Kristian Thulesen Dahl, leader of The Danish People’s Party, celebrates after the election. Photo: Linda Kastrup/AFP/Getty
Show Hide image

Why even Scandinavia is moving to the right

The fall of Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt and Scandinavia’s move to the right.

Another week, another setback for social democracy in Europe. On 18 June, Helle Thorning-Schmidt – the charismatic Danish prime minister, Neil Kinnock’s daughter-in-law and taker of selfies with Barack Obama – narrowly fell short of keeping power despite a remarkable comeback from political torpor two years ago. Her centre-left “red” bloc gained 47 per cent of the vote, against the centre-right “blue” bloc’s 51 per cent.

The result is further evidence that the global financial crisis has not tilted the arc of history to the left. It also illustrates another significant political story of our time: the squeezing of the established parties. In southern Europe, the Greek Syriza and the Spanish Podemos are mobilising against austerity; in the north, Eurosceptic parties of the right are on the rise.

In Denmark, the vote share of the populist Danish People’s Party (DPP) – the country’s equivalent of Ukip – surged to over 21 per cent. It became the second most successful party in the election, leapfrogging Venstre, the mainstream centre-right liberal party. The four parties that had dominated Danish politics for decades (Venstre, the Social Democrats, the Conservative People’s Party and the Social Liberals) gained only half of the vote between them.

Denmark’s shift to the right and the squeezing of its establishment are closely linked phenomena. They explain how the DPP managed to colonise ground on both sides of the electoral landscape. It has been nibbling the support of right-wing parties for over a decade by forcing immigration into the mainstream political debate. And yet, focusing on immigration alone, it struggled to get much more than 13 per cent of the vote. What made its campaign different this time was that it managed to reinvent itself as a party of the left – or the “left behind”.

The DPP performed particularly well in rural Jutland, the peninsula that makes up most of Denmark’s land mass, which suffers from lower growth rates than metropolitan areas. As one Danish politician explained to me, “The core dividing line in this election was between Jutland and Copenhagen.” The DPP has set itself up in opposition to the entire metropolitan political elite and won record levels of support.

As well as stealing votes from the centre right, the DPP tacked left by opposing the centre-left government’s plan to cut social benefits and pensions, a campaign based on “maintaining the Denmark you know”. It argued that the government should stop spending money on migrants and foreign aid, and should invest instead in social benefits for Danes. By linking migration to the future of the Scandinavian welfare state, the DPP managed to win support without sounding hysterical about immigration. In the televised debates, it was the two mainstream candidates – Venstre’s Lars Løkke Rasmussen and the Social Democrats’ Thorning-Schmidt – who were toughest on migrants.

Many Social Democrats, including a former minister who asked to remain anonymous, argue that the DPP was able to reinvent itself because their party had lost credibility by cutting taxes and consenting to austerity. The Social Democrats were caught in a pincer movement of their own making, hoping to win votes from Venstre by adopting a conservative economic platform and from the DPP by focusing on immigration. In the process, they lost their identity, leaving the door open for the DPP to grab a clutch of left-leaning voters.

The problem for Thorning-Schmidt was that although her party managed to defy expectations and top the poll with an impressive 26 per cent, the vote share of her putative coalition partners the Social Liberals and the Socialist People’s Party collapsed to under 5 per cent. Her campaign was successful for the Social Democrats but it destroyed support for her allies. It was a classic pyrrhic victory. Sweden is now the only country in Scandinavia that still has a centre-left government, contrary to the general view of the region.

Denmark’s Social Democrats were caught in the same trap as other leftist parties across the continent, unable to own or to challenge the neoliberal consensus. As a result, they were torn between reassuring the electorate by mimicking the right and mobilising it by offering a distinct alternative.

This is also the choice that will confront the Labour Party’s leadership candidates in the UK. The Danish election has relevance beyond Copenhagen. Like the human drama that captivated the world in the television series Borgen, it points to a universal progressive dilemma.

This article first appeared in the 26 June 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Bush v Clinton 2

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's purge: how it works, and what it means

The total number of people removed will be small - but the rancour will linger. 

Labour has just kicked off its first big wave of expulsions, purging many voters from the party’s leadership rolls. Twitter is ablaze with activists who believe they have been kicked out because they are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. There are, I'm told, more expulsions to come - what's going on?  Is Labour purging its rolls of Corbyn supporters?

The short answer is “No”.

If that opener feels familiar, it should: I wrote it last year, when the last set of purges kicked off, and may end up using it again next year. Labour has stringent rules about expressing support for other candidates and membership of other parties, which account for the bulk of the expulsions. It also has a code of conduct on abusive language which is also thinning the rolls, with supporters of both candidates being kicked off. 

Although the party is in significantly better financial shape than last year, it still is running a skeleton staff and is recovering from an expensive contest (in this case, to keep Britain in the European Union). The compliance unit itself remains small, so once again people from across the party staff have been dragooned in.

The process this year is pretty much the same: Labour party headquarters doesn’t have any bespoke software to match its voters against a long list of candidates in local elections, compiled last year and added to the list of candidates that stood against Labour in the 2016 local and devolved elections, plus a large backlog of complaints from activists.

It’s that backlog that is behind many of the highest-profile and most controversial examples. Last year, in one complaint that was not upheld, a local member was reported to the Compliance Unit for their failure to attend their local party’s annual barbecue. The mood in Labour, in the country and at Westminster, is significantly more bitter this summer than last and the complaints more personal. Ronnie Draper, the general secretary of the Bfawu, the bakers’ union, one of Corbyn’s biggest supporters in the trade union movement, has been expelled, reported for tweets which included the use of the word “traitors” to refer to Labour opponents of Corbyn.  Jon Will Chambers, former bag carrier to Stella Creasy, and a vocal Corbyn critic on Twitter, has been kicked out for using a “Theresa May” twibbon to indicate his preference for May over Andrea Leadsom, in contravention of the party’s rules.

Both activities breach the letter of the party’s rules although you can (and people will) make good arguments against empowering other people to comb through the social media profiles of their opponents for reasons to dob them in.  (In both cases, I wouldn’t be shocked if both complaints were struck down on appeal)

I would be frankly astonished if Corbyn’s margin of victory – or defeat, as unlikely as that remains in my view – isn’t significantly bigger than the number of people who are barred from voting, which will include supporters of both candidates, as well as a number of duplicates (some people who paid £25 were in fact members before the freeze date, others are affliated trade unionists, and so on). 

What is unarguably more significant, as one party staffer reflected is, “the complaints are nastier now [than last year]”. More and more of the messages to compliance are firmly in what you might call “the barbecue category” – they are obviously groundless and based on personal animosity. That doesn’t feel like the basis of a party that is ready to unite at any level. Publicly and privately, most people are still talking down the chances of a split. It may prove impossible to avoid.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.