Latvian Political Monitor

@Rajevskis Opinion is clear and understood. Then next time come with a forecast you yourself believe in, and then we'll talk.

@miks_eu I agree, Bartaš's bunch of little green men is equivalent to fertilizer composition for the Stepaņenkos. Here, however, it is important to distinguish, in my opinion, a political-technological maneuver made by AŠ to gain Russian votes. Better let AŠ colonize them than let the orcs consolidate.

@achevsenetnevse I haven't hidden that I worked in Russia, also a year after Crimea, where I was with a UA/rus project. I really wanted to return there. Then I asked the partners, who in my view at that time were Russian intelligence, the question - who does Crimea belong to. After 'Crimea is ours' our cooperation ended.

ZZS 2.9% - voters remember your betrayal. The slogan 'Blue peasants' is not forgotten. You had the chance to topple the Unity government, and you didn't. Now take it and sit. Hopefully your party's story will end too. JV 4.3% - finally the people got it. Better late than never. They need to be humiliated as much as possible, just as they humiliated us. NA 5.5% - Liāna Langa's effect, radicalism, and division didn't work. The people aren't that stupid. No need to overdo it. Everyone knows that your own have skeletons in the closet and a Russian uniform in the closet. Progressive 9% - draw conclusions about what kind of generation Latvia has raised. LPV 10% - if everyone behind you is against you, it's not easy to save a drowning man if he doesn't want to be saved. Struggle and hard work against the consequences of the Unity regime. SV, the New Latvians, the Russian Union of Latvia 11.4% - who said you can't combine incompatible things? You see that you can: Ždanoka's group with the New Latvians or the New Latvians with SV. Times change, and political math changes. AS 12.2% - after 15 years of the Unity regime, after Kariņš's foolish smile and Evika, you'd have to be blind not to see the contrast.

Thank you for the comment. They just didn't say that to do that, an impossible people's referendum is needed, in which more than half of the eligible voters — about 750,000 — must vote FOR. In the 2012 language referendum, 821,000 of the 1.1 million who came voted AGAINST (at that time there were 1.5 million eligible voters). Finally, a majority system can be dangerous for Latvia's ethnic divide, as it may simply create two large ethnic parties.

Filip, are you ready to answer for your predictions? Let's bet a case of good whiskey that PRO will not form a coalition with either Šlesers or Stepaņenko after the elections? Let's see if you'll continue to be such a bold predictor. Exactly NA and AS have been silent as if they've taken water in their mouths about a coalition with Šlesers. And that does raise concerns.

“We change the rules” (list No. 2) is the only party that advocates for changing the election procedure. To vote for people who will work in the Saeima — contrary to what happens now, when we vote for a few people who will leave the Saeima for the government and drag anonymous hangers-on into parliament in their place. But that is only one of many points in our plan to restore democracy and strengthen civic responsibility in Latvia. The threshold for initiating a referendum — 25 thousand signatures, smaller electoral districts (5-7 mandates each), independent candidates, the Irish model also for municipal elections, genuinely binding municipal referendums, the possibility to restore abolished municipalities, municipalities having a say over government whims, repealing the party financing law — that is already in the program. Freedom of speech as a foundation — that is in our values. Radical advocacy for representation of the whole society in the socio-political offering of public media (with several editorial offices or by changing the funding model) — why not! A popularly elected president, not a side effect of forming a coalition, with the power to nominate candidates for the highest offices, so they don't have to run around with parties — why not! We are not coming to settle in. We are not coming to even out the distribution of feeders. We come to write new rules. For ourselves and everyone else. We trust the people, who have the final word.

British colonialism wasn't anything so terrible - rather a waste of resources trying to improve the third world, which now comes back to Britain with resentment and millions of people. Maybe that's why he prefers Latvia? This local lecturing of a recent immigrant is rather not colonial but liberal arrogance.

If a person who comes from a country that has historically been a colonizer feels guilt for the deeds of their ancestors, then, presumably, such a feeling of guilt has a place in that person's consciousness. However, if such a person dares to reproach, teach, and admonish a nation that has itself experienced colonization and Soviet occupation, that is a sign that the colonizer's nature is still alive in them.

@miks_eu Mik, please let's not start this old song - 'we wait for this and that, demand, etc.' As can be seen from the previous convocations, the unyielding answers and positions have an economy-degrading nature. I'm no fan of AŠ at all, but comparing him with Stepans' traitors is definitely not possible.

Both people and organizations can be divided into two categories – those whose reality is determined by external factors (”public opinion”, PR, propaganda, ”research”, ”expert opinions”), and those who shape reality. The vast majority of Latvian parties shape their decisions and rhetoric according to external factors. But that is an illusion, because it is not a genuine conversation with residents – pre-prepared opinions from left-wing and liberal forces are passed off as public opinion, while research and surveys are conducted by monopolists. It is a dance around emptiness that does not serve the people. It is a strange situation that in Latvia one public opinion research company has such great influence over political processes. I do not believe the ratings are fabricated, but a monopoly situation in politics is always dangerous. Moreover, whether parties will be invited to most public media programmes and debates currently depends on this monopoly. The way surveys are conducted ”in the field” is also important – often in the ratings we do not see people's reasons for giving the ”right answers” or their fears of naming a party that might be considered the ”wrong choice”. Political reality is shaped by will, not sociology. ”Austošā Saule Latvijai” is an organization based on principles and action, whose essence will not be determined by a public opinion background created by others. If we had listened to the ”background”, occupiers would not have been toppled, the ”Moscow House” would not have been closed, and Riga's streets would not have been Latvianized. If we had listened to the ”background”, we would not have gathered the party's founders, attracted additional members to run in the elections, and collected the necessary funds to start the campaign. Those same people who rang out that we would not succeed in founding a party now reproach us that our rating takes votes away from others. At each next level the reproaches become more and more absurd. If the ratings contain a grain of truth, it shows that we can attract part of the voters who had already given up the intention to vote in the elections. ASL will continue systematic and patient work, taking full responsibility for its real result, which will be known only after 3 October. Both as an association and as a party, our mission remains to be an uncompromising organization defending Latvian interests. Colourful bars on a TV screen will not change that. We will fulfil this mission independently of anyone, also after 3 October. Our conviction is that the stronger our party and its positions are, the more substantial Latvia's forces as a national state will be against Kremlinites, the left, and extreme liberalism. National, conservative, and without compromise. For the family, the nation, and the state! FOR THE REBIRTH OF A LATVIAN LATVIA!

Alvis Hermanis: “We are not interested in participating in politics in the sense it is commonly understood in Latvia. We are only interested in — changing the rules. For real.” @partijaMMN https://t.co/qDGVnz1cm1

During the tenure of the current leadership, KNAB's operational funding cost the state approximately 90 million euros. In this period there has not been a single high-level political corruption case investigated by KNAB that ended with a final conviction against the main organizers of the scheme. Now an audit of the institution's activities should be conducted to assess whether there has been official inaction or incompetence and what are the broader systemic deficiencies. Reforms are needed in the fight against corruption, the institution should be set clear measurable operational goals and more active political oversight, so that the public also sees real results. The institution needs a purposeful leader with a clear mandate to achieve change. Unfortunately, I do not yet hear such proposals from the ruling parties.

Look, it would be powerful if we had a “flock of grey mutterers of Jāzeps Baško”. But actually we need one of each, and fortunately that is exactly what we have. Lato Lapsa’s relentless efforts to increase our visibility through negative advertising remind me of a few people yesterday who came up to us at the celebration and spent ten minutes trying to argue at length that nothing would come of us as a party. There is no point in saying anything in reply, because there is no rational proof of potential and determination. It is like trying to prove to your wife that you will never cheat on her. Human society is self-regulating. All sorts of forces and mythical spirits naturally operate in it, guarding key institutions from random passers-by wandering in. Anything can be said about Lato Lapsa’s resentment toward the whole society, but anyone who cannot withstand Lapsa’s tickling has no business in politics. Every most unpleasant comment from the outside contains a grain of truth. If not literally, then in the fact that there are objections, disbelief. And those can be converted into improvements. Lato Lapsa has been bestowing me with epithets for at least a couple of years. In my life I have been in many collectives where initially the crowd likes to project its energy onto me. Since I have never really had any heavy weapons to shoot back, I usually simply absorb the dedications and continue with what I am doing. I must admit that over the years I have come to the conclusion that criticism and anger directed at me are a more reliable guide than compliments and the silence of those around me. And in the end the collective usually starts listening to what I say. But that is the same attempt to prove to a wife that I will never cheat. So I say — Lato, go ahead. The grey mutterers march on.