Latvian Political Monitor

Latvia's political system is an absurd nightmare and the last place in Europe is well deserved.

As a former Minister of Transport, I know how significant and complex decisions regarding state strategic companies are. When it comes to taxpayers' money, the public has the right to clear, complete and open information about the situation at airBaltic and the government's next steps. https://t.co/xAj4S1hOzG

@therealneymann You will be surprised, but it is not that simple. Moreover, many countries have been conducting these measurements for a long time.

Investment sites must have well-organized logistics. In the case of the Lēdurga biogas station, the roads have clearly not been thought through. At the end of the road there is a sign 'heavy trucks prohibited' because the pavement won't withstand 15–30 heavy trucks EVERY DAY.

Chairperson of the Saeima European Affairs Committee @EvikaSilina at the COSAC meeting in Dublin: European solidarity must be expressed in support for the EU's eastern border countries https://t.co/pWbG2gWbYJ https://t.co/wlgJWkpevM

Sports development is a priority for Latvian society and myself. That is why, together with colleagues from @Jauna_Vienotiba, I submitted a proposal to the Sports Fund law to allocate 3% of budget revenue from tobacco, alcohol, and sugary drinks to sports, creating a stable funding base – similar to culture. We must invest wisely in sports: in children's and youth health, rather than later fixing the consequences of poor governance or financing, for example, bridge from sports money. @Finmin will have to choose priorities.

ELECTIONS / I went on a reconnaissance mission to LAMPA to hear what the “public media” journalists and invited representatives of the ruling parties would say about election organization issues. Almost comical were these politicians’ observations trying to convince of the current electoral system’s effectiveness, but tragic were the theses explaining low voter turnout. The system is so “ideal” that the most popular parties do not reach even 10% support, and the 37% who do not participate in elections or do not know whom to vote for are, in the eyes of the performers, stupid and limited, though such assessments are rephrased as “low education” and “social risk group”. / The answer to the current system’s sustainability lies in the question whether the average voter, casting their vote for any of the parties represented in the Saeima over roughly twenty years (in 2002 the previous highest turnout, 72%), has voted for those political outcomes in which we currently live. In my view, the current electoral system is no longer effective, because it does not ensure full representation of the voter’s will in parliament. / First, it is impossible to choose several favored candidates from different parties. One can vote for whole lists, which most often have only a few strong leaders. Moreover, crossing out disliked candidates does not mean you have not voted for them. The result – popular figures pull ballast into the Saeima. / Second, electoral districts are disproportionately large, so no relationship exists between a candidate in a given district and the voter. The result – irresponsibility that does not demand fulfillment of pre-election promises. / Third, getting onto a list is determined by relations with party leadership. Free-thinking is punished by not being allowed to run. The result – independent, non-partisan candidates have no political platform, and there is no internal competition within parties. But more importantly – in the Saeima one must vote as the faction leadership, not conscience and awareness, dictates. The result is that world of consequences in which we currently live; moreover, the concept of politician has acquired the opposite of charisma and intellect. / WE CHANGE THE RULES considers this the main cause of Latvia’s political backwardness, proposing to introduce a TRANSFERABLE VOTE election system, strengthening the voter’s voice by allowing it to be cast for specific candidates, not lists. / This would reduce parties’ monopoly of power, increasing political competition, because anyone who has obtained 200 voter signatures could run. Parties’ “locomotives” would lose their meaning, because no popular candidate could longer “pull in” others without real voter support. A voter could choose only personalities, not dweebs. I believe Latvia’s residents know how to separate wheat from chaff, but the current system does not allow practicing that skill. State development begins with citizens’ ability to choose the best leaders. / P.S. Of all parties’ offerings, in my view, this is the most original pre-election point. While others compete in technocratic promises, seeing development’s roots in larger benefits and bidding for industries, MMN offers to change the political system. / The image shows discussion listeners’ response to the question about changing the electoral system.

It is important for all of us to reach an agreement this year on the EU multiannual budget for 2028-2034, keeping in mind that Latvia is the external border of Europe and that requires an adequate solution to the loss of competitiveness in these regions 🇱🇻. At the COSAC meeting in Dublin, the Irish Prime Minister (An Taoiseach) Micheál Martin announces his priorities for the EU presidency 🇮🇪: Values, Security, Competitiveness. That also fits well with how Latvia sees this half-year. #COSAC

I'm sorry that @JanisVitenbergs, after a month+ @KEM_Latvija has not understood the tasks and scope of work - the biggest work is in energy and environment, the smallest in climate. Of course, one can create super-ministries, but the most important thing is to represent Latvia's interests with quality. https://t.co/wtc6tIIoAk

A Russian woman is shocked that banks in England don't serve in Russian. 😁 Russophobia and division of society! https://t.co/OCoGoiCJaI

@Nora6694Nora Daiga Behmane and Gunta Ušpele lead this matter and the health concept can be read on the MMN website.

“This is real bilingualism at the state’s expense!” – political opponents get heated in the TV studio

Is someone here seeing themselves as a super-minister of the national economy... 👑 Let's be honest – this is blatant pre-election populism. The Ministry of Climate and Energy has proven – a clear mandate helps develop a specific field faster. Why are super-ministries a bad idea? Because issues sink within them. Issues sink because that one person who can submit documents to the Cabinet of Ministers – the minister – has only a certain number of hours per day that he can devote to specific matters. In large ministries, there are many issues. Various larger and smaller crises – even more. Therefore, day-to-day matters no longer get time. But everyday matters are the ones on which the public expects answers. Solving bigger problems requires from a politician not dashing around the press commenting on yet another mishap, but rather delving into problems and dialogue with the public. If a minister cannot delve into the issues being pushed to the Cabinet of Ministers, there are two possibilities – either the issues are not advanced and Latvia falls behind, or the issues are advanced without clear examination of the problems, and new scandals arise. These are brought not by poor work, but by the situation in which politicians, officials, and the public are placed. I have experienced this countless times. Let's model the situation: a poorly prepared document reaches the Cabinet and perhaps then also the Saeima of the Republic of Latvia. The minister and other ministers think – if it has been coordinated with all involved parties, then there is no problem (because they themselves have had no time to delve); officials think – if the minister has signed, then the political mandate has been received; while the public thinks – if officials and politicians are advancing such a poorly prepared matter, then they either do not know their job, or they are corrupt. The minister must again dash around the press and extinguish the scandal. 🛑 Everyone loses, because they are placed in a situation where one super-minister cannot do his job, because he has too many responsibilities. Therefore, the model that Latvia should choose to develop faster is this: ministries are created to solve specific public problems. Ministries consist of many policy areas, and they must be like Lego blocks that can be assembled according to public challenges. 🧱 A super-ministry, on the other hand, would be just a pile of Lego blocks. https://t.co/C8wDFrfYwc

@RukMaris @EdgarsLogins The shared ideas are described in the MMN program, on which we are also united. SK is a relatively minor topic. Around 118th place.

MMN will have individual freedom for everyone to choose their own answer on SK. Personally, I am against it. It is quite clear to me that the organizations that campaign for Istanbul are exactly the same organizations that most ardently campaign for accepting refugees. Therefore it is clear that our women's safety means nothing to them; there is another plan. I have 3 daughters, and that is why I am against the Istanbul Convention.

The largest deal in @valstsmezi history. Every euro invested in Latgale means not only investment in forestry, but also an investment in the region's economic development and security! https://t.co/M5XFEuGRS7