A bolder and clearer Siv – VG

Many people wonder if Siv Jensen is not tired and bored. Tired of guarding against the small ambush attacks of Carl I. Hagen, well aided by the forces in Oslo Frp. Tired of being the leader of a party. 14 years is a long time. Many suspect that she really misses herself as finance minister, or longs for a high-level international job away from old party leaders on the horn and other rioters.

Forget this.

In his speech to the national assembly exposed to the crown, there was a FRP leader who was bolder, clearer and more energetic than in a long, long time. After the party left the government, people have wondered what they have been talking about, but now they have woken up.

The question is still not bad. It is a mystery what motivates Siv Jensen now. First, he managed to lead the party into a historic government that few thought would have a long life. All predictions were shattered when the government was reelected. And when almost everyone thought that the FRP would not put aside life with energy and black cars, it took the party out of government. There is not much left to do.

The political landscape is not everyone to maneuver either. A new majority government happy with KrF and the Liberal Party appears as a castle of Soria Moria, if they never win the elections that much. Although the FRP does not like the idea of ​​Støre as prime minister, there is also insufficient motivation to avoid it.

So there is a chance that Siv Jensen really likes it. People around you point to a particularly well-developed competitive instinct and a strong desire to leave a “sparkly” party.

Today, the debate over what should dominate the FRP is the division between what we like to call the conventional FRP and those who want to steer the party in a national conservative direction. Jensen’s home team, Oslo, has been a driving force lately, led by Storting representatives Carl I. Hagen and Christian Tybring-Gjedde.

Earlier this week, Hagen submitted an eight-page note about a new address. The essence is a much stricter immigration policy, a more nationalistic attitude towards international cooperation and the fight against “climate hysteria”. Although they firmly believe that there is a pot of gold at that end of the political landscape, there is little empirical evidence to back it up.

It is guaranteed that there will be some voters who have little confidence in established politicians. At the same time, Oslo Frp, in good company with other large cities, has had little success with voters with this recipe. On the other hand, the party is doing very well in counties like Møre og Romsdal and Rogaland, where there is more talk of business and industry than national state and immigration.

Contrary to what many people seem to waste their energy, there should be a very open room simply because it is a fairly clean right-wing party in Norway.

Because while the Conservatives openly boast of having pushed the Labor Party politically to the left, the Conservatives have also moved to the center. That impression is greatly reinforced by government cooperation.

The tax relief has almost become an insult. Erna Solberg quickly put down the small tax revolt from the Conservative National Assembly. With the Liberal Party and the KrF in government, high taxes are an understatement, whether on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, CO₂, or anything else that pollutes or is not good for you. Solberg talks inside and outside about work and inclusion. Where the FRP wants to clip the county governor’s wings, the government has made a big deal out of changing the county governor’s name to something gender neutral. You don’t have to be a right-wing extremist to think it will be too much.

Aside from the fact that Siv Jensen was accused of taking on a Trump when she gave her opponents the nicknames “Vingle-Jonas”, “Ulve-Audun”, “Bompenge-Lan” and “Kommunist-Bjørnar”, there was little national conservatism. . .

The main lines of his speech were the struggle of the individual against the system, a broad side against the bureaucracy that “makes life difficult for the people”, the fight against taxes and the “patronage of Sweden”, better roads in the districts and more for retirees and residents of nursing homes.

Even on climate policy, which obviously divides the party, he argues that costly climate measures must have sufficient benefits and effects. “Just because you put the weather first, you can’t throw away taxpayers money after all the bad projects,” he said. You don’t have to be a weather denier to nod your head.

For VG, the party’s eldest son, Ketil Solvik-Olsen, said he wanted “a softer FRP that talks about immigration with consent.” He believes that harsh words scare many away and cast a shadow on party politics. He was reprimanded by Siv Jensen, who did not want to use consent at all.

So it was interesting what he actually said. There was little that reminded him of closed borders and that he assimilated immigrants in his speech. Instead, it boasted about entrepreneurial companies that employed immigrant women. Neither the fight against cousin marriage nor the critical review of development assistance funds should use a vote against in 2020.

Siv Jensen proved that it is possible to be rude, clear and sharp in opposition. Without pulling the piece one more millimeter to the outside right promised.