Okay, but it’s Denmark, one of the most efficiently run countries in the world.
In fact, the top rankings of global economies by living standards are completely dominated by multi-party democracies, while two-party semi-democracies and dictatorships find it much more difficult to pass effective legislation.
Not really though. The USA issue wasn’t discussed much if at all during the election campaigns, because parties from both sides are in agreement on this. It wouldn’t have moved any votes.
Also, the foreign minister who managed the issue well is not from the party in charge. Perhaps he personally benefitted from it, but all the parties in the previous coalition (including his) lost votes, mainly because voters didn’t like the unusual coalition. They’re going to do it again though. She surely didn’t call the election for his sake.
The timing probably had more to do with local news than international. The topics of water pollution, animal welfare, climate and food prices were already recently present before she called the election. It made sense that way.
The social democrats were leading a coalition in the previous government. Their leader called an early election in the hopes of capitalizing on the Greenland issue. They perhaps did not perform as well in the recent election as they hoped, but they are poised to lead the next coalition government nonetheless.
in the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is constant gridlock
The worst case scenario also being the most common.
Okay, but it’s Denmark, one of the most efficiently run countries in the world.
In fact, the top rankings of global economies by living standards are completely dominated by multi-party democracies, while two-party semi-democracies and dictatorships find it much more difficult to pass effective legislation.
Then Hopefully it will go well.
Out of curiosity, I understand it was set up by the party in charge to cement their power due to the us antagonism over Greenland, did they succeed?
Not really though. The USA issue wasn’t discussed much if at all during the election campaigns, because parties from both sides are in agreement on this. It wouldn’t have moved any votes.
Also, the foreign minister who managed the issue well is not from the party in charge. Perhaps he personally benefitted from it, but all the parties in the previous coalition (including his) lost votes, mainly because voters didn’t like the unusual coalition. They’re going to do it again though. She surely didn’t call the election for his sake.
The timing probably had more to do with local news than international. The topics of water pollution, animal welfare, climate and food prices were already recently present before she called the election. It made sense that way.
The social democrats were leading a coalition in the previous government. Their leader called an early election in the hopes of capitalizing on the Greenland issue. They perhaps did not perform as well in the recent election as they hoped, but they are poised to lead the next coalition government nonetheless.
seems like an OK outcome, thank you for clarifying, and understanding the shitty way I posted that question.