- SV made a tactical mistake

In the wake of the asylum case, both Ap and SV may have served voters. But at the same time SV's dissent can help Frp, points out election researcher Frank Aarebrot. He believes SV has made a tactical mistake in the asylum case. Then Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg (Ap) 3. September presented the government's thirteen points for tightening in asylum policy, the ruling party SV disagreed with eight of them and announced that they would take dissent. Particularly critical is the party to the treatment of children and how to emphasize the advice of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

- SV should not take dissent on so many points, but rather within the government concentrated on getting the point of sending minors back when they fill 18. This is how they wanted to establish the principle of individual treatment and appear more logically consistent, says Aarebrot. He points out that the notified changes in asylum policy focus on the idea of ​​individual treatment, among other things, that stays on humanitarian grounds should not be based on a group assessment in relation to the individual land area. On the other hand, the point of opening for the return of minor asylum seekers at the age of 18, Aarebrot believes is a collectivist approach because all children will only be granted a temporary residence permit despite the fact that the proposal states that an individual assessment should be made for single minor asylum seekers. .

- By disagreeing with the government's proposal on individual treatment, SV defends a collective approach in asylum policy that helps to help Frp and opens the arguments for anti-immigration, says Aarebrot. He believes that Frp can refer to SV's arguments and deviate from the principles of individual treatment, for example by sending out all asylum seekers who come from one area that is considered safe.

The deputy leader of the SV, Audun Lysbakken, disagrees that they acted inaction when they took dissent.
- If we had taken dissent just for something, we would have been criticized for it. The most important thing was to be honest. We were against these points and therefore we had to say, says Lysbakken. He does not believe that the point of this case is about individual or collective treatment, but whether to listen to the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

- Everyone who is interested in refugee policy would think that it would be strange if we went away from what has been an important principle in politics. And the starting point is regardless that everyone should have individual treatment, says Lysbakken. He denies that SV in the asylum case has helped Frp.
- The Labor Party, on the other hand, has contributed to the FRP gaining an advantage in the debate, he says.

- Not new dissents

The asylum case was an important case for SV, but other cases can also present challenges for the party. Storting representative for SV, Hallgeir Langeland, points to the transport plan and compliance with climate policy, the purchase of fighter jets and the missile shield in Europe as future challenges for SV in the government. He believes that the most tactical thing for SV in the run-up to the election campaign is to become better at marking their own issues.

- Will there be new dissents from SV?

- I am critical of dissenting, and the starting point when sitting in government is to find compromises, says Langeland.
The Storting's representative for the Labor Party, Saera Khan, respects SV's dissent in the asylum case, but emphasizes that it cannot be accepted that SV takes out dissent in new cases.

- The important thing before the election next year is that the parties in the government present their own arguments for what they have done, but without going against each other, Khan believes.

Gas power camels

According to the director of the PR agency Burson-Marsteller, Sigurd Grytten, it is impossible for SV to take out more dissent in this government. Grytten has previously been a parliamentary representative for the Labor Party and has expertise in political analysis and strategy development. Of the challenging issues ahead, Grytten points in particular to security policy as a known problematic area for SV.
- One would think that the environmental issue would be an area where SV has problems, but in the gas power issue they were willing to swallow camels. The fact that SV has been stronger on soldiers in Afghanistan than on the opposition to gas power plants – which the voters are probably more concerned with – shows that the party is more concerned with its ideological position than the voters, says Grytten.

Election researcher Aarebrot who believes that the Red Party will have greater potential if SV were to choose to leave the government.
- Is it beneficial for SV to cling to power at all costs?
SV can earn a few percent support from leaving the government, but SV will have much greater influence in than outside the government. Once SV has been in government, they will be marginalized if they refuse to take responsibility, Aarebrot believes.

SV's deputy leader looks forward to the future of the red-green government, which he believes has proved viable precisely through the handling of the asylum case.
- Will SV join four new years in government after the election next year?
- That is our goal, so we must make sure to make a good choice so we have enough votes behind us, says Lysbakken. The next test of which of the government parties will succeed is the state budget, which will be presented on 7 October.