..out of the dark

(Text reads: Think what would happen if ordinary people were to start taking money off OUR oil- fortune.)

Most notably through attempting to highlight problems with the government parties - of which there are many, of course (since half of our politicians are stark raving mad, and will continue to push suggestions that has no possibility of passing committee, much less give any form of political boost) - but without actually promoting any solutions on their own. A mistake which is the same mistake the group Civita succeeded - which is "Libertas" - managed to jump into with both feet on several occations in the past. And which resulted in that any political issue "the right" would attempt to attack "the left" on, often was seen as nothing but an attempt to cover over their own deficiencies and lack of vision, no matter how good of a case they may or may not have actually had. While it also would reduce the level of the debate, and attach very quickly something inherently dishonest about anything brought up in the official debates. And so reduce the participation at the elections, and so lend the victory to the most bloody- minded idiots and the impulsive, uneducated moron (Read: 45% votes to FrP(the "Advancement Party". (So liberal they've voted against suggestions from their own party in parliament several times)).

Example: the idea, fronted by Høyre, that it would be perfectly reasonable to vote for individual issues on the local elections, even though the particular issue would flatly contradict the stated policy the government was elected on completing. Without this - as Høyre would consistently point out - actually being interpreted as a kind of vote of confidence on the government party's politics. Not at all, of course. Curiously, this fantastically impressive gambit actually backfired. Imagine that.

But in the end it was Hydro, the biggest "state- owned" company in Norway, and their board of directors, that eventually succeded in initiating the campaigns for real. Noone of course knows how this issue managed to become so overblown all of a sudden right now, of course, just in time for the elections... , but the fact of the matter is that this case provides the perfect challenge to this current left- coalition, as it will enable them to relentlessly push a number of key policy issues, and demonstrate that they can deliver on them at the same time.

It is also time, now, for a debate on how wise it is to renege government control of previously state- owned companies - without clear and purposeful guidelines on what is put in place in the future, for instance in a transition- period. And it will be something that hopefully "the right" will understand very quickly that they may be able to compete with "the left" on, due to that what they are allegedly advocating is "responsible" market economy that indeed benefits the companies, and thus the workers and the country in general. An aspect that this government has - curiously - completely abandoned for some reason.

The current scandal when it comes to Hydro's record high bonus- payments to the directors does of course not offer that sort of options. And the only opening for criticism here is that the government didn't act responsibly, and should have made their case clearer earlier on in the board (and that they therefore created a political case out of nothing in order to cover up for their own ineptitude). Even though that too will backfire when stated by a party supposed to argue for less government involvement, as this would mean they demand the government should go beyond acting like a share- holder (with 50% shares), and start making more immediate demands, rather than simply make suggestions on what would be wise company policy and profile).

Specifically, it would mean arguing that Hydro had transparently had these deals approved by the board, and then was axed in the back by the opportunistic politicians that suddenly had a fit of conscience about paying several millions in extra bonuses to the leaders of the company due to the recent rise in oil- prices and otherwise the value of the company. Which they previously would've thought was perfectly fine. Even though the board had approved a specific instruction that these optional bonus- deals should not exceed 'one years salary', etc.

In other words, a difficult case to make unless you're an idiot. But sure one that will be endlessly harped on nonetheless.

Of course, the real winner here will be the current government, and the polticians that now take the opportunity to take to task the popular issue of just how high the leader- salaries are supposed to be. Instead of skirting that issue, as the left has done so often before. And they will be given the opportunity to do so responsibly, in a very safe way, due to the fact that the actual yearly salaries are not an issue in this particular case. It is the extra bonus- deals that are the problem here. And the deals that are made internally in the board, rather than through a real negotiation. Once again, this makes certain lingering demands of "the Left", and the Labour Party in government, since they are a shareholder with 50% shares. And so on.

It furthermore involves the labour organisations closely due to the coming negotiations on the general salaries. And it will be very bad policy for the government, and also for the companies and their boards, to have leaders demanding acceptance for these kinds of deals now, if they are to gain any credibility when angling for a tight raise in the general salaries next year. Something which is increasingly becoming an important issue for this government, not just because of the concerns on the local level and the national level - but also for the more global level, since a lower general level of salaries is paramount if Norway are to be able to compete with foreign labour force in the future (and avoid creating the modern equivalent of slave trade, as well as forcing foreigners into ghettos, rather than integrating them as real citizens). Something which this government has now had an opportunity to rediscover as an important issue this past year, after a conspicuous lack of interest in such a politically charged thing.

(Just a little more, I promise, and you can go back to frying your head with the regular news).

So - who will win the local election. We vote, as you know, on individual parties and their lists of representatives (which most don't know who are). And on many elections - especially this one - the parties that will win most votes will be the ones to strike an appealing balance between national issues and local issues, while connecting a thread through them. Such as: gas- prizes are too high, and all politicians are scum - vote for us, and we'll continue to try and limit our wasting of your taxes as much as we are able to concievably be trusted to promise, so you can hope to buy more gas (and booze), which is what it's really all about, see(?). Or, perhaps something like capturing a common issue among the labour- organisations and issues on a number of different fields - from education to life at the work- place - and then create a context in which local issues and local politics do not get gobbled up by the national issues. And conversely that the national issues are not made trivial and inconsequential by the local politics. But rather a two- way street.

No party or coalition can manage the latter option, of course. But in this case, it may be very close. I.e, the Labour party will be the winner of this election. So the young and vibrant Høyre- youth of the sort that gleefully predicts the fall of statist tax- supporting hippies and their stalinist brethren - may not be on the winning team this time.

Of course - by all means - let me not discourage anyone. That would be unhelpful for the debates ahead, after all. All views are of course welcome.



(..hm. You know. I think I need to work on my sarcasm a bit.)


(For Norwegian readers, on CIVITA: http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2003/06/29/372420.html) Yes, I'm linking to a Dagbladet- article. No, look, calm down.