Fremskrittspartiet (FrP) (The Progress Party)

Annual National Convention - 2008

Location: Clarion Hotel Oslo Airport, Gardermoen (Norway)

Date: May 2. 2008

Speaker: Siv Jensen – Party Chairman

 

Thank you dear delegates and welcome to our Annual National Convention.

A few months ago we had local elections in Norway, and let me start by congratulating all of you for the best local election results in Fremskrittpartiet’s (FrP) history. Some people may have wished for a slightly better result, which just shows we cannot ever refrain from rolling up our sleeves, we cannot rest on our laurels, and we must work continuously to fight to convince every single voter that it is sensible to vote for FrP.

But the election result also showed that we received renewed trust in many of our [FrP controlled – ‘mayoral’] districts. We have received this (trust) because FrP has delivered results, because FrP keeps its word and because FrP prioritises the issues we say we will prioritise before an election. But we cannot do everything immediately. Even in FrP, council district issues must be approved before they can be put into effect. And it takes time, even in an FrP district council, to build a nursing home or to build a school. However, they are being built in FrP districts.

It is also a great honour for me to open FrP's 35th annual conference. 35 years old. A young and dynamic party, but an experienced and mature party. A party that is finished with its formative years and adolescent problems. A party with greater ambitions than to just be in opposition. A party that wants to implement its policies.

A favourite sport among many of our journalists is, of course, to write about scandals in FrP; about troubles, speculation, exclusions and so forth. Verdens Gang (VG; A Norwegian news publication) has done it today with a simplistic summary - an ordinary FrP member suddenly becomes one of its party ‘leaders’ (FrP leadership) if they do something wrong. But, if this happens in other parties, and take notice of this, it rarely makes the national newspapers and certainly not with a name and/or party affiliation, because that is just not sensational enough, because it's not the FrP. But we don't whine; we have learnt to live with it.

So, we are 35 years old. What was the Arbeiderpartiet (AP; Norwegian Labour Party) like when they were 35? AP was founded in 1887 and it took them (AP) 16 years before they were represented by four members in Stortinget (the Norwegian Parliament). But believe me, that party (AP) also had a great deal of trouble. After World War One (WW1), the party became quite radicalised and became a member of COMINTERN; international communists. That’s when the right wing of the party broke away and founded what became to be known as the Social Democratic Labour Party. Then, the party (AP) was excluded from the international communist movement, whereupon the left wing of the party broke with them and founded Norway's Communist Party.

In 1961, a number of leading members of the party were excluded for being too radical, especially in regards to NATO. These people founded the Socialist Peoples Party, better known today as the Socialist Left Party (SV). So, as you can hear, there has been an awful lot of rubbish coming out of the Arbeiderpartiet through the years!

But, it took 41 years from its foundation for AP to form its first government. 41 years! With Christopher Hornsrud as Prime Minister (PM); with a government that survived for just three weeks! I thought I'd just mention that.

A little later Norway entered into a long period of AP-lead governments. They ruled continuously from 1935 until 1963, and had a (controlling) majority in these governments from 1945 until 1960.

Let me say a few words about Venstre (V; (Social)Liberal Party of Norway) as well. Founded in 1884, they went straight into power.  There was only one other party to contend with, so it was possibly a little easier. But, they had their first party split after just 4 years; then the next one (party split) in 1909 and their third one in 1972.  And as if that wasn't enough, there was an important turning point in V's history in 1985 when V voted to support a pure AP government. V then fell out of parliament. That may be something to remember Lars Sponheim (V leader) now that you've said you would rather support Jens (Stoltenberg) rather than (Siv) Jensen.

But why am I spending time on this? I am spending time on this to illustrate that several parties have experienced troubled times in their formative years. It is completely natural until one finds ones form, ones style and ones place.

It was once completely unnatural to imagine AP forming a government. Now, no-one finds this strange at all. FrP is now at this threshold, and maybe it is us that will lead the country for the next 28 years. But, the challenge is that political power seems to be inherited in Norway. V, Høyre (H; Norway’s Conservative Party) and AP were all founded at the end of the 19th Century. They have all taken turns in forming governments between them. And, of course, you can do that when you have the support of the voting population. But it became more demanding after FrP, the country's second largest party, and at times the largest party, arrived on the scene. And from a birds eye view it seems more and more apparent that we are the annoying duckling that is disturbing the peace of the swan's pond.

In this pond, the swans have swum around for many decades and have had small arguments over power. But, has anything really changed that much? This is possibly the biggest reason for the increasingly popular contempt for politicians in that the largest voter group is the one that stays at home. Many voters are no longer motivated to vote because they don't want to listen to politicians arguing anymore. They realise that it doesn't make any difference anyway. But, along came the ugly duckling, told the truth, pointed out the imbalances, all the unfairness, revealed the emperors new suit, challenged the politically correct and, basically, disturbed the peace of the pond.

The foremost exponent of this, Carl I Hagen (The former chairman of FrP) is now retiring after a long career in politics. He has stated that he will not be seeking re-election in 2009. We will be thanking him properly at our next annual convention but I think he deserves a solid round of applause today. Thank you for leading the way and saying what people were thinking.

We shall now take this further. We shall continue to challenge the accepted truths, all the claims of ‘this is how it has to be: - that's the way it is’ or that FrP's solutions are far too basic and simple. Well, the easiest solutions are often the best. It doesn't have to be complicated, involving the use of lots of foreign words to get things to function in practice.

There was a time in Norway with just one TV channel and the ugly duckling (FrP) said, “Why? Let us have choices”. “Simplistic. Far too basic”, said the swan. But, what does this swan say today? Go back to one TV channel?  Absolutely unthinkable!

But the duckling continued, “Why can't we buy bread on a Sunday?” “Far too simplistic”, said the swan. But, what does this swan say today? “Close the shops on Sunday?” Absolutely unthinkable!

The duckling then attacks the phone monopoly; “Do we really have to be satisfied with one communications provider?” “Let us have competition so that prices can come down and quality can go up.” “Simplistic and irresponsible”, said the swan.

Now the duckling says; “Competition within the area of care for the elderly gives better quality and offers better services for the elderly” “Simplistic. Irresponsible”, said the swan. But what do you say? Is it too simplistic? Or is it time that this country’s elderly receive the care they have the right to expect?

“Stricter immigration and asylum policies” says the duckling.

“Simplistic. Irresponsible and an absolutely awful view towards people”, say the swans. But what do you say?
 

“Let the private sector build a hospital hotel (A hotel where family members stay whilst visiting a patient) at the Radium Hospital”, says the duckling.

“Simplistic, irresponsible, and even worse, it so dangerous with private sector solutions”, say the swans. But what do you say?

FrP refuses to accept that thousands of people live under the poverty line in the richest country in the world. It doesn't have to be like this. It is not too simplistic to suggest an increase in the people’s ability to provide for oneself. This is what gives people dignity; this is what gives them the ability to live their own lives, with minimal support (handouts) from the authorities; this is what FrP wants to give them.

We refuse to accept that, at any given time, almost 300,000 people are waiting in line for [health] treatment. It is not too simplistic to suggest a health reform that actually pays hospitals to perform operations. This is a system that works in other countries and will, of course, work in Norway as well.

In addition, FrP does not accept a situation where we do not treat our elderly and sick with dignity. It doesn't have to be like this. It is not too simplistic to suggest a re-organisation which legally entitles the elderly the right to receive proper care. However, it is (obviously) completely responsible to suggest the legal right to a nursery school place, or as they have now proposed, pass a law granting the right for pupils to receive apples in school. That is responsible. But to give the country’s elderly population a law granting them the legally binding right to decent care. That is simplistic and irresponsible. Understand that, those who can!

And we also do not accept that Norway has a lack of decent roads, that we have fewer kilometres of road than any other country in the western hemisphere. It is not too simplistic to propose creating an infrastructure fund to accelerate the road building program. Even H has adopted this thought, and it may be that when the idea comes from the mouth of a H politician, it is [suddenly] responsible, perfectly feasible. But when the suggestion comes from FrP, it is then too simplistic, irresponsible and not thought through.

And we also do not accept that our defence capabilities are being run down. It shouldn't just have to be like that and it is not too simplistic to propose an increase in the capital and operating budgets so that not all our defence resources are tied up on international operations but that we are able to defend our sovereign territory, if necessary.

And we also do not accept that our public buildings and cultural heritage go into decline because we do not maintain them properly. It is not too simplistic to propose that we invest some of our enormous wealth to take care of this.

And we, quite simply, do not accept that Norway obsessively saves its wealth at the cost of other things. We do not always have to follow the specific fiscal rule in the state budget for the use of petroleum revenues (Handlingsregelen) just because a bureaucrat invented it. We are allowed to think for ourselves, use healthy common sense, and FrP will follow, and currently follows, a responsible fiscal path.

Our budget proposals (repeated) result in lower interest rates and higher growth. Of course, yes we will save a little bit less in international securities, but we will use a little more to invest in our own country. In preservation; in infrastructure; in solutions that will enable more people to work instead of being on sick leave. We invest in peoples lives by allowing them to pay less in tax and other charges that the other parties believe are necessary. And we will invest, so that more people can get their dignity back; become less dependent on public subsidies and less dependant on politicians occupied with power. And it is so simple to give people back control over their lives. It is actually quite demanding because that makes politicians superfluous, which maybe the reason why the opposition from the other parties is so strong.

And let me ask, why is it responsible to allow an increasing amount of agriculture is switched to the production of bio-fuels when millions of people are starving because of this. Is the answer increased aid whilst continuing to produce less food? What is simplistic is to sit and contemplate these thoughts in the rich areas of the world, while sacrificing millions of people on the altar of bio-fuels.

But I have noticed, that even environmental minister Erik Solheim has said that we need to pause for thought. And I would remind you that FrP have been critical of this since the beginning. But we don't understand it, we just don't understand this. Bio-fuels are an important part of the [international] climate agreements, one of the compromises that H have vetoed, one of the compromises where H say that here FrP cannot expect any change. Does this mean that H are unwilling to renegotiate parts of the agreement that will, for example, ensure that there are no food shortages in the world? Or is the climate agreement so untouchable that it can't be the subject of negotiations because FrP are one of the participants. I just ask, and I repeat, for FrP everything is negotiable.

We have now turned our gaze towards 2009; we are a united party that is impatient but looks long-term.  We are a party that wants to implement its policies, not sit in government by the grace of others. Not drive black limousines, we want to renew Norway.

And to all of you that are tired of all the talking about co-operation, non co-operation, believe me, so are we. And it would be an advantage if the Norwegian media would start to communicate what the parties are concerned with and, not least, what people are concerned with. And what people want to know is what the parties stand for.

They want to know what the parties stand for, not what the commentators believe the parties stand for.

They want to know what will change if FrP was to gain power. They are not interested in knowing what our opponents believe will happen if FrP was to gain power.

And they are tired of hearing all the arguments on TV debates about who didn't do what in the last government. What they want to know is what is going to happen now? How is my future going to be? So please start to communicate these issues and we may be able to raise the standard of objectivity in the political arena so that people start to involve themselves more in what we actually do.

Per Kristian Foss and others in H; they are so disappointed that FrP has not made use of the opportunity to draw closer to the other non-socialist parties. V and the Kristelig Folkeparti (KrF; Norwegian Christian Democratic Party) say the same thing. But let me ask you Erna Solberg (H), Sponheim (V) and Høybråthen (KrF), in which areas have you drawn closer to FrP? In which areas have you been willing to compromise with us? In which areas have you shown to us that you are interested in collaboration; a binding collaboration; A government collaboration?

What I have registered however, is a pile of vetoes against large parts of FrP's political proposals. In that we aren't dressed smartly enough to be invited to a H party. On behalf of FrP, I hereby invite you, yet again, to a party. But to our party, you can come in both tracksuits and ball gowns.

But not just that, you can bring your entire party programme under your arm, all of your high profile issues and your distinctive character as independent parties. This is because FrP respect that people are different, and we respect that the parties are different. We would really like to seek a solution that unites the parties' distinctive characters and profiles, that should be possible. I am in fact certain that if the desire was there we would be able to create the best and most dynamic government declaration ever, without any party being humiliated or trivialised.

I would remind you again that we have, at no time, come out with a single ultimatum. We haven't made lists of difficult or hard issues in KrF, V and H even though we know they are there. This is because we know that if we are to resolve these issues with mutual respect, we don't achieve it by putting down vetoes in newspaper articles and on TV channels. We achieve it by meeting each other with respect, negotiate and seek a solution that we feel is best for the Kingdom of Norway during a period of government.

Michael Tetzschner, from H, formulated this quite well, and I quote "I get fed up with politicians who believe that voters of other parties are inferior, even when there are a lot more of them than they themselves will ever have." And he continued "It is somewhat audacious to dream of sitting in a minister's privilege car based on the support of voters of parties that they will not even negotiate with". That is incredibly well said. Not only is it well said, it is true and let me now say on behalf of FrP; FrP will no longer support a government of which they are not a part of.

FrP does not want to be in the government for the sake of appearances, we will renew Norway and that is why we can wait, until you and others make it possible for us to implement our policies. We do not want to have to stumble along taking tiny steps, and we do not want to be a part of the peaceful swans' pond either. We want to renew Norway, and whilst we encourage yet again co-operation with others, we are fully capable of seeing this through ourselves.

Every time I am out and about, talking to people, in their workplaces and homes, they shake their heads in despair over all of the broken promises, over everything that's left undone, that their elderly mother cannot get a place in a nursing home or over such simple things as Mullah Krekar still being a free man. They shake their heads in despair at the police having to drop cases due to time pressure, at having to spend twice as long getting to work because of the poor road network; that we are seriously considering using half a billion kroner in funding for an Olympic games in Tromsø, but we cannot afford to build a hospital hotel. This, they shake their heads at!

An FrP government would change this because we want to renew Norway. We want to re-negotiate international treaties if they stand in the way of our dealing with Mullah Krekar, we won't do as our current government does and passively claim that there are some treaties in the way, so they can't do anything. Many countries seem to have experienced problems with treaties entered into in a different age, so we must lead by example and re-negotiate those treaties so they become modern and up to date and reflect the fact that we have, unfortunately, to do with a world more threatened by terrorism than it was a few years ago.

An FrP government will also strengthen the police and prison services. We don't want the solution here to be to let prisoners out early because of a shortage of cells. We have to increase capacity so that people who are convicted of crimes have to serve their sentences, pay their debt in a society governed by law that desires its citizens to be law abiding.

An FrP government will prioritise the most important issues first; ahead of an Olympics in Tromsø; ahead of other expensive affairs. We will renew elderly care so that the focus is on the elderly themselves, so that they can choose and decide for themselves. We shall not hang on to the current system just because that's the way it's always been. This doesn't have to be the case. Statutory right to elderly care, freedom of choice, and more than one supplier of those services. It is not a threat, it is a benefit and I would wish that it were possible to get that into the heads of the socialist politicians. 

Dear Jens [Stoltenberg, PM], an FrP government will build more roads, and better roads, not just bicycle paths.

And we will pursue realistic climate and environmental policies, realistic policies that do not sacrifice the poor, but rather allows them to participate in the creation of prosperity. They must also be given access to reasonably priced electricity and energy. It is not enough to say as Fredrik Hauge (Bellona) does, who incidentally spends all of his time getting in and out of planes in Norway and abroad, and excuses himself with the message being more important than all the CO2 he releases (he does, after all, buy climate quotas so he's excused), but his answer is that electricity must become more expensive. That is some message to be sending to an impoverished farmer in Africa who doesn't have electricity and who can barely afford food,that yes, you can have electricity….expensive electricity!

There are 1.6 billion people who are in this type of situation. They are going to demand to participate in the prosperity that we are so much part of. So we must have realistic policies that develop technological solutions in co-operation with industry; that increase the production of energy and electricity, and that seek new solutions through research. That is what an FrP government will do.

Returning back to the climate agreement again, we did actually concur with large parts of it. We agreed with new negotiations regarding green certificates, we agreed with an increased emphasis on research and development, we agreed with the need for technological developments and we agreed with the need for more renewable energy production. What we didn't agree with, were the symbols, the unrealistic symbols that were to be elevated to show the world that they possessed abilities and drive. But there has not been a single measure approved so far. What has actually happened is that 30 FrP proposals have been rejected. That is what has happened.

FrP will renew our school system so that our children are able to concentrate in class; so that they have skilled and motivated teachers; so that they receive more tuition in the basic subjects. So that they can actually read, write and count when they leave school.

And our government will renew the integration policies, or I should perhaps say we will introduce integration in Norway. So that everyone who lives in this country contributes to society, can speak Norwegian and has the chance to experience a free society with freedom of speech and equal opportunity. Many female immigrants must wonder why they ever fled from dictatorships and injustice when the society they now live in allows their husbands to practice sharia law and carry out assaults behind closed doors.  FrP will not allow that to happen.

An FrP government will allow hospital hotels to be built by the private sector; we will applaud it and actively seek to promote it. It is a completely meaningless subject, but let me say this to you Hanne Harlem (AP, Chairperson of the South East Health District), you only need to say one word, and that is yes. Say yes Hanne Harlem!

And an FrP government will reduce the scope of politics, because it isn't the case that politicians need to be involved in absolutely everything that happens in people’s lives. It may even be the case that the best thing for our country’s citizens is that they were given back control over their own lives. That we politicians refrain from making decisions regarding all aspects of their lives and concentrated on the important issues. And not only concentrate on the important issues, but do something about them. That is why it is important for FrP to reduce bureaucracy, to reduce all the bans, orders and decrees and because it saves us enormous amounts of money, amounts of money that are your taxes. In that way it is possible to invest in a better society, give people lower taxes and charges, and manage our national wealth in a way that will also benefit future generations.

So, FrP wants to renew Norway, we can renew Norway and we will renew Norway as long as you help us. Jump down from the fence, join us in getting Norway out of the swans' pond, and be one of those who give FrP the chance to renew Norway.