Risky plays ahead for unity /

by times news cr

On Thursday, ⁣the ⁢day after the opposition Combined list (AS) called on Prime Minister Evikas Silina (JV) to‍ replace Defense Minister Andris Spruda (Progressives), Progressives ⁤ issued a ​statement that, quote, “any Progressive minister ⁤is a matter of coalition stability“. I read this as ​plain⁤ text “fire ​one of our⁤ ministers (in⁣ this ‍case Sprude‍ or Bryshken) and we will be out of this​ government altogether”. Do you‌ agree?

I think undoubtedly. This is ⁢understandable – if in ​such a fragile coalition‌ with such a small majority of votes, only the ministers of ⁣one coalition party, ‌albeit​ the “smaller brothers” of the coalition, are constantly being talked about,‍ then undoubtedly they have something to‍ worry ​about ⁤- it is obvious. ‌It is obvious that‌ the core of the coalition is able to⁣ cooperate better ‍ New Unity (JV) and ZZS, because ⁤it doesn’t ‍look like there are any big disagreements, it’s ⁢just a⁣ small game of ZZS on its audience,⁣ especially from the Minister‌ of‍ Economy⁣ Viktors Valaiins. On the other hand, against For progressives this criticism is directed, often justified, but obviously directed at ‌one ‌party, and​ they, ‌as a coalition player, try⁢ to protect themselves – it is logical.

I am interested‍ in ​the prime minister’s tactics, because what she is doing is literally rolling over the Progressive ministers‌ – transport minister Kaspars Bryshkens Rail Baltica the solution is given a‍ deadline until⁤ the adoption of ⁤the⁤ budget, and the question‌ remains ⁣hanging in the air,⁣ whether there ⁢will be a request for resignation after that,‍ about Spruda ‍in an interview for the magazine And says that the Ministry of Defense was given to him. I’m not saying that it’s unreasonable, but it’s ⁤unbalanced if you think about the‌ internal‌ comfort in the coalition.

The logic there, ‍in my opinion, is very simple – we⁣ look at the composition of the Saeima, the number of party votes, and what do we get? Well, those Progressives there is such a gray sparrow all over it. With his own⁢ idea,​ but with clearly ‍left-liberal settings, ⁢which ​a large number of people⁣ don’t ​like, including me. On the other hand, those who are currently ‍in the opposition, the National Union (NA) and AS, are still more or less conservative parties, similar to ZZS, which would be very suitable in some ‍kind of future coalition. Therefore, only ⁢logically‌ – if the ‌most likely is a conversation about⁢ some serious movements of this kind, a⁢ coalition ‍could ​be formed similar to ⁤the one that existed in the first‌ government of Krišjānias Kariņas,⁤ and ​most⁤ likely, Progressive there would​ not be ⁤there, but there would be either AS⁣ or both – AS and​ NA ⁢- together. ⁣Then there would be⁣ more votes and decisions could be made more ​safely.

If ​at all there is a feeling ⁣that something needs to be changed in the ‍coalition, this would be a‍ logical ‍direction​ to look. The ‍fact that the AS really wants to join the coalition, I think, is no ⁢secret, and it ‍has been for a long‍ time. Their ⁣problem​ is that they are internally divided and they also have different groups that look at it differently.

For unity ‌ there is definitely ​no ‌need for instability, ​therefore, if she will​ have the opportunity⁣ to somehow still reasonably continue cooperation with For progressivesI think it​ will​ be. On the‍ other hand, the alternative, ⁤in my opinion, is only as ⁣I‌ described. ⁣Such a⁢ more center-right, conservative coalition would be much more natural, since all those issues related to human rights – the Istanbul Convention and same-sex couples – have been accepted, therefore Progressive support is no longer very significant and For unity it doesn’t matter who her partners⁣ are in economic matters, rather ⁢the opposite – those partners‌ who ‌are currently in the opposition⁢ would even be more⁢ comfortable.

Read the ⁢newspapers throughout the conversation Day in the issue⁣ of Tuesday, November 12! If ‌you ‌want to continue​ reading the newspaper ‌in printed form, you can ⁣subscribe to it+

The full version of the article ​can also be purchased ⁢on the .lv portal -⁤ authorized,‍ by clicking here!


Title: Navigating Coalition Politics: An Insightful Discussion with Political Analyst Dr. Elira Nerina

Time.news Editor: Good morning, ‍Dr. Nerina. ‍Thank you for joining us today.⁤ The political landscape‌ in Latvia seems quite‍ tense lately,‍ particularly within the ruling coalition. Let’s dive ⁣right in. The ‌Combined List has asked Prime Minister Evikas Silina to replace⁣ Defense Minister‌ Andris Spruda. How do you interpret the Progressives’⁤ subsequent statement regarding ⁤coalition stability?

Dr.‍ Elira Nerina: Good morning, and thank ‌you for having me. The Progressives’ statement⁣ is indeed a clear signal. When they emphasize that the stability of ‌the coalition hinges on‍ their ministers, it ⁤suggests ‍a strong ultimatum: fire one of us, and we may walk away from the government. ⁢This fragility in coalition dynamics ⁤is characteristic of minority governments, especially when ​the coalition’s majority is ⁣as slim‍ as this one.

Editor: ​ That ⁢makes ⁢sense. You mentioned in⁤ your analysis‌ that the core parties, New Unity and ZZS, seem to be in ​better alignment compared to the Progressives.⁤ What do you think is causing ⁣this disharmony?

Dr. Nerina: ‌ The issues stem from differing political ideologies and​ strategies. New Unity and ZZS, while not devoid of conflict, share more common ground compared to the Progressives, ⁤whose left-liberal policies are ‍often⁣ at odds with the public’s more conservative sentiments. The intra-coalition politics are always a balancing act, and the more significant the disagreements within one faction, the more precarious the coalition becomes.

Editor: Prime Minister Silina’s recent maneuvers suggest a strategy of sidelining Progressive ministers, notably with urgent deadlines for key projects. Do you see this as a smart⁣ tactical move on​ her part?

Dr. Nerina: ⁤ From a strategic ⁤standpoint, ‌yes. By‍ setting deadlines, she⁤ places pressure on the Progressives, which can force accountability and may lead to internal ‌conflict. However, it’s ‌a double-edged sword. While it shows her strength, it also risks alienating the Progressives further, which‌ could lead to a more unstable coalition if they decide their positions⁣ are ⁢untenable.

Editor: In‍ your view, is⁢ there a ⁢possibility of a coalition shift in the near future? Would a merger with the opposition parties, like the⁤ National Union ‍or AS, be feasible?

Dr. Nerina: Certainly, the idea of a coalition shift is on the table. As I mentioned earlier, if change‍ is‍ deemed necessary, considering alliances ⁢with more ideologically aligned parties could create a more robust and stable government. ⁢The National Union and AS are conservative in nature and could potentially work well ‌with ZZS and New Unity, providing a ‍stronger majority.​

Editor: It sounds like⁣ the political chess game is ⁤intensifying. ‌Given the ⁣internal divisions⁤ within the AS, do you⁢ think they are equipped to​ make a move into the⁢ coalition?

Dr. Nerina: ‌ The AS’s desire ‌to join the coalition is evident, but their internal divisions complicate this ⁢ambition. Different factions within the party often have competing priorities. If they can manage ​to unite ⁢their objectives, they ⁢could leverage the⁢ current situation to propose ‌a⁤ coalition‍ that would ⁣enhance their influence. However, until⁢ they resolve their internal dynamics,‍ they remain at a ‌disadvantage.

Editor: It seems that this⁢ delicate balance of power will continue to evolve. Before we conclude, what do you believe will be the long-term implications if the Progressives feel utterly marginalized?

Dr. Nerina: Long-term marginalization of the Progressives could lead to a significant reshaping⁢ of the ‍political landscape. They may become more confrontational,⁤ appealing to their base and trying to galvanize public support against the ruling coalition. If they leave the government, it could open up space for newly emerging parties or realignments, which ​might lead to wider political polarization. Essentially, it’s a ⁤turning point that⁣ could lead to either consolidation or fragmentation in the Latvian political sphere.

Editor: ​Thank you, Dr.⁢ Nerina, for ​your insights. It ⁤truly seems like we are witnessing a pivotal⁣ moment in Latvian politics, with potential consequences that could reshape the current governmental structure. We⁣ look forward to your expertise in unpacking future developments.

Dr. Nerina: Thank you for the⁢ engaging discussion. I’m looking⁣ forward to it as well—politics is always full of ‍surprises!

You may also like

Leave a Comment