Pias løftebrud

BorgenUdenFilter

The episode dissects a politically turbulent week in Denmark centered on SF leader Pia Olsen Dyhr's reversal regarding SU student grant cuts, which directly contradict her pre-election vows and mirror the controversial

Key takeaways

• Pia Olsen Dyhr faces accusations of breaking a pre-election pledge after accepting SU cuts that remove grants for children of households earning over 710,000 DKK.
• Lars Trier Mogensen draws parallels between the SU cut strategy and the abolition of Storbededag (Grand Prayer Day), arguing both serve as political lessons rather than fiscal necessities.

Main topics

• SU student grant cuts and political reversals
• Coalition power dynamics and support-party leverage

Notable quotes

"Denmark no longer has a multilateral government."

Conclusion

The episode highlights how Denmark's coalition government is navigating intense internal bargaining and

Transcript preview

Speaker 1 (0:08) Kristiansborg is the X-Capella of the week! Speaker 2 (0:13) Another humiliating week for Pia Olsen-Dyr. The SS-mayor is now doing the exact opposite of what she said before the election. Again, just as it was the case with the whole debate about equality, Pia Olsen-Dyr now had to humiliate herself here in government cooperation with these new proposed SU-safeges for young people. You can really see that power has a price. The price of power must... Pia Olsen Dyr, Betale med Café-Penge. Speaker 2 (1:27) Henrik, I can feel that the national team... The national team of football has been pushed out of me. I think it's back to a charisma like a Jewish series team and respect for Jewish series teams, but it's just not really something that catches you. And what I'm wondering about, I simply can't get a cabal to go up, is that I, who normally are interested in football and still are interested in football, I can't really feel it in relation to the national team. And you, who are one of the few Jewish men who have never been interested in sport, You've just put on your headscarf? Calm Speaker 3 (2:02) down, calm down. No, it's not me you see walking around in red DBU. Have you ever Speaker 2 (2:07) had Speaker 3 (2:07) a Speaker 2 (2:07) headscarf on? Speaker 3 (2:08) Never. And I've never had a headscarf on. I think it's just you who has it in different handbags. But you're close. No, listen here. I've just been dealing Speaker 2 (2:16) with journalism. Speaker 3 (2:18) Then it's something completely different. We're on a finer level, right? I've been dealing with the national team down here in my Q &K media program yesterday, where I had a super nice visit. I think everyone who's interested in football would say... that if you have TV2's main commentator, Morten Bruun, in there, a man who, in an autistic way, knows almost everything about football, also who kicked a corner kick back in 1998 in a inferior match, if you have such a man in your program, you can't get much higher. So that's where my interest is, as it turns out. And Speaker 2 (2:52) that, one might say, is a contrast to you, because I'm sorry to say that you know... Nåden er null og niks om Speaker 3 (2:58) dansk politik. Speaker 3 (3:17) Respect for the fact that everything in the world of journalism is going very fast, but this is not a game. Now it's you who is the prime minister and I who is the journalist. Speaker 1 (3:24) It's probably good for the Danes, if I may say so. Speaker 2 (3:28) Denmark no longer has a multilateral government. This has been really shown clearly this week, where the government shows itself to be quite dependent on its two support parties, the United Nations and Alternative. Whether it is about giving out small gifts, whether it is red gifts, i.e. welfare, or it is green lifts. Then it is very, very clear that there is now a role distribution, because the government does not have its own surplus trade, because it has to have it through the parliament, that it has to leave the honor and the trophies to the big support parties, the red to the individualist, the green to the alternative, and at the same time must sit back with the sometimes a little sour chance it is to tell where the money should come from and some savings exercises. And this week we saw an uptrend where Pia Olsen Dyr... The former and radical leader Martin Lidegaard had to sit and tell that they were ready to do some things that were against what they had been chosen for. And let's take this SU-saving first. Which is that the housing where the total income is over 710.000. Yes, the children will no longer be able to get SU when they turn 18. So these so-called KFU-money are gone. And it is something... Both Martin Lidegaard and not least Pia Olsen Dyr have led a struggle. It is an extreme administration, but Henrik, just to cut it all in, is it also a breakthrough? We are witnessing here that Pia Olsen Dyr has made a breakthrough. Speaker 3 (5:01) Yes, I think we are leaning towards a breakthrough here, because if you hear Pia Olsen Dyr there, in the clip we also ended the broadcast with, I think it's from... 23, then it's difficult to hear her in a different way than that there should not be touched by the SU rules. And listen here, it's not like the change that the government now proposes, that it only hits children of stone-rich parents. Speaker 3 (5:27) A limit of 710,000 kroner, that's a completely normal home. A nurse and a police officer, if that's the father and mother, or the mother and father, that's probably still the most likely, if it's those two businesses. Well, then you're over 710,000, so there are a lot of young people who are hit here. Under here, young people who have believed that Piotr Dyr... She said that there shouldn't be any movement by the SU. So yes, it is a break in the law, and it is really a shitty case for SF, and also for the Radical. But let me just Speaker 2 (6:02) try to test you on some of the statements P. Olsen Dyr has come up with. If we go back to April 23, there was SF Landsmøde, and there was a report, where one of the points is called Wernum-SU. There is a quote. Speaker 2 (6:34) You can Speaker 3 (6:35) hear it yourself. The slogan, every violation, the word every violation, is included. So yes, it is a violation. Speaker 3 (6:44) ... Speaker 2 (7:12) in December, where she on Facebook writes, hold the nallers away from the SU. And continues with SU as a cornerstone. Then she also comes later in 2004, and has gone together, also with Pelle Dragstedt at that time, and Martin Lidegaard, Fransi Roskilde, where they are in charge of and would counteract the government's young fiendish wishes about SU-fraging. So there she talks about it. young fiends by doing what she's now doing. And later, she's also out criticizing Mette Frederiksen for just wanting to piss the young people off with savings on the SU. That was in 2004. But we have all this potpourri of statements. It Speaker 3 (7:53) is Speaker 2 (7:53) what you call Speaker 3 (7:54) a claim. Yes, Speaker 2 (7:55) and it is not at the same time. Because we're not the only ones who know that she Speaker 3 (8:00) hasn't made a claim. Then I have to claim on her behalf. Speaker 3 (8:05) But of course, her attempt to create some kind of defense, some kind of excuse to say, yes, we're doing this. It's definitely not been that terrible turn. They've always used it. Not a flower in my backyard, or whatever they say. But on the other hand, and no, she can't even say that. And that's what you were into at the start. Because that with what you get again for that money. That is something that the inner list and alternatives can be surprised by. Speaker 2 (8:33) Yes, and that's what I think is the double screw SF has come into. I mean, you're talking about the river of Speaker 3 (8:40) power. Speaker 2 (8:40) That was a term the Social Democratic Party, Per Heggerup, in his time, launched, where at that time he would have liked to have SF with him in the government. Because they were pressed down, because they had to take responsibility for unpopular decisions. And it's in a way, an education in Per Hegerup's old thoughts about bringing SF under the power of the law. Because it's this double-grab in the situation it is now, that they both have to go out and explain and