Conservative chosen as Finland's president for first time in 50 years
A former finance minister has won Finland's presidential election and will become the country's first conservative head of state in five decades.
Sauli Niinisto won 63% of the votes, compared with 37% for his rival, Greens candidate Pekka Haavisto, official results showed with all ballots counted. Haavisto was also Finland's firstly openly gay presidential candidate.
The 63-year-old Niinisto will become the first president from the conservative National Coalition party since 1956, and the first in 30 years from a party other than the center-left Social Democrats.
He will replace Tarja Halonen, one of Finland's most popular heads of state, who has served the maximum two six-year terms.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/05/finland-presidential-election-sauli-niinisto
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
progressoid
(49,990 posts)The party has several political currents. In international affairs, the party has viewed the European Union in very positive terms. It is also supportive of seeking membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The party wants to build "economically and politically stronger European Union, we envisage an EU that is a more effective and a more prominent actor in world politics".[5]
Polls show that as of 2008, the National Coalition Party is the party that has been viewed most positively by Finns[10] and its membership has been on the rise.[11] Out of the major parties, the National Coalition Party has the highest proportion of women (2005 statistics)[12] and is the most favored party among young generations (2008 statistics).[13] The party has strongest support in the cities of Southern Finland and is popular among entrepreneurs, although not associating in any particular social group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_Party
DFW
(54,378 posts)The new Finnish president would probably be blasted by our radical right as a "LIBBRUL SOSHALIST" along
with such other "libbrul soshalists" as Barack Obama. Our Republicans might even demand to see his birth
certificate to be sure he wasn't really born in Sweden.
"Conservative" in Europe usually only means what it does in the dictionary. In the USA these days, it seems
to mean "frothing-at-the-mouth right wing religious nut case with violent tendencies." At least, people like
that seem to delight in calling themselves "conservatives," while anyone who disagrees with them is a "liberal,"
a word they appear equally as incapable of correctly defining.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)In any case, Finnish Conservatives are probably pretty much like Democrats in the USA.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)In many cases they are more liberal then democrats because they all believe in universal healthcare. I am sure there are many people on this site who are "liberals" in the United States. But would be center-right in Europe.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)
pampango
(24,692 posts)Finland is one of those Nordic success stories where a strong economy comes with a relatively fair society. In the past couple of years, Finland has been at the top of charts for best schools in the world, income and gender equality, quality of life and the lowest levels of corruption. In 2010 Newsweek chose Finland as "the best country in the world".
These achievements can be largely credited to Social Democrats and their welfare state policies. They enjoy such support that even the conservatives don't dare to dismantle the system of free schools and universities, state-funded healthcare or benefits for the poorest. When talking about the crisis of the Finnish left, it should be remembered that their conservatives are way to the left of Britain's Tories. In a country where even the conservatives have labelled themselves "a labour party", what is the left needed for?
Many Finns are tired of picking up the bill for what they see as tax-dodging free-riding south Europeans. Their outrage has made life hard for the pro-European Social Democrats who have found themselves torn between international solidarity and populist sentiment at home. Indeed, in last year's parliamentary elections many embittered blue-collar workers turned to the nationalistic, anti-migration True Finns party.
From the far left the Social Democrats are challenged by the small Left Alliance, founded on the ruins of the pro-Soviet communist party in 1990. Lately the Left has been boosted by rising anti-capitalist sentiment. The young party leader Paavo Arhinmäki, a former street activist and an ardent Chelsea supporter, has the kind of student fanbase that Social Democrats can only dream of.
However, so far neither the True Finns nor the Left Alliance have fared particularly well. The result of the first round was a triumph for liberal-minded Finns. Both Sauli Niinistö and Pekka Haavisto are pro-Euro, cautiously pro-Nato candidates with years of international experience.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/02/finland-left-legacy-social-democrats
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)In such a case, the differences would be the degree of funding and whether wealthy folks could pay for additonal services.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)In much of Europe in general, and especially in Scandinavia, there is a strong commitment to the welfare state. Even the British Tories pay lipservice to preserving it, though they like to present lots of people as scroungers.
In the UK, we have a fairly diverse population, and a fair bit of racism and anti-immigrant bigotry. We also have, especially right now, a whipping up by the Right of suspicion and hatred of benefit claimants ('workshy'; 'scroungers'; etc.) But these hatreds only overlap slightly. There is sometimes a tendency by the Right to portray immigrants and racial minorities as welfare scroungers, but it's commoner to attack immigrants for the opposite - 'taking our jobs'.
In Europe, or at least the countries I know about, hostility to welfare claimants tends to involve class prejudice much more than racial prejudice.
In the UK, up till the time of Thatcher, we had the 'postwar consensus' between the main party leaders. Tories were certainly more favourable toward big business and the upper classes; Labour toward the unions - but the mainstream of both parties was in broad agreement about the importance of the full-employment state, the maintenance of public services, and the social safety net. In Scandinavia, this is still the case to a large extent.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Unfortunately we have the same trend here. The right demonizes welfare recipients as being lazy and a drag on society. Our right also constantly portrays immigrants and racial minorities as welfare dependents, though they also go after immigrants for the opposite - working too much and 'taking our jobs'.
Basically it seems to be a part of the right-wing playbook to whip up the "us vs them" hysteria whether it occurs in the US, the UK, the Netherlands, France, etc. The hysteria can be "Whites, watch out for those racial minorities." Or it can be "Citizens, watch out for those immigrants." Or "Straights, watch out for those gays."
It's a version of the divide-and-conquer strategy. If the right can keep me fighting with the minority, the immigrant, the gay who is as powerless as me, then those with positions of power and wealth can feel a little safer.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:25 AM - Edit history (3)
People forget Finland was Hitler's ALLY in WWII, now part of the alliance was due to the Soviet Union's attack of Finland in 1940, while Hitler was planning his attack on France. Through one of the reason the Soviet Union attacked Finland was Finland's refusal to give the Soviet Union more land between the Border of Finland AND what was then called Leningrad, now re-named St. Petersburg, Today the distance is 210 Kilometers or 130.5 Miles, in 1940 the distance was just 30 Kilometers or 18.5 miles
For more on the National Coalition Party:
http://countrystudies.us/finland/126.htm
On the "Continuation war" the war Finland fought with the Soviet Union as a German Ally till September 1944, when Finland agreed to peace terms on Soviet terms. The article clearly states the distance from Leningrad to the Finish Border was only 30 Kilometers or a little over 18.5 miles. This is within range of an 8 inch gun and the even larger Railroad guns know to be in German service at that time.
Please note the the "Guns" referenced at the bottom of this page are not "Howitzers" but "Guns". During WWII the difference was significant, 8 inch and 155 Howitzers tended to be kept at Corp Levels, while 8 inch and 155 guns were kept at Army level.
An Army Corp consist of approximately three divisions of about 15,000 men a piece. The Corp tends to have about another 30,000 men kept at Corp level as support troops, medical, supply and long range support (total of about 100,000 men in an Army Corp). During WWII the Corp support included the "Medium" Artillery of 8 inch and 155 Howitzers (Today, most Divisions have 155 self propelled artillery, anything heavier has been retired and replaced by Helicopters or other Air Support at Divisional or Corp level i.e. NO Artillery at Corp level today, replaced by Air Support). These "Medium Artillery" were not as mobile as the 105 mm Howitzers and 75 mm guns kept at Divisional level, but mobile enough to be moved on a day to day basis if needed.
Over and above An Army Corp is an "Army". Most "Armys" consisted of three or more Corps. It was at this level that you had your heavy Artillery during WWII, for these were hard to move and thus generally only moved when anything they could hit was out of range. It was at this level that the Heavy 8 inch, 155 mm "Long Tom". 240 mm Howitzers was used in the US Army in WWII. It was also at this level that you had the Railroad guns (Through some be attached at "Army Group" level, the next level up the chain of Command).
I went into the range of the 8 inch, 155mm and the German Railway GUNS to show why the Soviet Union objected to the Finish border being only 18 miles away from Leningrad. Even by 1940, 18 miles was a blink of an eye for high speed aircraft, 130 miles provided much more time for the Soviet's to react to any attack from Finland, which is apparently what the Soviet Union wanted in 1940, agreeing to it in 1940 AND again in 1944 (140 miles was clearly outside Artillery range of WWII era Artillery). Thus to increase the distance between Leningrad and the Border of Finland seems to be the main reason for the Soviet demand of the border being changed.
In 1944 in regards to Finland itself the Soviet Union only demanded that any party to the Right of the National Coalition party be outlawed AND the Communist party be legalized.
Just a comment on the Party and that it was at least acceptable to the Soviet Union in 1944, when Finland was about to be overrun by Soviet Troops. The Soviet offensive of 1944 had been stopped, but that was NOT for long and both Finland and the Soviet Union knew it, so a deal was made, all fighting in Finland stopped, both sides returned to the borders agreed to in the spring of 1940, and Finland provided troops to aid the Soviet attack on the Norwegian Iron processing plant in Northern Norway. The plant had been run by the Germans since 1940.
See M1 Eight Inch Gun of WWII:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_inch_Gun_M1
The M1 155 mm "Long Tom" Gun had a range of 15 miles, almost enough to hit any defensive position for Leningrad from Finland:
More on the M1 155 Gun:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=318
The German did field a 800mm railway gun during WWII, with a range of 48 KM, this was the "Gustav:, designed to take out the Maginot line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_cm_Gustav
But the "Standard" German railway gun, like its predessors in WWI, had a range of 64 KM or 40 miles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp_K5
Let me add the "Paris Gun" of WWI, and its range of 130 KM or 81 miles in 1918:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun