Thorbjørn Jagland on the decline of the Labor Party: –

– It is the Center Party that has picked up the uprising that we now see. But there is still time for the elections, says Jagland.

Despite the miserable polls for his party, Jagland believes that the new party program will make the Labor Party recognizable and attractive to voters.

– It will be sensational if the Labor Party does not become the largest party. The main strength of the Labor Party is the opportunity to create an alliance between employees, the state and private capital, which is necessary to build the new industrial society, Jagland tells Dagbladet.

– Befriende

After ten years in Europe, outside of Norwegian politics, the former Labor leader, prime minister and foreign minister is in Norway. His time as Secretary General of the Council of Europe ended last autumn. Since then, he has dedicated time to the first part of his memories, and especially to enjoying life as a retiree and a grandfather.

– Coming home has been fantastic. Being retired cannot be underestimated, says Jagland and laughs out loud.

– Many warned me, and said that I would miss being awake at all. But no, it is wonderful to be able to have the time as you want and dedicate it to their interests. It was a liberation. This fall, for the first time, I have been fishing lobster. And in Risør, where we live, we have a miniature garden center. Such things. And then we have two grandchildren! It is much bigger than you could have imagined. They are two diffusers of humor, says Jagland.

Demanding years

It has also been liberating, he says, to come out with his version of the inner life at the top of the Labor Party. But he has also demanded, especially to write about the years from 1997, when his government resigned by “ultimatum 36.9”, until he resigned as party leader in 2002, and Jens Stoltenberg took office after several years of fighting.

– I’m glad I didn’t write then and have expressed my feelings, but I waited until I took the distance and could describe more soberly what happened, says Jagland.

In his political biography “My Story”, Jens Stoltenberg writes that in the fall of 2001 he met close employees in secret and led factional activities against party leader Thorbjørn Jagland.

Shocked by Stoltenberg’s admission

Play behind the scenes

– When I sat in Strasbourg and watched Stoltenberg admit this on television, it was a relief and a wonder. I can only understand that he knew that sooner or later this would come to light, and that it was better that he tell it himself. But he was also quite sad.

– Because when a deputy leader gets involved in such a game behind the scenes and the party secretary was in the notes, what kind of culture does he develop internally within the party? Jens also writes that there were clear connections between those who met at Bislett’s apartment and certain press circles. It raises many questions of principle both for the press and for a political party, Jagland believes.

During a national board meeting after the disaster election in 2001, when the Labor Party received 24.3 percent, the ministers anonymously demonstrated in VG against Jagland and said that Stoltenberg should take over as leader.

– I was Secretary of State in the very demanding situation after the terrorist attacks in New York on September 11. In his book, Stoltenberg writes that it was about Bjarne Håkon Hanssen and Karita Bekkemellem. It surprises me that no one is willing to dispute my reasoning on this, that two ministers are attacking a foreign minister in the midst of the worst international crisis after the war. Does the press have the right to allow ministers to appear anonymously? Our state system assumes that we have ministers who make their names known when they speak in public.

– But this was a party affair, wasn’t it?

– Yes, but there were also attacks on the Chancellor. When it happens anonymously, it appears as an abuse of power. The whole business of secret meetings, leaks to the press and anonymous ministers raises the question of how decisions should be made. Are there hidden channels that can be used to divert a person? Are there hidden connections or open processes and votes that will determine the options? These are important questions for democracy, says Jagland.

The battle with Stoltenberg: Jagland’s version

– It was Jens’ project

– When you look back at the leadership battle now, what do you think is the reason? For example, was it related to “36.9” when you announced the resignation of the government because the Labor Party did not achieve that result in 1997?

– It is clear that there was disagreement about what happened in 1997, I also write about that. But if you strongly disagree, you should mention it. If you want to fire a person, you have to make a proposal and vote on it. In a democracy, people are not deposed, but rejected. I have not received any political explanation for what happened. But there was a turnaround when we regained power from the government in 2000, says Jagland.

In a Dagbladet column on December 10, the strong growth of Jagland Sp and the decline of the party are related to the privatization of state-owned companies and the new public management of the public sector, inspired by Tony Blair’s “third way”.

“The voters did not like what they saw. The Labor Party won 24.3 per cent in the 2001 elections. And as in Britain and Germany, the party had to struggle with its experiments in the following years. Despite the fact that the red-green government that emerged in 2005 had a clear majority in the Storting and the highest incomes ever available, it ended with the Conservatives and the Progress Party winning the majority in the Storting. Now privatization could begin with full, “Jagland wrote.

– I could not do anything

– But you were the leader of the party until 2002, so you have a co-responsibility, right?

– What happened was that Jens assumed the position of candidate for prime minister and prime minister. The consequence of the choice I made was that Jens would be responsible for the government project. Of course, that meant that he had lost a lot of influence as the leader of the party. And if he raised his voice, there was always someone who leaked to the press, and that’s how they talked about division. I couldn’t do anything about it.

– I was skeptical of the sudden change that occurred. It was too short a time for the elections, and not a time to anchor properly. I supported it publicly, including the partial privatization of Statoil. I write in the book that I am not proud to be a part of it.

– Are you saying that the government project did not have its roots in the party?

– Was not. A government declaration was presented, but it did not work, and he explained to the party what the specific follow-up would be. Several of the elements were strange and created conflicts. “The Third Way” was good for Labor in the UK, but there was no need for such a thing in Norway. Restructuring and modernization were part of our thinking in the “freedom debate” in the Labor Party in the 1980s. We did not have a Labor side in 2000.

Centralization machine

– Do you mean that the progress of the Center Party begins with the ideas that came with the government of Stoltenberg I?

Jagland’s advice to Jonas: – Wait

– Yes, they began to divide the state, says Jagland, and recounts the experience of returning home to Norway after ten years abroad:

– I saw a great change, all the buildings that were built in a short time in the big cities, especially in Oslo, a huge centralization machine. In addition to this, the state has become a driving force in increasing income disparities. People feel that the state they saw as their own, as a tool to create a balance between city and country, and to continue to contribute to a uniform distribution of income, is about to disappear.

– Through a very tough struggle, the Labor Party succeeded in making the state available to all the people. That it is missing is one of the reasons for the protests that the Center Party is capturing. The Labor Party has been half-involved in much of what has happened and therefore has not been so well placed to capture the outcry that may come, says Jagland.

– But did two periods of Red-Green government break with the policy of Stoltenberg I?

Well, the red-green government had a clear majority and the highest revenue ever available. But it was never possible to gather all the children around the same meal in schools once a day. Gerhardsen did it with school breakfasts after the war in a much poorer country, says Jagland.

Press adviser to NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg Sissel Kruse Larsen says Stoltenberg recounted his version of his time as a Norwegian politician and prime minister in his autobiography.

– You have nothing to add beyond this, she says.