Part 1: The elections of 2001 and 2005

A. 2001: The shocking defeat of the Labour party

Parliamentary elections were held on 10th September 2001 - the day before the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.

The most important results were a historic defeat of the governing Labour party and a doubling of the votes for the Socialist Left Party (SV) within a general shift to the right: The Labour Party lost almost twice as much as the Socialist Left Party won.

In table 1 the parties have been grouped in the traditional categories of left, centre and right.

Table 1:
% votes Members in parliament

1997 2001 2005 1997 2001 2005

The Left: 42,7 38,0 41,5 74 66 76

The Labour Party 35,0 24,3 32,7 65 43 61
The Socialist Left Party 6,0 12,5 8,8 9 23 15
The Red Electoral Alliance 1,7 1,2 1,2 - - -

The Centre: 26,1 21,9 19,2 42 34 32

The Centre Party 7,9 5,6 6,5 11 10 11
The Christian Peoples' Party 13,7 12,4 6,8 25 22 11
"The Left" (the misleadingly-named
liberal party) 4,5 3,9 5,9 6 2 10

The Right: 29,6 35,8 36,2 48 64 61

"The Right" (the conservative party) 14,3 21,2 14,1 23 38 23
The Progressive Party (populist right) 15,3 14,6 22,1 25 26 38

Splinter parties 1,6 4,3 3,1 1 1 0

Sum 165 165 169

During the election campaign SV advocated a closer and stable political cooperation between the Labour Party, SV and the Centre Party in the new parliament - in the hope of creating a majority basis for a new government, either through a political agreement between the three parties, or through establishing a common government. These three parties had until 2001 always had a comfortable majority in the Norwegian parliament. One of the main changes at the election in 2001 was that this majority was lost because of the weak result for the Labour party.

As a result of the elections in 2001 a minority centre-right government was established. The parliamentary basis of the government was extremely weak, 62 of 165 seats.

The centre-right government had a majority of ministers from "The Right" (the conservative party), but the prime minister was Kjell Magne Bondevik from the Christian Peoples' Party. "The Left" (in reality the centrist liberal party) was the third party in the government with only two seats in the parliament.

The new government was a weak one also because of great internal tensions. The Right (the conservative party) was able to force through huge cuts in taxes, against the wishes of the two parties from the centre of Norwegian politics, which would have wanted to give the government a social profile closer to what the parties of the left demand.

The new centre-right government could only be established by relying on the support of the unpredictable and somewhat xenophobic Progress Party. This party feeds on law-and-order issues and on anti-immigrant feelings in part of the electorate, but gets most of its voters from its populist social profile which includes lavish promises of better services for all who need it, with special focus on elderly and sick people.

B. Dimensions of conflict in the party spectrum of Norway

The main dimension of conflict within the Norwegian party structure divides the parties in ways that confuse foreign observers - as well as many Norwegian voters.

In social questions, for instance questions concerning taxes, social and health services, labour law etc., the usual right-wing dimension dominates. But the centre parties are often close to the parties of the left, and the Progress Party may also support "left" points of view from time to time.

In questions concerning structural changes of the economy (privatisation, favouring market solutions in sectoral and regional policies, membership in the EU) the neo-liberal pole in Norwegian politics has comprised the dominating structures of the Labour Party in addition to the two parties of the right. The Labour Party has tried to hide its sliding towards neo-liberal solutions as well as it can. Its leaders are in this respect more similar to Jospin than to Schröder and Blair. The Centre Party has in the last decade developed positions very close to SV positions in most of these fields of politics - and has located itself definitely to the left of the Labour Party. The other two parties of the political centre have been sliding towards neo-liberal positions in the same way as the Labour Party.

In environmental questions and questions of international solidarity (development aid, refugee policies) one finds the three centre parties and the Socialist Left Party on one side, fighting for greener policies and more solidarity with peoples outside Norway. The four parties are also the parties opposing Norwegian membership in the European Union.

In the 1990s the long-term strategic goal of the Socialist Left Party was to build political alliances with the parties of the centre on specific questions affecting structural policies in addition to environmental and solidarity questions. The idea was to put pressure on the Labour Party in order to make it difficult for the party to go on sliding further towards neo-liberal positions - and also in order to isolate the two parties of the right.

This strategy was only partly successful, and mainly in relation to the political development of the Centre party, traditionally the farmers' party of Norway. The Centre party became gradually a reliable supporter of the public sector, opposing privatisation and market options in the municipalities.

More important was, however, the political reorientation within the trade union movement. Traditionally, the main trade union movement (LO) has worked very closely with the Labour Party, so closely that they have been considered to be "Siamese twins".

During the 1990s, many branch unions as well as the central trade union leadership have been forced to recognise that the Labour Party could no longer be trusted on several questions of great importance to trade unionists, among them market orientation and privatisation of telecommunications, post, railways and other public services. Several times branch unions had to work through SV parliamentarians in order to persuade the Labour Party group in parliament to listen to trade unions' complaints and proposals.

This change in relations between the trade unions and the Socialist Left Party became very visible during the last months before the election in 2001. At the Trade Union Congress in May 2001, for the first time in history, SV's leader was invited as a guest to the Congress. The same Congress voted, against the advice of the leading bodies, to give SV part of the money planned as a contribution to the election campaign of the Labour Party. This increased the SV campaign budget by 25%. And most important, the Central Trade Union and many branch unions stated publicly that voters must defend their interests by voting either for the Labour Party or for the Socialist Left Party.

C. The development of the alliance strategy of the Socialist Left party

Until 1993 there was no real discussion inside the Socialist Left Party on the question of mutually binding cooperation with the Labour Party in parliament or in government. The differences of size (above 40 % against 5-6 %) and in political views were considered too big.

Good SV election results in 1989 (10%) and at local elections in 1991 (12 %) changed the climate of discussion. After heated debates, the party congress in 1993 adopted a resolution advocating closer cooperation with the Labour Party and the Centre Party - on certain conditions. The Labour Party did not give any answer to this initiative - and many left voters decided to vote Labour since SV wanted to cooperate with the Labour Party anyway.

This disappointing experience prevented any new initiative from the Socialist Left Party for the election campaign in 1997. On the other hand, other frustrating facts of more crucial importance accumulated. In parliament several minority governments by the Labour party sought during the 1980s and 1990s the support of the Socialist Left party in social questions - and support from the right when they turned to neo-liberal policies (deregulation, privatization etc.).

The party leadership - and gradually the rank-of-file of the members - came to the conclusion that this situation could only be broken by drawing the Labour Party into an alliance where forces outside the parties could help prevent the ascendancy of Labour's neo-liberal tendencies.

The SV Congress of 2001 decided that the party would work for firmer cooperation with Labour - either as part of a coalition government - or by supporting a Labour minority government based on a binding agreement with a satisfactory political content. The Labour Party did not answer, but plummeted from 35 % in 1997 to 24 % in 2001 - because part of their core electorate had become thoroughly disillusioned by the party's policies.

The congress of 2005 decided that the Socialist Left Party now had only one option for cooperation with the Labour party, a coalition government including the Centre party, provided the three parties had a majority in parliament after the election in September 2005. At last the Labour Party leadership was willing to listen.

D. The election of 2005

The disastrous results of the 2001 election and the pressure from different parts of the trade union movement forced the leadership of the Labour Party to change its election strategy. LO began as early as the autumn of 2004 what was called "The long election campaign" with the aim of establishing a left majority government after the election of September 2005.

As leader of the Labour Party, Jens Stoltenberg declared publicly that the Labour Party was prepared, for the first time in its history, to enter a coalition government with other parties, if possible with the Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party. Party congresses of the three parties approved this aim during the spring of 2005, and the parties fought the election campaign with the same main message to the voters: The three parties campaigned on separate political platforms but with a common, well publicised intention to establish a common government if they managed to get a majority in the parliament.

The centre-left alliance of Labour, SV and the Centre Party, calling itself "The red-green alliance", came out victorious in the parliamentary election on Monday 12th September.

The victory was very narrow (87 against 82). A few thousand voters voting differently in a couple of election districts might have changed the majority into a minority.

In table 2 the parties have been grouped according to the two government alternatives at the election in 2005:

Table 2:

2001 2005 mandates

The Centre-Left alliance 42,4 48,0 87
The Labour party 24,3 32,7 61
The Socialist Left party (SV) 12,5 8,8 15
The Centre party 5,6 6,5 11

The parties of the previous government 37,5 26,8 44
The Right (comparable to EPP parties) 21,2 14,1 23
The Christian People's party 12,4 6,8 11
The Left (a liberal party) 3,9 5,9 10

The Progressive party (populist right) 14,7 22,1 38

The Red Election Alliance (left of SV) 1,2 1,2 0

The Socialist Left party (SV) lost heavily compared to the election in 2001 - and even more compared to the polls. Most opinions polls between the elections of 2001 and August 2005 showed results for the Socialist Left Party between 14 and 18 percent. The main government parties lost even more, as many of their voters went to the populist right.

There are several reasons for the loss of voters for the Socialist Left Party. Here are four of them:

1. Together with the trade unions, SV has during the last couple of years been able to force Labour to adopt more radical policies: for instance proclaiming a break with their previous policy of privatisation and their policy of introducing market competition in the health and social services. This made the Labour Party leaders sound like left socialists in the election campaign. This situation was worsened by the fact that our most prominent campaigners did not come out clearly on the strategically important and persistent political differences between SV and Labour both in questions of foreign policy and in questions of structural economic policy.

2. Our opponents to the right attacked the Labour Party mainly by attacking the Socialist Left Party. They tried to scare the voters through a fierce campaign against "the red danger" using all kinds of true and untrue accusations which put us too much on the defensive. The scare campaign did not achieve its goal: to prevent a centre-left victory at the elections, but part of our potential support did vote Labour.

3. Many voters wanted first of all to get rid of the present government, and voted for the Labour Party to achieve that goal.

4. Certain parts of the election campaign of the party contributed to the setback by concentrating attention on issues of minor importance both for the voters and for the party and thus attracting attacks by our political opponents and by media involving us in backtracking and unsuccessful attempts of self defence.

E The negotiations and the establishment of a centre-left government

The negotiations between the three parties lasted three weeks, and were as tough as they ought to be. The election gave the Labour Party more than twice as many votes as the two smaller parties combined (32,7 % against 15,3 %) - and therefore a strong negotiating position.

The result of the negotiations were in many respects astonishing.

1.The government platform is a long (74 pages), detailed and, on many issues surprisingly concrete document - far away from the brief, general platform that would have served the interests of the dominant partner in the government.

2. The 19 ministers are distributed as follows: 10 for the Labour Party, 5 for the Socialist Left party a and 4 for the Centre Party - giving the Labour Party the smallest possible majority in the government.
3. The Socialist Left Party got the minister of finance, the minister of education, the minister for environment, the minister for renewal of public services and the minister for development aid and conflict prevention.
4. The platform is on many issues definitely to the left of the election program of the Labour Party. This applies to the international policies as well as economic, regional and social policies.
5. The most important change in policies is the commitment to stop deregulating public services in the state sector and the different commitments to work for the same aim in relations to developing countries within international institutions as the World Bank and the United Nations.

Part 2: The platform of the centre-left government (The Soria Moria platform)

This summary of the government platform concentrates on the chapter on foreign policy, chapter two of the platform. (The chapter can be found at www.sv.no by clicking at the "English" icon.) The remaining chapters, chapter 3-17, are summarised very briefly as their concrete content is difficult to evaluate without explaining in detail the economic and social situation in Norway and the political background for the specific proposals.

A. Foreign policy

Some of the main differences between the three parties have been - and still are - on questions of foreign policy, on the relation to the EU, on global liberalization, on NATO and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The foreign policy compromise is based on three elements, expressed like this in the platform: "The main lines of Norwegian foreign policy are firmly fixed, including strong support of the UN and international law, Norway´s membership of NATO, the EEA Agreement and Norway´s non-membership of the EU.".

This means that The Labour party accepts that Norway stays outside of the European Union (as long as the government lasts), the Socialist Left party accepts that the government is based on Norway's membership of NATO and EEA, and the Centre Party, being a staunch supporter of NATO membership, accepts that the government is based on membership in the EEA (See below.)

1. No application for Norwegian membership in the European Union

It is explicitly stated that "the Government will not apply for Norwegian EU membership." This was the precondition demanded by both the Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party for entering a coalition government with the Labour Party.

Since 1994 Norway has been a member of the European Economic Area through an agreement with the EU which makes Norway part of EU's internal market. On the EEA it is stated: "It must be ensured that Norwegian interests can be safeguarded more effectively and at such an early stage that we have an opportunity to influence EU decisions of importance to Norway, be it through the EEA Agreement or in some other way. If other means fail, the Government will consider exercising the right to make reservations that follows from the EEA Agreement if Norwegian interests of special importance are threatened by legislative acts that are planned to be inserted in the EEA Agreement."

"The Government will follow up on good environmental initiatives from the EU and will use the best aspects of the EU´s environmental protection legislation, including where these are not covered by the EEA Agreement. The Government will stand firm on the exemption that we were granted in the EEA Agreement, in accordance with which Norwegian authorities decide which genetically modified products can be introduced, marketed and sold in Norway."

"The Government will work to ensure that the EU does not implement a Service Directive that results in social dumping."

2. A more critical attitude to global liberalization

As part of the globalization-critical movement the Socialist Left together with ATTAC Norway and the broad NGO-front in Norway Social Forum has strongly criticised Norwegian policies in the WTO, the World Bank and IMF. The Centre Party has shared part of this criticism, while the Labour Party has accepted and - in its own periods in government - led policies which have been indistinguishable from the policies of other European countries and of the USA.

Although some leading members of the Labour Party from time to time have paid lip service to a critique of global liberalization, some of the points below - quoted from the Government platform - came as a big surprise to activists in the globalization-critical movement.

A change in Norwegian policies concerning liberalisation through the World Bank and IMF

"The Government will:work to ensure that the multilateral aid is increasingly switched from the World Bank to development programmes and emergency aid measures under the auspices of UN agencies. Norwegian aid should not go to programmes that contain requirements for liberalisation and privatisation; support a democratisation of the World Bank and the IMF. Developing countries must be given much greater influence, among other things by ensuring that the voting right is not solely linked to capital contributions; lead the way in the work to ensure the debt cancellation of the poorest countries´ outstanding debt in line with the international debt relief initiative. The costs of debt cancellation must not result in a reduction of Norwegian aid, cf. the adopted debt repayment plan. No requirements must be made for privatisation as a condition for the cancellation of debt."

A change in Norwegian policies in WTO

"Rich countries´ export subsidies are currently very damaging to poor countries and middle-income countries in terms of both domestic markets and export opportunities. The Government will support the work to ban all export subsidies through the WTO."

The Government´s basic position is that the WTO rules must not deprive poor countries of the management right and means that have been important in developing our own society into a welfare society.

Regarding trade in services under the framework of the GATS Agreement, the Government will review and reassess the Norwegian positions. Norway should not make demands of poor countries that may entail a weakening of the possibilities of developing strong public services in health and education. Nor should Norway favour an agreement that may force privatisation of public services in Norway.

Decisive importance must be attached to ensuring access to low-priced medicines against life-threatening diseases (HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis) in poor countries in connection with the international negotiations on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (the TRIPS Agreement).

The Government will: review and reassess all requirements that Norway has made for developing countries regarding liberalisation of the services sector in the GATS negotiations; attach importance to ensuring increased openness about the requests that Norway sends to other countries in the GATS negotiations and provide the public with access to the requests that Norway receives, in so far as this is possible within the WTO rules; ensure that Norway is to work for countries in the south being given sufficient freedom of action to choose development strategies that take into consideration their special needs and development level in connection with the WTO negotiations on agriculture and on market access for other products than agricultural products; work to ensure that a country´s right to the production of food for its own population is recognised in the WTO negotiations,
o contribute to ensuring that poor countries have sufficient political freedom of action to protect their own food production; increase the import quotas for poor countries, including for non-LDC countries. The Government will target its aid towards enabling LDC countries to exercise their trade preferences,
o work internationally for a review of previous WTO rounds before the negotiations are extended to new areas."

3. A clear UN mandate as precondition for Norwegian participation in international military operations

All three parties want Norway to take an active part in UN peace-keeping operations. Hence:: "The Government will conduct a review of Norway´s obligations regarding Norwegian forces in relation to EU and NATO tasks as well as other international operations. We will increase Norwegian civilian and military participation in the UN´s peace-keeping work, with special emphasis on Africa."

The toughest part of the negotiations between the three parties was on questions of international operations. The Labour Party leadership wanted greater freedom of action than the Socialist Left Party was willing to accept.

The crucial point was whether a clear UN mandate should be a precondition for Norwegian participation in international military operations. The Labour Party negotiators argued until the very last night for weaker preconditions such as "in accordance with International Law" or "in accordance with the UN Pact", but accepted at the end proposals from the Socialist Left Party demanding "a clear UN mandate".

The general principle of a UN mandate is given this formulation: "Participation in international operations must be rooted in the UN Charter and have a clear UN mandate. The UN is the only international body that can legitimise the use of force. There must be a high threshold for the use of military force. Norway should not participate in pre-emptive attacks that have not been authorised by the UN."

On Iraq and Afghanistan there was also a breakthrough for demands from the Socialist Left Party, as the only party in the Norwegian parliament to warn against a war retaliation from the U.S. after 9.11.2001, the only party to deny that our NATO membership demanded an automatic acceptance of the U.S war against Afghanistan - and as the only party in the parliament representing the peace movement and the broad majority of the Norwegian public who were against the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003.

It can therefore be considered a breakthrough for the Socialist Left Party when it is agreed in the Government platform that:

"The Government will: withdraw Norwegian staff officers and training officers from Iraq; strengthen Norwegian participation in ISAF in Afghanistan. On this basis, we will not renew Norwegian participation in Operation Enduring Freedom when the mandate period for these forces expires."

B. Structural policies: Ownership, privatization, competition

In several ways the new government proclaims to reverse policies pursued by all Norwegian governments, by social democratic governments as well as by any other government, since the first rightwing government came to power in 1981:

"The Government will: safeguard a strong public and national ownership in order to achieve important political goals and bring profits and income to the community,
o keep a strong public ownership of our hydro power resources and our oil resources; not privatize or sell shares in important companies like Telenor, Norsk Hydro, Statoil
o not privatize fishing rights; reduce the upper limit for ownership in fish farming; stop commercialising and privatization of public services within education, health and social services"

C. Labour relations

The new government will reverse all changes made in the labour law by the previous centre-right majority in the parliament in May 2005. Here are some of the most important reversals: Increased right for employers to offer temporary employment is taken away; weaker rules for employment security is reversed;the upper limit of lawful overtime is reduced to the level of 2003.

Employee rights and trade unions rights will be improved: Local trade unions officials will be given right of insight into wages and working conditions offered by subcontractors.

At all public tenders Norwegian wages and working conditions will be a condition.

Employees will be given the same rights when tender rights are transferred to another company as when undertakings are transferred to new owners.

The rights of employees who report on unacceptable conditions on the workplace will be strengthened.
o When a company recruits new employees, the rights of part time workers to be transferred to full time work will be strengthened.

D. Social justice

The Government will

keep the level of taxation at the same level as in 2004,
o reintroduce tax on stock dividends and will tax capital income at the same level as the maximum level of tax on wage income,

offer access to high speed Internet connection (ADSL) to the whole country within 2007,

increase substantially the transfer of money to regional and local authorities,

reintroduce a geographically differentiated company tax on labour with no tax or low tax in districts threatened by depopulation,

increase he level of social security benefits,

not weaken the rules for payments during illness, in contrast to what the previous government proposed,

reverse the reduction in unemployment benefits,

reduce the payments of patients for health services and keep them at a low level.

The Socialist Left Party had - as part of the negotiated compromise - to accept the decision on pension reform made by a broad majority in parliament in May 2005. The reform will lead to certain cuts in pensions from 2020 onwards.

E. What has been achieved since the election?

Part of our multilateral development aid is in the budget for 2006 switched from the World Bank to development programmes under UN agencies.

Norwegian development aid will in 2006 be close to one percent of GDP and the aid to the victims of the earthquake in Pakistan amounts to 550 million N. crowns, until now the biggest amount given by any country.

Norwegian requests in the GATS negotiations that nine developing countries open their borders for international competition in educational services, supply of electricity and water have been withdrawn.

All Norwegian requests in the GATS negotiations to LDC countries have been withdrawn.

Norwegian staff officers and training officers is being withdrawn from Iraq,

Norwegian special forces as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan will be withdrawn when the mandate period expires in January.

All promises under point C: Labour relations are part of law proposals now being discussed in parliament and will be supported by the centre-left majority.

The level of taxation is in the budget of 2006 at the same level as in 2004,

Tax on stock dividends has been will be reintroduced and capital income is being will be taxed at the same level as the maximum level of tax on wage income. when the parliament votes on the budget for 2006 in a weeks time.

The transfer of money to regional and local authorities has been increased by almost 6 billion N. crowns for the year 2006.

The media have nevertheless criticized the government parties for not keeping their promises. Most of the criticism is not based on promises in the Government platform, but on the party programmes of the three parties. Overwhelmingly, the criticism is directed against the Socialist Left Party, by media and by the centre-right parties defined as "the weak part" of the present government.

There is no inherent logic in the criticism. The ministers from the Socialist Left Party are attacked for not keeping "promises" from the SV party programme, although the reason is either that our negotiators were not able to get those promises into the government platform or that our ministers are voted down inside the Government. Our ministers are at the same time attacked because party activists outside the Government publicly demand more radical solutions than those contained in the government platform or those pursued by the Government, and they are attacked for not being able in 2006 to keep even those promises in the government platform which are meant to be fulfilled stepwise during the period of four years up to 2009.

The most aggressive attacks on the Socialist Left Party are directed against those parts of the party programme which point out some long term goals for more fundamental, but in fact quite cautious, changes in Norwegian society, for instance:

The shortening of working time towards a 6 hours working day or a 30 hours working week,

The right of employees on workplaces with more than 200 employees to elect representatives commanding 40 percent of the votes of the general assembly of the joint- stocks company owning the workplace,

The range and the intensity of the attacks on the Socialist Left Party after the election raise the question: Will the party members - and the voters - accept the participation in this government if the five ministers in many fields have to accept policies party members cannot defend?

At the party congress in April 2005 the decision to work for a coalition government with the Labour Party and the Centre Party was taken unanimously. There were in fact no doubts within the party that this was the right strategy before the election. The decision to enter the government was taken by the National council (a 40-member body) on the basis of the negotiated government platform (the Soria Moria declaration) - and once more unanimously.

But what kind of discussions will come to the surface inside the Socialist Left Party when the hundreds of small and bigger compromises - and losses - from the everyday work of the Government appear? That depends to a great extent on whether the party's own views will be articulated clearly by the party's representatives in government and parliament, whether compromises are explained as lost battles and not as compromises worth being defended - and whether party members at all levels can fight openly, not only inside the party, for policies that the ministers are not able to get through in government.

Part 3: The new centre-left Government and the prospects for opposing neo-liberal challenges inside Norway and from the outside world.

The centre-left Government has created hopes among traditional leftwing voters and in the trade union movement that the ongoing, and seemingly irresistible, wave of neo-liberal reforms can be halted and even partly reversed. Are there reasons for such hopes?

Two conditions give reasons for hope:

1. The oil economy of Norway and the steady growth even of what is called the "mainland economy" (e.g. the Norwegian economy minus the oil and gas sector) gives any Norwegian government more freedom of action than other European governments.

2. The trade unions are firmly behind the demands for policies aiming at halting and reversing the neo-liberal policies of the last quarter of a century.

But there are also realities that may prevent the centre-left Government from achieving its proclaimed aims as stated in the Government platform. Some of them are of an internal Norwegian origin:

1. The electorate in September 2005 was divided almost down the middle even at an election where many factors were favourable for a centre-left victory. Some few thousand voters moving to rightwing parties in marginal election districts may result in a centre-right or even a rightwing government in 2009.

2. Parts of the the election rhetoric of the three victorious parties have created expectations that may be difficult to satisfy.

3. The three government parties disagree on issues that can make the work of a common government difficult:
"on foreign policy issues (Norwegian participation in international operations dividing the parties),
"on the weighting of environmental concerns vs. economic advantages of oil drilling in northern/arctic waters, and
"whether to use the right of reservation in the EEA agreement against EU laws that threaten Norwegian interests.

There are other disagreements between the three parties as well, some of them of fundamental character, but the three mentioned are in the short run (the next four years) the ones that in critical situations may lead to a break-up of the government.

4. In this coalition government the Labour Party finds itself leading policies that in important fields many of the party leaders do not believe in. Many of them do not really believe it is possible to go against the policies prevailing everywhere else in Europe of adapting to liberalizing forces nationally and internationally. In the 1990s the easy way out for the Labour Party leadership was to look for cooperation to the right. After the dramatic defeat at the election of 2001, the easy way out was to look for cooperation to the left, based on the recognition that the trade unions - and the voters - had moved so definitely to the left.

5. The new government bases its industrial policies on the idea that the competitiveness of the Norwegian economy basically is a result of the cooperative tradition in our factories and firms, in contrast to a more confrontational tradition in many other countries. This tradition of cooperation has given trade unions considerable influence on the way technological and organisational changes at the workplace are introduced. This cooperative tradition has for some time been undermined by new "go-it-alone" strategies from some employers. If this tendency prevails, this basis of Norwegian competitiveness may be part of our past - and not of our future - and will in the industrial field, and concerning questions of economic democracy, limit the freedom of action for the new Government.

Other realities are of a more general nature and present difficult challenges for any leftwing government in Europe:

1. The public sector must continually be reformed and made more efficient in order to offer the population the services they deserve and increasingly demand. The new Government has promised to make the public sector more efficient by inviting the employees and their trade unions to a close cooperation in changing their workplace so that it satisfies changing and more challenging demands - instead of using outsourcing for market competition and privatization as the methods for "modernizing" the public sector which has been the main strategy in the last decade. If this project of close cooperation with the trade unions in the public sector does not succeed in reforming the public sector, rightwing parties will be the winners in 2009.

2. The fundamental principles of the European Union, the free movement of products, services, capital and labour combined with the right of establishment on a non- discriminatory basis, limits the freedom of action of any government wanting to "correct market failures" in an efficient way. Norway is in this respect in no different situation than the EU countries because of its membership in EEA and therefore bound by all the regulations of the internal market.

3. The option of moving firms and outsourcing production to other countries and continents under conditions of free movement of capital puts definite limits to how far a government can regulate the freedom of action of the owners of capital. Capital flight is a potential reality - even if the threat of capital flight is often overestimated.

4. The general weakening of the trade union movement creates strategic disadvantages for any leftwing project in Europe. This weakening has many causes: long term mass unemployment, the changes in economic structure from industry to services, new forms of work organization, decentralisation of industrial relations towards workplace bargaining with the development of what might be called "wildcat cooperation" at the company level where the employees accept reduced wages and longer working hours in return for a few years additional employment. At the European level there are still few signs of , and therefore not exposed as an efficient common trade union strategy confronting the neo- liberal forces.

A very preliminary conclusion:

The centre-left government in Norway will be fighting against great odds. The government may not last until the next election in 2009. It may not be able to fulfil the promises given in the government platform (the Soria Moria declaration) or the expectations of leftwing voters. It may lose the election in 2009 even if it realizes the main parts of the government platform.

If the government really succeeds, e.g. realizes its political promises, stops the neo-liberal offensive in important fields, and keeps its popularity in the electorate, then the likelihood is great that the Labour Party will get most of the electoral profit in 2009. If the Socialist Left Party comes out as the loser in the election of 2009, there is no guarantee that the new government will follow up in the same direction as indicated in the Soria Moria platform. That depends also on developments outside Norway and on experiences in other European countries.

On the other hand: If the government really succeeds in preventing the neo-liberal wave, its very success may change the perspectives inside the Labour Party. Even social democrats may be changed by Praxis.

The two main factors behind the electoral success in 2005 are nevertheless of importance also in other countries: a trade union movement attacking the policies of the social democratic party from the left - and the existence of a sufficiently strong party to the left of the social democrats identifying to a great extent with the demands of the trade union movement.

The most important trade unions gradually came to the conclusion that the big Labour Party is no longer a left party they could trust. They realised that the only way to get left policies from the Labour Party would be to force the party into a coalition with SV - and at the same time make the demands of trade unionists so visible and so well understood that the coalition government has to listen.

The same strategy was followed by the social movements, by the environmental movement, by the anti-war movement and by the globalization-critical movement

They all analysed the situation and came to the same conclusion as the trade unions:

1. The Labour party will never give us the policies we want.
2. A coalition between the Labour party and the Socialist Left party will - by itself - never give us the policies we want because the Labour party is the bigger partner.
3. Such a coalition will not give us the policies we want - unless it is obvious for all to see that we created this coalition - and that we won the election because our demands had the support of a majority of the voters.

Trade unions demanded: no more privatization of state public services. That is now a main obligation in the government platform.

Environmental NGOs put forward their demands. Some of them, but not all, are now part of the governmental platform.

The war protesters expressed in February 2003 that they did not want Norway to support the American way of wars. Only one party in parliament agreed with the protesters - but now the new government has withdrawn our troops from Iraq and from the US-led Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

The globalization-critical movement demanded fair trade for developing countries - and the new government has decided to withdraw a number of Norwegian demands to developing countries in the GATS negotiations empty threat.

Dag Seierstad is a member of the National Council of SV, the Socialist Left Party of Norway.