Lions and sheep from the IL exam: Saarikko in the lead – Ohisalo has a better “drive” than before
On Monday evening, the chairmen measured each other in Iltalehti's election exam. Iltalehti evaluates the performances of the presidents. See the entire election exam here. Iltalehtielli.harju@iltalehti.fiYesterday at 20:49
Iltalehti divided the lions and the sheep about the performance of the presidents in the IL election exam. Annika Saarikko (center) did the best in the evaluations, who collected a total of 5 lions from the Raati people.
Compared to previous exams, Maria Ohisalo (green) did significantly better, who got four lions.
The third best result went to Sanna Marinia (sd) was replaced by Antti Lindtman (sd), who received one sheep and three lions. The worst result was collected by Jussi Saramo (left) who beat Li Andersson (left) with three sheep.
The chairmen's performances in Monday's IL election exam were evaluated by Iltalehti's political editors Elli Harju and Jari Hanska and journalist Mari Pudas.
Antti Lindtman (sd)
Ganska:
Antti Lindtman had to answer for the prime minister's actions in the Hornet saga and the pitfalls of the Democrats' economic policy. Lindtman performed well for the most part, but he couldn't fill Marin's shoes. The spikes for the competitors were lighter than the chairman of the degree.
Defending the party's adjustment line proved to be the most challenging. From the point of view of the voter, the situation is difficult, because it was still unclear what kind of adjustments the SDP would agree to in the government, if the rather optimistic employment and economic growth goals they envisioned are not reached.
Pudas:
Came as Sanna Marini's replacement on a quick assignment, said that she watched previous exams from the couch at home. Maybe that's why it brought entertainment to the exam, which you can never have too much of. Wasn't satisfied with the role of deputy and desperately wanted to speak. Resolutely defended Marin, especially in the Hornet matter. A bit of groping on the deficit issue.
Harju:
Challenged Orpo about the coalition's social security savings measures: “You can't rely on that for the next government term's billion savings, or it's cheating yourself.” In the Hornet discussion, it was well received that “Sanna Marin is a politician of the new age who says things directly”, but also had to explain Marin's Hornet comments and got downvoted. SDP's message about nuclear weapons is well presented: nuclear weapons are terrible, and the long-term goal should be to continue towards a world without nuclear weapons.
Riikka Purra (ps)
Glove:
Purra continued his fairly stable exam performance. The spikes were directed especially in the direction of the Democrats and the center. Parissa noticed that Orpo of the coalition, which was next to Purra, could only nod contentedly at Purra's appeal. Purra's performance was, however, a bit half way. Probably the lack of sufficient counterforce, such as Marin, was also reflected in Purra's more restrained performance than before.
Pudas:
There were sometimes long stretches of silence, and when he did speak, there were self-explanations, such as that Ukraine needs weapons and fighter jets. He sighed and shook his head while Saramo spoke, which can be interpreted as disrespectful, but at the same time it can be entertaining for the viewers. He gave concrete suggestions for improving employment, which Petteri Orpokin noted. Sometimes he sounded the most like a politician in the negative sense of the word.
Harju:
In the SOTE discussion, he managed to criticize the government, “our SOTE is currently in a terrible condition”, but gave empty speeches in the SOTE discussion: he summarized the current situation, but did not bring much solutions. PS's solution was just to get rid of the administration and the waste of the political bureaucracy. Even in employment, concrete means were exhausted. Perhaps suffered from the fact that a large part of the topics were not PS's core issues.
Petteri Orpo (cook)
Hanska:< /strong>
If there is excessive optimism in SDP's economic line, the coalition still suggests that social security can be boosted with an additional billion. Orpo was challenged as to how on earth the party would scrape together the annual savings of one billion for social welfare expenses by 2027. An explanation was heard from Orpo that the money must be saved because the government does not have money to allocate even for current expenses. So there would be big savings, but the voter has no idea where they will be made.
In security policy, Orpo was clearly more on its own ground, but the weight of the NATO debate seems to be less than the economy and the military in these elections.
Pudas:
After the exam, I had to think about what that Orpo really said, such a flat presentation except for the Hornet criticism aimed at Marin. Didn't fumble but didn't shine either. At the end, Purraa pointedly pointed out when concrete measures to increase employment were discussed.
Harju:
Managed to criticize Marin's Hornet commentary in Ukraine: “yes, this just went wrong” and Finland has to explain afterwards. Had to explain the social security savings billion again, but at least got to stand out from other parties and be a lot more vocal. Passed this exam a little easier when the worst challengers Marin and Li Andersson were gone. Apart from the war, he presented concrete means, for example in increasing employment.
Annika Saarikko (center)
Hanska:< /p>
Saariko clearly had a good day and the election change in sight. The plight of the center is at the point where the chairman can take it easy and challenge all the other chairmen sovereignly. Orpo's social welfare speeches, SDP's economic lines and the financing of green election promises got their share. Many messages were clearly aimed at entrepreneurs. Saarikko reminded Orpo that the Social Security billion cannot be saved without eliminating some tasks. It will probably cause concern among the electorate.
Pudas:
There was a lot of noise. In the case of the hornets, a bit of straw cocking is noticeable. In other matters, he was consistent and convincing. It seemed that Saarikko could have continued the exam even until Midsummer, he seemed to be enjoying himself so well.
Harju:
Good exam, passed several times: “You really, Antti, do not present any sensible and real tangible means of how fast employment growth could continue to be successful”. Heavy speech in the Hornet discussion: said that for a year in Finland it was possible to act in unison, but now it has ended in confrontation. Said directly that Marin made a mistake.
Maria Ohisalo (green)
Glove:
Ohisalo had a better drive today than in previous exams. The chairman of the Greens was not caught in the fire in the same way as he was in the Yle chairman exam. However, there was still room for improvement, because in too many points the answers were constructed from a considerable distance away. Regarding Sote's funding, Ohisalo emphasized the need to invest in preventive services, but it was left open how the investments would be financed, and whether the deficit would be corrected in the next election period.
Pudas:
Diligently took notes, wanted to speak and had the facts in every case. A great improvement over previous exams. Didn't exactly set out to challenge others. He told a personal, unpleasant experience of election interference.
Harju:
I wonder if you got a sheep or a lion. For a long time, the exam was reduced to describing the system and did not answer questions, especially in the social security discussion, but it got better towards the end. He succeeded in the “economic quiz” unlike many others and remembered that the Ministry of Economy predicts economic growth for Finland, 1.2 percent of GDP next year. Good comment that there is money in Finland if subsidies that are harmful to the environment are cut. At the beginning of the exam, he told about his own experience of election interference, which was surely remembered by many as a humane speech. As chairman, took responsibility for the candidates.
Jussi Saramo (left)
Hanska:
Saramo had at least as demanding a task in replacing the chairman of his party as Lindtman. The end result was very similar. Saramo didn't quite get up to speed, even though he was able to repeat the views of the left-wing coalition on economic policy and the revision of the tax base. The attitude towards NATO's joint exercises and the presence of the military alliance in Finland raised more questions than it gave answers.
Pudas:
"The economic emperor has no clothes" acknowledged Saramo Petteri Orpo. Like Lindtman, he took the exam as Li Andersson's substitute with an emergency call. At the beginning of the exam, Saramo was strongly challenged on the NATO questions, but he was able to give clear answers. Stumbled badly when talking about the national pension index. Occasionally disappeared from the picture.
Harju:
Really good comments that stuck in my mind, for example in the discussion on social security: “the economic program emperor of the coalition has no clothes”, when the content for savings was exhausted. Took the line of the left-wing alliance when he wanted Finland to learn from Norway as a NATO country. However, the speeches lacked power. Didn't remember the scale, how much Finland's interest expenses will be in 2027 according to VM's forecast.
Who can fit into the same board? “The difference cannot be bridged” - See the entire IL election exam 27.3. 21:48
