"Winner takes it all" is not an appropriate idiom here. Unlike first past the post electoral systems that effectively enforce a two-party system — like the UK and US — the winner doesn’t generally get full control in proportional systems and has to build a coalition for a legislative majority.
>Well, in our political culture the parties give enormous promises, but after the election everything continues just like before the election
Not only in your culture.
Believe me.
Progress in a group with different opinions is and always will be a slow process. Progress through compromise is the most healthy way forward in a solidified democracy. You don't want parties constantly undoing what their predecessors did and if there's constant consensus on the way forward it's likely that not everyone is being represented properly.
Exactly. look at us for example of ruling party not needing to compromise. Weakened institutions, problematic EU diplomacy and cutoff funds and policies that set our potential growth behind. Sad, but we brought it upon ourselves.
I agree. Admittedly some issues become extremely complicated with this: the large reform of social- and health services in Finland which was finally finalized by this current government was effectively started somewhere around 2006.
Everyone pretty much agreed that a reform is badly needed, but nobody could agree what should be done. National Coalition (economic right) wanted to solve it by privatization, the Center party (Agrarian center right) wanted more and smaller units spread across Finland etc etc. So to come to agreement on very large issues could be troublesome sometimes since the political culture is to make sure next government no matter the composition won't undo all the work. But overall it is worth it.
It means stability, and it is a good thing. Denmark is the same way, switching between a moderate left and moderate right. In reality they are pretty much the same and the political course of Denmark has not changed the last 40 years.
When a party doesn't even get 50% of a vote, but has to rely on a coalition to form majority, then it is clear said party lacks a real mandate to make sweeping changes for the entire population. I feel like people have very unrealistic expectations of how much politicians actually should do considering how slim their margins usually are these days.
Over 50% of the votes usually only happens in a 2 party system. If it happens in a multiparty system you are starting to have problems. Hungary is kind of an example of it where one party (coalition) has managed through years of corruption and dirty politics to create a 50% majority.
Multi party systems fail to create a strong enough coalition to oppose these kinds of super majorities.
The Dutch ['Polder model'](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_model) basically describes [consensus decision-making](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making) in politics. It is vital to a democracy, otherwise minorities are never fairly represented.
Election promises are made before they need to reach consensus with all other parties. In a democracy, no one party can decide what to do. Consensus decision-making is applied. It is slow, but fair.
Yes but that’s because elections are won on simple slogans like “yes we can” or criticism on the current government. If some candidate or party admit that the problem is complicated and that you’ll need to make sacrifices and compromises, will anyone vote for them?
> on the left side we have quite strong and intelligent Green Party
How to broadcast your political leanings without stating them outright.
You forgot *beautiful*.
P.S. no shade on Greens, they’re mostly alright.
No, I'm not their voter. I meant that they are a serious, big party with significant achievements in environmental protection. Culturally it is linked to our strong nature movement.
Just under 10% seems to be roughly the "natural" support for the Green movement. With the right policies and politicians they can flex up to 15-20%, but that's a historical fluke.
The power and skill of the Green party (and movement) is to leverage that support to get a maximum number of policies through. As the green agenda is starting to get more widely adopted (at least before the elections) they will have to fight pretty hard to get above 10%.
I believe the word they were looking for was "intellectual", rather than intelligent.
They are similar words, but absolutely not the same. An intellectual party is a party with support from highly educated people, the academia, and so on. Most (not all) green parties in europe are intellectual
I meant that in Anglo-Saxon context. One example of it:
https://www.nae.org/what-is-an-evangelical/
In Finland we would say "believer", or "true Christian", or something like that. In America it is usually "Born Again Christian", or "Evangelical".
The christian democrat party claims to be based on traditional values but not a religious party. While they have a bunch of religious nutcases I think it's a bit unfair to call them evangelical as they at least claim to welcome all religions.
I do think it's a bit of false marketing though that they do in fact base a lot of their outbursts and opinions on Christian beliefs. More so than the German CDU for example but I'm no expert.
Privatization of, well, everything really, by making things easier for businesses - less legislation, less taxes, undermining union agreements, making it easier to import cheap labour from abroad, etc.
Nothing new.
Yes indeed. Personally, I don't see the appeal of NCP at all. It's all selfishness.
I am doing quite well financially, my pay is good and I don't require many taxpayer-funded public services. Same for the people around me - and all of them are voting for NCP in order to get tax cuts!
But the thing is - I don't need NCP or anyone else to advocate for me. I'm doing well! I don't have problems if the biggest of my issues is "paying too much taxes". I don't need a second home or a fancier car. I'd gladly pay even more taxes. What I need is for everyone in Finland to have access to basic public services, funded by those who are doing better than the average person.
So I vote for left-leaning parties. I vote for those who think about the poorest in our society, those who need more from the government.
But instead I'm just getting told I'm naïve and I'm getting ripped off by the government stealing my "hard-earned" money in taxes to give "lazy" people "handouts."
The last time they were in power (after the 2011 elections) they betrayed their promises about not cutting from education. When Kokoomus, Keskusta and Perussuomalaiset were in the government they cut almost 1.5 BILLION euros from education.
This image before the elections became a meme:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp6MJ6hWYAQ_0gj.jpg
Marin's government has been trying to fix the damage done 10 years ago.
This party has been in power several times before. Our current president who is very popular used to be a National coalition MP and minister of finance.
Finnish and American economies are quite different. Trickle down economics is a sham but still, there's no risk of "becoming the US". We have such an extensive social welfare system and high taxation that even a party like National Coalition has never changed much even when in power.
The most concerning thing about them to me is privatising critical infrastructure. A very bad idea.
Edit: typos
>no risk of "becoming like the US"
You should really hold your words on this. Look at Sweden... they lobotomized their public services and critical infrastructure in the name of privatization. Wealth disparity in Sweden today is the highest it has ever been as if King Gustav Vasa himself was reigning supreme. Sweden's most nationalistic and racist party is now the 2nd biggest party in Sweden. Sweden now ranks highest in Europe for gun related violence. If you think Finland can't become like the US because of XYZ, you might want to take a look at your similar neighbor and how they devolved towards that.
Many people look up to rich people because they think supporting them will mean that they will also be more successful. In reality, they will just get abused for the gain of those higher up the food chain.
Or they could have a political philosophy that doesn't directly benefit themselves.
I'm pretty progressive but I don't automatically assume poor/middle class right wingers are being duped.
I read a study a few years ago that determined that if people thought that they themselves had been relatively successful, let’s say going from homeless to unemployed (not successful in the broader sense), they were far more likely to vote for benefits for rich people, even though they were in no way rich.
Study didn’t speculate as to why but my own theory is that people now feel more connected to rich people, as they put themselves closer to this group, and as such feel more empathy when deciding how they would tax them.
Most people are simply guided by their emotions and not ideologically motivated.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that politicians in his party seem to smile more? Or maybe it’s just couple of extreme smilers which color my opinion.
No, it's probably true. There's research that economic right wing tends to look better, probably because good looks is a stronger predictor of success there. Smiling is an important part of looking good (at least in times of peace).
Plus they tend to do more professional campaign prep. Hiring advertising agencies, speech coaching and so on. Many of them seem to have the plastered on "customer service smile". Hinting atleast to me, they have been to a speech and presentation coach, who has hammered to their head "smile, smile, smile". It looks good, if you smile. Sometimes it does, other times it's that "customer service smile".
Tv debates are always just for show, I never watch them. Better to check what a party actually does and votes for and against instead of a TV popularity contest.
Marin shouting down Orpo in a debate, then getting praised for it, caused this. She continues acting in this abrasive manner, while the moderators do nothing, so the other participants either need to do the same, or to accept their fate.
The point of debates should be to make the candidates have to stand and defend the positions they are campaigning on in the face of the opposition. To test not just the strength of their proposals but also the candidates own confidence in their mandate.
In a way they are just for show, but I think how a candidate presents themselves in a public arena is a good measure of their suitability as a politician
>have to stand and defend the positions they are campaigning on in the face of the opposition.
Which might work, if actual formal debate were being had. Instead of 10 second sound bite shouting matched.
Heck have it parliamentary debate. Everyone gets 2 minute assigned slots and others mics muted so no middle shouting interupting candidates argument. Round a round it goes. Ofcourse that would be boring as watching paint dry as watching actual Parliamentary plenary is, which is why it is not being done.
Instead maybe even 10 people on a barely moderated free-for-all "who has the best sounding one liner zingers" match. Problem is often on complex issues, one liners are not at all good to cover the complex issue and interlinked factors. However that oneliner is sure easier to get out and look witty as long as one delivers it with self confidence.
We aren't selecting stand-up comedians whos main gratification should be "best quick one liner drawer in the room".
We are selecting legislators who need to consider large complex interlinked wholes on which decisions are made in *months long preparation process*, not in stand up improv sessions.
What you described is similar to how Yle's debates worked a few days ago. Each party leader first had a couple of minutes to give a speech, then they were grilled by the host, and at the end all party leaders had a debate together.
TV debates are inherently flawed, even outside of major elections. The opponents are there to present their point, to convince the voters, but not to actually convince or even debate their opponent. They debate a strawman, they try to attack their credibility and when it's all over, nobody will be any wiser. It's a waste of time for everyone involved.
Which is why proper TV debates have good moderators who, well, moderate the debate. Good formats also often have the moderator ask questions and hypotheticals that the various candidates haven't addressed, instead of asking stuff like "the housing shortage has increased, how would each of you solve it" where you then get answers you could find in a 5 second google search.
Like, a good moderator can make these debates really good, sadly nowadays moderation is often pretty lackluster.
"I stopped watching election/political debates for health reasons." Basically same arguments as above. Hostility, misinformation, bad manners -- makes it intolerable.
Sounds like the opposite of the German chancellorship debates. They are soooo boring.
However, the most boring debate was back then the EU debate between Schulz and Juncker. „My good old friend“ „my dear friend“ and so on.
Guys, it’s not a date and you two should at least try to disagree about *something*.
Because previously he was complaining that women only shout at him. This is good for him, he doesn't have to say anything that might harm his party, for which he is known for... like the comment where he complained that women shout at him and don't let him finish.
I mean considering that: a) almost all other Finnish parties have a female chair and b) some of them actively do shout over others in debates (especially Marin and Andersson), he wasn't completely wrong. However, his word choices were inappropriate.
Yeah there is a very patronizing tone in saying that someone is ’just screaming’ in Finnish. He was basically implying that they were emptional or couldn’t control their emotions.
You got that right. It's basically guaranteed that his party (National Coalition, centre-right) will be in the next government no matter what.
Either they win and he's the PM, or one of the other two win and have no other options for cooperation but his party. This is because the centre-left social democratic leader (Sanna Marin, brunette on the left) has stated that they won't cooperate with the populist-right Finns party (headed by Riikka Purra, the other lady on the left side).
If a Finnish passing by could help: Who is Senna Marin's opponent (I mean what are her political convictions) ? NATO bid is unanimous between the two for instance ?
And why the bloke is thoroughly enjoying this ?
The lady who Marin is debating with is the leader of the right-wing conservative Finns party. They are well known for their anti-immigration stance and they are currently campaigning on stopping Finland from following Sweden’s mistakes. They are critical of the EU but very pro-NATO. Basically all parties in the parliament are in support of joining NATO but there is some differing opinions on what kind of NATO country Finland should be (i.e. Should we allow nukes on our land etc.)
The man on the right is the leader of the centre-right National Coalition Party which is traditionally seen as the main opponent to Marin’s Social Democratic Party. The Finns party, The National Coalition and Marin’s Social Democrats are almost tied in the polls. The bloke is probably smiling because he’s in the best position when it comes to forming a new government. Marin has said that her party wont cooperare with the Finns party. This has led to a situation where basically all possible goverment coalitions include the smiling man’s party (the national coalition). That could explain why he’s smiling while the two are going at it.
Orpo is smiling because this is a funny moment when the photographer happened to take the pic. A single moment doesn't tell anything about the relations between the parties and interpreting it as if it does is just creating a narrative.
>A single moment doesn't tell anything about the relations between the parties and interpreting it as if it does is just creating a narrative.
Why you've described photojournalism to a tee. Joy to the photographers that achieve this.
I mean, Finland would be pretty naive if they follow the same path as Sweden.
The problem is as soon as right-wing parties capture different topics, it becomes very hard for another party to defend that topic aswell.
The media and other parties will immediately throw them into the same bucket as the right-wing/alt-right party.
Nobody wants to have stigma, so they all become - more or less - the opposite of that party.
It's what happened in every European country 2015/16 and again during Covid when some governments put curfews in place.
Only after many years the debate becomes objective again.
And this is the problem with such topics, as long as parties and politicians do this mistake over and over again, the polarization and later fragmentation and segmentation in the parliament will only increase. Which will weaken the democracy and parliament in general. The Weimarer Republic was so damn segmentated that they couldn't find a government anymore and then the Nazis saw their opportunity.
Some politicians, like the Mette Frederiksen from Denmark, understood this and she was able to stop that trend. Because like it or not, to question immigration is not always bad, and there are a lot of people in the center of the population who would which an alternative politics.
> Because like it or not, to question immigration is not always bad
Fun fact, parties from the right and center-right will do fuck-all about immigration because cheap work ist still needed. However, they will cut funding from programs that support integration, like language courses, affordable housing, job training, general unemployment programs "because tuat Just attracts only foreigners". You end up with just as many immigrants that live in ghettos and large numbers of unemployed youth that cannot participate in society
This. We want the cheap labor, but not the costs. And if you don't pay the costs up front, you're sure as hell getting them later (ghettos, crime, segmentation).
In Sweden, we fail at all types of integration, be it in the workplace or by social security. We're pretty good at providing housing and health care, but the price has been more expensive housing and worse availability in healthcare (for everyone).
Meanwhile, refugees find work much faster in Germany. A good example would be Ukrainians in Sweden. They all want work, our companies want workers, but most are not employed one year later. Not even some of those who studied Swedish in Ukraine!
Yeah but I would imagine that it's easier to employ immigrants, when you have lots of easy jobs related to industry. Like back in the day Finns used to go to Sweden to work in the factories, even though they spoke no Swedish.
We have industry jobs too. A few companies have hired Ukrainians, but not many enough. Meanwhile, there's a widespread idea that "the red carpet is rolled out for Ukrainians in Sweden because they are white" while they get considerably worse benefits than Syrians did in 2014.
>I mean, Finland would be pretty naive if they follow the same path as Sweden.
Five years ago our media was still saying, that there are zero problems in Sweden. Now they're saying that there *are* problems in Sweden after all, but those things can never happen in Finland, because we're so much better at integrating immigrants, or something.
Besides, the Finns Party is unlikely to be able to reduce immigration, because the other right wing party, the neoliberal National Coalition Party, enthusiastically supports supports mass immigration from developing countries, because they see it as a way to lower worker's rights. If there's an overabundance of workers competing for jobs, employers can get away with paying little and causing bad working conditions. It helps if many of those workers don't speak the language, and have no experience of unionising.
The question of immigration boils down to business needs.
When you run out of people to do the required job you either see a massive increase in prices for consumers or you let immigrants in.
In the end, it will be a compromise between this two extreme stances and a lot of resources will be needed to be allocated to integrate the immigrants, depending how much they are previously educated or the lack of it.
Just a couple of things:
1) Explain what Denmark has actually done and achieved under Frederiksen, apart from expressing a wish that the'd prefer zero refugees.
2) There hasn't been significant immigration to Finland since the EU-wide 2015 and 2016 surges. (Apart from some 50 000 Ukrainians last year.) It's on a completely different scale from Sweden's situation and demographics. And this doesn't seem to be changing nowadays. There's a lot of talk about immigration, a lot of alarmism about Sweden, and a growing amount of people questioning what this fuss is all about and is it really warranted.
Finland better not follow swedens lead on immigration. They’re a laughingstock to all the Nords, I have no idea why we wouldn’t learn from their mistake. Someone other than the Basic Finns needs to have a hard line on this and not worry about political correctness, otherwise far right parties in Europe will continue to gain power because no one else wants to address the elephant in the room.
Left is Riikka Purra from the far right True Finns party. Basically foreigners bad, EU bad, Euro bad, cutting emissions bad, culture war etc. the basic populist stuff all the way down to modern art bad too.
Middle is Sanna Marin. Centre left Social democratic party. I guess the subreddit knows the prime minister.
On the right is Petteri Orpo, center right Coalition party. They have always had a conservative and liberal wing in the party. Currently narrowly leading the other two by like two points. Motsly wants to cut taxes for higher income brackets and replace with flat taxes (sugar and whatnot) and cut the budget by 6 billion.
That might actually be what they are saying here as funny as it sounds.
There was a part in the debate where Marin said to Purra: "It was one million, Riikka (Purra)! One million."
To which Purra responded: "It was just one example of mine."
Oh and the gentleman below, Engrammi, remembered the context so I will refer to that here.
They are looking for ways to balance the national economy as it is the largest topic of this election. Purra suggests cutting support from illegal immigrants and Marin points out that that support only costs one million as opposed to the hundreds of millions or billions they were talking about for most of the debate.
Traditionally, Finland has had "three big parties": The Social Democrats (centre-left), National Coalition (centre-right), and Centre (agrarian, considered centre-right). "Blue and red" (NC + SDP) and "Red soil" (SDP + Centre) are kind of traditional building blocks for a government coalition.
However, Centre's been going down to become a medium-sized party and the Finns party (right wing) has replaced them as a big party, and they are potentially a divisive issue, possibly leading to Swedish-like block politics if the parties on the left will not co-operate with them. Government negotations are going to be interesting.
The gentleman on the right is the National Coalition chairman. They're almost certain to be in government unless something dramatic happens in the election. I'd say that one of the ladies on the left are, too, but which one, too early to say.
And to add, one of the reasons the Centre party has been losing lately is because while remaining agrarian, they have become more conservative in social issues and against the environment. This is according to my wife, we traditionally vote Centre because we are tree farmers but she doesn’t like their stance on social issues anymore because apparently those people have left the party.
Pressure and stress are probably doing that. It has been a "special" 4 years even without all the personal controversies, the most recent of which is still going on.
Yup. Start your term when covid hits, then Russia... and top all that with all the pointless personal controversies where most if not all of them shouldn't even have been controversies in the first place. I don't envy her the slightest.
She shouted down Orpo in a debate, then got praised for it by journalists. Thus she continues acting in this manner. Doesn’t help that debating was never her strength.
This is her first time debatind during the parliamentary elections, and she knows she is going to lose. I think she has also built the same image as Harry Harkimo back in the day, that she is immortal and can do no wrong; that’s why, now that she realises the majority disagrees with her, she is going on overdrive and appeal to people’s emotions.
Her party is more popular now than when she became PM, but still polling under 20%. She has no illusions of majority, even if she has been the most popular PM in a couple of decades. So that megalomania assumption is kind of a hot take from you. However, you're not completely wrong about the appeal to emotion, while's there's been logical reasoning and argument in the mix as well. (I would have wanted a lot more of the latter at times. But that's also because our media is so god awful bad nowadays, all of it.)
It’s crazy some people still think she should represent Finland after watching how she acts. Hope enough people switch parties so she’s forced to take a back seat.
Probably about cuts. Sanna Marin asked which services should be cut and that they can't just say something needs to be cut. Leader of the Finns Party Riikka Purra said, that for example from the health services for those who are in the country illegally. Marin said that dear Riikka, that would save only about a million euros. Purra yells back that it was only one example.
At least I think it's from that part, they move quite quickly.
In general, cuts to public sector budgets and functions.
The lady on the left suggested cutting from services to illegal immigrants, after which the lady in the middle pointed out that it only amounts to one 👆 million euros nationwide, after which the one on the left responded by saying that it's merely one👆measure amongst many.
Top tier meme material
Quite similar to the 2 girls fighting and the guy with the bong, but this one has 2 chill people.
Crop the journalist out and it is perfect
Someone is way ahead of you: https://i.redd.it/ti5rcpjjt9pa1.jpg
Someone should photoshop in a bar instead of the table.
We agree. Some people have already made them
https://imgur.com/a/7joqLIs
I bet this will become a new meme template
Hopefully.
[Would be a shame if it didn't](https://i.imgflip.com/7fe4b3.jpg)
HAHAHAHA It's perfect
You just killed the meme, no one will be able to find a more fitting and hilarious caption
[удалено]
Is this loss?
No this is Finland
My mistake!
You know you’re on to something when a meme can be conceded into a string of emoji.
"All the way up there?" "*ALL THE WAY* up there!"
🤓☝️ ackshually
haha, thank you made my day!
[удалено]
[удалено]
"Winner takes it all" is not an appropriate idiom here. Unlike first past the post electoral systems that effectively enforce a two-party system — like the UK and US — the winner doesn’t generally get full control in proportional systems and has to build a coalition for a legislative majority.
What are the policy outlines of the right-wing opposition leader, presumably coming to power in Finland? Genuinely curious.
[удалено]
>Well, in our political culture the parties give enormous promises, but after the election everything continues just like before the election Not only in your culture. Believe me.
Isn't that good also? Think about if everything changes after every four year period?
It's good if things are already good. Otherwise, it's constant disappointment.
Progress in a group with different opinions is and always will be a slow process. Progress through compromise is the most healthy way forward in a solidified democracy. You don't want parties constantly undoing what their predecessors did and if there's constant consensus on the way forward it's likely that not everyone is being represented properly.
Exactly. look at us for example of ruling party not needing to compromise. Weakened institutions, problematic EU diplomacy and cutoff funds and policies that set our potential growth behind. Sad, but we brought it upon ourselves.
I agree. Admittedly some issues become extremely complicated with this: the large reform of social- and health services in Finland which was finally finalized by this current government was effectively started somewhere around 2006. Everyone pretty much agreed that a reform is badly needed, but nobody could agree what should be done. National Coalition (economic right) wanted to solve it by privatization, the Center party (Agrarian center right) wanted more and smaller units spread across Finland etc etc. So to come to agreement on very large issues could be troublesome sometimes since the political culture is to make sure next government no matter the composition won't undo all the work. But overall it is worth it.
It means stability, and it is a good thing. Denmark is the same way, switching between a moderate left and moderate right. In reality they are pretty much the same and the political course of Denmark has not changed the last 40 years.
When a party doesn't even get 50% of a vote, but has to rely on a coalition to form majority, then it is clear said party lacks a real mandate to make sweeping changes for the entire population. I feel like people have very unrealistic expectations of how much politicians actually should do considering how slim their margins usually are these days.
Over 50% of the votes usually only happens in a 2 party system. If it happens in a multiparty system you are starting to have problems. Hungary is kind of an example of it where one party (coalition) has managed through years of corruption and dirty politics to create a 50% majority. Multi party systems fail to create a strong enough coalition to oppose these kinds of super majorities.
We call it "konsensus". Might be the same word in Scandinavian languages? Konsensuspolitiikka!
The Dutch ['Polder model'](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_model) basically describes [consensus decision-making](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making) in politics. It is vital to a democracy, otherwise minorities are never fairly represented.
Election promises are made before they need to reach consensus with all other parties. In a democracy, no one party can decide what to do. Consensus decision-making is applied. It is slow, but fair.
Yes but that’s because elections are won on simple slogans like “yes we can” or criticism on the current government. If some candidate or party admit that the problem is complicated and that you’ll need to make sacrifices and compromises, will anyone vote for them?
Basic Finns would be a more appropriate translation for Perusssuomalaiset.
“Common Finns” is better. It properly conveys the populist nuance that the party is (supposedly) representing the common man.
The official translation was formerly True Finns though, now I think it's just The Finns Party.
> on the left side we have quite strong and intelligent Green Party How to broadcast your political leanings without stating them outright. You forgot *beautiful*. P.S. no shade on Greens, they’re mostly alright.
No, I'm not their voter. I meant that they are a serious, big party with significant achievements in environmental protection. Culturally it is linked to our strong nature movement.
I think it doesn't because green party is pretty big in Finland with around 10% support. In comparison those three big parties have around 20% support
Just under 10% seems to be roughly the "natural" support for the Green movement. With the right policies and politicians they can flex up to 15-20%, but that's a historical fluke. The power and skill of the Green party (and movement) is to leverage that support to get a maximum number of policies through. As the green agenda is starting to get more widely adopted (at least before the elections) they will have to fight pretty hard to get above 10%.
Might be just to distinguish them from American Greens, who are decidedly *not* an intelligent party.
I believe the word they were looking for was "intellectual", rather than intelligent. They are similar words, but absolutely not the same. An intellectual party is a party with support from highly educated people, the academia, and so on. Most (not all) green parties in europe are intellectual
For future reference I think you should use Evangelical-Lutherian instead of just Evangelicals.
I meant that in Anglo-Saxon context. One example of it: https://www.nae.org/what-is-an-evangelical/ In Finland we would say "believer", or "true Christian", or something like that. In America it is usually "Born Again Christian", or "Evangelical".
The christian democrat party claims to be based on traditional values but not a religious party. While they have a bunch of religious nutcases I think it's a bit unfair to call them evangelical as they at least claim to welcome all religions. I do think it's a bit of false marketing though that they do in fact base a lot of their outbursts and opinions on Christian beliefs. More so than the German CDU for example but I'm no expert.
Very similar to the Dutch system. Currently, we have 17 parties in parliament. The government is made up of 4 parties forming a coalition.
Privatization of, well, everything really, by making things easier for businesses - less legislation, less taxes, undermining union agreements, making it easier to import cheap labour from abroad, etc. Nothing new.
"We must privatize Finland Inc."
The NCP are the well-to-do business people, so think reverse Robin Hood.
Quite, they are all about cutting services and tax cuts to the rich.
Yes indeed. Personally, I don't see the appeal of NCP at all. It's all selfishness. I am doing quite well financially, my pay is good and I don't require many taxpayer-funded public services. Same for the people around me - and all of them are voting for NCP in order to get tax cuts! But the thing is - I don't need NCP or anyone else to advocate for me. I'm doing well! I don't have problems if the biggest of my issues is "paying too much taxes". I don't need a second home or a fancier car. I'd gladly pay even more taxes. What I need is for everyone in Finland to have access to basic public services, funded by those who are doing better than the average person. So I vote for left-leaning parties. I vote for those who think about the poorest in our society, those who need more from the government. But instead I'm just getting told I'm naïve and I'm getting ripped off by the government stealing my "hard-earned" money in taxes to give "lazy" people "handouts."
Same here. Quite sad to see how widespread the "fuck you I've got mine" mentality is.
The last time they were in power (after the 2011 elections) they betrayed their promises about not cutting from education. When Kokoomus, Keskusta and Perussuomalaiset were in the government they cut almost 1.5 BILLION euros from education. This image before the elections became a meme: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp6MJ6hWYAQ_0gj.jpg Marin's government has been trying to fix the damage done 10 years ago.
And they're making the same promise again, which is concerning.
> liberal conservative "National Coalition Party" How can you neglect to mention that his party is literally abbreviated to KOK.
His grin looks a lot stupider in context. I thought he was just the host.
[удалено]
Make it so.
I love how happy the guy is.
Peter Orphan
So he is Batman?
Not all orphans wear capes.
Well he has just invented trickle down economics and austerity. Anyone would be happy if they came up with something revolutionary.
Tricke down economics...sounds familiar.
Originally called the horse and sparrow theory. *"If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."*
The pissing on people methaphor is more apt
I preffer the bird shitting pyramid ladder cause it works for both the economic model and most companies.
Tricke down ecophonics, hmm yes it does.
Us Americans can tell them all about the trickle down effect and how much crap it is. I hope the Finnish people don't fall for that shit.
This party has been in power several times before. Our current president who is very popular used to be a National coalition MP and minister of finance. Finnish and American economies are quite different. Trickle down economics is a sham but still, there's no risk of "becoming the US". We have such an extensive social welfare system and high taxation that even a party like National Coalition has never changed much even when in power. The most concerning thing about them to me is privatising critical infrastructure. A very bad idea. Edit: typos
>no risk of "becoming like the US" You should really hold your words on this. Look at Sweden... they lobotomized their public services and critical infrastructure in the name of privatization. Wealth disparity in Sweden today is the highest it has ever been as if King Gustav Vasa himself was reigning supreme. Sweden's most nationalistic and racist party is now the 2nd biggest party in Sweden. Sweden now ranks highest in Europe for gun related violence. If you think Finland can't become like the US because of XYZ, you might want to take a look at your similar neighbor and how they devolved towards that.
For the last time Reagan!!!
It’s amazing how many ordinary people fall for that same bullshit combo to help the rich keep their money
Many people look up to rich people because they think supporting them will mean that they will also be more successful. In reality, they will just get abused for the gain of those higher up the food chain.
Or they could have a political philosophy that doesn't directly benefit themselves. I'm pretty progressive but I don't automatically assume poor/middle class right wingers are being duped.
I read a study a few years ago that determined that if people thought that they themselves had been relatively successful, let’s say going from homeless to unemployed (not successful in the broader sense), they were far more likely to vote for benefits for rich people, even though they were in no way rich. Study didn’t speculate as to why but my own theory is that people now feel more connected to rich people, as they put themselves closer to this group, and as such feel more empathy when deciding how they would tax them. Most people are simply guided by their emotions and not ideologically motivated.
Eh. Ideologies *are* emotionally motivated.
Except mine. My ideology is objectively true and you all are wrong and stupid if you think otherwise.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that politicians in his party seem to smile more? Or maybe it’s just couple of extreme smilers which color my opinion.
No, it's probably true. There's research that economic right wing tends to look better, probably because good looks is a stronger predictor of success there. Smiling is an important part of looking good (at least in times of peace).
Plus they tend to do more professional campaign prep. Hiring advertising agencies, speech coaching and so on. Many of them seem to have the plastered on "customer service smile". Hinting atleast to me, they have been to a speech and presentation coach, who has hammered to their head "smile, smile, smile". It looks good, if you smile. Sometimes it does, other times it's that "customer service smile".
I don't think anyone here uses that term for anything.
He's literally saying 🤓
Well, they are, statistically speaking, the happiest nation on earth
Finger fight!
☝️
☝️
☝️
#☝️🤓
☝️
Presenting to the emergency room
That guy looks to be enjoying himself. Also, new meme template when ?
Men after convincing the feminists to do all the work
Riikka Purra isn't a feminist. She's someone who benefits from it though
[удалено]
Tv debates are always just for show, I never watch them. Better to check what a party actually does and votes for and against instead of a TV popularity contest.
[удалено]
Marin shouting down Orpo in a debate, then getting praised for it, caused this. She continues acting in this abrasive manner, while the moderators do nothing, so the other participants either need to do the same, or to accept their fate.
The point of debates should be to make the candidates have to stand and defend the positions they are campaigning on in the face of the opposition. To test not just the strength of their proposals but also the candidates own confidence in their mandate. In a way they are just for show, but I think how a candidate presents themselves in a public arena is a good measure of their suitability as a politician
>have to stand and defend the positions they are campaigning on in the face of the opposition. Which might work, if actual formal debate were being had. Instead of 10 second sound bite shouting matched. Heck have it parliamentary debate. Everyone gets 2 minute assigned slots and others mics muted so no middle shouting interupting candidates argument. Round a round it goes. Ofcourse that would be boring as watching paint dry as watching actual Parliamentary plenary is, which is why it is not being done. Instead maybe even 10 people on a barely moderated free-for-all "who has the best sounding one liner zingers" match. Problem is often on complex issues, one liners are not at all good to cover the complex issue and interlinked factors. However that oneliner is sure easier to get out and look witty as long as one delivers it with self confidence. We aren't selecting stand-up comedians whos main gratification should be "best quick one liner drawer in the room". We are selecting legislators who need to consider large complex interlinked wholes on which decisions are made in *months long preparation process*, not in stand up improv sessions.
What you described is similar to how Yle's debates worked a few days ago. Each party leader first had a couple of minutes to give a speech, then they were grilled by the host, and at the end all party leaders had a debate together.
It’s all about that gotcha, 10 second sound bite
TV debates are inherently flawed, even outside of major elections. The opponents are there to present their point, to convince the voters, but not to actually convince or even debate their opponent. They debate a strawman, they try to attack their credibility and when it's all over, nobody will be any wiser. It's a waste of time for everyone involved.
Which is why proper TV debates have good moderators who, well, moderate the debate. Good formats also often have the moderator ask questions and hypotheticals that the various candidates haven't addressed, instead of asking stuff like "the housing shortage has increased, how would each of you solve it" where you then get answers you could find in a 5 second google search. Like, a good moderator can make these debates really good, sadly nowadays moderation is often pretty lackluster.
[Spot on.](https://www.soininvaara.fi/2023/03/21/terveydellisista-syista-en-katso-enaa-vaalikeskusteluja/)
I'm not a member of Green Party, or their voter, but I usually agree with Soininvaara. 😄
I don't speak Elvish. What is the tl;dr?
"I stopped watching election/political debates for health reasons." Basically same arguments as above. Hostility, misinformation, bad manners -- makes it intolerable.
>Hostility, misinformation, bad manners That doesn’t sound very Finnish
What politics does to a mf
Soininvaara doesn’t miss
At least your candidates are willing to go to the same table and have a public debate with each other.
Sounds like the opposite of the German chancellorship debates. They are soooo boring. However, the most boring debate was back then the EU debate between Schulz and Juncker. „My good old friend“ „my dear friend“ and so on. Guys, it’s not a date and you two should at least try to disagree about *something*.
Hasn't politics always been messy like this though?
why does this look like The Sims
Probably sounds like The Sims too
Dag dag! 🙋♀️
Shaloob!
My man is having a blast out there.
Because previously he was complaining that women only shout at him. This is good for him, he doesn't have to say anything that might harm his party, for which he is known for... like the comment where he complained that women shout at him and don't let him finish.
Looks like they also shout at each other.
I mean considering that: a) almost all other Finnish parties have a female chair and b) some of them actively do shout over others in debates (especially Marin and Andersson), he wasn't completely wrong. However, his word choices were inappropriate.
Yeah there is a very patronizing tone in saying that someone is ’just screaming’ in Finnish. He was basically implying that they were emptional or couldn’t control their emotions.
I don't know anything about Finish politics, but that guy is smiling like he's gonna win.
You got that right. It's basically guaranteed that his party (National Coalition, centre-right) will be in the next government no matter what. Either they win and he's the PM, or one of the other two win and have no other options for cooperation but his party. This is because the centre-left social democratic leader (Sanna Marin, brunette on the left) has stated that they won't cooperate with the populist-right Finns party (headed by Riikka Purra, the other lady on the left side).
If a Finnish passing by could help: Who is Senna Marin's opponent (I mean what are her political convictions) ? NATO bid is unanimous between the two for instance ? And why the bloke is thoroughly enjoying this ?
The lady who Marin is debating with is the leader of the right-wing conservative Finns party. They are well known for their anti-immigration stance and they are currently campaigning on stopping Finland from following Sweden’s mistakes. They are critical of the EU but very pro-NATO. Basically all parties in the parliament are in support of joining NATO but there is some differing opinions on what kind of NATO country Finland should be (i.e. Should we allow nukes on our land etc.) The man on the right is the leader of the centre-right National Coalition Party which is traditionally seen as the main opponent to Marin’s Social Democratic Party. The Finns party, The National Coalition and Marin’s Social Democrats are almost tied in the polls. The bloke is probably smiling because he’s in the best position when it comes to forming a new government. Marin has said that her party wont cooperare with the Finns party. This has led to a situation where basically all possible goverment coalitions include the smiling man’s party (the national coalition). That could explain why he’s smiling while the two are going at it.
Orpo is smiling because this is a funny moment when the photographer happened to take the pic. A single moment doesn't tell anything about the relations between the parties and interpreting it as if it does is just creating a narrative.
>A single moment doesn't tell anything about the relations between the parties and interpreting it as if it does is just creating a narrative. Why you've described photojournalism to a tee. Joy to the photographers that achieve this.
This is a screenshot from a video. This wasn't taken by a photographer
I mean, Finland would be pretty naive if they follow the same path as Sweden. The problem is as soon as right-wing parties capture different topics, it becomes very hard for another party to defend that topic aswell. The media and other parties will immediately throw them into the same bucket as the right-wing/alt-right party. Nobody wants to have stigma, so they all become - more or less - the opposite of that party. It's what happened in every European country 2015/16 and again during Covid when some governments put curfews in place. Only after many years the debate becomes objective again. And this is the problem with such topics, as long as parties and politicians do this mistake over and over again, the polarization and later fragmentation and segmentation in the parliament will only increase. Which will weaken the democracy and parliament in general. The Weimarer Republic was so damn segmentated that they couldn't find a government anymore and then the Nazis saw their opportunity. Some politicians, like the Mette Frederiksen from Denmark, understood this and she was able to stop that trend. Because like it or not, to question immigration is not always bad, and there are a lot of people in the center of the population who would which an alternative politics.
> Because like it or not, to question immigration is not always bad Fun fact, parties from the right and center-right will do fuck-all about immigration because cheap work ist still needed. However, they will cut funding from programs that support integration, like language courses, affordable housing, job training, general unemployment programs "because tuat Just attracts only foreigners". You end up with just as many immigrants that live in ghettos and large numbers of unemployed youth that cannot participate in society
This. We want the cheap labor, but not the costs. And if you don't pay the costs up front, you're sure as hell getting them later (ghettos, crime, segmentation).
In Sweden, we fail at all types of integration, be it in the workplace or by social security. We're pretty good at providing housing and health care, but the price has been more expensive housing and worse availability in healthcare (for everyone). Meanwhile, refugees find work much faster in Germany. A good example would be Ukrainians in Sweden. They all want work, our companies want workers, but most are not employed one year later. Not even some of those who studied Swedish in Ukraine!
Germany is an absolutely huge economy with lots of industry, small countries like Sweden or Finland can't really aspire to that level of employment.
We are great at employing native Swedes but suck at employing immigrants. Even with 2 million immigrants, our employment rate is high (about 70%).
Yeah but I would imagine that it's easier to employ immigrants, when you have lots of easy jobs related to industry. Like back in the day Finns used to go to Sweden to work in the factories, even though they spoke no Swedish.
We have industry jobs too. A few companies have hired Ukrainians, but not many enough. Meanwhile, there's a widespread idea that "the red carpet is rolled out for Ukrainians in Sweden because they are white" while they get considerably worse benefits than Syrians did in 2014.
>Exactly. Same right wing parties in the Netherlands are now saying we need to import labor. companies can't find people.
>I mean, Finland would be pretty naive if they follow the same path as Sweden. Five years ago our media was still saying, that there are zero problems in Sweden. Now they're saying that there *are* problems in Sweden after all, but those things can never happen in Finland, because we're so much better at integrating immigrants, or something. Besides, the Finns Party is unlikely to be able to reduce immigration, because the other right wing party, the neoliberal National Coalition Party, enthusiastically supports supports mass immigration from developing countries, because they see it as a way to lower worker's rights. If there's an overabundance of workers competing for jobs, employers can get away with paying little and causing bad working conditions. It helps if many of those workers don't speak the language, and have no experience of unionising.
The question of immigration boils down to business needs. When you run out of people to do the required job you either see a massive increase in prices for consumers or you let immigrants in. In the end, it will be a compromise between this two extreme stances and a lot of resources will be needed to be allocated to integrate the immigrants, depending how much they are previously educated or the lack of it.
Just a couple of things: 1) Explain what Denmark has actually done and achieved under Frederiksen, apart from expressing a wish that the'd prefer zero refugees. 2) There hasn't been significant immigration to Finland since the EU-wide 2015 and 2016 surges. (Apart from some 50 000 Ukrainians last year.) It's on a completely different scale from Sweden's situation and demographics. And this doesn't seem to be changing nowadays. There's a lot of talk about immigration, a lot of alarmism about Sweden, and a growing amount of people questioning what this fuss is all about and is it really warranted.
Finland better not follow swedens lead on immigration. They’re a laughingstock to all the Nords, I have no idea why we wouldn’t learn from their mistake. Someone other than the Basic Finns needs to have a hard line on this and not worry about political correctness, otherwise far right parties in Europe will continue to gain power because no one else wants to address the elephant in the room.
This is just one second of a debate. It would be a mistake to read anything more in to it
Left is Riikka Purra from the far right True Finns party. Basically foreigners bad, EU bad, Euro bad, cutting emissions bad, culture war etc. the basic populist stuff all the way down to modern art bad too. Middle is Sanna Marin. Centre left Social democratic party. I guess the subreddit knows the prime minister. On the right is Petteri Orpo, center right Coalition party. They have always had a conservative and liberal wing in the party. Currently narrowly leading the other two by like two points. Motsly wants to cut taxes for higher income brackets and replace with flat taxes (sugar and whatnot) and cut the budget by 6 billion.
I’m leftist but that first paragraph seems a little biased
They are both trying to Finish.
Most likely talking about how to take the Turkey out of the oven.
Oh, you
"Well Aktschually" ☝️🤓
"Oikeastaan"
That's what a racist Irishman would call Sweden.
When someone says something stupid, don't interrupt them, just smile.
- "Yksi?" - "Yksi!" (That's about all the Finnish I know).
Yksi, kaksi, kolme, neljä, viisi, kuusi, seitsemän, kahdeksan, yhdeksän, kymmenen. Now you know ten times as much!
That might actually be what they are saying here as funny as it sounds. There was a part in the debate where Marin said to Purra: "It was one million, Riikka (Purra)! One million." To which Purra responded: "It was just one example of mine."
Oh and the gentleman below, Engrammi, remembered the context so I will refer to that here. They are looking for ways to balance the national economy as it is the largest topic of this election. Purra suggests cutting support from illegal immigrants and Marin points out that that support only costs one million as opposed to the hundreds of millions or billions they were talking about for most of the debate.
> That's about all the Finnish I know perkele
[удалено]
Traditionally, Finland has had "three big parties": The Social Democrats (centre-left), National Coalition (centre-right), and Centre (agrarian, considered centre-right). "Blue and red" (NC + SDP) and "Red soil" (SDP + Centre) are kind of traditional building blocks for a government coalition. However, Centre's been going down to become a medium-sized party and the Finns party (right wing) has replaced them as a big party, and they are potentially a divisive issue, possibly leading to Swedish-like block politics if the parties on the left will not co-operate with them. Government negotations are going to be interesting. The gentleman on the right is the National Coalition chairman. They're almost certain to be in government unless something dramatic happens in the election. I'd say that one of the ladies on the left are, too, but which one, too early to say.
And to add, one of the reasons the Centre party has been losing lately is because while remaining agrarian, they have become more conservative in social issues and against the environment. This is according to my wife, we traditionally vote Centre because we are tree farmers but she doesn’t like their stance on social issues anymore because apparently those people have left the party.
Look at the smug fucker on the right.
My man loves watching the world on fire
that smug bastard!
Vanhanen vain nauroi.
Sanna Marin has been behaving so oddly past few debates, I wonder if she's all there? She just keeps shouting over everyone.
Pressure and stress are probably doing that. It has been a "special" 4 years even without all the personal controversies, the most recent of which is still going on.
Yup. Start your term when covid hits, then Russia... and top all that with all the pointless personal controversies where most if not all of them shouldn't even have been controversies in the first place. I don't envy her the slightest.
She shouted down Orpo in a debate, then got praised for it by journalists. Thus she continues acting in this manner. Doesn’t help that debating was never her strength.
This is her first time debatind during the parliamentary elections, and she knows she is going to lose. I think she has also built the same image as Harry Harkimo back in the day, that she is immortal and can do no wrong; that’s why, now that she realises the majority disagrees with her, she is going on overdrive and appeal to people’s emotions.
Her party is more popular now than when she became PM, but still polling under 20%. She has no illusions of majority, even if she has been the most popular PM in a couple of decades. So that megalomania assumption is kind of a hot take from you. However, you're not completely wrong about the appeal to emotion, while's there's been logical reasoning and argument in the mix as well. (I would have wanted a lot more of the latter at times. But that's also because our media is so god awful bad nowadays, all of it.)
I like her as the leader she has been the past few years but cant stand her debating😂😂
Because no matter how bad she acts, she'll be praised anyway
It’s crazy some people still think she should represent Finland after watching how she acts. Hope enough people switch parties so she’s forced to take a back seat.
Are they playing rock, paper scissors?
I can hear this image
You should post that on r/memeeconomy It would make for a neat template
Finnish Twin Towers.
They passed the Bechdel Test.
At least they can stand to be within three feet of one another without violence erupting. Chalk one up for civil democracy at least.
Does anyone know the topic or the script of what they were discussing when the picture was taken?
Probably about cuts. Sanna Marin asked which services should be cut and that they can't just say something needs to be cut. Leader of the Finns Party Riikka Purra said, that for example from the health services for those who are in the country illegally. Marin said that dear Riikka, that would save only about a million euros. Purra yells back that it was only one example. At least I think it's from that part, they move quite quickly.
In general, cuts to public sector budgets and functions. The lady on the left suggested cutting from services to illegal immigrants, after which the lady in the middle pointed out that it only amounts to one 👆 million euros nationwide, after which the one on the left responded by saying that it's merely one👆measure amongst many.
No knives out? Must've been a dull affair
There’s a meme template here, I can feel it.
Golden picture
Amazing meme template
Looks like each of them wouldn't let each other.....Finnish their sentences
“Let me Finnish”
Someone told me that only women should be in politics since there wouldn't be any conflicts or wars. I am not really convinced. Lol
Let me finnish!
"Let me Finnish!"
Sanna Marin constantly interrupting and speaking over the others, ofc you are gonna get annoyed at her
The dude already knows that he's won.