Latvian Political Monitor

From@EvikaSilina

I have always firmly advocated for Latvia to have an exception in the migration pact. Given the news about the European Commission's proposal on migration matters, I stress – no member state has an automatic exception from the solidarity mechanism. This is a proposal that will still be discussed. Latvia is in close contact with the EC and will continue to insist on the need for an exception, given the migration pressure on the state border and Latvia's significant contribution to strengthening the border and curbing illegal migration. Latvia has explained this at all levels – from experts to the EC President.

Open referenced post

From@ltvzinas

Jānis Vitenbergs (NA): We cannot support Jānis Siksnis, we cannot support a person for whom the Russian language is closer than our state language, than the Latvian language. He has proven this with his actions, has always been like the main defender, has even wanted to create a special channel in Russian. I do not see how such a person could strengthen the media, promote its development.

Open referenced post

From@TautaZemeValsts

An NA deputy teaches how to separate 'good' migrants from bad ones and only then let them into Latvia. The fact that there are several hundred million 'good' migrants in the world does not bother him at all. https://t.co/x24EWu5kDc

Open referenced post

From@EdvardsRatnieks

🎯 I support the reorganization of SIF, preserving the sensible functions and transferring them to the responsible ministries, but the trough where some “insiders” can get large funds should be eliminated. 💰💰💰

Open referenced post

From@JazepsBasko

SOME NOTES ABOUT LSM. A conservative like-minded colleague (also co-founder of @Demos_LV), socially active Edvarts Krusts @Krusts3 told about an interesting experience in a remote job interview at the end of summer for the position of editor-in-chief at @lsmlv. Some quotes (approximately, from memory) from LSM's director of internet platforms, Voldemārs Oliņš: (About Twitter subscription) 'Oh, you pay Musk? We don't like him.' 'And you also follow Kiršteins? He is a person with strange views.' 'Generally, you have a strange choice of content on social networks.' After thoroughly discussing Krusts' ideological stance, clearly visible on his social networks, came the best pearls. Voldemārs Oliņš: 'We're simply interested in what someone like you wants to do with people like us. Are you ready to throw your coat to the other side?' I didn't want to believe what I was hearing. I asked Krusts a clarifying question: could that remark have been about the coat 'politician vs. journalist'? No, the remark was about the values he defends. In short, our publicly funded 'public' media has its own coat of values and ideology, for which appropriate wearers are selected. No, well, yes. That's what one might think if you force yourself and one evening watch 'color television' (as Aivars Markots recently aptly called it). But could you imagine that they have the audacity to admit it so brutally? Apparently we are indeed dealing with experts who have come from the end of history, for whom everything is already clear, and the main thing is to educate society. --- Also, I recently learned that LSM employees have an internal WhatsApp chat where they critically discuss politicians who come to their shows. Well, okay — very progressive. Twenty-first or whichever century, as they say. A chat and so on. But there must be some professional ethics, right? You can giggle with your friends, but in the workplace of a public media, where your task is before the whole society... interesting. However, today, having heard about the remarks that LSM management allows itself in job interviews, I can imagine that those people simply don't register that signal. Outside the reception zone. They are 'ashamed' before the world that they have their own parliament, but not ashamed that they are ordinary mockers of the public order? --- What am I trying to say with these gossips, which for many simply confirm what for five years (with small, episodic exceptions) you can hear and see every day? I advocate for a complete review of LSM funding. I advocate that, for example, a third of LSM funding should depend on a public vote. Suppose the vote determines the use of 20 million euros (in 2026, LSM's budget will be 61.4 million euros). Of course, realistically it should only be the part of the budget for socio-political programs (the amount of which I don't know). How it could happen: an electronic vote is collected via 'latvija.lv' — a simple vote: Do you want part of these 20 million to go to private media proportionally or to LSM activists' den? If, say, 35% vote that the money should go to LSM, then LSM receives 35% of these 20 million, i.e., 7 million. The other 13 million go to private media. That's a quick, emotional proposal. Believe me, private media will also try to work. You could add another choice basket. Attach part of the editorial management salaries to this same vote. Just so that Anita Brauna & co learn that the end of history is already behind them and there is no longer the possibility of the victorious bulldozer march of scientism, in which any question has one correct answer that determines whether you are a decent person or still a kremlin. --- In this regard, I will remind that LSM still hasn't published a single (zero) news item about the fact that at the SEPLP and public media conference on October 17, the results of a study commissioned by the ombudsman (with 1625 respondents) were announced, which were quite eloquent. Although the chosen method and categorization didn't seem entirely coherent to me, the results showed: the conservative citizen in the public media in socio-political programs mostly does not see representation of their values. --- And finally, so that they don't think here that I want to build Šlesers' vertical of power. I have already said many times that I am categorically against public media as a propaganda machine. Both against the progressive propaganda machine, and against some conservative propaganda machine, and against some imagined and non-existent non-ideological pragmatism propaganda machine (which is technocracy, disguised socialism). And one more thing that I have said many times: I don't think LSM fulfills any party's order. No, in this regard I join the thesis expressed by many that LSM simply behaves as an independent, democratically uncontrollable branch of power. Just as various poetesses climb the career ladder of the judiciary until they get to rewriting the Constitution according to their own considerations, so activists of other skills climb the media ladder. And that is completely normal. I believe they all have the best intentions. It's just that their wonderful vision of society and justice calls for a healthy balance. Well, so that not everything is in a Soviet spirit. We also need some breeze from Western liberal democracies, right?

Open referenced post

From@VL_TBLNNK

NA has demanded that Transport Minister A. Švinka (Progressives) explain why public passenger transport to Russia and Belarus still takes place. @JanisVitenbergs: You cannot at the same time talk about solidarity with Ukraine and continue regular traffic with aggressor countries. https://t.co/7Di31Zr5Ch

Open referenced post