in the fall and continue to work on what he characterises as the "Government project".

Although I believe that Mr Fogh Rasmussen will be an excellent Secretary General and I hope he gets the job, I am a bit disappointed by the news of Mr Støre's withdrawl. Mr Støre has an outstanding background for the job, including several high posts as well in national politics as well as in international organisations, he has proven an excellent capacity for coalition building and management, which he proved during the last phase of the Doha negociations, and he is a truly cosmopolitt who probably would be able to use his potential better in Bruxelles than in Oslo. Also, it should be mentioned, getting him out of Norwegian politics would be quite a blow to the Labour party, as he is by far the country's most popular politician. Despite his qualities, they are not enough for me to wish our Government a continued life after the elections

Physical Attacks on Politicians is just Plain Stupid

Yesterday, as Lord Mandelson, the British Business Secretary and former EU Commissioner for trade, arrived at a low-carbon emission summit in Central London he was approached and, in search for a better word, harassed by a young demonstrator. The demonstrator, the 29 year old Ms Leila Deen, is a member of the a group called Plane Stupid who works against the planned extension of Heathrow to include a third run-way. Ms Deen, after having exchanged a few words with Lord Mandelson, emptied a cup of what The Times describes as 'cornflower paste and green food dye' over the Business Secretary. The Secretary, having formerly been Secretary for Northern Ireland, reacted with initial perplexity before he disappeared inside to clean up and upon his return five minutes later described the incident as adolescent. He added

“She was so busy throwing what seemed like green soup or something in my face that she failed to tell me what the protest was about but, as you can see, thankfully it wasn’t paint and I’ve come through it intact.”

There are two thoughts that comes to mind when I read this. The first concerns Lord Mandelson's reaction, and the second the choice of activism.

Three years ago, as a new centre-left (dubbed 'red-green') government had taken office in Norway, a young economics student showed is discontent with the announced policies of the new, and first, clear-cut socialist minister of finance, Ms Kristin Halvorsen, by planting a cake in the back of her had as she entered the Ministry of Finance building. Ms Halvorsen reacted by calling it an attack on democracy and claimed it was a step away from the openness of the Norwegian society, as she could no longer find herself able to walk to work. Police investigation commenced and the young student faced in a worse-case scenery up to 15 years of imprisonment for his 'attack on democracy". Lord Mandelson, on the other hand, reacts by dismissing the action against him as adolescent and states he is happy it wasn't paint. Scotland Yard, as well, unlike their Norwegian colleagues, downplays the incident, a spokesperson stating

"It's not a murder, it's just someone throwing a bit of paint. There's no investigation underway and no arrest. We would not take action unless we receive a complaint."

This comment, together with the Secretary's statement should probably leave Ms Deen, unlike her Norwegian counterpart, out of fear for judicial prosecutions from the judiciary. The Secretary, by his reaction, clearly demonstrated how little influence pressure groups such as Plane Stupid have when they resort to actions such as this one against high-power office holders. Unlike her Norwegian counterpart, Ms Deen has been reduced to ridicule, with her actions labeled 'adolescent', effectively excluding her from the serious public debate. Ms Halvorsen, unlike Lord Mandelson, only managed to ridicule herself elevating a cake in the back of the head to that of a threat against the system, gave the young student a bit of a status as a hero.

My second comment is on the action in itself. I would assume that by stating my preferences for Lord Mandelson's reaction over those of Ms Halvorsen I have also given away my position on these sort of actions. In a democratic society violence by non-governmental actors have no place apart form in self-defence. We do not seek political aims by violent means. Both the cake against Ms Halvorsen and the cup of cornflower paste are harmless acts that pose no threat whatsoever to neither democracy nor the officials being the targets. Nevertheless, they have no place and they only serve to illuminate the lack of language and arguments of the 'attack's' proponents. We make decisions based on debate and information, not by physical means. These acts represents the mild extreme of a continuum which culminates in actions such as the 2005 Paris banlieu incidents, the Thessalonika 2008 demonstrations or the Seattle 2003 fighting, where masses of people, they be the 'mob', disillusioned and angry young men or well-educated middle-class youths with a need to rebel against their parents. In any case, any politician who gives in to whatever group makes the biggest uproar is weak and unfit for office. To seek to influence decision makers is legitimate. To meet with, have lunch with and by that trying to form the opinions of those in power should be encourage. These are all aspects of a vibrant, liberal, participatory democracy. Peaceful demonstration as a show of force and public opinion, as we saw in Europe in the winter/spring of 2003 against the Iraq war is yet another legitimate way of seeking influence. However, the moment any demonstration takes the step from being purely verbal and by presence, and enters into the territory of violence, however how insignificant, it has crossed a line and lost all legitimacy they once had.

The Radical Right as seen from Bruges

I'm sitting in a class on European parties discussing far-right movements in the European Parliament. Our Italian-Canadian colleague has given us an introduction into Alessandra Mussolini and her likes, and we're currently exploring voter behaviour and the over-representation of young, uneducated men amongst Mussolini's voters. Although her looks, she's a former Playmate, is a plausible argument for voting for her if you're 16 and hormonal, but at 25 it is no longer. Mussolini and her lot occupies around 8% of the seats in the 2004-2009 EP, and there's no reason to see them as a threat, although our Italian house-communist disagrees.

The voters we're talking about are not amongst my colleagues here in Bruges, nor did I meet them at the Hill in Bergen. Not comparing Frp with Mussolini, they are the closest we come in Norway to a right-wing populist party flirting with nationalism and xenophobia, you don't find anyone who will openly support them amongst the students at the Faculty of Social Sciences. The same is the case here. You don't study any form of social science and support a far-right wing party. It is just not acceptable. Being a blood-red communist believing in state-centrism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, so-called "democratic" or "social" ownership of the means of production is fully acceptable, but do not even dream about claiming that any for of right-wing authoritarianism could be desirable (unless you argue by quoting Plato and Machiavelli) or that Muslims and globalisation represents a threat to our society.

That being said, I have no problems with the far-right being seen and treated as pariahs. What bothers me in this respect is more that flirting with the far-left and claiming that the Communist Utopia is something we should strive for. Is it something we should have learned from the 20th Century, in particular here in Europe, it is that totalitarian ideologies, whether they be to the Right or the Left, promising Salvation and a Utopian future, represents exactly the opposite; any ideology that claims to present and represent the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (so help me, God), who promises to set us free and pretends to be the way to something bigger, is in the end, whatever the good intentions, bound to bind us and lead us to serfdom.

I've gone off on a whim here, intending to focus on modern-day populist right-wing parties. It is a sad fact that while the far-right is being dominated by pulp, low-brow, angry young men, modernisation losers, under-educated unemployed victims of globalisation and modernisation, the contemporary radical left has the credibility of being represented by high-fly academics and other May-68 anachronisms, and low-educated voters on the left often vote moderately social-democratic. To specify, I am sorry for the fate of the former, but I am more scared by the choices of the latter.

42

No, it's not about Douglas Adams and the answer to life, the universe and everything, although for some it may seem like it. 42 is the number of votes, out of a grand total of 233.000, that seperated Ms Martie Aubry, the new leader of the French Socialist Party (PS) and the 2007 PS candidate for the French precidecy, Ms Ségolène Royal. With a leadership battle won with 50,02 to 49,98 precent, Ms Aubry, daughter of former European Commission President Jaques Delores, will find it hard to lead an equally divided party allready struggeling in its opposition to President Sarkozy and his UMP commanding a comfortable majority in the National Assembly.

From an outsider perspective I'm a bit ambivilent towards the PS' new president. While Ms Royal was accused for leading the party to the right during her presidential candidacy Ms Aubry is said to have the right ideology and a guarantee towards any centrist tendencies. Being neither French nor socialist but with an affection for France and with respect and recognition for France's importance, both i Europe and on the world stage, I'm not certain as to how to react. On the one hand the political operator in me, supporting UMP, in the lack of a better choice, sees a leader stearing PS to the left as even more centrist voters for Mr Sarkozy in 2012. On the other hand, it is not good for a country if the same people govern for too long (just look at France...) and so an alternation between UMP and a 21st century, social-democratic PS would be desirable. In this respect I'd prefer if they had chosen a different leader. Nevertheless, Ms Royal is not the moderate moderniser the PS needs. Thanks to President Sarkozy he left French politics in favour of New York and the IMF, namely Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

The Lisbon Treaty moves on

Yesterday evening the Swedish parliament, Riksdagen, ratified the Lisbon Treaty, with the centre-right government coalition parties together with the Social Democrats voting in favour. It is not that long since the Irish population voted no in a referendum, but still the Swedish government decided not to put the process to a halt. I'm glad to see that responsible and euro-friendly governments haven't given up and hopefully we'll see a second, this time successfull, referendum in Ireland soon, so the Treaty may be implemented by January 1st 2010.

- The EU was not responsible for the post-war peace and prosperity in Western Europe

A century ago Alfred Nobel, when establishing a set of prices in his name, decided that the Peace Price should be decided by a Norwegian committee whose member where elected by the Norwegian parliament. Hundred-and-some years later Mr Torbjorn Jagland, amongst other things former Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs and currently Labour MP and President of the Parliament, is set to be the next leader of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. As Mr Jagland is a staunch supporter for Norwegian membership to the EU and has publicly stated that the EU, because of its role in preserving and consolidating peace in Europe after World War 2, deserves the Peace Price sparks have begun to fly within the Socialis Left Party (SV) and the No to EU-movement. Mr Heming Olaussen, leader of No to EU and former member of the Central Committee of SV, demands that anti-EU hard-liners are appointed from his party, as he fears that Mr Jagland, together with the majority of the committee, who are also pro-Europeans, will push through the price being given to the Beast from Brussels. He argues that crediting the EU for post-war peace in Western Europe has no more value than crediting NATO and that arguing that the peace between Germany and France was secured by the EU is to argue that two NATO-members would have attacked each other without the EU, which he sees as unthinkable. Mr Olaussen, together with large parts of the Norwegian far-left-wing intelligensia sees the EU as the Beast in Revelations, and giving credits this beast for anything is thus unthinkable. However, at times, even if they see the EU as the Beast and market liberation as the work of the Devil, it would be nice if they'd recognize the role the integration of the French and German coal- and steel industries played in the years of reconstruction. Is it unthinkable for two NATO-powers to go to war with one-another? Seeing first of all the centuries of conflicts and wars between France and Germany/the German states and secondly the everlasting conflicts between Turkey and Greece, beliving that NATO-membership is enough to make arch-enemies friendly towards each-other is overly optimistic. No, I'm afraid Mr Olaussen knows perfectly well the importance of European economic integration to the peace and prosperity in Western Europe, but that he takes every oppertunity he has to talk down on the European project.

How to buy yourself a government

That the connection between the labour movement and social democratic parties were strong in the past has always been known. That the labour unions poured money into these parties was a part of the game, in the same way as the confederations of entreprises funded the conservative parties. However, placing conditionalities on these fondings were never an issue, as these parties were seen as promoting the interests of their financial contriubtors even if they differed on some issues. In Norway this was the case until the 1990s when NHO, the Norwegian Commerce Organisation, decided to no longer be a partisan actor and stopped sending cheques to the Conservative Party. Soon after followed LO, the main labour union, who ended its century-old partnership with Labour. This however, seems like nothing but a short intermission today.

In 2004, well before the 2005 general elections, Gerd-Liv Valla, then head of LO, pumped vast sums of mony into the Labour election machine and initiated "The Long Campaign" desitned to (succesfully) replace the then centre-right governing coalition with today's so-called red-green centre-left government. As a "thank you" for the support Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg made labour union membership tax deductable. It is now under a year left to the next general elections, due to take place in September 2009, an the debate over financial support has once again been revitalised. As I've mentionned in an earlier post Ms Liv Signe Navarsete, cabinet minister and leader of the Centre Party, as threatened to oppose the implementation of the Services Directive in Norway. She has now a mighty ally. Leading figures in LO agitate that unless PM Jens Stoltenberg (who is a staunch pro-European and who's spine reflex is economic liberal) and his Labour, who holds 10 out of 19 ministerial posts, vetos the directive they can forget funding for next year.

Allow me to repeate and rephrase that last part: LO, the main financial contributor to Labour, threatens to withdraw its support unless the Government does a certain thing. Or in other words, if Labour do oppose the directive, they will then gain the financial and moral backing of LO. In my eyes this looks very much like buying and selling of votes, or corruption as some might call it.

McCain and the hockey mom

A week from now it will all be over. After two years of campaigning, some billion dollars spent and quite a few egoes crushed, the next American president will be chosen. Initially I hoped for Mitt Romney, a good old fashion fiscal conservative. His mormon background was perhaps not perfect, but he had shown pragmatism earlier and seemed like the best of the bunch. When it finally came down to McCain vs Obama, the choice for me was easy. Usually an Ivy league liberal elitist would knock out an ex-fighter pilot, but had I been American I would have voted for the Arizona senator. On the one side was an Illinois junior senator with only a very few years in national politics. He talked about change, but as a cynic I found it hard to believe him. He preaches bipartisanship but has the most left-wing voting track record in the Senate. I simply can't believe him. On the other side was the Republican mavrick. The Straight Talk Express. A long time senator how had demonstrated the need for international cooperation, who from his own experience knew torture and therefor strongly opposed it, who had shown a realistic and responsible view on US foreign policy and who was known for his bipartisanship in the US Senate. Easy choice. Easy choice until either McCain (A) showed a complete lack of judgement or(/and) (B) gave in to the fundamentalist Christian right in his party and chose the novice Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. There's a Facebook group called I have more Foreign Policy Experience than Sarah Palin and it has currently over 250.000 members. Although I have some doubts with regards to all 250.000 being more experienced with foreign policy than Ms Palin, I doubt it would be hard to find 250.000 who actually does.
As I said in the beguinning, the choice was simple at first, but the thought of the Alaskan born-again hockey mom as leader of the Free World has led me to reconsider.

My civic student duty

In a country far away from civilization, between mountains and fjords, cursed with everlasting autumn rain there is a polity, a cité, a town, no, a city, a compressed continental urbanity in the middle of the widerness. This becon of light in the night of barbarity has a name, and its name is Bergen, and in Bergen there's a hill and on the hill there is an ivory tower and the tower has a name and its name is the University of Bergen.
Until only a few months ago I myself spent most of my days in this ivory tower, and among my many activities where also an active participation in the governing of the tower. In other words, I was a conservative student politician.
When I first came to the University three years ago the Student Council was run by a radical left-wing coalition, and so it lasted for my first two years until finally a year ago a pragmatic centre-right coalition won a majority and came to power. Why this history lecture? Today, not long ago, I preformed my civic student duty and once again vote for the conservative Blue List for the Student Council. My hopes are with them and I feel confident that they again will remain in office.

- English is enough!

The Norwegian government, it all its wisdom and understanding of tomorrow's challenges has come to the conclusion that pupils in secondary education only need to learn one foreign language, english. The fact that our economy relies heavily on trade and that our major trading partners are not english speaking countries, but the European mainland is of cource irrelevant in this context. After all, being able to speak the mother tounge of your partner has never been an adventage in business. Further more, as we all know, for Norwegian interest groups going to Brussels speaking mediocre english is all you need to convince an Austrian or Italian or Slovak or Portugese eurocrat. No, I'm truly glad to see that my beloved government has realised the uselessness of learning german, the language of our main trading partner on the Continent and the language of the country from which most of our cultural impulses has come from. I'm glad today's teenagers and tomorrow's leaders, workers, whitecollars, don't have to learn french, the language of international politics, the language of reason and the language of love. It thrills me to learn that twenty years from now the fight for lingual pluralism will be over and all we'll have left are business executives speaking like Thor Heyerdal and only like Thor Heyerdal.

Negociating, or the art of insulting politely

In these days norwegian negociators sit in Brussels face to face with their EU counterparts to renegociate the EEA-treaty that gives Norway (and other major EFTA-countries such as Iceland and Lichtenstein) access to the European inner market. Also today here in Bruges is a workshop in negociation skills organised by the College. Apart from the obvious one, what do these two events have in common? Allow me to put it like this: All english-native speakers or at native level were told they didn't have to participate. The workshop wasn't about negociation techniques, but about language, or in other words who to insult without being insulting, which is pretty much what goes on between the norwegian and EU negociators in Brussels. There the EU wants Norway to pay some extra billion euros a year into the EU financial chest, knowing very well that no matter what sum they may propose, even in these days, the money exists and Norway won't suffer, whilst the norwegians have to make it sound plausable that Norway pays enough already and that there are limits for a what is reasonable to ask for. To summerize, the EU negociators have to tell the norwegians that they're not showing solidarity with the poor eastern-european countries and that they're nothing but a bunch of over-wealthy hillbillies that where soo lucky that they happened to find oil, whilst the norwegians have to explain that the people on the Continent have themselves to thank and that eastern Europe's poverty is non of our responsibility. And whilst doing this, both parties have to remain polite. Hence, the art of negociating.